I note a tweet from a senator elect in California called Kamala Harris. I don't anything about her, never heard of her and may never hear from her again. She says, "We must take on science-deniers who insist the earth is flat, the Loch Ness Monster is real & climate change doesn't exist." You can find her curious tweet here.
One thing I will deduce from her rant is that she probably knows next to nothing about the Loch Ness Monster. Doubtless spoon fed what to believe by "Nessie-deniers" to borrow her phrase, the creature is a convenient symbol of ridicule to hang her tweet on. What I am not clear on is why she didn't use the Bigfoot? After all, that cryptid is reputed to haunt her home state. Maybe she believes in Bigfeet?
Anyway, the term "science-denier" implies her view of science has built an impregnable case against any such creature existing in Loch Ness. If one asked Ms Harris specifically what type of creature science had disproven, she would probably look at you stony faced with her mouth open. Science has not disproven the Loch Ness Monster, but neither has it proven it. In fact, science has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of the monster.
Sure, we have seen various attempts to use "science" against the creature. These have been more than challenged on this blog over the years (and without reply in a lot of cases). Unfortunately, in this sceptical age, such "science" is generally accepted in an uncritical and prejudiced manner.
So, feel free to protest about resistance to climate change, but don't bring my nation's favourite monster into it!
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
If scientists would actually take things like the LNMs & Bigfoot seriously, and look into the matter like they should, (being scientists), we might actually know more! But instead most decide to pay no attention to it. And, it's actually interesting if you think about it - most scientists won't look into cryptid reports at all, but most of the time those few who do end up believing (because of evidence they actually decided to look at!) that these creatures (Nessie, Bigfoot, etc) exist.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is not a good medium for convincing skeptics about climate change or anything else. Responses to her are full of "There was climate change before humans existed, therefore humans aren't causing climate change now". Try and refute that in 140 characters!
ReplyDeleteI think this is because of creationists. Living in the UK myself, where creationism has little traction, this is an issue in cryptozoology that flew under my radar for a long time. In the US, creationist beliefs are a real and pervasive problem in government and education, and some creationists have used evidence for the LNM etc as "proof" that dinosaurs have survived, imagining that this somehow disproves evolution. Hence a tendency among US skeptics to lump cryptozoology in with other actively harmful anti-science beliefs, such as climate change denial. I have some sympathy for this, as I have no love for the idea of Nessie being co-opted for an anti-science religious agenda either.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I suspect Bigfoot (often touted as a form of Gigantopithecus) does not sit well with an anit-evolution position.
DeleteRecasting bigfoot
DeleteGian quasar
"Science deniers" is one of those cute little phrases coined by the Left here in the States that is regurgitated by their media to imply that the case is settled and closed; there are just a few loonys out there who won't believe what we are telling them to believe. So just as there have been and still are actual scientists who are interested in things like lake monsters, Bigfoot/Yeti and such, there are thousands of scientists who have studied the matter and totally reject the idea of "man made global warming". People that label others things like "science denier" are not really interested in science or discussion at all; they have their "impregnable case" and you must accept it. Kinda sounds like some of the Skeptics that show up here from time to time...
ReplyDeleteNot wishing to flog a dead horse, but this is too good not to share
Deletehttps://imgur.com/gallery/TG7PI
Thousands of scientists? Where can I see a list? How many of them (if they exist) have any qualification relevant to discussing the climate?
ReplyDeleteIt should be better known that some of the climate change deniers are the same people who denied, for years after it became obvious, that smoking causes lung cancer. Some are just contrarian, but many are paid by the relevant industries.
There is a list of about 60 such scientists here. Not thousands. And only a few of those are qualified in climate science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Compare this much longer list of climate scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Ah, climate change. A subject which can generate a lot more heat (pardon the pun) than a Nessie debate. Look on the bright side, at least global warming may have postponed the next ice age by millenia and Nessie won't be buried under a mile of ice again. (remove tongue from cheek).
DeleteWhen I was in High School we were taught about the impending ice age. Then it became Global Warming; when they could not prove that it became Climate Change, a much more ambiguous term. Al Gore said Acrtic Sea would be ice free by now, he is just trying to sell Tesla's. The "97% of scientists support man made Global Warming" stat is pure bull shit. As for scientists who reject the lie because they actually looked at the data:http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence
Deletehttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/
DeleteAs for that 97% figure? That comes from surveying 79 scientists. No, I did not leave any zeros off. It comes from 79 people, 77 of whom agreed. Not even a hundred...
DeleteI don't want to take this much further. This is, as Glasgow Boy reminds us, a Loch Ness Monster blog. But I can't let your mis-statements go unchallenged.
DeleteThe 97% figure has many sources. One is a survey of 12,000 (!) published papers on climate change:
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
As to "global warming theory has failed all tests", just look at the evidence. For instance, google (NASA climate records) and look at the graph in the first entry.
Actually "climate change" is the preferred term now because it's less misleading - the actual concept hasn't changed, but talking about "global warming" leads to idiots assuming the theory has been disproved every time it snows. The reality is that climate change is a more accurate term because although global average temperatures will rise (and are rising right now, for anyone to see), this doesn't necessarily mean local weather will get warmer everywhere. The UK, for example, could get much colder if melting artic ice cools down the gulf stream.
DeleteRemember this is a Loch Ness Monster blog. I am sure there are plenty of other places to discuss this subject.
ReplyDeleteAt least President elect Trump has not made a comment concerning Nessie. I posted to his twitter..... " Do you think it might be possible the high tech of the US navy might one day visit the Loch"
ReplyDeleteI with held any reference to area 51 although, I was tempted.
He replied in a PM "It's now on my to do list when I get some down time"
DeleteJezz lets hope President Trump keeps to his word
Maby a permanent underwater observation base connected to the surface by a transparent tube could help.at least it would make millions from the tourists. Say 100 feet down?
DeleteHmmm, sounds like an idea. The problem is you can't see more than a few feet beyond.
DeleteThe Royal Navy is also pretty good at tracking submarines. Perhaps they would be interested. Though it's hard to get a warship of any size into the loch.
DeleteI wonder how big Cromwell's warship was? Probably not that big.
DeleteNessie deniers ?
ReplyDeleteSurely the "denier" suffix is only used when the subject under discussion has incontrovertible evidence that it happened and or existed and only fools and loons continue to voice denial, e.g. The Holocaust, Global warming, flatness of the earth.
The existence of Nessie, although it may distress some fans, is a prime subject for being pooh poohed, as the believers have failed dramatically to 100% prove that something exceptional lives under the waves of Loch Ness.