i have pasted this below in from yahoo, fully expecting it to disapppear. <roll eye smiley>
you can see its a bit of troublemaking, but there is a serious discussion to be had; how do we tackle denial effectively?
going head to head like this just polarises the viewpoints of both sides.
using science doesnt work, as they are not confined by either scientific rigour or a need to be truthful, and many just do nat believe any science from any body as being unbiased.
you cant counter an emotional point with a logical one.
so, what to do?
Have the climate change deniers learned the creationists tactics?
or are they indeed mainly the same people?
as "Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response" (thank you Mr. Obama), we will be seeing more in the way of these creationist style sneaky attacks;
'contrived dualism' - repeating over and over that there is controversy over the theory when there isn't, until some people start believing it.
'its a theory not a fact' , taking advantage of the common confusion between the scientific use of the word and the everyday one.
'academic freedom' - claiming that valid alternative interpretations are being suppressed, when they are not, as there aren't any, taking advantage of our natural desire to see fair play.
can you think of more? and have you any suggestions for countering these tactics?
oh, one that is slightly more adapted is
that teaching evolution threatens religion, morality and society;
which turns into
'even if its happening we cant afford to fix it/fixing it will leave developing countries in poverty' as if that wasnt already happening...
sci am, dec. 2008