HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Climate–change beliefs are politically and not scientifically determined

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/05/09

This was posted here by mistake, intended for my scimedskeptic.blog, and has now been removed here. If you are interested in the climate-change controversy, which has striking similarities with HIV/AIDS, by all means have a look there.

 

13 Responses to “Climate–change beliefs are politically and not scientifically determined”

  1. mo79uk said

    It’s quite sad when scientific viewpoints are tagged politically as anything said to be right-wing, particularly, has to be argued with more than just the evidence. Climate sceptics are painted as unconcerned with the environment, and if you hold that position as a liberal you are either uninformed or closet right-wing.
    I guess many subscribe to ideas based on political tagging because it’s lazy and easy. We don’t have the time or interest to look into all issues deeply, so if we find the messengers palatable we’ll take their word. But people occupy different severities of the political spectrum and what is called liberal today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa.

    • Henry Bauer said

      mo79uk:
      “what is called liberal today may not be tomorrow, and vice versa”
      There are also national differences. In Australia my views would be rated as a bit right of center. In the USA I’m regarded as a raging “liberal”. I like to ask Americans to define “socialism”, and then point out that it means what Lincoln said: “Government of the people by the people for the people”.

    • David Bailey said

      Indeed, I would call myself a climate sceptic, but I am concerned about the environment. Britain currently imports wood chippings made from whole US trees (not sawmill trash) to power a large power station that used to run on coal. This is environmental madness sparked by the climate lobby.

      I am now suspicious of every initiative that is called ‘Green’. For example, in Britain we all sort our waste into food/garden waste, paper waste, and everything else. This sounds good, but it has increased the environmental cost of waste collections, which are now done using huge vehicles that damage the streets and must require a lot of fuel. Saving waste at source and cutting down on food waste would be far more green.

      I wish the Green movement would get back to real issues – overpopulation, destruction of the rain forests, nuclear weapons proliferation, etc. You don’t need a science degree and elaborate statistical analysis to see they are wrong!

      • Henry Bauer said

        David Bailey:
        No one wants to touch the obvious fact that overpopulation is the ultimate root cause of a great number of things that are going wrong. Not that I have any good ideas for what could be done about it. China tried desperately and now faces severe demographic worries.

  2. From what I have seen, the alarmists (those who accept the IPCC’s position, such as John Cook from Skeptical Science) are happy to psychologize skeptics, but do not believe that they need any psychological examination. Apparently, their motives are pure!

    • Henry Bauer said

      Karim D. Ghantous:

      Yes. The only objective people with no self-interest or prejudices, and who never cherry-pick data and who are always “scientific”, are the people who call themselves “Skeptics”. They know that everything that their favorite scientist says is true, and anyone who doesn’t believe that and them is a “denialist”. Their parent organization is the Committee for Scientific Inquiry, previously the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Their main magazine is Skeptical Inquirer, and they are associated with the book publisher Prometheus. A good review is “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview” by GEORGE P. HANSEN: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

  3. David Bailey said

    Henry,

    I’d just like to suggest that it might be better if this topic didn’t stay at the top for too long, because people who stumble upon this blog might not realise that it is primarily about AIDS!

    • Henry Bauer said

      David Bailey:

      Yes indeed. It was intended for my other blog, and a “senior moment” placed it here. Thanks for reminding me!

      • David Bailey said

        I am glad to be of help – I thought you put it put here to reinforce the point that science is being perverted on a broader front!

        My view is that each example of this process makes the others more plausible because it shows how the process of reaching scientific conclusions has become frighteningly subjective in so many areas!

      • Henry Bauer said

        David Bailey:

        I agree with you, that seeing other examples serves to illustrate the fallibility of science overall. But it’s a two-edged sword. For some people, disagreeing with one mainstream view can make you eccentric, wrong, but not necessarily completely nutty; but if you disagree on more than one, you’re likely to be dismissed by quite a few people as hopelessly out of touch and not to be listened to about anything ….

      • David Bailey said

        Agreed – when I talk to people about why I oppose global warming, I try to stay totally on that topic because it is all too easy to sound like a nut!

        On the other hand, I rather hope that the increasing realisation that saturated fats and salt were wrongly demonised, and that statins should never have been prescribed as they still are, will lower the credibility of science to the point where it won’t be possible to hide the rest of the junk.

        I do know one man, however who had an academic career that covered a remarkable range of subjects, and he can tell a lot of tales about bad science, and seems to agree that a whole swathe of science is going to have to be junked! He has a very detailed knowledge of statistics, and is keen to point out just how dangerous certain commonly used statistical practices are.

      • Henry Bauer said

        David Bailey:
        Thanks!
        You imlpy, and one must assume, that the man you refer to is retired

        :-)==

      • David Bailey said

        He is indeed – it is amazing how people become more critical of science once they cease to be employed by the system!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s