The refusal to accept scientific facts or to act on well-established scientific beliefs ought not be called scepticism. Science is the embodiment of sceptical thinking and rejecting it is a form of faith or dogmatism.
The dogmatic belief that climate change is not being caused by humans is a particularly pernicious form of this phenomenon often mislabelled as “scepticism”. Interestingly, at least one prominent Australian climate change denier turns out to have been a “sceptic” about the dangers of tobacco smoke as recently as 1995.
Australian Liberal senator Nick Minchin has stated that the idea that CO2 is “the main driver of climate change” is a kind of left-wing conspiracy intended to “de-industrialise the western world”.
This sort of statement dramatically reveals the ideologically based dogmatism that climate change deniers often hold. Minchin says that he sees environmentalism on par with communism and is something that must be fought against.
Interestingly, Kate Legge reported in yesterday’s edition of Murdoch’s The Australian that as recently as 1995, Minchin was a “sceptic” about the addictiveness of nicotine and the dangers of second hand smoke.
“Senator Minchin wishes to record his dissent from the committee’s statements that it believes cigarettes are addictive and that passive smoking causes a number of adverse health effects for non-smokers,” the committee’s minority report says. “Senator Minchin believes these claims (the harmful effects of passive smoking) are not yet conclusively proved. . . there is insufficient evidence to link passive smoking with a range of adverse health effects.”
Legge goes on to point out that in 1995 there were publicly available documents showing that even US and British tobacco companies acknowledged the daggers of passive smoke.
Minchin was not being “sceptical” about the dangers of tobacco smoke and is not being “sceptical” about climate change. Calling his beliefs “sceptical” is equivalent to calling an astrologer’s rejection of science “scepticism”. Of course, it is precisely science that provides the sceptical view point in these cases.
The attitude that Minchin and other climate change deniers take towards science is not only irrational and anti-sceptical but deeply irresponsible and anyone who holds it now ought to be considered completely discredited.
This should call into question his ability to represent the public. You would think a basic understanding of science would be compulsory for someone in his position.
Great article.
Yes, I agree Terry. Indeed, they don’t even need an understanding of science but merely the willingness to make judgments based on reason rather than self-interest.
This is a great thought. I am sure there are many good benefits in quitting smoking. Quit Smoking
It is becoming a dangerous ground where people who wish to challenge the ‘accepted’ findings of a government paid scientific advisor and are labelled as skeptics or ‘dogmatics’. When the government tell you that climate change is bad and we should place a carbon tax on anyone who uses electricity from power stations and people march in the streets promoting this change, then, like in Hitlers Germany of 1936, the smart people got out. When the goodie tooshoes have eliminated smoking and put us back in the stone age, what is next? Alcohol? then, disabled, then aged, then Muslim, then green eyed people, then brondes? Eventually when we are all like them, dressed the same way, genetically perfect, with everything the same, someone, will look back on this time and say “This is where societies wheels fell off…”
Basil