Green elite - more ecobollox

[The Medway Handyman]

The University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change 'denial'.

"The idea that 'climate change denial' is a psychological disorder - the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming - is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as 'denial', and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health. "

- The Medway Handyman

[john]

My mum would have said "they need their arses smacking" ;)

[meow2222]

Its the psychiatry game

NT

[The Medway Handyman]

A very astute woman.

[OG]

Your point being what exactly?

a few dozen members joining a facebook group (some of them satirically) proves nothing.

[The Medway Handyman]

The point being that the greenies are so convinced of their beliefs that they consider anyone who disagrees with them must be mentally unstable.

I would have thought that obvious if you had read the article FFS.

[dave]

People who say "and your point is" usually wouldn't get it if the point stuck in them.

The use of the "denial" gambit is so obvious that only the PC brigade still think it is clever.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. One only has to look at Dynamo Dave here.

[OG]

No, I didn't bother reading it. I just wondered whether you had a point to make, or were you just saying 'I agree with this'.

Clearly the latter.

[The Medway Handyman]

And what exactly was your point?

[OG]

Touché

[kinslernews09]

But what really gets me is the unfair labelling of perpertual motion exponents as "conservation of energy deniers", and the hidden-variable local-realism community as "quantum deniers". And the creationist "evolution deniers". Perhaps they should just call them all "science deniers" and be done with it.

#Paul

[D.M. Procida]

"Denial" (in the context of the phrase "climate change denial") doesn't imply mental instability or disorder at all. It's a perfectly normal, though usually undesirable, part of everyday cognitive behaviour, both at the level of individuals and of societies. It represents a refusal to recognise something that is the case.

It seems like quite a useful context within which to examine this kind of debate, because one thing a claim of denial requires is an examination of the roots of the supposed denial.

It works both ways of course - in a debate like this, either side might be in a reasonable position to identify denial at work in the position of the other.

In the case of the debate about climate change, if you think that what is the case is reasonably clear, then you'd have to ask why is it that one side or the other refuses to recognise this reasonably clear thing.

Contrary to the Spiked Online article you quoted, the answer is not going to be: because they're evil! or: because they're stupid! or: because they're mentally unstable! - that's just not what the concept of denial involves.

The Spiked Online article you quoted seems to fail to understand the concept of denial. It just looks a bit silly and sensationalist to me.

Daniele

[The Medway Handyman]

Assuming it is the case of course. As far as many people are concerned the jury is still out on that.

The Greenies are the proponents of the 'climate change - caused by the evil human hordes' argument . They won't accept any evidence that their beliefs can be flawed or even debated.

Exactly my point. As far as I and many other are concerned, there is no clear evidence one way or the other. The Green Movement started with a few tree huggers, then became a semi religion & has now also become an industry. I wonder how many of the delegates to that conference earn their living from environmental FUD? Close to 100% I'd guess.

To even think of having such a conference shows the incredible self righteous arrogance of the Greens.

[D.M. Procida]

That's quite true. Even if on balance scientific opinion does mostly agree both that we are experiencing climate change and (to a lesser extent) that it is caused by humans, it's pretty far from an overwhelming consensus.

Who are these "Greenies" you so readily identify? There are plenty of environmental, meteorological and other scientists who also believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Are these proponents of the idea ones who won't accept any evidence?

No, it wasn't. Your point was that anyone who raises the idea that someone else's beliefs lie in a denial of evidence is accusing them of being mentally ill.

It has much more complex roots than that, which can be found in (amongst other things) European health movements in the early twentieth century (as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution), animist and pagan cultures and practices, conservation movements, ecology and other life sciences, and elsewhere.

You'll find that tree-hugging appears quite late in the story.

Daniele