“There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens,” Obama told about 200 guests at the Pacific Heights residence of internet billionaire Marc Benioff
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
It is just more proof – that off Mr. Teleprompter – Obama is as stupid as they come. All the brains are in Mr. Teleprompter, but unfortunately, he cannot think fast enough to engage in actual debate, only talking points.
Denier, the ultimate projection word.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=29216 Eugenics was the last “Consensus”
I didn’t see any reference to holocaust denier. I guess an evolution denier would also be a nazi, or a round earth denier, or a earth revolves around the sun denier.
Feeling a little slow today?
The term “denier” was coined long before Obama used it as a comparison to the holocaust deniers. That is history. So your weak defense of a bigotted racist does not hold up in this case.
Phil,
sorry but I do not consider the term “denier” to refer to or even associate with the holocaust. To me it is a generic term used for someone that considers something to be patently untrue. Whether evolution, ACC, or heliocentrism. I have not seen the term used without having the word holocaust attached to it or in the same context as discussion about the holocaust if it was being used to denotes someone who does not believe in the holocaust. I am unaware of ever seeing a sentence that said “he is a denier”, and that meaning someone did not believe in the holocaust without it being in the context of the holocaust and the holocaust being mentioned.
Obama is not the first to use the term regarding people who do not believe in ACC. it has been in common usage for a number of years, and, as with holocaust, is always connected with the terms climate change or is directly in context with that issue.
Only an idiot would deny what hasn’t happened yet, but has been forecast by a computer model designed to produce a specific result.
Tony says
“sorry but I do not consider the term “denier” to refer to or even associate with the holocaust. ”
Then you are naive.
Tony Duncan says:
April 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I didn’t see any reference to holocaust denier.
One reads such things and what can one say but, “Tony Duncan!”
Sorry, I meant sun revolves around the earth denier.
You mean ‘The’ sun, yes? English not your first language?
evolution denier.
“we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately THIRTY-FIVE MILLION single-nucleotide changes, FIVE MILLION insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements.”
Only 40 million RANDOM “perfect” events between us and a chimpanzee the past 6 millions years. So we would have a gizillion mutations that no one know about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html
Super Rapid (random/accidental) Evolution these past 6 millions years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08700.html
Nofreewind.,
very interesting article. I never would have seen that without your input.
it actually fits my amateur hypothesis of the rapidity of human evolution. because of the politicization of this issue as well, i have seen evolutionary biologists and others that oppose creationism try to downplay the uniqueness and incredible aspects of human evolution. I being unconcerned with this sort of thing have happily psotied that the emotional, and cognitive changes necessary for the development of humanity are so profound that they must be do to tremendous, but probably often subtle structural changes in brain morphology and microstructure. While I admire and agree without he work of people like Greenspan and Shankar regarding the huge importance of scaffolding and cultural development, I think it is ONLy possible with tremendous biological changes which they tend to dismiss. Witht he development of Eve Devo, the process of these kind of changes makes much more sense, and I think we are within a few decades of biologists asking the right questions and having a pretty clear understanding of human evolution. Damasio, Nevo’s group in Israel, Rosenfields ground breaking hypothesis in the early 90’s, and of course Steve Carrol and other expanding our understanding how genomics in development etc are the foundations for what should be one of the most exciting fields of science.
Great, I have another ad hoc theory to add to my list:
1. Panspermia, explains origin of self-replicating RNA molecule.
2. Punctuated Equilibrium, explains gaps in the fossil record.
3. (new) Horizontal Gene Transfer, explains discrepancies between comparative genome studies and the theory of common descent. The tree of life is lost in the weeds and I’m laughing at the superior intellect.
Poodle
1. Ain’t nothing that explains self replicating RNA
2. the gaps int he fossil record are not explained by PE. ( I am reading structure of Evolutionary theory as we speak). it is the inconsiderate planet that does not bother creating conditions that will preserve a specimen of every species in a biological sequence that fits well with current cladistics.
3. the (new) horizontal gene transfer is just going to screw up future biologists as they attempt to sort out Monsanto form mother nature. Unless of course you are referring to the formation of Rhinos from gene transfer between a unicorn and a hippo.
The phrase “climate change denier” is an obvious reference to “holocaust denier.” To feign ignorance is disingenuous. The warmists have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest so being immature in addition is no surprise. The observational record over the next several years will prove who the real deniers are, the catastrophic anthropogenic global warmers.
Poodle,
the term denier comes from the lack of desire to use the word skeptic. Since that word applies to people who are skeptical, not people who will only allow themselves to believe one thing. In this case only believe that ACC is wrong, and will only consider facts that confirm that belief.
I consider myself a skeptic. I listen and read numerous sources devoted to skepticism, and have spent quite a lot of time and attention to understanding the sources of bias, and in determining my own. I make it a point to expose myself to a wide variety of viewpoints on a wide variety of topics and have my increased understanding of issue modify my beliefs.
Poodle,
I resent the use of the term warmest. To any reasonable person the “-ist” ending clearly is an attempt to link believers in ACC to arsonists. Arsonists make things HOT by putting them on fire. Supporters of ACC do NOT believe the planet will heat enough to combust, to make that sinister connection is clearly disingenuous. Please use the term, warmer-planet-suggester people from now on.
Since my very liberal friend down in Missouri uses the term ‘Warmists,’ I am going to figure that you’ve already been well out-voted on usage by the very people your kind of thinking appeals to.
TonyD:
We agree on something. I also do not like the phrase Warmist or even Luke Warmer as they are not definitive enough. I prefer Chicken Little Brigade member and recruit or wannabe as that describes what they produce and repeat when talking about a non existent problem.
Are you also sceptical about Santa and the Easter Bunny? How about the Closet Monster or Big Bird?
Mike,
I have seen Big Bird in the days before CGI, so I am not skeptical about him.
Otter, if by the kind of people my kind of thinking appeals to you mean people who look at all the evidence, then you might be right. However not being a liberal I do not accept your friends usage.
TD, at least Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmer (CAGW) is specific and on target compared to climate change denier. The phrase is intentionally misleading in many ways, the most annoying being how the argument has morphed from global warming to climate change. This is the epitome is disingenuous. How can I deny that climate changes? The problem is separating the natural component from the human signal, but the human “fingerprint” is often exaggerated using PCA et al. The entire industry of climate change science has turned the scientific method inside out, changing observations to fit model predictions, hiding observations, engaging in circular reasoning, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise, then making bold predictions based on arrogant presumption without any regard to ground truth. But it will be more difficult for the warmer-planet-suggester people to exaggerate their conclusions if the current global trend continues, flat to cooler. Time will tell and accurate observations holds to key to the truth, let the chips fall where they may but don’t hide the truth, now that’s real science.
Tony – Arsonist? No, Calvinist predates that one. And you have statist, biologist, chemist, economist, etc.
Your attempt at sarcasm is lost. No one is taking a word ending and imputing meaning. They are taking the entire word.
You seem to be slowing down in your old age.
Ah, Marc Benioff.
I wonder if his California mansion is as big as his Hawaiian one.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/167777/take_a_look_at_the_posh_homes_of_techs_elite.html
They want us to cut back on our extravagant lifestyles. You know – heating our homes and feeding our families.
It gives you a really warm feeling inside that the good and the great have our best interests at heart.
Ah, never mind denial is something he should be used to, for example that the US debt is a problem for instance.
nofreewind, evolution denier:
Thanks for the inks (pun intended). I’m on board with microevolution but after reading the human/ape genome comparisons, there seems to be less evidence for common descent, i.e., large non-random differences between the two genomes. The fusion of 2A and 2B with 150K additional base pairs at the fusion site is fascinating, like someone monkeyed with that particular chromosome.
I still have not obtained a satisfactory explanation of how the self-replicating RNA molecule came to be here on Earth, using processes like self-organization, random mutation and natural selection.
poodle,
I thought I posted something about this. But you will likely never get a full explanation about how the building blocks of life developed. But there might be some plausible scenarios figured out in the next 50 years.
Obama is nothing about environment. As with the rest of the warmists, he is all about the agenda, which has nothing to do with climate. he is about wealth redistribution, crashing our economy, destroying capitalism and the free market, imposing socialism, and intimate government control of the people.
To take his analogy further, then he is Hitler and wants a Holocaust 2.0, only this time everybody but the liberal power elite are to suffer.
The new inflation rate indicates only 0.1%. Quite low. However, the O administration gets that by leaving out food and fuel. Ouch! Talk about cherry-picking, this is the worst. SS payment raises are based on inflation; this suggests that they will not follow real inflation and truly hurt those dependent on the fixed SS income.
No doubt, but given that food and fuel has risen, I’m a bit incredulous that all other goods and products haven’t risen. Especially, given that WalMart has issued a warning of impending price increases shortly.
Suyts, the economy is not like a train. So when the engine gets cranking, the other cars do not follow in line. It takes time for the prices to work their way through the economy. But they will. You will see the prices over the next 18 months as the material costs of goods start entering the manufacturing and distribution process. You may also note the time frame. Carter did not have 20% inflation from January 20, 1977 until the election in 1980. It had to creep up, and history is just repeating itself.
Agreed, but the escalating food and fuel prices have been occurring for quite some time now. The energy industry has been hard hit for the last several years. (Again, how does this reconcile with the low inflation rates reported?) I’m thinking that similar to the techniques employed by the energy industry, the inflation calculations are missing some novel factors. For instance, our utility brags that we haven’t raised our rates in over 15 years. This is true. But we’ve added other costs to the bills of our customers and will add some more soon as the distributors are adding more costs (but not changing the rates) to our purchase price.
Most people don’t need to purchase food or fuel.
Ah the good old days, when man used to just hunt and gather all his food and fuel, and the air was nice and fresh with no “carbon” in it. I can’t deny that.
Clearly certain journalists don’t agree with Tony.
“Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[10] and Ellen Goodman,[11] among others,[12][13] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[8][9] Several commentators, including Goodman, have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial,[11][12][13] .”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Paul,
Ah, now THAT is a different question. The fact that there are people who make correlations between the two. I do not make the same association, though they are free to do so as there are some similarities. However THE holocaust is a historical fact that is clearly documented. Denying the holocaust requires denying widespread evidence form a variety of sources including Nazi records detailing the transport of millions of people (helped by “no genocide too big”, IBM). The accounts of thousands of people, and many other irrefutable sources. Denying the holocaust is even more ridiculous than trying to maintain Hansen said Manhattan would be underwater by 2008.
Tony,
You are a compulsive loon.
Thank you Steve,
Is that a higher or lower category than a maroon?
Just look at the usage of the word “denier” across the decades in the NYT archives, and the association to “holocaust denier” will be more than that, an identity.
Omnologos,
I just did a quick search through NYT’s and I didn’t find one use of the word denier without the word holocaust nearby if it had to do with denying the holocaust. I even found some people who claimed for themselves the title of denier, who were discussing climate change. I guess they are the equivalent of self hating jews calling themselves “kikes”. You may not like the new way the word is being used, but language changes, and there is ample justification for the new usage. I can imagine that if the controversy persists for another 15 years that younger people will think the term holocaust denier was taken from climate change denier. The use of the word accurately describes people who think that ACC is a fraud, or for some other reason is completely untenable theory.
I guess you do not think the word “nigger” is offensive either since it does not apply to you? Clearly you are in a small minority. The term was coined to deride the skeptics (why not use the term skeptic, as a civilized person would use the term black). Kevin Trenbeth – a founder of the warmists – apparently does not agree with you either:
Defending his use of a term that many climate change skeptics say they find offensive due to its association with those who deny the Holocaust, Trenberth defiantly tells the audience: “My reaction to some of them is, ‘well, if the shoe fits, wear it.’”
So please, go into Harlem and start tossing around the non-offensive and no stigma attached word “nigger”. And then tell us of your great deed.
And you being omniscience know everything. Would it surprise you to know that in some countries, the term “denier” is copyrighted to refer to Holocaust Deniers only? Must be since you are all knowing.
Phil,
I am pretty sure the word “nigger” does not need to be associated with the word Black person in order for the meaning to be made clear to all concerned.
I am also fairly sure that lynchings for smiling at white woman are uncommon among holocaust deniers. And most condignly, I have NEVER heard a holocaust denier use the word “Massa”.
I did not know the word had been copywriter in some countries. Once again my omniscience has deserted me. Would one of those countries be the United States?
So how many Jews have climate skeptics killed? I was showing you that words have meaning, and you are trying to say they are identical. No, no one ever stated that. What was, is and has been stated is that climate skeptics are the same as Holocaust Deniers, and hence where the term came from. Before I waste my time with google, why don’t you familiarize yourself with the site and then google how many warmists have made that EXACT comparison – not the least of which is the clown Prince Charles (who with any luck will never be king).
“not the least of which is the clown Prince Charles ”
Big Ears was certainly in denial about something!
http://www.climategate.com/prince-charles-is-a-denier-of-recent-revelations
Sorry Phil,
You are right. i have ben engaging in Steve’s tactics of totally conflating two things that are not relevant in order to promote an ideological agenda.
My use of the word denier is based on the person’s interest in promoting ONLY information that denies ACC is happening.
If, in fact, there is a large increase of 2°C or more of global temp in the next 100-200 years and if that results in the dislocations and damage that many scientists have presented in peer reviewed journals, then I am sure history will link the two. They will also probably link climate deniers with proponents of Slavery, Stalinism and other people now vilified by historians and popular culture.
if none of that comes to pass, there will be no such association and climate change denier will be a badge of honor! Linked to Galileo and other scientific heroes!
Since you are so sure that this ACC is fraudulent you should be confident of your future place in history. American revolutionaries were called all sorts of things, but nobody cares about that. they fought for a cause that changed the world, and that is how they will always be known!
Suyts, you misunderstand my response. The INFLATION rate is much higher than is being reported (someone stated that food and fuel is understated in the rate and they are correct). But in order for it to show up in your TV prices, that takes time (due to manufacturers selling to price points). What is happening in some areas is that the size and features are not going up like they use to. So the price remains the same, but for old technology. That cannot remain that way forever and will eventually show up in the CPI.
But as to the statement of the food and fuel components, the CPI has long been known to be a bad indicator of true inflation. For it assumes that someone is going to be buying a house every year (hardly happens). WHile rents go up every year, people do not buy houses every year, and a majority of Americans still own a home. So with housing prices declining, it appears that inflation is flat. Yet for the purpose of Social security – who gets it? Old People. Who is most likely to own their home outright? Old People. And whose limited income goes to mostly food and fuel? old people. Any wonder they are bucking AARP and getting restless?
I agree with your posits…… sorry for the confusion.
Laughable.
Who on here is actually an honest-to-goodness climate scientist, and what are your credentials?
State yours first. Links to same would be appreciated.
Hang out, read the posts, and it will become apparent who is and who isn’t scientists. There are several that post here.
SUYTS,
he asked about climate scientists.
If we look at the “credentials” of “supposed” climate scientists, the only difference between this blog and their “credentials” is the amount of money they get from the government.
There are “NO” credentials to become a climate scientists it seems. Other than to accept and propigate anti -scientific process and procedures in order to promote a predetermined conclusion. Which makes the scientist part of the title an oxymoron.
Deniers exist.
The are out there. Poke ’em with a stick. Deniers really and truly exist.
They are not the same as skeptics.
There’s skeptics and then there’s deniers.
One can deny the overwhelming evidence that Armstrong landed on the moon.
People do that. It’s nutty but people do it. They even write books and make movies about it. They deny that the moon landings ever happened. “It’s all a hoax” they cry.
That’s an example of science denialism.
Vaccines are another one. Outbreaks of diseases that terrified people in the 19 century are now happening in the 21st century thanks to anti-vaxxers. They are deniers.
They deny the efficacy of vaccines and deny that science shows no link between childhood vaccinations and autism. In doing so, they put all children in their area at risk. They lower the ‘herd immunity’. Measles can kill. Pertussis can kill.
The anti vaxxers are not skeptics. They are deniers.
AIDS deniers exist.
They claim that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. Google “Dr Duesberg” and prepare to be horrified. Denialism is real. You can take any science topic and become a denier over it.
Skepticism is a process, not a position. Denialism is an entrenched belief in the face of the preponderance of evidence.
NASA didn’t lie to you about the moon-landings and they are not lying to you now about climate change. There is no global conspiracy of scientists covering every single scientific community on the planet trying to grab your money. Climate change is not a hoax, it’s the mainstream position held by science supported by evidence gathered the old-fashioned way.
Go to the NASA website. They spell it out in plain English.
Well now I am convinced that Manhattan really is under water.
Steve,
you really have to remember this after all I have told you at least 20 times on here. But I will explain it again. Hansen did not say Manhattan would be under water by 2008, it was a misquote on a liberal website. And you really should apologize to him for ridiculing him dozens of times for something he never said. Remember the book has the actual quote. I have read the relevant part, and the book’s quote is consistent with his other writings and public statements. the book is prominently displayed on the salon webpage and there are numerous references to the book in the article.
could you cut and paste this and have it in a sticky note or something so that you remember you can’t honestly say that any more?
Glad to be of help.
“…….held by science supported by evidence gathered the old-fashioned way.
Go to the NASA website. They spell it out in plain English.”
==========================================
Bwahahahahahaha!!! Good one! That was a twofer!
who wants to take my bet that Cedric does not last 14 more comments?
lol, oh hell, I thought he was one of us making jokes…….
Cedric, please stay around! Well, at least long enough to make 15 comments…….. 🙂
Seriously though, Cedric, you should hang out and maybe learn a bit about Hansen and GISS and their dynamic historical temps.
Start here. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/divergence-between-giss-and-hadcrut/
Cedric,
I concur with SUYTS. While I do not often agree with what is stated here, there is an awful lot to learn!
Damn,
Cedric has posted 12 comments. He really has a shot at it.
Not much of a sense of humor, but I think I like him.
Amazing, last night, we learned the scientific process can be reduced down and defined by two words….. “peer review”. Whodda thunk, all we had to do was ask Cedric!
Turns out, even as simple as this page is, it isn’t necessary. http://janus.ucc.nau.edu/gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm
Though, this might be a bit troublesome for our Cedric friend, …… “Nature’s reality is always the final judge of a scientific theory.”
Well, shoot, my reply got lost and my comment posted above here. I’ll try again. Good job on your prediction, so far, Tony! Cedric has made 13 comments by my count.
Seriously though, Cedric, you should hang out and maybe learn a bit about Hansen and GISS and their dynamic historical temps.
Why?
What’s that got to do with science denialism?
If you have an argument to make then make it.
It has nothing to do with science denialism. But then, its questionable whether Hansen and GISS are actually engaged in science.
I would point out also, that while some here may be confrontational quickly. I’m not. I’ll wait until you’re a little more clear as to what you’re stating. In the mean time, welcome.
It has nothing to do with science denialism.
Then it’s not relevant to the topic at hand.
The title of the post is “Obama Compares People Who Disagree With Him To Holocaust Deniers”.
This is not true. This is just a self-serving and misleading “interpretation”.
The phrase that was used was “climate change denier”.
People do indeed deny science.
Science deniers exist. They are real. They exist and selectively deny specific scientific positions. It’s important to identify them and label them accurately and honestly.
They deny (as opposed to being skeptical about) Germ Theory.
Calling someone a Germ Theory Denier is valid and reasonable term if that person does indeed deny the preponderance of evidence that has been gathered over the last hundred years or so.
For that person to complain that they are being compared to Holocaust Deniers is silly. It’s a dodge.
I am just not allowed to think for myself under the Soviet-Kenyan regime of Barack Obama.
Cedric, I disagree. The word “denier” in this context (as in a Climate Change “denier”) is a pejorative utilized by alarmists to draw a comparison to holocaust “deniers”. Prior to the invocation of the word “denier” in the climate change debate, it was most used and most recognized in reference to the holocaust deniers. The use of the word was deliberate and the intention was to cast skeptics in the same light as a holocaust denier.
While, as you stated, there are people who deny that we ever landed on the moon, and deny other scientific achievements, the word “denier” wasn’t most commonly associated with them. Nutjobs….and other such words, but not “denier”.
The word “denier” in this context (as in a Climate Change “denier”) is a pejorative utilized by alarmists to draw a comparison to holocaust “deniers”.
What stops a moon landing denier from using the same defence?
No. The word denialism is much older than the history of the Holocaust. One can accuse someone of being “in denial” over something without any snide reference to what happened in WW2.
Science deniers do exist. Climate deniers are not being singled out and picked on.
There’s nothing wrong with calling an anti-vaxxer a denier, for example. It’s a very accurate description.
Cedric, you almost caught my point. Yes, denialism is older than the Holocaust. Yes, there are people in denial of many things. But, neither “denialism” nor “denial” are the word denier. I am stating the word “denier” is intentionally misapplied towards skeptics. Skeptics are not deniers of any sort. Nor are there any type of “deniers” in the skeptical camp that I’m aware of. I seriously doubt that any “denier” would engage in the manner a skeptic does.
I am just not allowed to think for myself…
What stops a science denier of another topic unrelated to climate change denialism from using the same retort?
It would work perfectly for the ant-vaxxers or the moon landing deniers too.
What about that guy Wegener who believed that continents moved? The consensus said that he had no idea what he was talking about.
Cedric,
right what about Wegener, he was ignored when he was right. ignored for decades.
Just like Arrhenius was ignored for decades. Very similar stories as I have pointed out to Steve in the past. For some reason he always forgets to tell people about Arrhenius.
Cedric, while I’m quite certain there is a very small group of people that believe all science isn’t valid, that isn’t descriptive of the skeptical community regarding climate change. It is a misnomer and intentionally so.
Cedric, while I’m quite certain there is a very small group of people that believe all science isn’t valid, that isn’t descriptive of the skeptical community regarding climate change.
I’m not saying this. To be a science denier, it’s not necessary to believe that all science isn’t valid. A science denier is (e.g.) a Germ Theory denier or an Evolution denier or a Moon Landing denier.
A denier might happily accept Germ Theory yet be absolutely convinced that climate change isn’t happening and visa versa.
Or a denier will cherry-pick parts of a theory that comforts their own beliefs but reject the rest-even though all the evidence rests on the same scientific foundation.
That’s how you get antivaxxers that will mightily declaim how they are not againsts vaccinces per se, but rather they just want “Big Pharma” to create “safer” vaccines.
You can even get science deniers that will overlap with other groups.
Evolution deniers can pal around with AIDS deniers.
Moon landing deniers can pal around with 9/11 troofers.
Tobacco-Cancer deniers can just switch labels and become climate deniers overnight.
Too many people pick and choose their science the same way that they pick and choose their vegetables at the market. Science does not work that way. It’s a package deal. Either you follow the scientific process and and insist on all the peer-reviewed research (not just isolated papers) or you are just being arbitrary.
Thank you, Cedric. I was waiting on that!
“Either you follow the scientific process and and insist on all the peer-reviewed research (not just isolated papers) or you are just being arbitrary.”
First, peer-review has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific process. Try reading a book. There’s a guy here with a video that explains the scientific process. You should hang out and wait for it to be shown. I’d explain it to you, but I think you could google the damned thing if you actually chose to learn something.
Secondly, are you positing that even if a peer-reviewed study is obviously wrong, it is unscientific to reject the study? How many have to be falsified before people like you come to understand it isn’t a euphemism for truth or science?
Cedric, if that sounds harsh, it is because it was meant to be. If you’re new to the climate discussion, then you should read the comments and understand what is being stated first, before making comments as such.
If you’ve been engaged in the climate discussion and make a comment as such…….. please hang out, we need more people to make fun of. Heck, even some of our regular alarmists would make fun of that statement.
Cedric, go here. http://climateaudit.org/
The guy that runs that blog is a statistician. He has a few peer-reviewed papers that refute other peer-reviewed papers. Typically dendrochronology, but he and a few others had one on the temps of Antarctica that refuted a renowned climatologist. (O’Donnell was the lead on that one, Mac just helped.) But according to you we’re suppose to accept peer-reviewed papers……….. sure…. which ones? What about the ones that are equally alarming but contradictory? Who’s got that post that shows the several? And then there’s the list….. damn…. one link/post or it goes to moderation hell.
Lastly, Cedric, I don’t acquiesce my thinking to anyone. Here’s a great idea. Read the fckn papers and decide for yourself if its valid or not. WTF? Just because a scientist is going to say something you’re going to believe it? Jeez, we would have all been dead by now, several times over, if there was any validity to that thought. Read this idiot…… Paul Ehrlich.
IMHO the true “deniers” are those who deny the scientific method in favor of hypothetical and hopelessly flawed modeling. All to propagate their ecoreligious agenda. How appropriate the term “Go Green”… it’s really all about the cash.
What about that guy Wegener who believed that continents moved? The consensus said that he had no idea what he was talking about.
I know all about Wegener.
His story (or at least his name) is dishonestly dragged into service by other science deniers too as cover.
It’s not appropriate.
Science deniers eagerly name drop famous scientists all the time.
Wegener is used but there is also a bunch of others including Einstien, Margulis and (of course) Galileo.
Every crackpot wants to be favourably compared to Galileo (or some other bigshot) when their theories are roundly rejected by the mainstream. It’s a standard routine.
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right.
IMHO the true “deniers” are those who deny the scientific method in favor of hypothetical and hopelessly flawed modeling.
Well, if people go around denying the scientific method then that would make an excellent case for denialism. Claims of “hopelessly flawed modeling” have to be demonstrated however.
Your rhetoric is religious, the verbage of a true believer. You are not making any attempt to discuss science.
I think that has been fairly well established. I’m not aware of one model that has come close to reality in any degree of accuracy.
Typically, the scientific method includes a falsifiable theory.
Cedric,
If you came here to participate, that’s great! The more the merrier! If you came looking for some of your psuedo-science people……sorry to disappoint they’re not here. No, ghost seekers, no big foot sighters, no Nessy believers. Just skeptics. You might give realclimate a shot though…… they believe everything they’re told….. and some of the stuff they’re told are whoppers!
Cedric
SUYTS is right. At real climate they constantly talk about how the Loch ness monster is causing climate change. they are INSANE over there. Almost a total reliance on peer reviewed research. How could you possibly believe anything they say, when Steve here only uses reliable sources. like tourism magazine reporters for Kilimanjaro reglaciation, and he only misstates Hansen’s statements by 400% on an occasional basis.
bit he and others do occasionally come up with peer reviewed journals that do question certain aspects fo ACC that are not questioned on other places. this is not humanevents where when someone talks about climate change they show themselves to be ignorant of the subject. here people do often know what they are tailing about.
The tourist reporter got it right. The climate science community got it wrong. Does that trouble you? It should.
SUYTS is right. At real climate they constantly talk about how…
I get my science information from NASA.
They do the work the boring, old-fashioned way.
However, I also get my science information from the Royal Society and all the other scientific communities on the planet.
I don’t cherry pick individual scientists or individual papers or random bits of data. I don’t go anomoly hunting.
I get my science only from primary sources.
Everybody has an opinion but not all opinions are worthwhile listening to. Some opinions are utterly worthless.
Getting your science information from just anywhere is how science denialism propogates itself. Anti-vaxxers love the internet. Penn & Teller do a good job of explaining how they flourish.
“I get my science information from NASA.
They do the work the boring, old-fashioned way.”
You mean by inferring temps by extrapolation and interpolation and revising historical temps based on an unfounded algorithm? I wasn’t aware that was the old-fashion way to conduct science. One could try actual temp measurements……….. just a thought.
Tony, believe it or not, I appreciated the left-handed compliment………. though, you have to admit, Steve makes a great point.
No, ghost seekers, no big foot sighters, no Nessy believers. Just skeptics.
I doubt it.
Skepticism is a process, not a position.
Denialism is not the same as skepticism.
It’s is a very real phenomenon and it occurs across a wide variety of scientific topics. It follows very similar patterns.
ZZZZzzzzzz…………
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/obama-compares-people-who-disagree-with-him-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-52116
@suyts
April 22, 2011 at 5:24 am
But, neither “denialism” nor “denial” are the word denier.
Deniers exist. The word is a real one.
I am stating the word “denier” is intentionally misapplied towards skeptics.
Skepticism is not the same as denialism.
If a genuine skeptic doen’t want to lumped in with the denialists then you have to stop acting like them. A really good place to start is to NOT use arguments that work equally well for those others who are the “real” deniers.
“I am just not allowed to think for myself…”
That works nicely as a cheap retort in an internet argument with a Moon Landing denier.
No need to change a thing.
The word “denier” in this context (as in a Climate Change “denier”) is a pejorative utilized by alarmists to draw a comparison to holocaust “deniers”.
What stops an AIDS denier from using the same defence?
…right what about Wegener…
This is the “Galileo gambit”. Standard fare for science deniers of all stripes.
Typically, the scientific method includes a falsifiable theory.
The exact same argument is used by creationists to deny biology. It’s been done before. (I can provide sources if you like.)
I seriously doubt that any “denier” would engage in the manner a skeptic does.
Then look at how deniers operate.
Honestly look at them.
Compare the websites of anti-vaxxers to climate deniers. Look at the way they try to bolster their views in the face of mainstream science. Or look at HIV denialism that kills millions of people and how they justify their position.
They ALL grasp at the label of “skeptic’. Everybody wants to be considered a skeptic.
One more example…
Your rhetoric is religious, the verbage of a true believer. You are not making any attempt to discuss science.
Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma.
“Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma . As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”
HIV Denial in the Internet Era (Tara C. Smith*, Steven P. Novella)
I can only say it is sad to see a person acquiesce his right to free thought. Sir you do a disservice to humanity.
There isn’t a significant group of people that denied the existence of HIV/AIDS. Nor is there a significant group of people that deny we landed on the moon. There are some in both cases. Your examples of anti-vaxxers is, again, a reference to a very small minority of people. But then so too is all of your examples………. except the skeptical community of climate change. The populous is split almost in half in regards to this question and yet you persist on lump half of the world’s populace in the same category as a Holocaust denier. You state you get your information only from the best of sources! Pray tell how you came to that conclusion that these were the best of sources over other scientific organizations? Your arguments would be laughable if they weren’t so despicable.
Earlier, Tony and Steve had a brief discussion about Mt. Kilimanjaro. Tell me, what did your peer-review science say about it? What did your peer-review science say about salinity of the oceans? And best yet, what does your peer-reviewed science say about dendrochronology?
You mean by inferring temps by extrapolation and interpolation and revising historical temps based on an unfounded algorithm?
I mean that I fully accept the conclusions by NASA on climate change.
They do the work.
I don’t get my science from “some guy on the internet”.
If you have discovered something that overturns the conclusions made by all the scientific communities on the planet-then enter the scientific arena and claim your Nobel prize. Anything else is just banter that sits comfortably with any internet discussion with a Moon Landing Denier.
Enter the scientific arena.
Yeh, I have, its called reality.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/rss-going-negative/
Now reconcile that with this……. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend
“Enter the scientific arena.”
I engage it often…… my advice to you is to stay out of it. You’re not properly equipped.
lol, I don’t have to refute it. Reality does every day. And when one thinks of it in a proper manner, or reads our exchange, it is quite clear who is the denier and who is not.
Cedric, its late, and I have have to call it a night. I would like to thank you for your time and your willingness to take an intellectual beating, but you’re probably used to it by now. I would encourage you to make it a habit of coming here and contributing to our conversations. It was a fun divergence from our more serious conversations.
Thanks again,
James
Steve,
So then you admit you are engaged in fraud when you constantly ridicule Hansen for things he never says?
of course the IPCC admitted the mistake and every climate scientist disavowed it, and it was done in a very public manner. Unlike your response to being shown you were wrong about something that you hyped over and over again on your blog, and refuse to make a disavowal of now
Himalayan glaciers will not be gone by 2035
Cedric,
Wow, body blow by STEVE there!. Come on you can’t deny the dozens of scientific papers that you are so fond of that detailed the Glaciers would be gone by 2035 can you?
Really? there were NO peer reviewed science that said that. Funny, fro
m reading Steve’s blog you might get the impression that it was settled science they would be gone!
Yes Tony, it is amazing that the IPCC could publish something without any scientific backing with the intent of influencing all of the governments on the planet. That is called fraud.
First, peer-review has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific process.
All modern science fields go through the process of peer-review.
Science deniers, contrarians, creationists and cranks all regularly fail the process of peer-review.
Try reading a book.
Any crank can read a book to sell snake-oil to a gullible public. It’s a very poor methodology. There’s no standards. No quality control.
There’s a guy here with a video…
I’m sure there is. The internet is full of them.
Secondly, are you positing that even if a peer-reviewed study is obviously wrong, it is unscientific to reject the study?
No.
You are creating a strawman.
I said that ” It’s a package deal. Either you follow the scientific process and and insist on all the peer-reviewed research (not just isolated papers) or you are just being arbitrary.”
You can’t get from there to honestly suggesting that if a scientific study is wrong it’s unscientific to reject it. It’s a strawman.
Cedric, go here. (blog address) The guy that runs that blog is a statistician.
I don’t care. I don’t get my science from some guy on the internet-even if he really is a statistician. I don’t get my information on AIDS from Dr Duesberg either for the same reason.
He has a few peer-reviewed papers that refute other peer-reviewed papers.
Yep. So has Dr Duesburg.
But according to you we’re suppose to accept peer-reviewed papers……….. sure…. which ones?
All of them. They all get a fair hearing. They all get to to be examined by their peers.
If they flourish and are cited and built upon and actively used by others in the field then the author should be duly rewarded and could be in line for a Nobel prize.
If the paper is trashed and withers on the vine then that’s just too bad.
Lastly, Cedric, I don’t acquiesce my thinking to anyone.
Not asking you to. This is about denialism. You are building a strawman.
Here’s a great idea. Read the fckn papers and decide for yourself if its valid or not.
Not physically possible. There are countless thousands of papers out there on all kinds of scientific topics. The papers are written by specialists for specialists. AIDS deniers read scientific papers on AIDS all the time and get themselves totally confused but magnificently convinced they are right. Creationists do the same thing and end up with a dog’s breakfast.
WTF? Just because a scientist is going to say something you’re going to believe it?
No. This a strawman.
A scientist is not a priest or prophet. Scientists work for a living.
Science does not work the same way as religion.
They publish their discoveries and get their peers to critically examine it.
Peer-review stymies the many cranks out there.
“Experts” vs scientists and peer-review
I can only say it is sad to see a person acquiesce his right to free thought. Sir you do a disservice to humanity.
What stops an AIDS denier from saying the same thing?
There isn’t a significant group of people that denied the existence of HIV/AIDS. Nor is there a significant group of people that deny we landed on the moon. There are some in both cases. Your examples of anti-vaxxers is, again, a reference to a very small minority of people.
You cannot judge the validity of a scientific position based upon how many people subscribe (or don’t subscribe) to it.
That’s an “argument ad populam”.
AIDS deniers can become policy makers in government and end up causing untold misery and death to countless thousands of people. South Africa is a tragic case in point. Anti-vaxxers could be living in your very own hometown. Their very presence and the presence of their children in your community can be the catalyst needed to create an outbreak. They are not going away. And they get their information the same way you do. Books, videos and the beloved internet.
But then so too is all of your examples………. except the skeptical community of climate change. The populous is split almost in half in regards to this question…
Argument ad populum. Science is the study of reality. It’s not up to a vote in a popularity contest. Creationists can churn up large numbers too.
…and yet you persist on lump half of the world’s populace in the same category as a Holocaust denier. You state you get your information only from the best of sources!
No, you have a vested interest in using “they are calling me a holocaust denier” as a defensive shield and to garner sympathy.
You paint yourself as a skeptic but your statements are standard denier noise.
…and yet you persist on lump half of the world’s populace in the same category as a Holocaust denier. You state you get your information only from the best of sources!
One of those sources is most definitely not what “the world’s population” thinks. I don’t care what “they” think. “They” are usually ignorant.
Ignorance is easy. Science is hard.
I only get my science from the scientific community.
That’s what smart, educated people do.
The scientists do the work. They put boots on the ground.
NASA is a good example but I don’t just get my science just from them. I’m happy to get my science from all the scientific communities on the planet. All of them.
No cherry picking allowed.
Enter the scientific arena.
Yeh, I have, its called reality.
Science is the study of reality. If you consider yourself to be a fine opera singer then don’t waste your time singing in the shower.
Enter the scientific arena. Write up a paper. Submit it to specialists in the field. What do you have to be afraid of?
I engage it often…… my advice to you is to stay out of it. You’re not properly equipped.
Then you may confidently look forward to you Nobel Prize any time now.
lol, I don’t have to refute it. Reality does every day. And when one thinks of it in a proper manner, or reads our exchange, it is quite clear who is the denier and who is not.
Not that an AIDS denier or creationist or anti-vaxxer would say anything similar at the end of an internet thread.
(shrug)
lol,
I said that ” It’s a package deal. Either you follow the scientific process and and insist on all the peer-reviewed research (not just isolated papers) or you are just being arbitrary.”
Then, “Not physically possible. There are countless thousands of papers out there on all kinds of scientific topics.”
Rather circular, wouldn’t you say?
Also, Hansen is going to be disappointed by your reliance upon peer-review. Do you know who Hansen is? That’s that NASA guy that heads their climate study group. You know the guys that do the science the old fashion way………..
Here’s a bit of science from big Jim……. its pretty much on par for an alarmist. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
The problem is, it isn’t peer-reviewed. So, now which is it? I forget. NASA does science best, all modern science is based on peer-review. Cranks are arbitrary. Using your arguments, one has to be arbitrary. Either Hansen’s thoughts on this paper are either valid or invalid.
BTW, your entire argument is circular and uses statements that can easily be turn against your points as well as for your points. But again, I’ll reassert, there are no ghost seekers, no big foot sighters, no Nessy believers. Just skeptics here, some alarmists, (which are welcomed by many here) and a strange fellow that insists on inventing parallels between climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers and the like when there are none.
BTW, I look forward to your nomination of me for my prizes. That’s 2 in 2 days for this site! And we’re not even behind a pay-wall!
More on Barry…
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/04/obamas-make-believe-life.html
Al,
That was an AMAZING read. Bill ayers wrote Barry’s books, and he can’t string two sentences together without a teleprompter. His mission is to destroy America and to facilitate islamist takeover of the west.
and the blog is called “factnotfantasy” someone to tell Alan he switched those two words!
Thanks for the nice morning laugh Al. I didn’t know you had such a sense of humor
Amazing, last night, we learned the scientific process can be reduced down and defined by two words….. “peer review”. Whodda thunk, all we had to do was ask Cedric!
Turns out, even as simple as this page is, it isn’t necessary. http://janus.ucc.nau.edu/gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm
Though, this might be a bit troublesome for our Cedric friend, …… “Nature’s reality is always the final judge of a scientific theory.”
In climate science, if the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis, revise the observations.
Yes, even it it means revising data that is decades old. As long as it makes the “message” more clear, then it is perfectly acceptable….in climate science.
Oh, and make sure you disappear the raw data/observations when you do this because it could make communicating the “message” effectively inconveniently challanging.
Yeh, they almost got it right. (Maxwell Smart voice) Missed it by that, much”!
SUYTS
THAT was funny!
If your science is rockets and space, that is an excellent (albeit not exclusive) place to get your science (caution: Google Maxime Faget on why you should NOT trust them exclusively – specifically the Challenger disaster). If you want to get the truth on potatoes, I would strongly urge getting your data from someplace else.
So what does your response have to do with the weather?
Damn,
Did we lose Cedric?
He only needed 3 more comments to win the prize!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/obama-compares-people-who-disagree-with-him-to-holocaust-deniers/#comment-52188
I may have counted wrong…… co-workers kept bothering me while I was trying to do something!! lol
Its a weird reaction. I don’t mind being insulted, but I mind the people here being insulted. I mean sure there are jousts here, but to have some peckerhead compare the people here to moon landing denialists kinda torqued me. That Closure guy elicited a similar response by inferring we weren’t well read. (Even though his arguments were a bit more cerebral than this Cedric character.)
AFTER they were ridiculed and lambasted! But not before being reviewed by “2500 scientists from the world over”. Sorry, that does not pass the sniff test. Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking – not when the whole world is laughing at you.
Yes, Phil,
2500 scientists read that the Glaciers would melt by 2035 and rubbed their hands in glee sure that the public would not notice their lie. it was in the emails that Jones had everyone delete.
But would you mind posting the link to ANY scientist on the IPCC that said that date was accurate? I don’t think even Pauchauri in his foolish knee jerk denial of a problem ever actually said that.
And I actually credit Spencer and Christi for acknowledging that that their initial numbers for temp were wrong, I don’t attack them for it. they are scientists and have to deal with other scientists.
Again you try to create a straw man and tar me so as to belittle my statements. Just like a warmist/alarmist does. But for the more educated among us, they will see, I never said 2500 BELIEVED it. So why would I post a link to your strawman?
I did state what the IPCC has stated about their vaunted publication. Which as we know given the thousands of PR sources used INSTEAD of peer review papers, that it is not fit to wipe your arse with. But go ahead with your lies and obfuscation. My opinion of you has fallen given that you are now trying to put words into my mouth (twice so far today) just to weasel out of errors you made.
Phil,
I honestly did not mean to insult you, (any more than I normally do anyone here), and I certainly do not mean it personally. I frankly don’t understand what you are upset about. You wrote “after being reviewed by 2500 scientists” and I took that to mean that you were dismissing all the scientists who were involved in the IPCC report. I responded with what I consider appropriate sarcasm.
I am unaware and you did not specify any errors I have made. Please point them out to me and I will correct them.
My point is that this himilayan glacier was a minor mistake, that was so clearly wrong that NO scientist could possibly support it. It was not a media issue until the mistake was pointed out. Yet the denier/skeptic blogosphere turned it into a huge issue. In my book it was an obvious mistake , it was corrected VERY publicly, and it had no basis in science. There have been quite a few reviews of the IPCC and all of them have found some fault, but all have stated that the vast majority of the science is supported in the report.
there were not thousands of PR sources used instead of peer review. both were used. And as far as I understand there have only been other minor disputes about specific issues, such as the Amazon susceptibility to drought, which has peer reviewed support, African harvest issues, which also have peer review support, and a misstatement of Dutch areas under sea level. All of these have been addressed, along with a number of other factors including relevant policies regarding the structure of the (all volunteer organization) and procedures for determining submission and review of information. Whether these are implemented bears scrutiny.
Tony, you are not a warmist (by your own admission), yet you do seem to act like them at times. You see, no one can question them lest they be labeled a denier. Yet I have never stated (please read all my my writings, even follow my blog if you wish) that ACC is fraudulent. I have stated those pushing it are. BIG DIFFERENCE. For you see, I believe in the scientific method. So I want to know the truth, not be force fed lies.
So your sarcasm merely points out your own hypocrisy, not any on my part. You apparently are the one who thinks that disagreement means heresey. I believe it promotes better understanding and increases knowledge. And I for one am Glad that we have had Galileos and Copernicus’. I am sure that there will be no more should the warmists (or alarmists – you missed that one) hold sway. Just prison cells full of people asking simple questions.
Phil,
I have no problem with disagreement. in fact I welcome it,. As long as it is based on real issues. to me the Himalayan glacier is a false issue and used purely to create a false image of climate science.
I am gald to see that you do not expressly state that ACC if fraudulent. I do believe that the issue has become so politicized that there are political and emotions motivations for some scientists to be attached to the idea, but. as I have said repeatedly, i KNOW actual climate scientists and have had discussions with them. NONE are interested in being fraudulent, and none are trying to use climate science to promote a socialist agenda. ALL the ones I know are quite open to science that would put into question elements supporting ACC. They honestly do not believe there is much that does. I have discussed with a couple what the pieces would be that would cause them to question some of their conclusions and they are very specific. I know of absolutely no one that advocates cutting off debate about any scientific issue, as long as they are genuine arguments. they do consider people who deny the greenhouse effect to have no basis in reality, and I know of no “skeptic” or “denier” climate scientist who disagrees. From Pat Michaels, to Lindzen to Christie to Spencer to Pilke, all agree that increasing CO2 is a forcing that leads to increasing temperatures. the ONLY arguments are whether the parameters are accurate and/or there are homeostatic factors that are unknown or not properly attributed.
Also I have never said WHAT I believe, no one has ever asked me. Certainly many people would consider me a warmest, but I do consider myself a skeptic.
As for integrity and the sniff test. I do believe that if there had been no huge brouhaha form the rightwing blogoshphere about the Himilayan glaciers, it would have been corrected ultimately, because , as i have stated, there is not a shred of peer reviewed literature that supports it, and no glaciologist would ever consider such a possibility. Certainly not in 2006 or 7. It could never have been publicized just for that reason. If it had been, glaciologist would have been asked about it and there is just no evidentiary basis for supporting such a claim.
You keep harping on that problem as if to sidetrack others from the numerous other errors and outright lies in AR4. Why? because that is the only one Pachuri has admitted to? Yet we know of many more due to the diligence of bloggers (who I guess you would call luke warmers). One thing we all have in common -is an abhoration of BAD science – which AR4 truly is. But “bad” science does not mean wrong. However to make it right does require correcting the “bad” part, and that is what most of your friends seem to be remiss to take on (Judith Curry is a notable exception).
no, those are but a few of the arguments. And that is the problem. That CO2 can be a warming gas in the right combination is not in debate. What is causing the warming, and how each affects the total is. The data is against them. and the “forcing” and “tricks” are not meant to expand the knowledge, but to shut off debate. Sorry, that is still bad science. period.
You have stated several times what you are NOT. So I took you at your word and merely repeated what you have written.
@ syuts
I said that ” It’s a package deal. Either you follow the scientific process and and insist on all the peer-reviewed research (not just isolated papers) or you are just being arbitrary.”
Then, “Not physically possible. There are countless thousands of papers out there on all kinds of scientific topics.”
Rather circular, wouldn’t you say?
No, not at all. Read the rest of it…
“Not physically possible. There are countless thousands of papers out there on all kinds of scientific topics. The papers are written by specialists FOR specialists. AIDS deniers read scientific papers on AIDS all the time and get themselves totally confused but magnificently convinced they are right. Creationists do the same thing and end up with a dog’s breakfast.”
Also, Hansen is going…
No, we’ve done this already.
“I mean that I fully accept the conclusions by NASA on climate change.
They do the work.
I don’t get my science from “some guy on the internet”.
(…)
“I don’t care. I don’t get my science from some guy on the internet-even if he really is a statistician. I don’t get my information on AIDS from Dr Duesberg either for the same reason.”
The same goes for any individual, whether they work or used to work for NASA or not.
Science is not about individual personalities. There are no prophets in science. It’s a collaborative effort. Climatology, just like biology or astronomy relies upon the work done by countless thousands of scientists out there and multiple, different lines of research.
“NASA does science best, all modern science is based on peer-review. Cranks are arbitrary. Using your arguments, one has to be arbitrary. Either Hansen’s thoughts on this paper are either valid or invalid.”
No, you are creating a strawman. Again.
What scientific community does science better than NASA? There are very few contenders out there. Yet I am happy to accept them all. They are all in agreement.
What field of modern science is not based on peer-review? I don’t have double standards. Everybody has to jump through the same hoops. No exceptions allowed.
BTW, your entire argument is circular and uses statements that can easily be turn against your points as well as for your points.
Imagine how much more powerful your assertion would be if you could actually provide examples.
Just skeptics here, some alarmists…
It’s not enought to claim to be a skeptic. You must behave like one.
So far, you are using arguments that work perfectly well for any denier out there.
No need to change a thing.
Amazing, last night, we learned the scientific process can be reduced down and defined by two words….. “peer review”. Whodda thunk, all we had to do was ask Cedric!
This is a case in point…
All science deniers denigrate the process of peer-review because they cannot compete fairly in such an arena. HIV deniers do the same thing.
@ PhilJourdan
No. The word denialism is much older than the history of the Holocaust.
The Swasticka is older than the holocaust too – but just try planting one in front of a Jewish Temple (as an added bonus, it was once a Jewish symbol as well, but predates their use of it).
You are drawing a false analogy. Calling those that deny science “science deniers” is fair and appropriate. The use of the Swasticka as religious imagery in a traditional religious setting culturally unrelated to the Nazis is also fair and appropriate. The Jewish community doesn’t have a problem with that and neither should you.
Your defence works equally well for HIV deniers and the anti-vaxxers and the moon landing deniers.
Deniers exist. They are real. They threaten your personal quality of life and they threaten the health of your local community.
NASA is not lying to you about the moon landings and they are not lying to you about climate change.
If your science is rockets and space, that is an excellent (albeit not exclusive) place to get your science…
Yes, but they don’t launch those rockets to make pretty coloured lights in the sky.
They do it to launch satellites. Satellites help us understand climate change.
NASA was a pioneer in the study of the Earth’s climate even during the Cold War.
They’ve been leading the pack ever since.
You can deny the conclusions that NASA has on the issue of climate change.
You can deny the conclusions that all other scientific communities have on the issue of climate change (the AAAS, NAS, British Antarctic Survey, USGS, RMET, Royal Society, AGU, and all the rest on the planet).
You can deny them all.
Yet you have to have a very good reason that does not make you sound like a science denier rather than a skeptic.
Unfortunately you do not understand what an analogy is. My analogy is very appropriate and to the point. You just are trying to end the discussion by using perjorative terms so as to discredit the messenger instead of debate the message. That shows a lack on your part, not on the part of the others here.
And you are right that NASA knows a lot about WEATHER, but you seem to not know the difference between weather and CLIMATE. And I take it you did not do your homework or you would not have rambled on in an incoherrant way.