[valvar]

I know this is beside your point, but the following part of the last sentence stung my eyes somewhat:

>even when one side isn’t as widely believed or lacks scientific evidence

This is not how ``Science'' is supposed to work. While the comparison is in all likelihood not accurate in this case (I happen to think that the establishment is usually right, and that it is mostly right when it comes to the subject of climate change), it is very reminiscent of the classic example of how the establishment viewed Gallileo's objections to the geocentric model of the universe. Science is advanced by adversity, and especially by figuring out what should be done when parts of mainstream theories are falsified or challenged. Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment. The establishment are all very excellent scientists, but science (should) never really become ``established''. I think perhaps the most important reason for why the currently mainstream climate models are actually so strong is that it has been necessary to overcome a lot of adversity.

[TheOperator]

Equally presenting heterodox theories with less evidence to casual news readers doesn't drive science forward so much as it gives people a confused sense of what conclusion most scientists and experts in the trenches believe is most plausible. Which is then used as a lever to promote agendas which very much fly in the face of what evidence suggests that we should do.

[eirini1]

>Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment.

It is also definitely not advanced by presenting fringe theories that very few scientists actually consider relevant as actually being about as close to the truth as a theory that is believed to be the most accurate by the vast majority.

The article is not saying these theories should be suppressed, but that they are presented as more relevant to current scientific consensus than they actually are. There's a huge difference.

[imtringued]

Climate science is pretty old (50s). Sure, back in the day they got the details wrong but it was pretty much set in stone that things aren't going to get better by doing nothing. I don't remember the exact time frame but 20-30 years ago pretty much every politician was openly in favor of climate friendly policies.

Although there was no consensus on what exactly needed to be done to slow down climate change, nobody was questioning whether it was happening at all. Empty promises were still better than the active sabotage we see today. I don't know what changed but it feels like being against climate change policies is a very recent phenomenon and not something that had been the default stance for decades.

My only guess is that climate change denial is happening in response to something. Democrats [0] have basically no problem with the topic. Does it boil down to plain old populism?

[0] http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019...

[specialist]

"Truth is out of style" -- MC 900 ft Jesus

The comparative value of "beliefs" is derived from the quality of the predictions based on those "beliefs".

I've observed that other people's "beliefs" are based on identity, culture, "truth", whatever.

I'm provisionally calling my new worldview as "post-Popperian". Until the smart people, philosophers & epistemologists, share the proper phrase with plebes like me.

--

Tying this back to the OP...

The "beliefs" of the climate change skeptics have negative value, because their predictions have been consistently wrong.

About everything.

"Negative value" meaning harmful, potentially maliciously, akin to Murray Gell-mann's pejorative "worse than wrong".

[acqq]

> Science is not advanced by eliminating everything that disagrees with the establishment.

That however has nothing to do with the news coverage. That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors.

And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial."

The most current example of such manipulations, in something much more short-term than climate change, this is just not science:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/dark-money-pac-s-c...

And these surely aren't Galileos:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797

"No Evidence That Doctor Group in Viral Video Got Near COVID 'Front Lines'"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/28/stella-...

"Immanuel has asserted that many gynecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons (“succubi” and “incubi”) in dreams, a myth that dates back at least to the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” a Sumerian poem written more than 4,000 years ago. She falsely claims that issues such as endometriosis, infertility, miscarriages and STIs are “evil deposits from the spirit husband.”"

Likewise, the claims from the "climate change deniers" could be checked by the other scientists, and if they are rejected, it's not because of some conspiracy, but because there is typically no science there. It's just a bit more subtle to be shown to the "common people" than "sex with demons."

The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc. That's not science. But boy were they supported politically, by the sponsors and by the news giving them "equal time."

Also:

https://commoninfirmities.com/2015/03/26/the-patron-saint-of...

"Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments."

His actual sentence: "suspected of" "having believed" "heresy" "that the sun is the center of the world" "contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures":

http://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents_in_the_case...

"We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture".

By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons

[valvar]

>That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors.

This is a statement that concerns that nature of contemporary journalism, and could equally be applied to the findings of the mainstream. You have found several dubious pieces which spread misconceptions -- whether those misconceptions come from a mainstream or skeptic perspective is beside the point. There are plenty of misconceptions in favour of the mainstream which are being spread -- and it's certainly not in the mainstream's interests. The point of the OP article is that a relatively larger number of skeptic views are spread, but that is to be expected when the figures are so imbalanced and has already been discussed elsewhere in this comments section.

>And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial."

I'll be fair -- seeing as you are using quotes around "climate change denial", I will assume that it's not a term that you yourself favour. But is the term not very reminiscent of the word "heresy"? In what fine points do the terms differ?

>And these surely aren't Galileos:

>Viral video [....] sex with witches and demons [...] etc

I mean, OK, if your crusade is against these sorts of things, I can only wish you luck. I wouldn't pick that particular hill, though.

>The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc.

I'm sure you are right, but I really fail to see how this is relevant or detracts from my earlier points.

>"Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments."

This is simply wrong. This is the main reason I'm responding at all -- I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth exchange, but I felt that this had to be addressed, and that I might just as well address the other points at the same time. The linked blog article contains no sources, and for good reason. He had adherents, of course, but so do many contemporary fringe scientists -- even climate change skeptics. Still, calling their views ``controversial'' is a gross understatement.

Here, for example is what Descartes has to say regarding Galileo:

“without having considered the first causes of nature, [Galileo] has merely looked for the explanations of a few particular effects, and he has thereby built without foundations” [1]

For a thorough review of the views of the Aristotelian establishment of the time, and the many flaws in Galileo's reasoning I recommend [2]. It may also be one of the most interesting (if not important) books that you'll ever read, and my poor argumentation here cannot do it justice.

>By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter

This is quite true. But one should also remember that in order to be first in his front line, he had to use equipment which very few of his contemporaries had access to -- which is why they were not initially able to confirm his findings, and many rejected them outright [3]. I do not think that "first in his front line" is how the majority of his contemporaries would have described him. And that, really, is the point.

[1] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/

[2] - Feyerabend, Paul. Against method. Verso, 1993.

[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00774t5 -- I think. I recall hearing this on an epsiode of In Our Time, and I think it was this one.