Bushwalk Australia

http://grist.org/living/the-science-of- ... olls-suck/

Everybody who’s written or blogged about climate change on a prominent website (or, even worse, spoken about it on YouTube) knows the drill. Shortly after you post, the menagerie of trolls arrives. They’re predominantly climate deniers, and they start in immediately arguing over the content and attacking the science — sometimes by slinging insults and even occasional obscenities. To cite a recent example:

What I do not understand is - regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, surely taking steps to reduce emissions and pollution, cut down on waste and take care of the environment are good things?

matagi wrote:What I do not understand is - regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, surely taking steps to reduce emissions and pollution, cut down on waste and take care of the environment are good things?

My view exactly

matagi wrote:What I do not understand is - regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, surely taking steps to reduce emissions and pollution, cut down on waste and take care of the environment are good things?

+1

Great article wayno. I have to admit reading the comments on the Sydney Morning Herald website can make me bristle up. At least now I have a better understanding of why.

Agree 100% with matagi.
I see lost opportunities to bring in new and innovative ways to do things differently.

The protagonists seem oblivious to the fact that one day we will no longer need fossil fuels (for egs)

I wonder what was in the minds of people in the dying days of whaling?

While I am certainly in favour of reducing pollution and waste, I am also very sceptical of the climate change industry. The whole 'climate change' (didn't it used to be global warming) concept has taken on the status of a religion and those who question its doctrine are heretics to be burned at the stake. The tone of the linked article shows exactly this attitude. The climate is always changing, alway has, always will. Far from helping the environment, this emphasis on man made climate change is taking money and resources away from the environmental issues we can do something about and wasting them on airy fairy feel good concepts that have little grounding in reality.

Lindsay wrote:While I am certainly in favour of reducing pollution and waste, I am also very sceptical of the climate change industry. The whole 'climate change' (didn't it used to be global warming) concept has taken on the status of a religion and those who question its doctrine are heretics to be burned at the stake. The tone of the linked article shows exactly this attitude. The climate is always changing, alway has, always will. Far from helping the environment, this emphasis on man made climate change is taking money and resources away from the environmental issues we can do something about and wasting them on airy fairy feel good concepts that have little grounding in reality.

I share your healthy scepticism of AGW.

I agree that the bed-wetters rely largely on faith. That their thin skinned and humourless intolerance for scepticism (and free-thinking in general) is reminiscent of the treatment of heretics, infidels, etc, by religious fundamentalists throughout the ages. I also agree that the central themes of popular environmentalism in the current age (being sin, repentance, sacrifice, and ultimately salvation) is remarkably similar to those of the judeo-christian tradition.

However, at its current stage of development, environmentalism more closely resembles a dangerous dark-ages cult, than a genuine alternative for a stable (and perhaps in some cases even reputable) religious congregation. For example, Gaia worship does not prohibit murder, or theft. In regards to honesty, the ends will always justify the means.

Cheers

Lindsay wrote:The whole 'climate change' (didn't it used to be global warming) concept has taken on the status of a religion and those who question its doctrine are heretics to be burned at the stake.

And yet, if you visit alternate 'skeptical' sites, the reverse is the case. Those that post with skepticism of a skeptical post are the heretics.

Troll behaviour is troll behaviour regardless, and it destroys effective discussion. I think that, and not the validity or otherwise of Climate Change is the topic.

photohiker wrote:

Lindsay wrote:The whole 'climate change' (didn't it used to be global warming) concept has taken on the status of a religion and those who question its doctrine are heretics to be burned at the stake.

And yet, if you visit alternate 'skeptical' sites, the reverse is the case. Those that post with skepticism of a skeptical post are the heretics.

Troll behaviour is troll behaviour regardless, and it destroys effective discussion. I think that, and not the validity or otherwise of Climate Change is the topic.

The linked article was very much related to defending the position AWG hypothesis, by forstalling criticism. Out of interest, how would you explain the use of the emotive term 'denier' (as used both in the article and in this thread above), with all that historical baggage, in place of the more traditional term 'sceptic' for those that doubt that orthodox? Fair and balanced? Rational and enlightened?

Perhaps you would also be kind enough to consider the treatment of the distinguished Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, in the hands of that angry community. After writing 'Heaven and Earth', what was the reaction of high priests of Climate Change? Compare and contrast with the adoration he received from the same after writing 'Telling Lies for God', and the Eureka Prize winning classic 'A Short History of Planet Earth'. Why only in the case of the former was his integrity questioned by those that declare scepticism denial'? And why are the Climate Change crowd so intolerant?

As the word sceptic is replaced by denier, should free thinker be replaced by 'troll'?

Cheers

Sure, the venue was about Climate Change, but the message was about the psychology of trolls in online comments. Even the linked study was not a climate change study: "Participants were asked to read a blog post containing a balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology"

Getting all hot and bothered about someone being called a denier (or the common labelling an AGW supporter as a religious believer) is a bit pointless these days, the gate is open and it's hard if not impossible to shut.

Perhaps wayno should have chosen a more neutral example, there seems to be great interest in having a climate change discussion in this thread!

As the word sceptic is replaced by denier, should free thinker be replaced by 'troll'?

One of these is not like the others. Well, I guess sceptic and troll are both nouns, but in use, troll is a behaviour, the others are not.

You can replace any word with another once it becomes common usage.

Interesting read. Vilification and applying labels to people with differing views is as old as mankind. Also, the tendency of the those not in ascendency once in power using much the same tools that they rallied against as an abuse of power. See Egypt today.

I have strong belief in democracy and picked up from one element of politics the idea of citizen initiated referendums as a good thing. Could but not help notice that once that political element obtained sufficient power that the citizen initiated referendums idea was quietly dropped. Ironically it was their ideological opposites that brought them in that I then releasized that common man does not always have commonsense as the standard referendums were, reduced taxes, and demand increase services, not mutually compatible arrangements. Hence, I now tend to think that they are a bad thing so in a way siding with the divine right of kings’ belief that the population cannot be trusted to make right decisions. Personally, I think this rather sad and do hope that through life-long-learning that sufficient people can make the right decision. Problem is my belief in the fourth estate in doing the education role is in the toilet as reporters and politicians duke it out with used car salespeople for the least respected job in many surveys.

I like the scientific method but just because someone robes themselves in a white lab coat does not means that they suddenly have abandon all political self interest. Scientific fraud and manipulation of data along with harsh sanctions against “disbelievers” goes back as far a science. Europeans have bigger brain test, very neat ratios of gene distribution on plants, etc. We have the intelligent design issue where even the definition of scientific method is questioned. Try getting funding for research when you adopt a view against mainstream science.

On climate change I noticed one “denier” pointing out that one high profile “believer” had a seaside property and was not selling it yet he was well known for predicting massive sea-level rises. Is that a fair strategy, or troll behaviour, as the person might have strong emotional ties to holding onto the property?

I do tend to see the labelling someone or group as trolls just another form of using labels to vilify the opposition.
My personal view on climate change is similar to previously expressed thoughts that we should investigate and find means to reduce or mitigate emission purely on the parsimony upbringing belief that resources should be conserved. I believe that “believers” have rather poorly put their position as it seems to me, “Hi I have X and Y tickets after my so you must believe me” rather than the facts. The “deniers” by contrast seem to dine out rather long on statistical anomalies that will always exist in research.

As I raised in the beginning of this post we ourselves are not as pure as we like to think else we would make citizen initiated referendums work. It appears at time that we like to be lied to, or do not dig deep for findings that are unpalatable , but instead then put on the self righteous face of being deceived when the probable hits the fan.

Regards

photohiker wrote:Troll behaviour is troll behaviour regardless, and it destroys effective discussion. I think that, and not the validity or otherwise of Climate Change is the topic.

Yep, and typically the (brief) mention of CC causes people to suddenly want to talk about it, even if it is out of context and not the topic at hand. Kinda ironic, since the topic is about how people write something in a blog and then others attack it.

I find these comments interesting maddog:

maddog wrote: ...how would you explain the use of the emotive term 'denier' (as used both in the article and in this thread above), with all that historical baggage, in place of the more traditional term 'sceptic' for those that doubt that orthodox? Fair and balanced? Rational and enlightened?
...And why are the Climate Change crowd so intolerant?
...As the word sceptic is replaced by denier, should free thinker be replaced by 'troll'?

In light of your previous post:

maddog wrote: I share your healthy scepticism of AGW...I agree that the bed-wetters rely largely on faith.

Lindsay wrote: The whole 'climate change' (didn't it used to be global warming) concept has taken on the status of a religion and those who question its doctrine are heretics to be burned at the stake.

Off topic, but to clarify since you asked, Global Warming is the process of the Earth's temperatures increasing, and Climate Change is the effect of the rising temperature on the Earth's climate system. Btw, climate science is evidence based and not faith based like religion. Science and religion should not be uttered in the same sentence and yet it is a tactic of people who want to discredit science to compare the two...which is rather amusing to me that people still try to make that comparison.

We have access to more information than ever, but we also have the ability to disseminate more misinformation than ever too. And there is a lot of miss information out there on many topics, from cc, vaccinations, nano tech etc etc. And while it can be healthy to be sceptical, there comes a point where the evidence is overwhelming and further scepticism is then a product of motivated reasoning, as mentioned in the article wayno posted.

Pteropus wrote:Btw, climate science is evidence based and not faith based like religion. Science and religion should not be uttered in the same sentence and yet it is a tactic of people who want to discredit science to compare the two...which is rather amusing to me that people still try to make that comparison.

The problem with this is that while science is supposed to be evidence based (ie, repeatable, observable, etc) some things that are supposedly science are not actually, or not entirely, evidence based but still extolled as true science. This leads to some so-called 'science' being at least partially faith based, but still in the name of science.

The difficulty then becomes distinguishing the real evidence based science from the faith based 'science'. And of course most people do not have either the knowledge, time or resources to do this for every case.

The other reason that comparison between science and religion is sometimes reasonable is that some people tend to get very emotionally involved in their beliefs, whether faith based or evidence based.

I don't think people want to discredit science as such. But sometimes some people want to discredit something which is marketed as scientific but which they believe is not truly scientific.

we're coming out of an ice age, temperature should be increasing by default.. the question is does science really know how much of that temp increase is purely from human interference in the environment?

Son of a Beach wrote:

Pteropus wrote:Btw, climate science is evidence based and not faith based like religion. Science and religion should not be uttered in the same sentence and yet it is a tactic of people who want to discredit science to compare the two...which is rather amusing to me that people still try to make that comparison.

The problem with this is that while science is supposed to be evidence based (ie, repeatable, observable, etc) some things that are supposedly science are not actually, or not entirely, evidence based but still extolled as true science. This leads to some so-called 'science' being at least partially faith based, but still in the name of science.

Have you got an example of this SoaB?

photohiker wrote:

Son of a Beach wrote:

Pteropus wrote:Btw, climate science is evidence based and not faith based like religion. Science and religion should not be uttered in the same sentence and yet it is a tactic of people who want to discredit science to compare the two...which is rather amusing to me that people still try to make that comparison.

The problem with this is that while science is supposed to be evidence based (ie, repeatable, observable, etc) some things that are supposedly science are not actually, or not entirely, evidence based but still extolled as true science. This leads to some so-called 'science' being at least partially faith based, but still in the name of science.

Have you got an example of this SoaB?

Table top cold fusion (nuclear fusion) is the most obvious one I can think of (from the mid-nineties, I think it was).

In that case the method was easily disproved, but for a short time there, it was thought (by a few) to be true science.

In some cases, it is not actually the experiment or data that is wrong, but merely the interpretation. But that interpretation is still sold as science.

PS. Some (not all) alternative medicine therapies are marketed as being scientific but are actually not. But people put a lot of faith in them. (NB: I'm not saying they don't work - probably some do and some don't).

The other problem that muddies the waters is the use of terms such as 'science' and 'experts'.

Without pointing to the CC debate but more as a wholistic comment.

Virtually all 'science' and 'experts' are sponsored/funded from one source or another. This only serves to confuse and mislead people that just want 'facts'. As an example every veterinarian you have taken your pet to has been educated by a facility that takes vast amounts of $$$ from pharmaceutical and pet food companies, does this skew the way they treat our animals, of course it does. Look at the influence of the AFDA on our medical industry...The CC industry is no different I'm afraid, the best of intentions gets left behind when the mighty dollar rules all, there is much money to be made from this industry just as those making vast amounts from the fossil fuel industries are protecting their patch. The government wouldn't have a bar of it if this wasn't the case.

Believe it or not bodies such as the CSIRO need funding more than they need the credibility that goes with being 100% factually correct. Some of the crap the CSIRO supports in terms of food production for the masses destroys their credibility in my eyes, but does that mean all the 'science' they do is biased or skewed? Of course not, it's an organisation full of good people doing good walk on all sorts of projects.

I absolutely get the *&^%$#@! with any body that claims the intellectual higher ground because as history demonstrates 100% correct is an absolute dreamland concept.

Personally I'm a skeptic of anything I am told by the government or corporate worlds, does this make me a denier, or those that swallow everything they are told naive???

Is climate change happening? Possibly the most stupid question ever posed, if you answer no, then you indeed are a lost cause to humanity. Is humanity a lost cause is possibly a more interesting question to me.

matagi wrote:What I do not understand is - regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, surely taking steps to reduce emissions and pollution, cut down on waste and take care of the environment are good things?

Spot on! K.I.S.S.

“Beliefs are often hard to identify, as they typical parade as certainties” is comment on a research paper that I am reading on beliefs at the moment.

In answer to Photohiker I was taught that dinosaurs were cold blooded animals most closely related to lizards and the T_Rex was a ferocious hunter, complete with picture of him/her biting a plant eating dinosaurs in an epic battle.

If you look at turn 1900’s exhibition of the display of skeletons often the legs display bent out as with a lizard. One “denier” of that belief pointed out that if you added body mass for soft tissue then the only way a dinosaur could move if it was in a rut and the reason therefore that they died out was because they could not get out of the rut that they were in. Evidence is tending to suggest that T-Rex was primary a scavenger but that is no mean certain. We then have found dinosaurs with what appears like feather outlines and then all of a sudden more examples are found that were missed by the era’s top class scientists. I believe one major contributor of animal specimens to a prominent natural history museum was prone to “recycle” specimens as something else so now that museum has removed a lot of exhibits until it can sort out the mess.

Hop back to the 1930’s and I am sure that scientists studying dinosaurs would consider themselves masters of the scientific method. With new evidence a lot of their evidence turns out to be more a belief.

Science is closely related to statistics that is built on confidence levels which is an attempt to quantify the level of belief in a certain finding. How can you pick a trend in climate change when even over the last thousand years of recorded history there have been wild swings? The answer is based on confidence levels and the belief that you have in them. Trouble is some in the white coats have too much belief and their opposing numbers cannot accept anything but total confidence.

How many medicines have been hailed as a break through only to have been disproved or side effects found to be a greater problem than the cure?’

I like the distinction between skepticall and cynical. I tend to be skeptical rather than cynical as my belief is people are mostly good but they can be mistaken or carried away. Heck, I do not exclude myself from that statement. Cynical views can be an expression of underlying depression IMHO.

Climate change scientists as I have mentioned have done a poor job but then they are scientists not marketers or spin merchants. The other side tend to be better marketers. As the paper I am reading says “beliefs are not all equal”. Just because one side is a better debater does not mean that the facts change and the outcomes altered.

I still personally think we have not had a meaningful public climate debate and wish it happens soon as it is my belief that climate change will be proven and then we can start the next argument on what to do about it. I feel sorry for a seaside council planner that is being asked to approve a low lying subdivision with the chance of being sued regardless if the sea level rises or not by either the house owners or developer. Such is the stupidity that now exists at a practical level.

Regards

Pretty much spot on SBS, & back on topic, but just because funding is a necessary part of the process doesn't mean it's the same as being paid to publicly state the 'company line' so to speak. Many people have theories, and it's a valid part of scientific endeavour, but real science is based on research that is part of a peer review process & even though this is not infallible it's pretty damn good. It beats the emotiomally charged superstition and rational economics that our lives are governed by anyday of the week!

A vet may recommend a certain product becasue of whatever reason, likely involved with money, but they are not naively doing so. They are experts in physiology, chemistry, the interaction of cells with different natural and synthetic compunds etc and not just pushing whatever the drug of the month is. I'm guess I'm just saying that the influence of certain companies, even though present, may not be as significant as you are suggesting.

stepbystep wrote:Personally I'm a skeptic of anything I am told by the government or corporate worlds, does this make me a denier, or those that swallow everything they are told naive???

me too

stepbystep wrote:Is climate change happening? Possibly the most stupid question ever posed, if you answer no, then you indeed are a lost cause to humanity. Is humanity a lost cause is possibly a more interesting question to me

I agree and with the seeming lack of momentum in tackling climate change, highly likely. (carbon emissions were the highest on record last year and are set to break that record this year and into the forseeable future)

Son of a Beach wrote:

photohiker wrote:Have you got an example of this SoaB?

Table top cold fusion (nuclear fusion) is the most obvious one I can think of (from the mid-nineties, I think it was).

In that case the method was easily disproved, but for a short time there, it was thought (by a few) to be true science.

In some cases, it is not actually the experiment or data that is wrong, but merely the interpretation. But that interpretation is still sold as science.

Ah yes. Understand now. Re cold fusion, I think the scientific community was skeptical but the media ramped it up. You can't blame them really, cheap and abundant energy! I'm not across the details, I just remember all the claims and then the dull thud as the credibility hit the deck. There is still some bod trying to make $$ hanging off it's coat tails though: ECat

Independent replication is the key to good science. They didn't get that with Cold Fusion and reading the Wikipedia link, it was announced, dead and buried in a single year. This is nothing like Climate Change Science which involves many different lines of enquiry and multiple replications over many years.

phan_TOM wrote:Pretty much spot on SBS, & back on topic, but just because funding is a necessary part of the process doesn't mean it's the same as being paid to publicly state the 'company line' so to speak. Many people have theories, and it's a valid part of scientific endeavour, but real science is based on research that is part of a peer review process & even though this is not infallible it's pretty damn good. It beats the emotiomally charged superstition and rational economics that our lives are governed by anyday of the week!

A vet may recommend a certain product becasue of whatever reason, likely involved with money, but they are not naively doing so. They are experts in physiology, chemistry, the interaction of cells with different natural and synthetic compunds etc and not just pushing whatever the drug of the month is. I'm guess I'm just saying that the influence of certain companies, even though present, may not be as significant as you are suggesting.

stepbystep wrote:Personally I'm a skeptic of anything I am told by the government or corporate worlds, does this make me a denier, or those that swallow everything they are told naive???

me too

stepbystep wrote:Is climate change happening? Possibly the most stupid question ever posed, if you answer no, then you indeed are a lost cause to humanity. Is humanity a lost cause is possibly a more interesting question to me

I agree and with the seeming lack of momentum in tackling climate change, highly likely. (carbon emissions were the highest on record last year and are set to break that record this year and into the forseeable future)

Doesn't mean I think I'm right but it's what I believe, sadly I see so much evidence of this and I believe many scientists are unwitting or unwilling contributors to this. Guess that makes me a cynic Unfortunately I'm neither smart enough or motivated enough to make any great difference. I really admire those that pursue their altruistic beliefs with great fervor, and I work with many of them. However I often see in them a great level of denial(yep I said it) of any alternative to their own view, but perhaps that is how real change is affected..??

phan_TOM wrote:A vet may recommend a certain product becasue of whatever reason, likely involved with money, but they are not naively doing so. They are experts in physiology, chemistry, the interaction of cells with different natural and synthetic compunds etc and not just pushing whatever the drug of the month is. I'm guess I'm just saying that the influence of certain companies, even though present, may not be as significant as you are suggesting.

+1 (Having been involved in the industry in a past life) Perhaps we should invite OneStepMore to comment.

Definitely, industry supports the education system for Veterinary Science to some extent, and they also support working vets in the community but to a far smaller extent than with the medical profession. This is not a one-sided affair where industry barges into Uni and tries to take over - typically, the Uni approaches industry first looking for cash to support program or building projects etc. There is a line to be drawn, yes, but you cannot change for instance basic biochemistry because you have a product to sell.

Once in private practice, Vets are able to make commercial decisions about products used based on their own professional and commercial preferences.

photohiker wrote:

phan_TOM wrote:A vet may recommend a certain product becasue of whatever reason, likely involved with money, but they are not naively doing so. They are experts in physiology, chemistry, the interaction of cells with different natural and synthetic compunds etc and not just pushing whatever the drug of the month is. I'm guess I'm just saying that the influence of certain companies, even though present, may not be as significant as you are suggesting.

+1 (Having been involved in the industry in a past life) Perhaps we should invite OneStepMore to comment.

Definitely, industry supports the education system for Veterinary Science to some extent, and they also support working vets in the community but to a far smaller extent than with the medical profession. This is not a one-sided affair where industry barges into Uni and tries to take over - typically, the Uni approaches industry first looking for cash to support program or building projects etc. There is a line to be drawn, yes, but you cannot change for instance basic biochemistry because you have a product to sell.

Once in private practice, Vets are able to make commercial decisions about products used based on their own professional and commercial preferences.

Didn't want to pick on vets(their knowledge has served my dogs well) but I do my own research and consult alternative practitioners, one of these practitioners extended the life of one of my dogs for 9 years when standard vets advised euthanasia, same goes for our medical industry, and how our food is grown, processed and sold. This is my opinion based upon my beliefs and experiences. There is a world of knowledge that goes beyond accepted science and this is simply the point I was trying to make.

It's fair to say that there are good and bad Vets, just as there are good and bad doctors or alternative medical practitioners.

I think the point is that often the difference between good and bad is not the teaching, it's the application. You can't learn everything about health and healing from a course or a book.

stepbystep wrote:Didn't want to pick on vets(their knowledge has served my dogs well) but I do my own research and consult alternative practitioners, one of these practitioners extended the life of one of my dogs for 9 years when standard vets advised euthanasia, same goes for our medical industry, and how our food is grown, processed and sold. This is my opinion based upon my beliefs and experiences. There is a world of knowledge that goes beyond accepted science and this is simply the point I was trying to make.

Again, I totally agree and, similarly, like to be as informed as possible before making certain decisions (it's knock off time, do I have a beer when I get home or a glass of red?), humans are pretty amazing but honestly we're not as omniscient as we thnk we are, we're merely scratching the surface when it comes to the big picture... I guess a lot of it comes down to the individual - not just vets or doctors but right across the board, people in general. Eg some doctors (sorry if any doctors feel like they are getting a bashing) spend their whole lives dedicated to volunteering in poor countries whilst others become plastic surgeons specialising in making a lot of money off those who look at too many magazines and subscribing to all the big pharma's offerings.In their defence I should add that some do a magnificent job restoring the lives of those after accidents etc

photohiker wrote:It's fair to say that there are good and bad Vets, just as there are good and bad doctors or alternative medical practitioners.

yes and good and bad people.

Lindsay wrote: The climate is always changing, alway has, always will. Far from helping the environment, this emphasis on man made climate change is taking money and resources away from the environmental issues we can do something about and wasting them on airy fairy feel good concepts that have little grounding in reality.

Excellent point, unfortunately overlooked in the broader discussion. In addition to the diversion of funding from less speculative scientific disciplines (than computer modelling climatologists), the credibility of the environmental science community as a whole has suffered. The non-believing public has tired of politically corrupted science, crony peer-review, and doomsday prophecies that just never come to be.

A current trend in Australia is the slashing of 'green-tape' by Governments, on the urging of self-interested sections of the business community. Environmental deregulation (and/or self-regulation) poses a far greater threat to the environment than the Devil's element does to climate. Yet there is little public opposition, because the ordinary man has stopped listening to environmentalists. Which should be of no surprise as throughout the ages many have claimed the end is nigh, but no such prophecy has ever been correct.

Cheers

maddog wrote:The non-believing public has tired of politically corrupted science, crony peer-review, and doomsday prophecies that just never come to be.

Jeepers, that non believing public happened in a hurry: http://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/p ... ions-final

What is the public perception of climate
change and risk?
The survey of almost 3100 Australians found that:
• 74 per cent of respondents accept that the world’s climate is changing.
• More than half believe the impacts of climate change are already being felt in Australia.
• 90 per cent accept that climate change is either partly or principally caused by human activities and lifestyles.
• 71 per cent of respondents reported that their concern about climate change had increased over the past two years.
• 78 per cent of respondents consider that if nothing is done to reduce climate change in the future,
it will be a ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem for Australia.
• Many respondents perceived there was a link between climate change and extreme weather events (Figure 1).
Fewer than 6 per cent of Australians surveyed could be called true ‘climate change sceptics’, i.e. disbelievers or strong sceptics with respect to the reality of current climate change. According to the project’s research team, these results suggest public opinion has been greatly misrepresented in the media.

Yep, there you go. Just like Grandpa said, don't believe everything you read in the paper.

Are we going to change the topic the Climate Change, or should we go back on topic?

Thats very amusing if nothing else thanks for that maddog. Takes us back on topic and to the original article too, theres enough fodder to keep the internet trolls going for days!

Science is a process. It does not try to prove things, but actually tries to disprove them. This is the scientific method mentioned by Ent. It is about making sense of patterns to discern process. It is also about building on and improving the knowledge we have. Science is not necessarily perfect, but it is not meant to be. Scientists can inform people about things, but they can’t force people and governments to take their advice.

Science and academia in general has had communication issues. That is why academics are encouraged to post articles in The Conversation so that the general public is more informed about their research or interests, and also so the public has a place to discuss the issues at hand.

This thread reminds me of one particular article in The Conversation that highlights the issue of the danger when anybody who wants to say their piece against established theories or research, even though the person in question more often than not has little technical knowledge of a topic, and yet they believe they can disagree with experts in the field, and in many cases they often actively trying to discredit the expert’s research, whilst spreading their own ideas with little to no evidence. The danger is that some people seem to believe that a person's opinion is more important than an experts research. And often these ideas are given credibility by some sections of the media, which makes it worse. If someone wants to challenge the experts, sure, they can do so. But they should do it in a scientific manner and get it published.

Maddog, for someone who writes about

maddog wrote: ...their thin skinned and humourless intolerance for scepticism (and free-thinking in general) is reminiscent of the treatment of heretics, infidels, etc, by religious fundamentalists throughout the ages.

and

maddog wrote: the use of the emotive term 'denier' (as used both in the article and in this thread above), with all that historical baggage, in place of the more traditional term 'sceptic' for those that doubt that orthodox? Fair and balanced? Rational and enlightened?

in previous posts, you seem to be doing a good job with intolerance and using emotive terms with comments like

maddog wrote:In addition to the diversion of funding from less speculative scientific disciplines (than computer modelling climatologists), the credibility of the environmental science community as a whole has suffered. The non-believing public has tired of politically corrupted science, crony peer-review, and doomsday prophecies that just never come to be.

You certainly have shown that you have a few things in common with the troll that is discussed in wayno's original post. FYI, there is a consensus amongst climate scientists on the anthropogenic cause of climate change (97-98%) and I have never met a single scientist who thinks otherwise, or one that believes that "computer modelling climatologists" are causing the "credibility of the environmental science community" to suffer. I know this because I am part of that community. Furthermore, you clearly have little to no experience with the peer review process and science in general. Otherwise you would not be saying this. It's not like they publish any ramblings or opinion. Unlike what one can do on an internet forum, blog, or in the media, or even Parliament House it seems...