Denialgate, because every scandal needs a gate...
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
Well that's a nice strawman. I bet you can't even find an instance where I said data should be changed because it doesn't fit. No data needs to be changed. The top of the atmosphere radiation flux is net downward. No amount of changing data is needed. That fits entirely with an atmosphere that is becoming more opaque to infrared radiation.
Go ahead, find any instance you can. You won't find any. Some of us are actually more interested in understanding the truth about reality than we are about being right. I wouldn't expect you or Petros or any of the other science challenged in this forum to understand that. Please give me my Walter now.
How can obfuscation be irrelevant when your entire rant is about the science community engaging in obfuscation? You use one scapegoat to cast doubt on an entire community. If you think this is irrelevant for policy matter of potentially great importance, then I have to wonder what you could say is relevant without inventing a completely ad-hoc and ludicrous model of how the world should work.
When the science community says there is no debate, well on some things there just isn't. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There's no debating that, at least not without being completely ignorant of the physics, or invoking logical fallacies. Industrial activity has increased the concentration of many greenhouse gases above the long term (let's say the last 800,000 years) variability. That is undeniable, and cannot be debated without being completely ignorant of the physics and geology of Earth, or invoking logical fallacies. Human activities will and are changing the climate, and the records of the past we have to look at are loud with the risk that is imposing. The climate changes all the time...yes, so what? That's like saying people die all the time, and not being concerned by outbreaks of new disease. Risky business.
Some issues are debatable, like how much warming can be expected. In fact this is an issue that climate scientists are debating. There's pretty good agreement on the range which we should expect, and that comes from the geologic record, and has been confirmed with general circulation models.
What the Hearltand Institute and other fake skeptics do is pull very small samples out of that total package of accumulated knowledge. As much hay as was made from the stolen CRU emails, no papers were forced out of the discussions leading up to the last IPCC synthesis report.
The last point I will make is about the double standard. The will to act or not is not a scientific question, it is a political question. The fact that you expect one side to be virgin white clean, and the other is expected to not be, says more about you than anything else. It's very dirty; people receive death threats, people are harassed with nuisance lawsuits-another hypocrisy of the Heartland Institute by the way- and people's credibility is tested all the time.
So what's left? One scientist who admits he posed as someone else to receive materials not intended for him. Yeah, that's bad, very bad. But he admitted to it. Someone stole emails, and those emails were used to drag people through the mud, to go on witch hunts, that amounted to nothing by every investigation that took place.
And you want to hold one group higher than the other? Let me indulge in some fake sceptic cherry picking for juxtaposition here, clearly the scientists are holding to a higher level of accountability and honesty.
Poison the well much? Yeup.
No need to lose it like that, if your popcorn's cold just ask, I'll get you a fresh one.
No need to lose it like that, if your popcorn's cold just ask, I'll get you a fresh one.
Ziiiiiinnnnnng!
You know you're dealing with idiots when....……
No need to lose it like that, if your popcorn's cold just ask, I'll get you a fresh one.
No need to lose it like that, if your popcorn's cold just ask, I'll get you a fresh one.
Nice. Maybe you're just trolling to get a rise out of me, or maybe you're just that immature to respond flippantly to a full response. I've come to expect that from fake skeptics.
Not to flog a dead horse but your response was all over the board. I guess you could call that "full" <shrug>. I didn't know whether I should have replied or organized an intervention. In any case, have a beer and relax, you're taking it way too personally.
First, they have to use logic. Al Gore being a hypocrite and a proponent of an idea does not have any weight whatsoever on the merit of that idea. This would make someone a fake skeptic.
Second, they have to be able to use reason. Clinging to assertions of corruption when they are shown to not in fact be corrupt, makes someone a fake skeptic. This also ties into the fake skeptics that HI pays, who routinely use talking points which have been shown to be false. Climate zombies. They just don't die.
Third, concern trolls who talk about wanting better discourse, who in another breath slander or play around with double standards, are not real skeptics. This is the behaviour of a fake skeptic.
The last and most important is their ability to be swayed by data. On this forum, Canadian Bear is the only person skeptical of climate change whom I have ever seen accept new information and build it into his model of the world. That makes him a real skeptic.
When you are confronted with data that inescapably points to one conclusion, and you deny, use logical fallacies, move onto another talking point, or insist there is a fraudulent conspiracy, that pretty much seals your fate as a fake skeptic.
You yourself used to cut and paste article after article, claiming to be skeptical. Yet some of your articles would maintain the climate sensitivity is really low. Another cut and paste would maintain that climate sensitivity is high, but that carbon dioxide is inconsequential. You simply cannot have it both ways. One watt is one watt regardless of if it comes from retained radiation, or new radiation from the sun. Fake skeptic.
:lol: Oh? Where exactly did I make this about myself in that response? I commented on your double standard, and about your claims about what is debatable, and about the contrast between scientists and Heartland, all of which you commented on. If that is all over the board, then it is because what I was responding to was all over the board, no?
You and Petros are attempting to make this about me, like sheets twisting in the wind...I'm fine really. I enjoy this or I wouldn't be here.
Not sure how I'm attempting to make anything about you, other than having had the sense that you were seeing red while typing your post. As long as you say you're having fun that's good enough for me, I'll re-read your post and see if I can make something of it.
I suggest you do the same with mine, as I'm not sure where you're getting that I have a double standard, other than my holding scientists to a higher standard than politicians and lobbyists (and I should have included journalists and bloggers). There are both on both sides of the issue, so there's not really an imbalance there. I also made no claims about what is or isn't debatable, as far as I'm concerned everything is debatable. That quote came from here:
Heartland and Hypocrisy; Gleick And The Real Climate Debate - Forbes
I also don't recall contrasting scientists with Heartland. I do recall stating that it's not even about Heartland anymore. So in a nutshell, to answer your question, no.
Beer?
What strikes me as being funny is that some people seem to think that whatever side they support must be lily white and have no agenda so its above reproach.
Anyway, from my POV and without even considering the data, I see results when we pollute water, I see results when we pollute land. So, I think it's pretty stupid to think that if we pollute air, nothing will happen.
Anyway, from my POV and without even considering the data, I see results when we pollute water, I see results when we pollute land. So, I think it's pretty stupid to think that if we pollute air, nothing will happen.
Couldn't agree more. If we fight pollution, AGW will fight itself. I'm more worried about smog right now than AGW, and acid rain, whatever happened to acid rain?
We still have it. It's just not the same acid. It used to be sulfuric and nitric acid rain, now its carbonic acid. CO2 reacts with water. Higher CO2 emissions = lower pH levels in water.
Funny how people don't seem to care about that anymore. Sure could see the impact of that, not nearly as many fish in the lake as there were when I was a kid. We used to be able to catch rock bass by the bucket load at will. Now, you're lucky to get a tiny sunfish. Also the shallows were thick with minnows, now there's just a school here and there, and the foam is gone. I was told that was all due to acid rain, clearing out the microbes. Oh yeah and frogs, used to be 2 or 3 or more greenies would jump at every step in the grass by the lake, now, nothin.
Well that was exactly what I was talking about...it won't be science that solves this issue, it has to be policies. Scientists can be politicians afterall.
You made a comment, so I commented in kind. Not everything is debatable...humans require water to survive, you exist, the moon orbits our planet...I guess if you mean someone can argue, then yes everything is debatable.
Well, you were talking of the standards for scientists and others, the others whom the scientists are often debunking include the subject of this thread, Heartland Institute...a double standard by nature is contrast. So if you were intending that Heartland should be held to the same standards and expectations as scientists, then apologies for misreading you.
Sure, meet me at Hunter's Ale House.Beer?
Thats right. Fighting pollution is so 1974ish. There's no money to be made in fighting pollution!