"Time for climate change deniers to get real" Anyone using that epithet deliberately does so without basis in fact or reason, and against good judgement and purposeful use of language. Why AGW alarmists and environmental catastrophists resort to such mantras for propaganda purposes has nothing to do with climate at all, since it rather nakedly weakens their credibility in the public square and in forums such as this.
First you say this: Then you say this: So shall we apply your logic to yourself? Political hubub aside, how is 'climate change deniers' an epithet? And how would you prefer to describe someone who denies that humans could be causing climate change? Equally - do you have a valid scientific argument that negates 150 odd years of classical physics and quantum mechanics? Both of which support the fundamental tenants of Anthropogenic climate change. What, precisely, is the basis of your argument? Do you accept the 'greenhouse effect' at any level? I've expounded on the basic physics, and the history of the science, at length elsewhere, and I'm fairly sure I have yet to see a valid criticism.
Hello, It was only an observation. The very term "climate change denier" is imprecise and overly abused, and appears quite nakedly to be the predictable evolution of the most popular slur in Western Culture since the term "atheist" lost it's bite several decades ago. (1)(2) One can easily suppose that this is so because "AIDS Dissident" or "Climate Realist" or "Scientific Revisionist" do not have nearly the same sociopolitical stigma as "holocaust denier," but it is wrong for exactly the same reasons that Al Gore (et al, hence) was wrong to invoke any similarity between climate research investigation and "flat earthers" and "moon landing hoaxers" in testimony before the U.S. Congress in December, 2008. Such blatant hyperbole plays into the hands of Mr. Gore's adversaries. One has to see this, plainly, and by stark contrast- that an "alarmist" is one who displays the tendencies of alarmism while a "catastrophist" is a believer in catastrophism; which are indeed mild descriptions comparatively, and much more accurate, and innocuous, memetically. It is my opinion that the main difference between alarmism and catastrophism is the degree of evidence or belief on which they rely. If you are either one, good for you; be open and proud of it, since at least you won't be thrown into the proverbial lion's den by other people like yourself, along with "them anti-semites." *grin* I have some respect for the alarmists since their fears are at least partially grounded in fact; but none for the extremists and/or "believers" who are pushing a political, economic, or theological agenda, for (to reiterate my point of view) it is people in organizations like those who do us all the most harm, needlessly. That makes me a moderate, but only by default; though some persons prefer the label of skeptic, I do not- because it is the very essence of the Scientific Method to be objective and skeptical. Explained above to your satisfaction, hopefully. Entire books have been written on this, and careers furthered; on, with, and by- the selective use of "viral" language and slogans for different agendas. I don't know anyone who does, who has considered it seriously. Do you? I make no claims that defy physics, where did that come from? One need not waste good compound fallacies or suspicions my way. From what I personally understand, so far, there are good reasons not to be alarmed about Human contributions to CO2 levels; concern, yes, but alarm, no. We are presently at about 385 ppm of CO2 right now, with normalized global temperatures roughly that of the Medieval Warm Period. Those are facts which I assume we might agree upon. If- or When there is any credible evidence for unabated, runaway positive feedback loops of ANY cause whatsoever, my descendants will confront it with the Science and Technology of their time, which, with care, will be vastly improved over that of today. I haven't read your authorship exhaustively, but if anyone is in a position to provide such criticism, others are likely closer to it than I, and I do hope that we would read it with eager surprise. Cheers "The good news is that Optimism is alive... the bad news is that it is on Life Support"
All I see here is predictable political rhetoric, and the anticipated comparison with holocaust denial (incidentaly, I'm not actually interested in anything Al Gore has to say on the issue). Here you yourself appear to be making a compound fallacy. You object to the socio-political overtones of the label 'denier' (by association with the holocaust), I object to the associations with the entrapments of religion and terrorism implied by the terms 'believers' and 'extremists', and the connotations of the word 'alarmist'. I disagree. A moderate would be someone who has yet to make up their mind. No, because one definition of denial is "the act of asserting that something alleged is not true" It is alleged that climate change is being caused by humans, you assert that it isn't true, QED your position is one of denial. In plain and simple english, it is an accurate description and there is no reason for it not to be applied without resorting to politics. Yes, actually, I do. I know a number of well educated people, many of whom are involved in primary research on the matter (but not directly associated with HCRU Or NASA/Goddard) who accept it as a matter of fact because of the results of their research and the raw data they have collected. But congratulations on sidestepping the issue. I come now, I was merely asking you to clarify your position. In my years on the internet discussing this issue I have, broadly speaking, come across two groups of climate change deniers, the first group are, broadly speaking, those that allege that the greenhouse effect is unproven or false, and so there is nothing to worry about, and those that do not believe that humans can have a substantial enough impact on the environment. The first position is one that defies basic laws of physics. The position of promulgating alarm is one I have often been accused of by people who have failed to understand what my position actually is. I'm genuinely disappointed that you bought the medieval warm period into this. The medieval warm period was an anomaly, one that was both preceeded and folllowed by glacial expansion. The allegation that it was globally as warm as today is also misleading, especially when there is evidence that some areas were colder than they are today, and that many areas while anomalously warm for that time, were not as warm as they are today (i'll try and fish around for some links when I have time if you really want me to). I have always been of the personal opinion that the MWP was probably related to the ENSO cycle, and I have recently seen some evidence to support this (again, I lack time to provide links, but can later if required). For me one of the things that suggested this was that it seemed to roughly coincide with the series of mega el ninos that hit south america. Oh - and then there's the fact that the Medieval warm period was itself punctuated with a period of glacial expansion, and in some locations was anomalously wet or dry, rather than warm or cold. Probably. However I should point out the fact that that feedback loops (both positive and negative) exist is a simple matter of physics and chemistry. Most of what I have done (or tried to do, seemingly in vain) is explain the physics, chemistry, maths, and history behind the idea that humans might be able to cause climate change. Interestingly, in his 198(2?) paper that he published on the matter, Hansen, in a sense, predicted this debate, he predicted that by around 2010, if humans are causing climate change, then the effects might be barely distinguishable from background noise at the 2σ level.
Mhmm, Hello Heh- If that is all you really see, would it be logical to object blindly and at length, while partially agreeing with me? No, that was a statement of personal values; it is hardly unreasonable or fallacious to prefer objectivity to hysteria, and fact to notion. For numerous sound reasons, and for which multiple additional references were given. Then offer more precise terms for the distinction between "fact based concern" versus "faith-based ideology" or deal with mine. One is more dangerous than the other, whether one likes it or not, and there are countless historical examples. Then your interpretation of the word would deviate drastically from that of conventional language. Considering what you wrote next, it seems to have been only short-term selectivity; of conversational convenience. Which is correct, and precisely why it is inapplicable to anyone who has studied the topic seriously or scientifically. To clarify, it is alleged that present-day Global Warming is being caused by Humans, but even that statement is only partially correct; since climate changes must have always occurred (cyclical warming and cooling) on Earth and elsewhere in the Solar System. Specific Human activities (AGW) seem to well-account for some part of the observed recent warming phenomenon on Earth; but precisely how much this really is and what should actually be done about it is still rather unsettled. Providing clearer descriptions of a problem or observation is how science works. Rational people know this; it ain't "denial." One thing is stark nakedly clear, that totalitarian politics and the monopolization of economic wealth, media outlets, and land and other resources are not solutions- nor even pieces of a credible solution to climate change-- since those phenomena suppress the virtues of freedom, diversity and evolution, vital to Human existence. Cheap sarcasm usually comes at a heavy price to the author. If you didn't like my answer, or its implications, tough. Thanks for sharing, but I suggest that personal taxa aren't worth much weighed against good facts or reasoning. Ditto "denial." See above. Try to contain your disappointment. I will too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Occur, not "exist"- it is a matter of precision. It is a fact that we do, did, and will likely influence climate wherever we dwell. Cheers
Yes, because 'can mean that' is very different from 'always means that'. Take the word 'Retarded', for example, when used in one context it has a valid application, when used in another context it has unpleasant connotations that have all to often been used in a dergoatory manner. Your objection is one, purely and simply, based in politics. To assert that because some people might have used it as an epithet, that everybody who uses it is using it as an apithet is as much a logical fallacy as arguing that because dogs have four legs, a tale, and fur, they must be cats. Being a statement of personal values does not preclude it from being a fallacy. I disagree. I have, however you wouldn't know that given that you yourself have stated that you have made no effort to familiarize yourself with what I have actually had to say on the topic. I have no interest in faith-based ideology, nor do I consider my position to be one of faith based ideology. I disagree, for a number of reasons, but I have no interest in getting into them, or pursuing this thread of this discussion with you further (IE what I consider to be a moderate). :Sigh: Insults already? Wrong. Someone who has studied the matter seriously, scientifially, and come to the conclusion that modern climate change is not being caused by humans is still asserting that the original allegation - AGW, is untrue and is therefore denying it. Inspite of what you appear to be endeavouring to imply, denial can be based in fact as easily as it can be belief. For example, I couldn't care less if you were to start calling me a 'Flat Earth Denier' or a 'Phlogiston denier', because I freely admit to denying on the basis of evidence I have been presented with that the earth is flat and that phlogiston exists. Semantics, we both know what we're talking about, the topic is sufficiently well defined. Show me again where I claimed that discussion was the same thing as denial? Oh wait, I didn't, and I haven't. Nor do I routinely refer to any but a very few posters as being denialists, and those that I do refer to in that way have generally earned the title through their own efforts and assertions. Did you even stop to consider, just once, that if you fall into the class of cautious skeptics, those whom you might refer to as moderates, that might accept the need for some degree of caution, and accept some, but not neccessarily all of the results, but question the scenarios... Then this thread, or thread title might not actually be directed at you? That in the context that it's being used, and in the context of discussions on the topic that have been had on sciforums, that the term is generally applied to people with far more extreme views than yourself (for example, Buffalo Roam). I can honestly say that I have never actually voiced support for the redistribution of wealth and or property as a solution. Your answer, as near as I can see was one of ignorance, and in and of itself came across as both beligerent and sarcastic. The simple fact of the matter is that your answer is demonstrably wrong. :Yawn: Are you this obnoxious in every discussion? I was simply clarifying my comments. If you didn't like my clarification or its implications. Tough. Fighting facts with rhetoric? In this instance it's an irrelevant distinction because they can be shown to both exist and occur in nature. But once again, I see you're resorting to semantics in an apparent effort to try and sidetrack the argument. This I can and will agree with.
I don't think many people deny climate change. It is what climates do. Given the skeptical mood of populations who are constantly faced with fearful situations and the modern mantra of experts after an event (We did not see it coming)... and the tendency to down load risk and blame onto consumers - even though everything is approved before release... confused the issues terribly. I think the issue of global warming - a climate change event... was sadly... hijacked by political/industrial interests who immediately changed the issue to a taxation opportunity and focus. Anecdotally, populations are not experiencing warming (it was a bad label choice for the event... they should have left the door open with climate change?) With further disarray from the scientific community and mass confusion amongst them... I am afraid the issue has been trivialized and now demon-ized. The human population is certainly some sort of factor... but "how much" is the debate perhaps.
Time for climage change deniers to get real The deniers do not realize that we are not in good hands with Oilstate do they? :shrug:
Well, Jupiter has lost a belt! That's a big change in our little cluster. [won't let me post link] but it is out there. It makes me wonder if the doings about extreme earth changes are not somewhat universal, if not in kind then at least in causal motivations? I counted 12 distinct discoveries about our solar system in the past few months... might be time to retool the models with some recent variables... Or something like that :shrug:
Perhaps this bold analogy will complement your final volley: "Time for Climate Change Retards to get real." You may not maintain how wrong or insulting such an abduction is and still disagree hostilely with the point of my third post in this thread, because Semantics (semes, actually) have tremendous utility and importance; they are among the Five Components of Grammar, and are among the primary vehicles for communication of Human memes across populations and generations, and the very contextual meanings of words, and the foundation of all lexicography. A point you seem willing to draft but not fully employ, compulsorily. The rest cheerfully ignored for your benefit and my convenience. Ciao~ ... Readers of this thread might find these two points gravitational and illuminating: There are no facts without rhetoric, for rhetoric is not simply "how we say what we say"- it is also how we know what we know. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Dr. Carl Sagan
You're arguments amount to little more than "See this part of this statement contradicts that part of that statement" without stopping to consider alternatives or context. You're mis-representing what I said When you're willing to discuss science, get back to me. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you, but stand by my original point, that use of the word 'denier' is accurate, and grammaticaly correct, and that your objections are nothing more than political machinations that amount to "See, they're trying to discredit us by associating us with holocaust deniers oh woe is me" without stopping to consider the point that maybe the lable was never being applied to people who share the position you claim to hold in the first place.
@Walking Owl: Hello, I appreciate your levity. Thanks. Isn't it interesting how we agree that many people really do not deny climate change at all (I go so far as to say "no rational person who has looked at the subject"), yet here it is again and again in this very thread, including the title, and the latest reply from Dredd? I suggest that such usage of the label "denier" is prima facie evidence for my first point that it amounts to a term which only valuable as propaganda since it is not a rational point of view, nor even accurate. We can all speculate that it is a label which some persons might wear as a badge of honor in this hotly debated topic; there may even be a few who relish it, like some AIDS Dissidents, or "Anti-Theist" atheists, but I suggest that this is one phenomenon which needs no hyperbole, exaggeration, or "official" platitudes. ... @Dredd: Hello. Who are the "deniers" to whom you refer? People like Will Happer? Freeman Dyson? Kiminori Itoh? Pat Michaels? lol- Robert Redford?? You must have some names handy, else (like my adversaries) you oppose a concept; an artificial construct; a sock puppet; a straw man. And how is it logical, rational, or productive to attack people, rather than their ideas? Thanks
