Excellent post, Ken. Remember when the 60's hippies said: Never trust anyone over 30! That same bunch demanded their Free Speech Rights then, but now that they're "in charge" no one has those same rights (except themselves, of course.) They are the ones now refusing to teach critical-thinking skills in the classroom. *They* are the ones refusing to teach civics and history related to their nation's Constitution and laws. I don't blame kids today, they simply don't have enough life behind them to recognize their government is setting them up to be cannon fodder when the firing begins. That's terribly unfair to them, us, and the West, overall.
Also, since when is it "Science" to silence any scientist who merely disagrees and/or asks for evidence that proves the prevailing (Politically-tainted, incomplete) Scientific "consensus" on anything?
Yes, there is a very unsettling authoritarian streak running through our politics and our institutions today. These old hippies you speak of, while I'm a bit of an admirer of what they stood for then, will seemingly need to be put in their place rather forcefully. One can hope a dramatic change in government will affect this a bit, but in reality it will take everyone standing their ground and having the courage to say something - and not back down.
What do mean when you say ‘no one has those same rights (except themselves, of course)’ ? Free speech? Surely by any measure, we have never had more freedoms than we have now and never had as much access to platforms and channels to broadcast our views and ideas to anyone who wants to hear them.
As one example I mentioned, Science. It's devolved back into a quasi-religious, "concensus" institution above and beyond any actual science work. Being "published" is the name of the game now, whether your science is sound (repeatable results by others, including skeptical scientists) or not. Those skeptical of consensus COMPUTER predictions, including other scientists, are today considered and treated as heretics, practicing hereasy when they question the official policy narrative; the 'consensus'. Their speech is not allowed in consensus-science journals. Even simple consideration to be heard when one practices their free speach rights is becoming a one-way proposition, you only have rights when you speak with the agreed upon conclusion(s). To speak otherwise means you're spreading misinformation/disinformation/malinformation; words that must be blocked in by 90+ percent of legacy media. Crichton says it better than I can in this thread. For your consideration...
That was a fascinating read. Thanks for that. Hard to imagine that was written over 20 years ago - there would definitely be many more examples to add now.
Jurassic Park was a childhood favorite of mine, but I have couple of counterpoints to the idea that scientific consensus on climate change is some kind of group-think dogma supported by media.
You said “To speak otherwise means you're spreading misinformation/disinformation/malinformation; words that must be blocked in by 90+ percent of legacy media.” I spat my tea all over the computer reading this one.
Global warming is one issue where science and the legacy/mainstream media (along with public opinion) are at odds, which is reason we’re having this conversation at all. From a recent Yale study, public opinion in nations like Australia, Canada, and the USA, less than 50 percent of the population believe that climate change is ‘caused mostly by humans’. Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent.
How can this be? Is there any other question that yields such stark difference between scientists and the public?
When it comes to the legacy media, in Australia and the USA, no single entity holds more power than and influence than the Murdoch empire, which has consistently been a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry (one of the most powerful industries on earth), but even ‘liberal’ outlets like MSNBC have created the illusion of a ‘debate’ among scientists, which simply doesn’t exist.
Now, you might say that’s because science has become dogmatic, and the public is obviously seeing through it, but could it be the case that scientific consensus on the causes of climate change is no different from scientific consensus on the flat earth theory? Most scientists believe the earth is a globe based on the overwhelming evidence. To get a paper published which argues for a flat earth, you’d need to present something rather groundbreaking. We have a very good grasp of how the carbon cycle works, and the mechanism by which excess carbon in the atmosphere traps heat. We know that tens of millions of years of carbon that was trapped in fossil fuel deposits has been emitted in just a couple of generations, and we see the accelerating global temperatures corresponding perfectly. It’s hard to imagine anyone disputing any of these facts, and our favorite sci-fi author didn’t even try. We also know that powerful and wealthy interests will do what they can to maintain a system in which their power and wealth will continue to multiply, and we know that they will use media manipulation to do so.
Could this be reason that public opinion and science are so out of step?
I know that our friend Ken’s answer will be ‘well I just don’t want to pay more taxes’, and I’m 100% with him on that. The issue has been weaponized by all interests. That shouldn’t change the science though.
I always get a good chuckle every time someone brings up "powerful and wealthy interests" that will "do what they can to maintain a system in which their power and wealth will continue to multiply" in reference to Big Oil and then goes on to say that we should much rather put our trust in Big Government, or Big Pharma, as if all scientists on the side of the "good guys" are completely pure and lily-white. I'm sure these people would never do anything for money because all they care about is saving the earth and humankind from certain destruction.
In contrast, the evil fossil fuel companies - yes, they're providing the energy to keep the entire civilized world from sliding back into the dark ages, and without them we'd be cooking our food over a kerosene stove in our living room and dying of indoor air pollution, but dammit, they're just so greedy and vile!
I think this goes right back to the point of this article, which is that the general public (thanks to what Chrichton so eloquently pointed out, among so many other reasons) simply don't trust many of these people who propose to speak for Science anymore. Can you really blame them?
If you want to get an idea of the current state of peer-review, spend an hour or two checking out the Grievance Studies Affair, and then ask yourself why it is that so many people have trouble believing "The Science". And this particular episode doesn't even touch on the "lived experience" of millions of people during the covid pandemic.
Believe it or not, Ned, there are other things at play here besides just "misinformation and conspiracy theories".
Without energy companies, ‘we’d be cooking our food over a kerosene stove in living room and dying of indoor pollution?’ Why? Where would we get the kerosene from if we don’t have energy companies? Why the living room? What is any this supposed to mean?
All that me and the rational people are saying is let’s stop giving billions of our tax dollars to these companies, let’s tax them as if they were any other company, give free market forces a chance, and invest in energy sources we’re going to have switch to eventually anyway. Even if 90+ percent of scientists turn out to be wrong, we still win. Even if only 30% of scientists were warning about the dangers of climate change, it would still be worth it. We should assume the worst case scenario when it comes to the only planet we have or will ever have. To do anything else would be insane.
Kerosene is a popular choice in third world Africa where they don't have electricity. And yes, indoor air pollution kills more people than the other kind, mainly for that reason.
So you're saying instead of subsidizing oil companies (who provide a product that works all the time for a relatively small cost to the consumer), we should instead be subsidizing solar and wind, which doesn't do either of those things?
We saw how well solar and wind worked in Alberta a couple months ago during that cold snap.
When you say "we should assume the worst", we also saw how that played out during the pandemic. "Assuming the worst" these days seems to mean a license for government overreach. The models they used to predicts covid deaths must be the same ones they're using to predict catastrophic global warming. That's insane.
"All that me and the rational people..." And there it is. There's really no need to continue this dialog since those who disagree with you simply aren't rational, eh? What exactly is stopping you from using cheap energy today and the products made from oil? Surely, you and the rational people can set the example for others to follow...you know, practice what you preach and what not, right?
You don’t have to trust the “good guy” scientists over ‘big oil’ and the fossil fuel industry. Every major energy company has conducted exhaustive research on climate change, its causes and potential impacts, and they’ve been doing so for decades. Their findings are the same as everyone else’s. 40-50 years ago they would bury their findings and publicly say it was ‘inconclusive’ or something, but we’re well past that now. Can you imagine if an energy company publicly pretended to be climate change deniers? Even THEY understand how silly that would look at this point. The only people still clinging to the ‘climate hoax’ stuff are political charlatans, unscrupulous media outlets, and the willfully ignorant.
Once again you're conveniently conflating opposition to government policies with ignorance and conspiracy theories. Not one of these scientists has made a credible case that we are all doomed if we don't lower our GHGs. And yet, that is the crux of almost all climate policy.
This thread, if anything, demonstrates, the disconnect with reality many in the newly credentialed-class and their faithful followers have today. They truly believe their faith in each other IS "Science". Because they say so. It's a fascinating and often confounding observation of today's human condition.
Having said that, I always welcome the discussion, even if someone is only here to bust my balls. More often than not, it causes me to dig a little deeper (which is good) although by now it seems like I've probably heard them all.
I only reply to comments on here if there is at least an attempt at respectful dialogue. Those are usually conversations worth having, regardless of opinion.
"That shouldn't change the science though." Clearly either didn't read the entire essay or did and are simply missing the point of it.
You say when it comes to predicting climate change, "Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent," that is consensus, not actual poof of anything tangible.
Crichton: "...notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says that the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. it would never occur to anyone to speak that way." Further he added, paraphrasing, 'Consensus is a political term'.
You and yours who believe computer calculations predicting the planet's climate 10, 30, 50 years or farther into the future is "proof" of AGW are the very same people who continue to deny Science's earlier climate predictions never materialized. Consensus has an abysmal track record trying to predict the next ten days of weather accurately. Yet we're supposed trust climate predictions for ten years or farther out because a relatively -tiny subset of the world's population, a group of biased and flawed people (we're all human after all), using the same tools created by another group of biased and flawed humans, is the proof in and of itself? That's not Science. That's Projection. Projection isn't Science. That's why not everyone "trusts the science". Instead they have ample evidence to not trust the people telling them to trust the people who's previously flawed projections never came true.
"Trust me" is the language of consensus, charlatans, and politics - not science.
I don’t see your point. I didn’t ‘invoke consensus’, I referenced the fact that 98-100 percent of climate studies say that human activity is the driving force behind climate change. You’re saying we should reject that because it looks suspiciously like ‘consensus’ and you really don’t like that word? I’m confident you’d find a similar proportion of astronomers agree on the distance between the earth and the sun. By your logic this means they can’t be trusted? If you went to 100 doctors and 98-100 of them gave you the exact same diagnosis, you’d reject that diagnosis because you’re opposed to ‘consensus’?
I’m trying to understand, but this sounds like some kind of brain damage to me.
"I don’t see your point." On that, we agree. What you don't see is "trust" in Science/government/media being lost quickly and at-best, glacially re-earned over time. You're giving deference to authority and people you don't know, have never met, simply because they have similar interests and a media willing to print anything they say without any skepticim or pushback. Unprecendented distrust and suspicion of hypocritcal government actors and media is the whole reason we're having this discussion. Media credibility and trust is at an all-time low. Legacy media has lost more than two-thirds of it's audience since 1990. What's worse is they don't care. They really don't care if their credibility and trust is missing from what they tell the public at large. Only government has less trust and credibility than media (on a nation-wide basis.) That matters when it comes to making public policy. Credibility matters. It's lost when previous scientific predictions fail to materialize. The most disappointing thing though? None of THAT matters to you, apparently.
This goes to lack of viewership in a major Canadian media company. Fewer viewers mean less advertising revenue. Less revenue means job cuts. As the author says, (media) companies can't cut their way into prosperity.
This action is a direct result when a company loses its credibility and audiences trust.
Expanding on, "From a recent Yale study, public opinion in nations like Australia, Canada, and the USA, less than 50 percent of the population believe that climate change is ‘caused mostly by humans’. Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent." I'd say that disconnect is on the Science side. Note the study was about 'belief', a word more related to religion than Science, hence my original reply that today's science message is far more closely tied to words and thoughts that refused Galieo and Copernicus, "Do not question the Church". The word, believe, itself does not mean 'conclusion or truth', only a consensus 'belief' among scientists who already agree with one another. I dare say the general public lives in Realville every day of the week, while Climate Science has it's feet firmly planted in Theoreticalstan. Remember what Berra said: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
Imagine sitting down at your laptop and, ironically, without even a moment of self-reflection, typing out that you believe that the general population is significantly more knowledgeable about a specialized and highly complex field of science than the very scientists who make up that field and have devoted their careers to studying.
This is what the internet has done to the boomers and even gen Xers of the world’s poor brains.
"History" is knowledge. "Living" is nothing more than practicing history in real time. Science is about PROVING theories to be correct. You and a handful of your peers view science through a dogmatic, religion-like prism. "It's okay if we can't prove tomorrow because we, together, 'believe' we're correct today."
A conspiracy theory is a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people. For something to be labeled a ‘conspiracy theory’, it has to involve a conspiracy - a secret coordinated plan. Of the examples you gave, the only ones that may have been labeled a conspiracy theory by anybody at any point in time was the Wuhan lab leak theory, which is really a perfect example of a conspiracy theory - you have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place. Unlike most conspiracy theories, the lab leak one is plausible (though still seems unlikely) because the Chinese government is one of the few governments capable of covering up something like that. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know.
Yes, technically the lab leak Is the best example of a conspiracy. There are fewer and fewer who still think it's unlikely, but whatever. Still waiting for that pangolin to make himself known...
Everything else on the list was more often called misinformation, but it all means basically the same thing - deniers, conspiracy freaks, anti-science, whatever. The same people were called all these things for the same reasons - with the same end result. So it's really just a technicality.
Excellent post, Ken. Remember when the 60's hippies said: Never trust anyone over 30! That same bunch demanded their Free Speech Rights then, but now that they're "in charge" no one has those same rights (except themselves, of course.) They are the ones now refusing to teach critical-thinking skills in the classroom. *They* are the ones refusing to teach civics and history related to their nation's Constitution and laws. I don't blame kids today, they simply don't have enough life behind them to recognize their government is setting them up to be cannon fodder when the firing begins. That's terribly unfair to them, us, and the West, overall.
Also, since when is it "Science" to silence any scientist who merely disagrees and/or asks for evidence that proves the prevailing (Politically-tainted, incomplete) Scientific "consensus" on anything?
Yes, there is a very unsettling authoritarian streak running through our politics and our institutions today. These old hippies you speak of, while I'm a bit of an admirer of what they stood for then, will seemingly need to be put in their place rather forcefully. One can hope a dramatic change in government will affect this a bit, but in reality it will take everyone standing their ground and having the courage to say something - and not back down.
"put in their place rather forcefully" ... care to elaborate?
They should all be fired. Every single one of them.
What do mean when you say ‘no one has those same rights (except themselves, of course)’ ? Free speech? Surely by any measure, we have never had more freedoms than we have now and never had as much access to platforms and channels to broadcast our views and ideas to anyone who wants to hear them.
As one example I mentioned, Science. It's devolved back into a quasi-religious, "concensus" institution above and beyond any actual science work. Being "published" is the name of the game now, whether your science is sound (repeatable results by others, including skeptical scientists) or not. Those skeptical of consensus COMPUTER predictions, including other scientists, are today considered and treated as heretics, practicing hereasy when they question the official policy narrative; the 'consensus'. Their speech is not allowed in consensus-science journals. Even simple consideration to be heard when one practices their free speach rights is becoming a one-way proposition, you only have rights when you speak with the agreed upon conclusion(s). To speak otherwise means you're spreading misinformation/disinformation/malinformation; words that must be blocked in by 90+ percent of legacy media. Crichton says it better than I can in this thread. For your consideration...
https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2017/06/aliens-cause-global-warming-by-michael.html?m=1
That was a fascinating read. Thanks for that. Hard to imagine that was written over 20 years ago - there would definitely be many more examples to add now.
Jurassic Park was a childhood favorite of mine, but I have couple of counterpoints to the idea that scientific consensus on climate change is some kind of group-think dogma supported by media.
You said “To speak otherwise means you're spreading misinformation/disinformation/malinformation; words that must be blocked in by 90+ percent of legacy media.” I spat my tea all over the computer reading this one.
Global warming is one issue where science and the legacy/mainstream media (along with public opinion) are at odds, which is reason we’re having this conversation at all. From a recent Yale study, public opinion in nations like Australia, Canada, and the USA, less than 50 percent of the population believe that climate change is ‘caused mostly by humans’. Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent.
How can this be? Is there any other question that yields such stark difference between scientists and the public?
When it comes to the legacy media, in Australia and the USA, no single entity holds more power than and influence than the Murdoch empire, which has consistently been a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry (one of the most powerful industries on earth), but even ‘liberal’ outlets like MSNBC have created the illusion of a ‘debate’ among scientists, which simply doesn’t exist.
Now, you might say that’s because science has become dogmatic, and the public is obviously seeing through it, but could it be the case that scientific consensus on the causes of climate change is no different from scientific consensus on the flat earth theory? Most scientists believe the earth is a globe based on the overwhelming evidence. To get a paper published which argues for a flat earth, you’d need to present something rather groundbreaking. We have a very good grasp of how the carbon cycle works, and the mechanism by which excess carbon in the atmosphere traps heat. We know that tens of millions of years of carbon that was trapped in fossil fuel deposits has been emitted in just a couple of generations, and we see the accelerating global temperatures corresponding perfectly. It’s hard to imagine anyone disputing any of these facts, and our favorite sci-fi author didn’t even try. We also know that powerful and wealthy interests will do what they can to maintain a system in which their power and wealth will continue to multiply, and we know that they will use media manipulation to do so.
Could this be reason that public opinion and science are so out of step?
I know that our friend Ken’s answer will be ‘well I just don’t want to pay more taxes’, and I’m 100% with him on that. The issue has been weaponized by all interests. That shouldn’t change the science though.
I always get a good chuckle every time someone brings up "powerful and wealthy interests" that will "do what they can to maintain a system in which their power and wealth will continue to multiply" in reference to Big Oil and then goes on to say that we should much rather put our trust in Big Government, or Big Pharma, as if all scientists on the side of the "good guys" are completely pure and lily-white. I'm sure these people would never do anything for money because all they care about is saving the earth and humankind from certain destruction.
In contrast, the evil fossil fuel companies - yes, they're providing the energy to keep the entire civilized world from sliding back into the dark ages, and without them we'd be cooking our food over a kerosene stove in our living room and dying of indoor air pollution, but dammit, they're just so greedy and vile!
I think this goes right back to the point of this article, which is that the general public (thanks to what Chrichton so eloquently pointed out, among so many other reasons) simply don't trust many of these people who propose to speak for Science anymore. Can you really blame them?
If you want to get an idea of the current state of peer-review, spend an hour or two checking out the Grievance Studies Affair, and then ask yourself why it is that so many people have trouble believing "The Science". And this particular episode doesn't even touch on the "lived experience" of millions of people during the covid pandemic.
Believe it or not, Ned, there are other things at play here besides just "misinformation and conspiracy theories".
Without energy companies, ‘we’d be cooking our food over a kerosene stove in living room and dying of indoor pollution?’ Why? Where would we get the kerosene from if we don’t have energy companies? Why the living room? What is any this supposed to mean?
All that me and the rational people are saying is let’s stop giving billions of our tax dollars to these companies, let’s tax them as if they were any other company, give free market forces a chance, and invest in energy sources we’re going to have switch to eventually anyway. Even if 90+ percent of scientists turn out to be wrong, we still win. Even if only 30% of scientists were warning about the dangers of climate change, it would still be worth it. We should assume the worst case scenario when it comes to the only planet we have or will ever have. To do anything else would be insane.
Kerosene is a popular choice in third world Africa where they don't have electricity. And yes, indoor air pollution kills more people than the other kind, mainly for that reason.
So you're saying instead of subsidizing oil companies (who provide a product that works all the time for a relatively small cost to the consumer), we should instead be subsidizing solar and wind, which doesn't do either of those things?
We saw how well solar and wind worked in Alberta a couple months ago during that cold snap.
When you say "we should assume the worst", we also saw how that played out during the pandemic. "Assuming the worst" these days seems to mean a license for government overreach. The models they used to predicts covid deaths must be the same ones they're using to predict catastrophic global warming. That's insane.
"All that me and the rational people..." And there it is. There's really no need to continue this dialog since those who disagree with you simply aren't rational, eh? What exactly is stopping you from using cheap energy today and the products made from oil? Surely, you and the rational people can set the example for others to follow...you know, practice what you preach and what not, right?
You don’t have to trust the “good guy” scientists over ‘big oil’ and the fossil fuel industry. Every major energy company has conducted exhaustive research on climate change, its causes and potential impacts, and they’ve been doing so for decades. Their findings are the same as everyone else’s. 40-50 years ago they would bury their findings and publicly say it was ‘inconclusive’ or something, but we’re well past that now. Can you imagine if an energy company publicly pretended to be climate change deniers? Even THEY understand how silly that would look at this point. The only people still clinging to the ‘climate hoax’ stuff are political charlatans, unscrupulous media outlets, and the willfully ignorant.
Once again you're conveniently conflating opposition to government policies with ignorance and conspiracy theories. Not one of these scientists has made a credible case that we are all doomed if we don't lower our GHGs. And yet, that is the crux of almost all climate policy.
This thread, if anything, demonstrates, the disconnect with reality many in the newly credentialed-class and their faithful followers have today. They truly believe their faith in each other IS "Science". Because they say so. It's a fascinating and often confounding observation of today's human condition.
Couldn't agree more.
Having said that, I always welcome the discussion, even if someone is only here to bust my balls. More often than not, it causes me to dig a little deeper (which is good) although by now it seems like I've probably heard them all.
I only reply to comments on here if there is at least an attempt at respectful dialogue. Those are usually conversations worth having, regardless of opinion.
"That shouldn't change the science though." Clearly either didn't read the entire essay or did and are simply missing the point of it.
You say when it comes to predicting climate change, "Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent," that is consensus, not actual poof of anything tangible.
Crichton: "...notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says that the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. it would never occur to anyone to speak that way." Further he added, paraphrasing, 'Consensus is a political term'.
You and yours who believe computer calculations predicting the planet's climate 10, 30, 50 years or farther into the future is "proof" of AGW are the very same people who continue to deny Science's earlier climate predictions never materialized. Consensus has an abysmal track record trying to predict the next ten days of weather accurately. Yet we're supposed trust climate predictions for ten years or farther out because a relatively -tiny subset of the world's population, a group of biased and flawed people (we're all human after all), using the same tools created by another group of biased and flawed humans, is the proof in and of itself? That's not Science. That's Projection. Projection isn't Science. That's why not everyone "trusts the science". Instead they have ample evidence to not trust the people telling them to trust the people who's previously flawed projections never came true.
"Trust me" is the language of consensus, charlatans, and politics - not science.
I don’t see your point. I didn’t ‘invoke consensus’, I referenced the fact that 98-100 percent of climate studies say that human activity is the driving force behind climate change. You’re saying we should reject that because it looks suspiciously like ‘consensus’ and you really don’t like that word? I’m confident you’d find a similar proportion of astronomers agree on the distance between the earth and the sun. By your logic this means they can’t be trusted? If you went to 100 doctors and 98-100 of them gave you the exact same diagnosis, you’d reject that diagnosis because you’re opposed to ‘consensus’?
I’m trying to understand, but this sounds like some kind of brain damage to me.
"I don’t see your point." On that, we agree. What you don't see is "trust" in Science/government/media being lost quickly and at-best, glacially re-earned over time. You're giving deference to authority and people you don't know, have never met, simply because they have similar interests and a media willing to print anything they say without any skepticim or pushback. Unprecendented distrust and suspicion of hypocritcal government actors and media is the whole reason we're having this discussion. Media credibility and trust is at an all-time low. Legacy media has lost more than two-thirds of it's audience since 1990. What's worse is they don't care. They really don't care if their credibility and trust is missing from what they tell the public at large. Only government has less trust and credibility than media (on a nation-wide basis.) That matters when it comes to making public policy. Credibility matters. It's lost when previous scientific predictions fail to materialize. The most disappointing thing though? None of THAT matters to you, apparently.
Posted just today: https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2024/2/11/thousands-more-media-jobs-lost
This goes to lack of viewership in a major Canadian media company. Fewer viewers mean less advertising revenue. Less revenue means job cuts. As the author says, (media) companies can't cut their way into prosperity.
This action is a direct result when a company loses its credibility and audiences trust.
Expanding on, "From a recent Yale study, public opinion in nations like Australia, Canada, and the USA, less than 50 percent of the population believe that climate change is ‘caused mostly by humans’. Among scientists, we know that number is somewhere between 98 and 100 percent." I'd say that disconnect is on the Science side. Note the study was about 'belief', a word more related to religion than Science, hence my original reply that today's science message is far more closely tied to words and thoughts that refused Galieo and Copernicus, "Do not question the Church". The word, believe, itself does not mean 'conclusion or truth', only a consensus 'belief' among scientists who already agree with one another. I dare say the general public lives in Realville every day of the week, while Climate Science has it's feet firmly planted in Theoreticalstan. Remember what Berra said: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."
I love Yogi Berra.
Imagine sitting down at your laptop and, ironically, without even a moment of self-reflection, typing out that you believe that the general population is significantly more knowledgeable about a specialized and highly complex field of science than the very scientists who make up that field and have devoted their careers to studying.
This is what the internet has done to the boomers and even gen Xers of the world’s poor brains.
"History" is knowledge. "Living" is nothing more than practicing history in real time. Science is about PROVING theories to be correct. You and a handful of your peers view science through a dogmatic, religion-like prism. "It's okay if we can't prove tomorrow because we, together, 'believe' we're correct today."
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/payn_c20333420240208103039-800x0.jpg
A conspiracy theory is a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people. For something to be labeled a ‘conspiracy theory’, it has to involve a conspiracy - a secret coordinated plan. Of the examples you gave, the only ones that may have been labeled a conspiracy theory by anybody at any point in time was the Wuhan lab leak theory, which is really a perfect example of a conspiracy theory - you have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place. Unlike most conspiracy theories, the lab leak one is plausible (though still seems unlikely) because the Chinese government is one of the few governments capable of covering up something like that. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know.
I think your friend’s meme is spot on.
Yes, technically the lab leak Is the best example of a conspiracy. There are fewer and fewer who still think it's unlikely, but whatever. Still waiting for that pangolin to make himself known...
Everything else on the list was more often called misinformation, but it all means basically the same thing - deniers, conspiracy freaks, anti-science, whatever. The same people were called all these things for the same reasons - with the same end result. So it's really just a technicality.