Don't let denial get in the way of a good science story

Feb 03, 2014 by Ian Lowe, The Conversation
Dealing with those in denial of science. Credit: Flickr/carfreedc

There was a time when science was seen as a body secure knowledge, given credibility by the scientific method and peer review.

Back in the 1970s when I was a young lecturer, the task communicating to the general public was straightforward, at least in principle. I had to understand the science well enough to explain it clearly and simply, then craft that explanation.

There was still the problem of suspicion and hostility within the .

When Barry Jones was Minister for Science in the 1980s he observed that in the lexicon of scientific abuse, "populariser" ranked just above "child molester"!

There was a feeling that you were letting the side down by explaining the science in terms that were accessible to the general public, in the same spirit as magicians giving away the secrets of their craft.

Some scientists clearly wanted to maintain their community esteem by demonstrating that they understood principles which were a mystery to the general public.

Limits of knowledge

Those views are less frequently observed today, with a growing acceptance that the public has a right to know what they are supporting. Even if those who pay the piper don't call the tune, they should at least hear the music!

At the same time, we have become more realistic about the limits of scientific knowledge. We now recognise science as a process of successive approximations to an understanding that will always have limitations and uncertainties: "islands of understanding in an endless sea of mystery", as the distinguished biologist David Ehrenfeld expressed in his book Swimming Lessons: Keeping Afloat in the Age of Technology.

This is most obviously true in the broad area of our engagement with natural ecological systems, where controlled experiments are often not possible, where we can't measure all of the relevant variables and where we can't be objective observers even in principle. We are part of the system we are analysing.

So communication demands a responsibility to distinguish between what is known with confidence, what is thought probable but uncertain, and what remains unknown (or, in extreme cases, unknowable).

Climate science

Ian Lowe (centre) in the 1970s. Credit: Andrew Spackman

Taking the example of , 25 years ago it was known that was increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, as outlined in the CSIRO's Greenhouse: Preparing for Climate Change, edited by Graeme Pearman.

It was also known that the climate was changing, with a warming trend superimposed on the year-to-year fluctuations, but most scientists were cautiously saying that it was not possible at that time to be confident that human activity was the cause of the changing climate.

With an enormous amount of detailed scientific work since then, it is now clear that there is a causal link. The number of credible climate scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, who dispute that can now literally be counted on the fingers of one hand.

But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in .

Trans-science

Several decades ago, the US nuclear scientist Alvin Weinberg pointed out that there is a class of problems which he called "trans-science". These are couched in the language of science, they clearly require scientific analysis, but it is impossible to give an answer that meets the standards of science.

He cited as examples the operating safety of nuclear reactors and the impact on humans of low levels of ionising radiation. While it might be possible eventually to collect enough data to give credible answers to those questions, Weinberg said, at that time they were unknowable.

He argued that scientists have a responsibility to be clear about what we do not know, rather than claiming to always have the answer.

Denial of science

While our limited knowledge is an issue, a greater challenge now is the backlash against science from those whose interests or ideology are threatened.

Denial of global environmental problems such as , of peak oil and limits to growth generally, is now a serious issue.

Some get the message. Credit: Flickr/Takver

So is the denial of science in more modest areas: claimed health problems from wind turbines, claimed sensitivity to radio-frequency radiation, resistance to vaccination, claims that cattle grazing in alpine areas reduces fire risk and so on.

In all of these fields, those denying the inconvenient truths attributed to science resort to personal abuse, unsubstantiated assertions, cherry-picking of data, misquoting of respectable scientists or distorting their views by quoting out of context, and repeating claims that have been systematically refuted.

Leading such as David Karoly have become so exasperated by these tactics they will no longer debate the science with deniers.

While only peer-reviewed science reaches the journals, any unqualified person can express their opinion in a blog, on a web site or in the commercial media.

Syndicated columnists such as Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt are examples, regularly expressing their unqualified opinions for the Murdoch press and labelling those who understand the science as "warmists", as if we are members of an obscure religious sect.

Getting the right message out

Science communicators have a responsibility to counter this tsunami of misinformation and facilitate community understanding of these important issues. At the very least, we are taking huge risks by ignoring these problems.

More probably, we are actually making choices that are reducing our chance of a "smooth landing" in a future arrangement that could be sustainable and increasing the risk of serious disruption.

Even accepting the limitations of and the human failings of individual scientists, science still gives us a much better chance of a desirable future – just as it has given us a much more desirable present.

Explore further: Where is the proof in pseudoscience?

More information: Ian Lowe is the keynote speaker at the Australian Science Communicators 2014 conference. This is an edited version of his speech today.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What motivates rejection of (climate) science?

Aug 23, 2012

(Medical Xpress)—Researchers from The University of Western Australia have examined what motivates people who are greatly involved in the climate debate to reject scientific evidence.

Recommended for you

India court slams Delhi's worsening air pollution

2 hours ago

India's environment court has slammed the government over the capital's horrendous air pollution, which it said was "getting worse" every day, and ordered a string of measures to bring it down.

US proposes stricter ozone limits

13 hours ago

The US Environmental Protection Agency announced plans Wednesday to strengthen emission regulations for ozone, a smog-causing pollutant blamed for respiratory ailments affecting millions of Americans.

Deforestation drops 18 percent in Brazil's Amazon

16 hours ago

Deforestation in the Amazon rain forest dropped 18 percent over the past 12 months, falling to the second-lowest level in a quarter century, Brazil's environment minister said Wednesday.

The unbelievable underworld and its impact on us all

17 hours ago

A new study has pulled together research into the most diverse place on earth to demonstrate how the organisms below-ground could hold the key to understanding how the worlds ecosystems function and how they ...

Toolkit for ocean health

20 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2014
Says it all....
"While our limited knowledge is an issue, a greater challenge now is the backlash against science from those whose interests or ideology are threatened."

"In all of these fields, those denying the inconvenient truths attributed to science resort to personal abuse, unsubstantiated assertions, cherry-picking of data, misquoting of respectable scientists or distorting their views by quoting out of context, and repeating claims that have been systematically refuted."
grpugh
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2014
What people really want is a way to flesh out a narrative that meets their needs. Actually think your way though objections, and thinking of tests is tough, and as the article say, some questions really aren't amenable to what we would call a scientific approach.

My policy cure is to keep short decision loops, and avoid the precautionary principle.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (20) Feb 03, 2014
"While only peer-reviewed science reaches the journals, any unqualified person can express their opinion in a blog, on a web site or in the commercial media."

When the 'peers' are all 'warmists', only 'warmist' 'science' can be published.

"any unqualified person can express their opinion in a blog, "
And when the 'warmists' control the journals, blogs are the only way qualified people can challenge the propaganda.
The US National Academy of Science was forced to hear critique of the Hokey Schtick and the NAS agreed with the critics.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2014
"as Paltridge notes, people are catching on:

"…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue."

" It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society's respect for scientific endeavour.""
"Serious scholars of science, like University of Montreal's Daniele Fanelli, and Stanford's John Iaonnadis are publishing quantitative analyses of the proliferation of scientific errors that is malignantly invading the profession because of, in part, the funding and reward model. When this "third rail" is actively being researched by people of such quality, it is apparent that the sickness of climate science is not just confined to climate science."
http://www.forbes.com
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2014
That sign should read:
You can't ignore THE LIES of climate change.
StillWind
2.4 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2014
Maybe if "science" stuck to science and stopped whoring itself out for profit, then people would pay more attention to it.
ekim
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2014
And when the 'warmists' control the journals, blogs are the only way qualified people can challenge the propaganda.

What are the alternative theories that are not being tested by science? Data matters, not the opinion of bloggers. Qualified people gain their qualifications with data.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (17) Feb 04, 2014
Maybe if "science" stuck to science and stopped whoring itself out for profit, then people would pay more attention to it.

What utter balderdash. Ever seen a rich scientist? Me neither.

When the 'peers' are all 'warmists', only 'warmist' 'science' can be published.

I think you have no clue what peer review is. Peer review reviews the methods and data. If the reviewer lets something through because of some bias then his career is on the line as well as that of the original author.

With a job that people have invested a decade (or more) in to get that would be stupid. And if anything: scientists aren't stupid.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
When the 'peers' are all 'warmists', only 'warmist' 'science' can be published.


Ah, ryggy rides to the rescue with a fine example of reverse logic.

Anyone with a critical mind will intuitively find that statement bizarre.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2014
Maybe if "science" stuck to science and stopped whoring itself out for profit, then people would pay more attention to it.


You're mixing apples with bananas sunshine.

Science is done by scientists - which is then claimed by politicians and activists.
Nothing can be done about that. It's just human nature.
To attribute the latter to the former is a severe lack of critical thinking.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
What utter balderdash. Ever seen a rich scientist? Me neither.

I know many of the warmists who are in charge of their own labs, Mann has one and so does Harvard. Hansen had power in NASA.
Power, influence can be more important than money.
Science is done by scientists - which is then claimed by politicians and activists.

They can choose not to play the IPCC game.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2014
Harvard's climate priest is Anderson of the Anderson Group.
http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
Doug_Huffman
1.2 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2014
Self-proclaimed, self-assigned epithet "scientists" aren't. If it ain't falsifiable it may be technology but it ain't science, likely non-science nonsense. Adhockery stinks of entropy minimized improperly.

Believe nothing read or heard without verifying it oneself unless it Weltanschauung congruent.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.


Then why invent the very unscientific term "denialism" to marginalize opinion that opposes politically motivated AGW-Alarmism? Was the author Ian Lowe one of the environmentalist of the 1970's who promoted global cooling, apparently scientifically unjustified?

The vast majority of the planet is not in fact operating on the premise that AGW is a potential cataclysm for mankind, and if the propaganda pinheads think that it's because of ""denialism" of science", they are mistaken.

What is catagorically rejected is political Left Wing socialistic mentality using the science to promote their idealology. The only way to fix the issue is to gradually evolve off of carbon based energy in a way compatible with existing economic forces.
Osteta
Feb 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
Ever seen a rich scientist? Me neither.


Ever seen a poor scientist?

Aside for mathematicians, they're all upper middle class, at least.

You don't get to be at the top if you have to work a day job on the side.

ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2014
Research scientists are motivated by the power to control their research.
They don't want to teach. They want to be the head of a research institute so they can have slaves (grad students) conduct the research for them.
That is what Mann has done as well as Anderson.
The excuse that scientists have no ego and are only motivated by knowledge and pure motives is bunk.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
The irony is fantastic...
we have become more realistic about the limits of scientific knowledge. We now recognise science as a process of successive approximations to an understanding that will always have limitations and uncertainties: "islands of understanding in an endless sea of mystery"
followed by;
This is most obviously true in the broad area of our engagement with natural ecological systems, where controlled experiments are often not possible, where we can't measure all of the relevant variables and where we can't be objective observers even in principle. We are part of the system we are analysing.

So they lay it out why we should be logically skeptical, pretty much all the reasons why I'm not sold on AGW. Then they tear it down by saying your a "denier" if you don't "believe".
Denial of global environmental problems such as climate change, of peak oil

As if those incredibly complex systems have been resolved to the point of factual soothsaying! Rubes!
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
Then why invent the very unscientific term "denialism" to marginalize opinion that opposes politically motivated AGW-Alarmism? Was the author Ian Lowe one of the environmentalist of the 1970's who promoted global cooling, apparently scientifically unjustified?

The vast majority of the planet is not in fact operating on the premise that AGW is a potential cataclysm for mankind, and if the propaganda pinheads think that it's because of ""denialism" of science", they are mistaken.

What is catagorically rejected is political Left Wing socialistic mentality using the science to promote their idealology. The only way to fix the issue is to gradually evolve off of carbon based energy in a way compatible with existing economic forces.


Another exercise in boiling "your" objection to the science down to "ideology". And wailing about human nature as though it is only exhibited by the objects of your approbrium.
In the end if you don't "get" the science then common sense should rule.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
Climate change sceptics are 'headless chickens', says Prince Charles.….

Good point Osteta:
Whether the majority of deniers (I have no problem with skeptics) are "uninterested" in science I have no idea - but it's still no excuse to dismiss it with a wave of the hand because they Googled a denialist Blog. Oh yes, I've been there and got the T-shirt. Some are as a mad as a hatter. One even being banned from WUWT when "discussing" with me. Watts said he was an "insulting Slayer". (Slayer is someone who denies even the basics of how weather/climate works). No amount of evidence could persuade Mr D-K Personified that a Hadley Cell at it's poleward arm descends due to convergence aloft in the sub-tropical jet - no it's cooling to space apparently. This he grasped by the age of 13, along with ALL other weather processes. I really do wonder.

At least our lot have the balls to confront their enemy - though of course their psychological makeup makes them impervious to logic/persuasion.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2014
Says it all....
"While our limited knowledge is an issue, a greater challenge now is the backlash against science from those whose interests or ideology are threatened."

"In all of these fields, those denying the inconvenient truths attributed to science resort to personal abuse, unsubstantiated assertions, cherry-picking of data, misquoting of respectable scientists or distorting their views by quoting out of context, and repeating claims that have been systematically refuted."

Precisely what, the Climate Gate emails confirmed, the AGW Alarmists did and continue to do.
Oh, the hypocrisy. Makes one wonder, just who is in denial.
In the meantime, in the real world, we are headed for another Little Ice Age.
ekim
4.1 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2014
So they lay it out why we should be logically skeptical, pretty much all the reasons why I'm not sold on AGW. Then they tear it down by saying your a "denier" if you don't "believe".

Skeptics collect data to back up their claims. Deniers have no such claims. Please provide alternative theories.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
Ever seen a poor scientist?

Aside for mathematicians, they're all upper middle class, at least.

The overwhelming majority of scientists are PhD students or post-docs. You know what these people make? (Hint: I recently switched out of that category - and now I get triple that at a company salary for doing something that is MUCH less demanding in terms of time/energy invested. And I din't even haggle or ask for a bonus because of my degree)

Only a small percentage are tenured professors who do make an OK living (but not really anywhere near what you'd call 'rich')...and if you look at the time they invest into their jobs they are severly underpaid.

Any scientist can easily double/triple his/her salary by working in the industry. If you think anyone is a scientist for the money you're crazy.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2014
Precisely what, the Climate Gate emails confirmed, the AGW Alarmists did and continue to do.
Oh, the hypocrisy. Makes one wonder, just who is in denial.
In the meantime, in the real world, we are headed for another Little Ice Age.


QED
Myth repeating (see my quote from article).
Up it pops again, like a goldfish swimming around a bowl having forgotten he was there on the last circuit.
I look forward to your "Little Ice age". I like cold winters. Though in reality cold European winters will have been caused by greater meridional flow due the continuing melt of Sea-ice (cue denial of continuing sea-ice melt – along the lines of "massive recovery" this last summer) and "Antarctic ice is increasing" – this of course without evidence that sea-ice divergence from the Antarctic coast has anything other than salinity and wind flow to blame.
Anti considers the 97% as the denialists as opposed to the 3%. Now I would suggest that that is a triumph of hope over common sense.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 04, 2014
Some are as a mad as a hatter.

Like James Anderson at Harvard or Paul Ehrlich from Berkley.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are PhD students or post-docs.

Even more motivation to publish what their advisers what to to be published.

" It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
"One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, "
Hal Lewis.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2014
"Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. "
Hal Lewis

Give the way this wind is blowing, why would any grad or post doc dare to challenge the 'incontrovertible'?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
Another exercise in boiling "your" objection to the science down to "ideology".


I object to the politicizing of that science.

Do you not agree with what I quoted from the above article,..."But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in greenhouse gas...". If so, it is illegitimate to call those against the Left Wing Alarmism, "deniers".

And wailing about human nature as though it is only exhibited by the objects of your [o]pprobrium.


Expecting people to change their egoistic behavior on account politically motivated Alarmism is a "denial" of the facts.

In the end if you don't "get" the science then common sense should rule


Who else should "rule" but individuals and their common sense?

The greatest threat to liberty is the 'progressive liberal' and their army of statisticians,... and there is no end to "scientific justification" to rule the masses.
ekim
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
Do you not agree with what I quoted from the above article,..."But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in greenhouse gas...". If so, it is illegitimate to call those against the Left Wing Alarmism, "deniers".

Deniers don't care about data or facts. They present no alternative theories. Theories on the scale and rate of future changes can, and will be tested and legitimate disagreement resolved.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
They present no alternative theories

The problem with AGW theories is one must wait for 30 years to see if they are valid.
But the AGWites don't want to wait, they demand govt force change now, which would then invalidate the original theory.
Popper developed falsifiability criteria for science based upon a similar belief system, Marxism.

BTW, AGW theories are all based upon climate models. Who controls those models?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2014
I object to the politicizing of that science.
Do you not agree with what I quoted from the above article,..."But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in greenhouse gas...". If so, it is illegitimate to call those against the Left Wing Alarmism, "deniers".
I do agree with the quote, but your conclusion does not follow. There are many who voice opposition to ANY legitimate scientific study that shows evidence of global warming, in every sphere and every discipline, no matter what! That is a clear example of "politically motivated" and is rightly called denialism. Your own comment "against the Left Wing Alarmism" is a political statement, which is in direct contradiction of your previous comment that "I object to politicizing...". You keep trying to have it both ways Noumenon.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
Maggie, there ARE those who agree with AGWism, but NOT the hysteria of impending doom.
AGWites, many here, brand them as heretics.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2014
Your own comment "against the Left Wing Alarmism" is a political statement, which is in direct contradiction of your previous comment that "I object to politicizing...". You keep trying to have it both ways Noumenon.


I'm not using AGW to support my idealology, and I don't see the Right Wing politicizing the science to thrust upon societies what is not already existent and so accepted freely by them.

IMO, it is pointless to debate the climate science establishment wrt the core findings. Even if true, it doesn't make sense to say climate scientists are wrong about climate science. The debate needs to move on to 'what to do about it', or if there is anything that can be done about it.

The political far left wish to use the science as a foot in the door, for government control, redistribution of wealth, social engineering. This is not the answer. I along with the vast majority reject the notion of imminent doom, because it is not a scientifically justified claim.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
I'm not using AGW to support my idealology, and I don't see the Right Wing politicizing the science to thrust upon societies what is not already existent and so accepted freely by them.
Huh? Want to try that again, in English please?

IMO, it is pointless to debate the climate science establishment wrt the core findings. Even if true, it doesn't make sense to say climate scientists are wrong about climate science. The debate needs to move on to 'what to do about it', or if there is anything that can be done about it.
Holy crap I think I might be hit by lightning! I AGREE WITH YOU!

The political far left wish to use the science as a foot in the door, for government control, redistribution of wealth, social engineering.
Now you sound like Rygg the socialist. And you are just as wrong. The politicizing has been done by the right, in so far as matters are politicized. I have been a conservative my entire life, but even I can see that.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
I along with the vast majority reject the notion of imminent doom, because it is not a scientifically justified claim.
Yet the vast amount of scientists that are studying the problems, and even the vast number of politicians who believe that something needs to be done about it, are NOT making these claims! This is, once again, politics speaking, not science. So Noumenon, you are still trying to have it both ways.

The science is robust, well communicated, well supported and crosses disciplines from atmospheric chemistry to zoology. That there is the possibility of catastrophic change is not political, any more than saying that the science behind it is robust. Saying in the face of all the evidence that it can't be happening because AL Gore has a jet plane IS political. THAT IS THE POLITICS noumenon!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
The politicizing has been done by the right,

Al Gore is on 'the right'?
It was 'the right' that created the IPCC?
I have been a conservative my entire life, but even I can see that.


No conservative has advocated for more govt control of the economy (carbon taxes, 'green' subsidies, EPA regs to destroy the coal industry, etc.) to 'save the planet'.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2014
The greatest threat to liberty is the 'progressive liberal' and their army of statisticians,... and there is no end to "scientific justification" to rule the masses.


QED again.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2014
The science is robust, well communicated, well supported and crosses disciplines from atmospheric chemistry to zoology.


It is?
Why do so many questioning the party line?
Why are so many articles like this being written?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
[Al Gore is on 'the right'?
Isn't he? Right of you I'm sure.
It was 'the right' that created the IPCC?
Yes actually.

No conservative has advocated for more govt control of the economy (carbon taxes, 'green' subsidies, EPA regs to destroy the coal industry, etc.) to 'save the planet'.
How would you know? You can't see the difference, as far as you are concerned everyone except you are socialists.

You're just a nutcase with an axe to grind. A 40 year old lonely loon crying in his mother's basement because no one will play with you. Go read up on schizoaffective disorder.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
It is?
yes.
Why do so many questioning the party line?
No idea what you're on about, don't care to know.
Why are so many articles like this being written?
Because there are so many denialists arguing politics instead of science.

Not you, you don't belong in that group even though you deny science. You're just a delusional psychotic. Schizoaffective disorder. Yep, I think I've settled on your diagnosis.
Signs and symptoms of schizoaffective disorder may include, among others:
•Delusions — having false, fixed beliefs
•Hallucinations, such as hearing voices
•Major depressed mood episodes
•Possible periods of manic mood or a sudden increase in energy and behavioral displays that are out of character
•Impaired occupational and social functioning
•Problems with cleanliness and physical appearance
•Paranoid thoughts and ideas
I see at least 5 that fit you. Please get help.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2014
The @R2 believes
The politicizing has been done by the right,

Al Gore is on 'the right'?
It was 'the right' that created the IPCC?
I have been a conservative my entire life, but even I can see that.

If there was any politicizing I would say that it's from the corruption of the RIGHT WING. Corporations that impact the environment negatively always tend to run and hind under the skirts of the rightwing politicians. That political corruption of the rightwing by environmental criminals (Freedom Works of WV for example) is rampid in the tea and republican party. The RIGHT WING hasn't seen an oil driller that it didn't like. Same for AGW. Deniers and RIGHT WING are the same nearly 100% of the time. Deniers objections to the IPCC reports are all from greed and corruption of the right.

If Al-Gore said anything, it was to make common Americans aware of the AGW and how global warming could become mankind's doom.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2014
corruption of the RIGHT WING.

The corruption is that the 'right wing' is showing its socialist side.
After all, it was Ken Lay at Enron that tried to get GHW Bush to support Kyoto. And crony capitalists (aka socialists) have lobbied all to get their special regulation to shut down their competition.
Under BHO it has been Solyndra and other 'green' industries that have promoted and rewarded with free taxpayer money and the consumers in the US and the EU have been forced to subsidize wind, solar, etc with higher rates.
Under BHO, coal has been targeted for extinction by his regulatory goons at the EPA.
Al-Gore said anything, it was to make common Americans aware of the AGW and how global warming could become mankind's doom.

While milking it for millions $$.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2014
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) "
This is 'the right'?
When has the UN ever been 'right'?

Meanwhile, AGWism can kill:
""If this recent cold weather occurs again while these plants are shutdown there simply won't be enough electricity to keep people warm," Inhofe said on the Senate floor. "It could result in massive blackouts. … It will be as if we're living in the 1600s and everyone will be cold."

Read more: http://thehill.co...sPNn2Oam
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
"But supporters of green technology in America have tried to push America toward the European model, especially by adopting cap-and-trade. Doing so would result in higher energy costs for Americans. If you want to see how Bryce arrived at his numbers, you can read the lengthy explanation in his study."
http://washington.../2543433
If you don't like politics, stop the socialist regulatory state from forcing their victims from paying for undemonstrated 'science'.
Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2014
Opps, I'm sorry @R2, I must have struck a nerve. It just so happens that GOP is one of the most corrupt of human venture as can be shown as far back as you like, but lets start with the liars and stack-oh-sh t they are. Lets start wiith your horseshit AGW smear campaign; one of the biggest Rightwing lies. The lie that global warming is not man made and does not exist. How do you have any self worth believing AGW has not been proven scientifically beyond any reasonable doubt?

I'm continually amazed at how much horseshit you hoist on readers and it's always a quote taken out of context.

"Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't."

It seems like the GOP wan't people to experience life rather than be educated.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2014
I'm continually amazed at how much horseshit you hoist on readers and it's always a quote taken out of context.

Easily explained: He gets paid for it.

Not only China has seen what can be accomplished by a "50 cent party"
http://en.wikiped...nt_Party
The Koch brothers (et al) know too well what value there is in swaying (or at the very least delaying) public opinion...just look at the US congress.
Delaying decisions means big bucks for them. And that can pay a f*ck-ton of unemployed people to be their internet commenters.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
t GOP is one of the most corrupt of human venture

"Ronald Pelosi—Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, holds a leadership position with Pacific Corporate Group Asset Management—which is an investor in SolarReserve."
"George Kaiser—Argonaut Private Equity is an investor in SolarReserve. Argonaut Private Equity is owned by major Democratic fundraiser and a 2008 Top Obama bundler George Kaiser, who also invested in Solyndra. Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the company was granted a $535 million loan from the government. "
http://greencorru...cRLSynAI
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2014
"Seven solar companies received fast-tracked approval by DOI to lease federal lands in a no-bid process: Abengoa Solar, BrightSource Energy, First Solar, Nevada Geothermal Power, NextEra Energy Resources, Ormat Nevada, and SolarReserve.

Those seven companies all received loan guarantees worth billions from the Department of Energy under its renewable energy loan program, as well as renewable energy grants from the Treasury Department."
""If one was a cynic or understood how this town worked, it would become pretty quickly apparent the collective enforcement of laws from the administration is based on who their friends are," Kish said. "It comes down to: Do they or don't they believe these laws are important and should be followed?""
""To see the department bend over backwards and do everything they can to put up these solar farms, it doesn't seem like the same yardstick is being used, but they really do believe this is the tech answer to fossil fuel. They're true believers."
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
"An 18-month congressional investigation into Mr. Obama's $40 billion giveaway program shows that it has been a colossal failure, riddled with embarrassing bankruptcies, favored treatment for Mr. Obama's rich cronies and campaign contributors, and political lobbying pressure to approve bad business deals that should have been rejected.

An investigation by The Washington Post concluded that Mr. Obama's guaranteed loans, tax credits and grant programs to well-connected supporters were "infused with politics" at virtually every level of the approval process."

Read more: http://www.washin...sRh97NqG
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2014
"The company that built the failed Obamacare website received six additional contracts from the Obama administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website's disastrous launch, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a company spokesman, CGI Federal was awarded six additional contracts from CMS worth approximately $37 million between October 1 — when the over $600 million Obamacare website launched — through January 2014.

CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of the Canadian company CGI Group, and was formed in 2009 to bring CGI into the federal contracting business. The company employs Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate, and 2010 White House Christmas guest, Toni T0wnes-Whitley as a top executive.

Read more: http://dailycalle...sRiGiVjb
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014
The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the tradi
tions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the
foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth
and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all
the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large

http://www.lavois...ails.pdf
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2014
The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the tradi
tions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the
foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth
and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all
the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large

http://www.lavois...ails.pdf


In other words, I believe that there is a conspiracy, I do not trust the government, and I am not very bright, therefore I believe that the science is faked.

Welcome back againstseeing, still stupid as ever I see.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2014

In other words, I believe that there is a conspiracy, I do not trust the government, and I am not very bright, therefore I believe that the science is faked.

Welcome back againstseeing, still stupid as ever I see.

Magganus, I know it's too much to ask the ignorant like you to read and comprehend.
So, I'll will sum it up for you.There are no OTHER WORDS.
The article clearly demonstrates, in the words of your LEADING AGW "SCIENTISTS", their corruption of science.
Now you just float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2014
The article clearly demonstrates, in the words of your LEADING AGW "SCIENTISTS", their corruption of science.
In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

http://www.desmog...usations
http://www.c2es.o...onerated
http://en.wikiped...troversy

Just more of the same pile againstseeing. Zombie arguments, whack-a-mole tactics, stupidity.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2014
The science is robust, well communicated, well supported and crosses disciplines from atmospheric chemistry to zoology.


It is?
Why do so many questioning the party line?
Why are so many articles like this being written?


ryggy its called preaching to the converted - magnified in it's apparent magnitude by the vocal minority on the interweb (read fan-boys cheering on the likes of WUWT).
It is a distorted view of reality.
That you hold.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2014
But supporters of green technology in America have tried to push America toward the European model, especially by adopting cap-and-trade. Doing so would result in higher energy costs for Americans

Ah, diddums - and so you should. It is the US that has raped the planet of and burnt most fossil fuel this last 100 years, and profligately too. Christ, I remember skiing in Colorado in 2003 and you were squealing about having to pay $2 for a US gallon. FFS; I was paying the equiv of $4.4 then and am paying $20/gal now. PS I'm not bankrupted.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
It is a distorted view of reality.

And Mann's' blog is undistorted 'reality'?
US that has raped the planet of and burnt most fossil fuel this last 100 years,

The US saved the UK, and most of Europe three times in the last century from tyranny.
PS I'm not bankrupted.

Taxing until bankruptcy was done by the Swedes until they backed of their socialist policies.
If you like paying so much of your retirement back to the Crown, I am sure the Queen will take donations.

BTW, Mann did fake his hokey schtick. The NAS politely said so when they stated the uncertainty of his proxies over 400 years ago made his attempt to hide the MWP a joke.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2014
And Mann's' blog is undistorted 'reality'?
As compared to you, Josef Stalin`s blog would be more realistic. Regardless, certainly Mann has more credibility and scientific backing than a Watts or McIntyre.
BTW, Mann did fake his hokey schtick.
No he didn't.
The NAS politely said so
No they didn't.
the uncertainty of his proxies over 400 years ago
Has been dealt with.
made his attempt to hide the MWP a joke.
No such attempt was made.

Just the usual zombie arguments, games of whack-a-mole, lies and stupidity.

Did your mom let you out again already? Have you looked into medication for that condition? Seriously, it will help you, and you need it.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
The article clearly demonstrates, in the words of your LEADING AGW "SCIENTISTS", their corruption of science.
In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

http://www.desmog...usations

Just more of the same pile againstseeing. Zombie arguments, whack-a-mole tactics, stupidity.

http://wattsupwit...nerated/
Now Magganus, like I said before, float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
Mann has more credibility

With whom?
Lindzen doesn't have a blog, but Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer do

Just the usual zombie arguments,

Sure.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2014
"1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107)."
"the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "
"Mann uses the 5 rules of propaganda in his defense, including the rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations "
http://hockeyscht...ann.html
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2014
Now Magganus, like I said before, float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance.
Atta boy dumdum, post to a blog to support your nonsense. "Look everyone, I said it is this way and I have support, cause this guy said it!"

Laughable.

And again:
http://hockeyscht...ann.html
Hey, maybe againstseeing has the same condition!
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
The US saved the UK, and most of Europe three times in the last century from tyranny.


What's that got to do with it FFS?

And did I say that Europe was not grateful?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014

http://wattsupwit...nerated/
Now Magganus, like I said before, float back down to the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance.


You really think that comments/commentators on WUWT are a font on knowledge and wisdom?
Omniscient indeed?
Look I've been there and got the T-shirt.
I've never come across such a bunch of .... well. I haven't.

One day you may realise that opinionated Blogs are nothing more than a meeting place for the converted to cheer each other on. But I doubt it. I suppose you think the likes of Bob Tisdale and Willis Eschenbach are scientists? and peer- review consists of the fan-boys cheering in the thread generated by their "revelations".

Excuse me if I continue to regard anything printed on that blog as bollocks - Even Watts knows much of it is.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
BTW, Mann did fake his hokey schtick. The NAS politely said so when they stated the uncertainty of his proxies over 400 years ago made his attempt to hide the MWP a joke.


Of course he did ryggy - and he also performed psychokinesis on all the others that show the same thing, including the Koch's sponsored Best one.

AS we set off on a circuit of the most engrained of denialist memes for the nth+1 times. The Goldfish having denied the facts during the previous circuit.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2014
As if those incredibly complex systems have been resolved to the point of factual soothsaying! Rubes!


Cant - no they haven't BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER as it will only narrow the error bars - the envelope of confinement of the rising trend. Why can you not realise that climate cycles merely shift the heat in the system around the planet. They don't drive it. It is driven simply the balance of the equation: Solar absorbed vs LWIR emitted. FULL STOP.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
review consists of the fan-boys cheering in the thread generated by their "revelations".


"Lost in the recent controversy over Said et al 2008 is that the Climategate documents provided conclusive evidence of the hypothesis originally advanced in the Wegman Report about paleoclimate peer review – that members of the Mann "clique" had been "reviewing other members of the same clique". "
http://climateaud...othesis/

"I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the "BEST" team's decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here. "
http://www.rossmc...ity.html
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
"Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades"
"in 2000, I published a paper with the Geological Society of America in which I predicted that we were going to stop warming and begin cooling for about 25 or 30 years, on the basis of taking the temperature records that go back a century or more and simply repeating the pattern of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, and so on."
http://wattsupwit...t-right/

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
Quote mining again from Rygg. Whew boy, you're going to be in trouble when your mom finds out you stayed up so late!
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
ryggy:
When will you realise that quotes from whomever mean a big fat zero.

The only things that matter in scientific inquiry is data, correlation and causation physics.
I await with batted breath anything that you may offer along those lines.
Meanwhile, when I see quotes around your posts, my eyes will continue to glaze over and I'll move on.
Thankyou so much.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
Hey, maybe againstseeing has the same condition!
-- Magganus
Yes. It's called a brain.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
Hey, maybe againstseeing has the same condition!
-- Magganus
Yes. It's called a brain.
No, it's called motivated reasoning. Or in your case, unreasoning denialism.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
A great article regarding denialism: http://www.thegua...easoning
The article includes a number of cites, but I like the title of this one best "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax" http://pss.sagepu...24/5/622
It is an interesting psychological study trying to figure out what motivates otherwise (often) intelligent people to ignore completely any evidence provided to them, instead resorting to obfuscation and even wilful blindness in favour of the slimmest of evidence that supports their pre-conceived desire that something be so.
Psychology studies have named this desire motivated reasoning. Essentially, this means that certain people will, instead of evaluating evidence critically, deliberately interpret it in such a way as to reaffirm their pre-existing belief. This also involves them demanding near perfect, if not perfect, explanation of evidence which ....cont....
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
..cont which gives evidence counter to their belief while at the same time, and often in the same sentence, giving blind credence to even the flimsiest of evidence that prima facie supports their belief.

I think a good example of this is Uba, who will provide cites to articles that seem to support the premise that global warming is not occurring, yet when the cite is actually read carefully often (usually?) actually supports the opposite. His/her interpretation of the article cited is clouded by the desire that it say a certain thing, and the actual information contained in the cited article is missed due to this preconceived desire.

It is not even that the information is ignored or misrepresented; Uba actually believes it says what he/she says it does because he/she is so motivated to confirm his/her preconceived bias that he/she literally cannot see that it does not say what he/she claims it says.

So anyone, any ideas on how one approaches such obstinate denial?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
The only things that matter in scientific inquiry is data, correlation and causation physics.

Then you completely ignore the IPCC reports as it written by non-scientists for politicians.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
The only things that matter in scientific inquiry is data, correlation and causation physics.

Then you completely ignore the IPCC reports as it written by non-scientists for politicians.


And then there's people like this one. I think that this is an example of motivated reasoning taken to such an extreme as to lose ANY credibility, even among those who might initially agree with him. I really do think that we are looking at some sort of unspecified dissociative disorder. The pathology is extreme, and I see definite signs of schizoaffective disorder.

I suggest not interacting with the affected person, as this seems to lead to ever stronger episodes of paranoid delusions and disorganized thinking. I have serious concerns that his hallucinogenic delusions will lead him to cause harm to himself or others around him, and I hope someone close to him reads this and offers assistance before it is too late.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
... resorting to obfuscation and even wilful blindness in favour of the slimmest of evidence that supports their pre-conceived desire that something be so.....


You mean, like the desire that motivates one to construct defective psychological caricatures, by labeling people who reject the alarmism, "deniers", and anti science, rather than making specific counter arguments, like this,...

Psychology studies have named this desire motivated reasoning. Essentially, this means that certain people will, instead of evaluating evidence critically, deliberately interpret it in such a way as to reaffirm their pre-existing belief..... I really do think that we are looking at some sort of unspecified dissociative disorder. The pathology is extreme, and I see definite signs of schizoaffective disorder.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
So anyone, any ideas on how one approaches such obstinate denial?

@Maggnus
with restraints, medication and electro-shock therapy?

RE: Rygg... your best bet is to simply ignore Rygg. When you have demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of data and facts and continually drag the argument back to a political (and therefore unsupported) argument, it becomes a tit-for-tat that cannot be won simply because there really is no right answer and it is all completely subjective. Rygg uses this tactic everywhere, as it is familiar ground for her and allows her the semblance of intellect without having to really use her brain, while also giving her the false assumption that an argument is won by her.

@noumenon
with people like Rygg it doesnt make a difference how much science is used and Maggnus is giving a valid assessment of the situation
call it a warning to others?
"denier"= denies the science and empirical data
a benign but accurate label
better than an expletive
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
You mean, like the desire that motivates one to construct defective psychological caricatures, by labeling people who reject the alarmism, "deniers", and anti science, rather than making specific counter arguments, like this,...
Actually that would fit Noumenon, so I'm glad to see you are following along, although the caricature is your construct, not mine.

If it was the case that a person who was an "alarmist" (definition?) consistently label anyone who questioned any aspect of any study a "denier" especially in those instances where the one questioning the findings was asking legitimate questions of the science, then yes that would constitute motivated reasoning. And, frankly, I believe that such a person should also have their belief motivations questioned, and for the same reasons.

Rigid and unyielding belief in the face of evidence contrary to that belief is the problem Noumenon. To say the science conducted by a student biologist studying ..cont...

Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
..cont.. studying marmot habitat is wrong because the changing habitat is influenced by global warming and global warming is wrong because Al Gore flies in a jet plane is what I have difficulty with. To besmirch the reputation of that student because you don't agree with AL Gore's politics is ridiculous, yet that is what we see on this site constantly.

You have accused me of labelling people deniers (which is true) and insinuated that I label anyone who rejects "alarmism" as a denier (which is false). So tell me then; what specific counter argument does one make to someone who says "global warming is not true because NASA faked the moon landings"?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
One more question Noumenon, then I'll leave be until you answer or it becomes obvious you are not going to. Shootist, whom I label a denier of climate science, responded to a direct question I made of him, that he does not believe that global warming is happening because Freeman Dyson does not (did not?) believe in it, and Freeman Dyson is the smartest man alive, and if Freemen Dyson doesn't believe in it than neither does he.

My question to you is, what specific counter argument does one make to Shootist's claims?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
OMG Stumpy, look at this headline from the "Popular stories" inset on the front page: "A shock to the system: Electroconvulsive Therapy shows mood disorder-specific therapeutic benefits"

Hahahahaha I guess you have the right answer!!! HAHAHAA!
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
Psychiatrists will have stronger arguments to make use of ECT in mood disorder patients refractory...to other forms of treatment

@Maggnus
how fortuitous LMFAO
I say we find Rygg's psychiatrist and tell him to crank up the voltage!
(although, in all honesty, I dont know how well it will affect his mental issues but it at least it will make US feel better)

as it applies to above... I wonder just how much of the denial is hard wired (as in a healthy skeptical attitude) or just plain delusional invagination? Why fold up around a known fallacy?
I know where I would sit in the assessment of Rygg, but what about others that actually have intelligence? How does their logic and intellect get sidetracked into such obvious misconception?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
A good question, and I am assuming you used invagination purposefully and its not a typo for imagination! A healthy skeptical mindset is a good thing, and should be encouraged. I can't help but think that some of those who use denialism as the basis for their arguments actually have a bastardized idea of what skepticism actually is.

I think of skepticism as the healthy questioning of stated assumptions and/or the repositioning of known facts in such a manner as to support a non-standard posit. In the cases of some who question the robustness of climate science or whether men walked on the moon however, that healthy questioning of assumption has been replaced with the very unhealthy questioning of everything except that which supports their predetermined view.

Candrive is an example on this site. There are obvious, glaring flaws in the theory he supports, yet he simply bleeps over them and makes every effort to point out the mote in a physics theory. It's an odd disconnect.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
So tell me then; what specific counter argument does one make to someone who says "global warming is not true because NASA faked the moon landings"?


What is the point of constructing such a straw-man so easily torn down, by deliberately associating an absurdity with rational skepticism?

The answer of course is so that one can imply, through "scientific psychological research", that those who question AGW claims must have a defective mentality. This is ad hominem propaganda, no more scientifically valid than that which you object to. Yet you used it as a counter to quotes offered by rygg2.

.....................................

I define 'AGW-Alarmist' as one who promotes the notion that a politically leftist agenda, in redistribution of wealth and social engineering, is justified on account of the supposed imminent threat to mankind.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
Shootist, whom I label a denier of climate science, responded to a direct question I made of him, that he does not believe that global warming is happening because Freeman Dyson does not (did not?) believe in it, and Freeman Dyson is the smartest man alive, and if Freemen Dyson doesn't believe in it than neither does he.

My question to you is, what specific counter argument does one make to Shootist's claims?


You could concur that the vast majority of humanity must likewise rely on others who they deem the 'smartest guys' concerning it.

You could also retort that Dyson DOES in fact think that AGW is in play, but rejects the ability of climate science to offer meaningful predictions for the future, given it's continued and admitted incomplete understanding.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
Eugenics was supported by a scientific consensus and led to millions murdered by socialist governments and millions more babies being killed up to the present day.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
I define 'AGW-Alarmist' as one who promotes the notion that a politically leftist agenda, in redistribution of wealth and social engineering, is justified on account of the supposed imminent threat to mankind.


Excellent, and I'll come back to the initial points momentarily. So, to be sure I understand you, your idea of an "alarmist" (is it fair to drop the AGW?) is one who advocates for the future problems forecasted by the science of global warming to be deferred by use of social engineering to redistribute the wealth from those who currently have it to those who do not? Is this not a purely political statement then?
What of those who wish to have the effects of global warming mitigated by the use of new so called "cleaner" technologies to replace the older, so called "dirtier" technologies in use now? Are they, also alarmists?

What of those who demand that nations currently responsible for the highest emissions be responsible for paying to reduce their emissions? R they?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
What is the point of constructing such a straw-man so easily torn down, by deliberately associating an absurdity with rational skepticism?
Because that is what is done, regularly, by those who deny the science on the basis of their disagreement with the perceived politics. In this thread alone, there is stillwind: "Maybe if "science" stuck to science and stopped whoring itself out for profit, then people would pay more attention to it " and antigoracle "Precisely what, the Climate Gate emails confirmed, the AGW Alarmists did and continue to do." That is not rational skepticism by any definition. In point of fact, the perception that politics is the driving force behind the science of climatology is the quintessential example of denialism, and is exactly what I am talking about when I make that accusation.
You, yourself, waiver between skeptical musings and political dismissal, and it is obvious that you are uncomfortable with the political stance of denialism.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
The answer of course is so that one can imply, through "scientific psychological research", that those who question AGW claims must have a defective mentality. This is ad hominem propaganda, no more scientifically valid than that which you object to. Yet you used it as a counter to quotes offered by rygg2.
And yet, to a point, that is what the studies suggest. I disagree that those who question the specifics of a scientific study are denialists, and your use of the politically motivated term "AGW claims" is, in and of itself, evidence that the studies being done with regard to conspiracism and denialism are accurate. I think it is becoming clear that there is, in fact, a defective mentality associated with blanket denial and claims of conspiracy, and I think that clear evidence of that position arises on just about every article on this site that contains the words "global warming" or any of its derivatives!
And as for Rygg, well he is a special nutcase.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
You could concur that the vast majority of humanity must likewise rely on others who they deem the 'smartest guys' concerning it.
Done, yet on the very next article Shootist commented "The polar bears will be fine. Freeman Dyson" and nothing else.

You could also retort that Dyson DOES in fact think that AGW is in play, but rejects the ability of climate science to offer meaningful predictions for the future, given it's continued and admitted incomplete understanding.
Again done, along with quotes from Dyson showing that he does feel this way. See above for the response.

In this article, they note
those denying the inconvenient truths attributed to science resort to personal abuse, unsubstantiated assertions, cherry-picking of data, misquoting of respectable scientists or distorting their views by quoting out of context, and repeating claims that have been systematically refuted
and that, in my view, is exactly the denialism I allude to.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
In point of fact, the perception that politics is the driving force behind the science of climatology is the quintessential example of denialism,


That 'the science is settled so shut up' and '97% of all scientists agree' and that the term 'indisputable' is used by the American Physical Society to describe ANY aspect of science should rouse suspicion by scientists and citizens.
But apparently NOT AGWites.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
And finally, so we are clear, I have made no attempt for months to counter Rygg's quote mining, nor do I believe his definition of "socialist" belongs anywhere except in the notes of a good psychologist trying to help him through his paranoid illusions of persecution. I am more than prepared to carry on a conversation with those who can discuss the science without resorting to claims of political interference, and I will strike back with great fervour and gleeful anticipation those who attack researchers reporting on their scientific findings simply because they used the words "global warming" somewhere in their dissertation.
You dislike my use of the term "denialist", which is your opinion and good on you. Yet the term is not mine, and the definition is becoming well known among those who are for the science. How much more anti-science can someone be when they claim the science is wrong because the Democrats voted for Obama care?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
the perception that politics is the driving force behind [..] climatology is the quintessential example of denialism,


And it is why I charge that "denialism" is itself propaganda designed to marginalize anyone who questions ANY aspect of it. It is a blanket ad hominem with little effort to delineate 'skepticism of the core science', from 'claimed accuracy of predictions', from the 'political solutions proposed'.

If one is claiming a conspiracy such that AGW was invented just as a trojan horse for socialism, and thus on that account is based on no facts in reality, than I would concur that would raise to the level of plain scientific denialism.

If one accepts that dumping tons of co2 into the air will certainly have an effect upon the climate as it eventually accumulates there, and yet claims that the political far left's desire is to use AGW as a trojan horse for their political agenda in the form of solutions proposed, then this is clearly not denialism.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
What of those who wish to have the effects of global warming mitigated by the use of new so called "cleaner" technologies to replace the older, so called "dirtier" technologies in use now? Are they, also alarmists?


If they justify the advocacy of Forcing those technologies into use in a way counter to existing economic forces, by claiming an immanent cataclysm, then yes.

What of those who demand that nations currently responsible for the highest emissions be responsible for paying to reduce their emissions?


This is global redistribution of wealth. It is also idiotic because emerging economies are not asked to do so. China is accelerating their production of coal plants for example. Individuals and countries will operate in their best interests, and their is no global government that can force them to do otherwise.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
And it is why I charge that "denialism" is itself propaganda designed to marginalize anyone who questions ANY aspect of it. It is a blanket ad hominem with little effort to delineate 'skepticism of the core science', from 'claimed accuracy of predictions', from the 'political solutions proposed'.


A three parter :) Ok, first "denier" and "denialism" can be as misused as any other descriptive term, and you are probably right to claim it has been used as a blanket ad hominem by some, at times. (maybe even me!) Yet it is real. You are right to point out the "socialist agenda" bs, but quite honestly, how many have you seen tackle issues relating to the core science, without referring to that core science as being driven by political motivation? I, and I think most of the others who post about the actual science, almost never get to discuss any problem with the underlying (or core) science, as it is almost always couched in claims of conspiracy and politics. ..cont..
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
I believe his definition of "socialist" belongs anywhere except in the notes of a good psychologist trying to help him through his paranoid illusions..


It is only because you fail to understand the political side of AGW, .... the solutions proposed by the UN, aiming for a global government, and why so many countries, from the US, Canada, Australia have rejected their attempts.

The far left believe it is an injustice that some countries are wealthy while others are poor, and that "income inequality" is something to be "fixed". They think that there is a finite quantity of wealth, and their aim is to redistribute it to all.

"it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization." - IPCC co-chair

"we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. [..] One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore" - IPCC
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
If someone has an issue with the method by which the information was gathered, then that is core science. If, on the other hand, you say the information was only gathered to garner additional funding, then that is NOT a discussion of the science! The facts speak for themselves, regardless of the motivation for gathering those facts.

Yet that is not even what the bulk of the argument is about. When a researcher is looking at how the type of wildflower blooming above the treeline in the Rocky Mountains is now blooming meters above where its past range has always ended, and he looks about for reasons why that might be, is it not fair to suggest global warming might be one of the causes? And if he carefully considers, and discards, all other causes, is it not science to say that global warming is likely the culprit?

So if someone comes along and says "oh he only said that to get additional funding" is that not denialism?
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2014
If one accepts that dumping tons of co2 into the air will certainly have an effect upon the climate as it eventually accumulates there, and yet claims that the political far left's desire is to use AGW as a trojan horse for their political agenda in the form of solutions proposed, then this is clearly not denialism.
No, it's conspiracism. And given this is a science site, I would be perfectly within the realm of science to ask you who this so called "political far left" consists of, how you know what their agenda is, which solutions they are proposing will lead to achieving their political agenda and how they propose to foist those particular solutions on us apparently unthinking masses, and expect an answer beyond "them"!! Furthermore, the proposal of solutions is PART of the science. You do not have to agree with those solutions, not all of them ill be right, but to suggest some nefarious agenda is straight up conspiracism.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
When a researcher is looking at how the type of wildflower blooming above the treeline in the Rocky Mountains is now blooming meters above where its past range has always ended, and he looks about for reasons why that might be, is it not fair to suggest global warming might be one of the causes? And if he carefully considers, and discards, all other causes, is it not science to say that global warming is likely the culprit?


No, that is NOT science nor a discovery of causation. Correlation is not physical causation unless it can be verified and reproduced experimentally.

Particularly, if at the same time that same researcher claims that the prior 17 years of lack of global warming is not enough time to be significant trend to effect the core claim of AGW. Can't have it both ways.

I agree with the rest of your post.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2014
It is only because you fail to understand the political side of AGW, .... the solutions proposed by the UN, aiming for a global government, and why so many countries, from the US, Canada, Australia have rejected their attempts.
I understand perfectly the politics behind both sides of the issue. I am a Canadian and a card-carrying Conservative in the most conservative province in this country, and I say to you that your accusation that the UN is "aiming for a global government" is laughable, contemptible and has nothing at all to do with the science supporting the premise of global warming! That is the height of hubris, and is conspiracism at its worst.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
If one accepts that dumping tons of co2 into the air will certainly have an effect upon the climate as it eventually accumulates there, and yet claims that the political far left's desire is to use AGW as a trojan horse for their political agenda in the form of solutions proposed, then this is clearly not denialism.


No, it's conspiracism. And given this is a science site, I would be perfectly within the realm of science to ask you who this so called "political far left" consists of, how you know what their agenda is, which solutions they are proposing will lead to achieving their political agenda


Britain, Australia, Canada, the US,... have all rejected the attempts of the socialist leaning UN in redistributing wealth, and in global governance.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
It is only because you fail to understand the political side of AGW, .... the solutions proposed by the UN, aiming for a global government, and why so many countries, from the US, Canada, Australia have rejected their attempts.
I understand perfectly the politics behind both sides of the issue. I am a Canadian and a card-carrying Conservative in the most conservative province in this country, and I say to you that your accusation that the UN is "aiming for a global government" is laughable, contemptible and has nothing at all to do with the science supporting the premise of global warming! That is the height of hubris, and is conspiracism at its worst.


I never stated it has to do with the science supporting the premise of global warming. You just made that up. I stated they are USING AGW to enact leftists policies. The UN is very far left. The far left desire global governance and socialism to redistribute the worlds wealth and regulate energy use. Not debatable
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2014
Maggnus, this is an example of unfounded conspiracy theory.....

The Koch brothers (et al) know too well what value there is in swaying (or at the very least delaying) public opinion...just look at the US congress.
Delaying decisions means big bucks for them. And that can pay a f*ck-ton of unemployed people to be their internet commenters.


The Koch brothers are simply supplying what is in fact demanded, and what the economy requires to stay afloat. I assure you that if the Koch brothers could make their millions off of windmills and leprechaun farts, then they would just assume do that instead.

The notion that simply convincing the masses of AGW is going to make a ratz-ass difference to anything, and that it is the "deniers" who are the cause of the continued rise in oil use, is bed-wetting conspiracy gibberish.

Everyone, including those who believe in AGW, will continue to pursue their personal best interests and so will not in fact go to extra expense for AGW.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
Koch Industries are creating wealth unlike the cronies of Obama, like GE or Google or Solyndra, that suck up taxpayer money and funnel it back to the 'liberals'.

I am a Canadian and a card-carrying Conservative

So you are really a 'liberal'.
Aren't all Canadians socialists?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2014
Possibly now, ...since I had left, that is.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
Britain, Australia, Canada, the US,... have all rejected the attempts of the socialist leaning UN in redistributing wealth, and in global governance.
Garbage. You are just promoting your political agenda.

This is the typical way these conversations end. The discussion degenerates because one side stops talking about the science and shifts the conversation to politics.

Denialism and conspiracism are two facets of the same carving. So you're not a denialist, you're a conspiracist. Either way, you argument is just as empty and without merit.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
My argument about what?

As I pointed out above, and for which you have agreed,... even if climate scientists in fact do not know what they are talking about, it is still not a rational argument to say that climate scientists are wrong about climate science, for if they are wrong then who is right? It's an impossible argument.

You want to continue that debate because you will lose the next phase,....

So, the debate is a pontless one,... and so naturally leads to 'what to do about it and how fast',... which OBVIOUSLY leads to politics.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
No, that is NOT science nor a discovery of causation. Correlation is not physical causation unless it can be verified and reproduced experimentally.
Of course it is.

Particularly, if at the same time that same researcher claims that the prior 17 years of lack of global warming is not enough time to be significant trend to effect the core claim of AGW. Can't have it both ways.
What 17 year lack of warming? There is no such thing.

And the core claim is not AGW! That you can't see that speaks to your POLITICAL desire not the science!

Now tell me all about how the socialists, or fascists, or communists, or capitalists, or libertarians, or conservatives, or whatever particular political brand you have decided that you don't like has brainwashed me. Absolute idiocy!

I agree with the rest of your post.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2014
My argument about what?
you argue that there is a global conspiracy by the socialist UN to take over the world and enforce a world government that will redistribute wealth to match some nebulous socialist norm you have imagined.

You're a conspiracist. A laughably sad version to be sure, but a conspiracist none the less. Your view is clouded by the political conspiracism you imagine to be all around you. You are an example of the type of person this article talks about, and every time you post more of your political agenda, you make that point clearer.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2014
The Koch brothers are simply supplying what is in fact demanded, and what the economy requires to stay afloat. I assure you that if the Koch brothers could make their millions off of windmills and leprechaun farts, then they would just assume do that instead.
In your OPINION.

The notion that simply convincing the masses of AGW is going to make a ratz-ass difference to anything, and that it is the "deniers" who are the cause of the continued rise in oil use, is bed-wetting conspiracy gibberish.
Your OPINION!
Everyone, including those who believe in AGW, will continue to pursue their personal best interests and so will not in fact go to extra expense for AGW.
Your OPINION!

Typical conspiracist blather, we are being watched, the UN is out to take our liberties bull crap! No bloody wonder you're a conspiracist, you are so caught up in trying to foist your opinion on others, you can't see that YOU are the very enemy you are fighting. And STILL not sicence!
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
Particularly, if at the same time that same researcher claims that the prior 17 years of lack of global warming is not enough time to be significant trend to effect the core claim of AGW. Can't have it both ways

@noumenon
i dont know if you believe warming has stopped,or are arguing politics, but i can answer the above:
it is NOT both ways
please see this thread

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

see case study 2:
The second myth we tackled was the mistaken belief that global warming has stopped. This myth has many variants, such as "global warming stopped 15, 16 or 17 years ago" (the time period varies) or "no statistically significant warming since 1998".
Typically, scientists respond to the "no warming" myth using statistical explanations that go over the heads of most people. How do you debunk this myth in a compelling, memorable way?


see also

http://www.thecon...ect.com/

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
If Koch Industries were not supplying what there customers demanded they would be out of business. That is NOT opinion.
And Maggie claims to be 'conservative'? A conservative what?
You're a conspiracist.

Carbon taxes are wealth redistribution, pure and simple.
At the last global conference all the turd world nations demanded the 'rich' redistribute more wealth to them.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
Maggnus is simply uninformed about the political aspect of AGW, and can only call names,... denialist or conspiracists, no matter what the facts are. The far left do not even debate it. They want government control of energy, social engineering and control of human behavior to regulate and distribute energy use. At the NASA site they even mention consumption being a problem to fix!!

@Stumpy, no I don't think the warming has ended because of the prior 17 years,... but the raise has paused. I think my original point was clear. The example researcher presented by maggnus thought he could attribute an observed and particular effect to AGW,... even though climate scientists at the same time rightly claim that such a 17 year trend is not enough data to say that AGW is wrong. It is amusing that one would think they are being scientific by invoking AGW to explain some specific observation like plants. It is a contempt for science.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2014
And Noumenon is so stuck in trying to battle the imaginary conspiracy he sees all around him that he cannot deal with any subject without referencing his imaginary conspiracy and how the findings a scientist are being corrupted by some imaginary world body to ensure his desire to use energy in any manner he sees fit, regardless of its consequence, is enshrined. And THAT is not just a contempt for science, its a bastardization of the very principle!

You go girl, grab your sword of justice and show them socialists how to do things! What a joke.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
And THAT is not just a contempt for science, its a bastardization of the very principle!

Yep, that is the IPCC.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
"Poor countries pulled out of the United Nations climate talks during a fight over transferring wealth from richer countries to fight global warming."
"Poor countries have demanded that the developed world give them $100 billion annually by 2020 to prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as heat waves and droughts. Brazil even put forward a proposal last week that would have made rich countries pay for historical greenhouse gas emissions."

Read more: http://dailycalle...sgXvluxi

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
"In its editorial, the paper laments that Democrat groups have no one like the Kochs. For the Post, Reid Wilson wrote that for "Democratic professionals who actually run campaigns, the thing that frustrates them most about the Koch brothers network is that there's no real equivalent on their side."

This is an odd claim considering that the left has spent the better part of the last 40 years creating dozens of purported think tanks and agenda shops like the Center for American Progress (CAP), and in George Soros has one of the richest men in the world funding Democrats and their issues at nearly every turn. "
"the number of really deep-pocketed donors is legion on the left. The left has Bill Gates, George Soros, Tim Gill, the owners of Google and Facebook, and investor Warren Buffet, not to mention nearly every union from both the public and private sectors that have spent billions in every election cycle to elect Democrats. "
http://www.breitb.../Wash-Po
Howhot
4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
"the number of really deep-pocketed donors is legion on the left. The left has Bill Gates, George Soros, Tim Gill, the owners of Google and Facebook, and investor Warren Buffet, not to mention nearly every union from both the public and private sectors that have spent billions in every election cycle to elect Democrats. "

Seems to me, we have a lot of leftist socialist capitalist getting rich in the US. Perhaps it's because they are not evil, mean and insane like the rightwing nut cases. On the righwing side we have billionaire donors, William Koch, Harold Simmons, Bob Perry, Jim Davis, Richard Marriott and Bill Marriott Jr., Edward Conard, Frank VanderSloot, Steven Lund, Julian Robertson Jr., John Paulson, Paul Singer, Robert Mercer, Kenneth Griffin, L. Francis Rooney III, Steven Webster, ...

So @R2, I think your story is a little one-sided. With billionaire donors like that who needs a democracy! Yet half of the donors to Obama's reelection in 2011 were $200 and less!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
"John Podesta of CAP, for instance, has been in and out of the Clinton and Obama administrations for decades and has wielded a large amount of influence not just in dollars or advocacy but by having his hand directly on the rudder guiding government action.

Neither David nor Charles Koch have been in a presidential administration.

So, while the Koch's influence is not inconsiderable, it is a bit absurd of the Washington Post to lament that their lefty friends don't have enough influence in government and can't raise as much cash.

Remember, Obama's re-election campaign was famously dubbed the billion-dollar campaign for being the first to ever raise a billion bucks for an election. "
http://www.breitb...Brothers
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2014
And because of Rygg the basement dweller, this has turned into yet another thread dominated only by the politics of a schizophrenic loon. Pardon my bluntness, but take heed:

I suggest not interacting with the affected person, as this seems to lead to ever stronger episodes of paranoid delusions and disorganized thinking. I have serious concerns that his hallucinogenic delusions will lead him to cause harm to himself or others around him, and I hope someone close to him reads this and offers assistance before it is too late
Noumenon
2 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2014
@Maggnus, what do you expect to do about AGW?
gregor1
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2014
"Leading climate scientists such as David Karoly have become so exasperated by these tactics they will no longer debate the science with deniers."
What he doesn't mention is that Karoly is actually a leading green activist and was one of the authors of the bogus Australian hockey stick paper. Perhaps Lowe doesn't quite get that science is supposed to be objective rather than serving an agenda. And. having already articulated the skeptic position with this-
"But there is still legitimate disagreement about the scale and rate of future changes in climate for any given increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." he continues with the mythical 'denier' meme. If disagreement is legitimate how on Earth can he brand those who produce evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the low side and of no threat to anyone as "deniers'?

The Shootist
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2014
Deniers? Man like Freeman Dyson? Debate Freeman Dyson on anything, you might as well piss in a hurricane.
Lex Talonis
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
Australia is heavily investing in coal fired solar panels, coal fired wind turbines and coal fired solar concentrators.

Live is great in the land of the congenital idiot.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2014
The problem with science is that the word is rooted on knowledge, and yet in science there is no certainty, and when something is known it is certain. So science is truly self contradictory. Theories are based on hypothesis backed by evidence or vigorous rationalization. This does not make theories true or correct, they are only one of a plethora of possible explanations. In most cases, increasing evidence or a higher degree of rationalization proves theories wrong.

Such is the case with human induced climate change. Mounting evidence is suggesting that the effects are quickly neutralized by natural events, that the Earth as a biosphere is well equipped to deal with the greenhousing gases we throw at it.
Jimee
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2014
Humans have battled ignorance for as long as we have been around. The deniers will never understand science, or give away their fat paychecks from the Kochs.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2014
The Kochs, graduates of MIT, like their father, used science to create their wealth.
The ignorance Fred Koch battled and his sons battle is Marxism.
AGWism is a subset of socialism in that their only 'solutions' to 'save the planet' require more state control of the world economy.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2014
AGWism is a subset of socialism in that their only 'solutions' to 'save the planet' require more state control of the world economy

@ryggesogn2
personal conjecture based upon conspiracy theory
science requires evidence/proof/facts
this is speculation based upon delusion
and your links are nothing more than spam and obfuscation
they also do not correlate your findings
the only thing they support is your delusional state

You cannot even specify what it is about the science that you dont like
other than you "feel" that it is wrong
making baseless claims with copious amounts of scientific evidence refuting you directly is pseudoscience
take it to 4chan or a blog
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
personal conjecture based upon conspiracy theory

It's the stated policy of the AGWites.
http://www.thecon...ect.com/
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
AGWism is a subset of socialism in that their only 'solutions' to 'save the planet' require more state control of the world economy

@ryggesogn2
personal conjecture based upon conspiracy theory


No, it is a fact, freely admitted to by the far left. You could say there is a "consenus" of the political liberal progressives, that government control, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering, should be the solutions to AGW. This is not even a debate.

It is why Maggnus does not want to answer my question below,... because he knows that politics become involved as soon as you ask that question, and that simply debating the plausibility of AGW ad infintum and labeling people "deniers" as a blanket insult, or a conspiracist despite the undisputed facts, won't work.

The globe is increasing its oil use as we speak, china is accelerating the production of coal plants as we speak. This can not be the fault only of the "deniers" of the science.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2014
"Is it fair to use climate policies to keep poor people poor?"
"Access to cheap and abundant power is one of the best ways to lift people out of poverty. Analyses show that there is a clear connection between growth and energy availability in Africa. Most spectacularly, China lifted 680 million people out of poverty over the past 30 years — not through expensive wind and solar, but through cheap, if polluting, coal."
"The Obama administration even acknowledged that without a coal power plant South Africa's "economic recovery will suffer, adversely impacting electrification, job creation, and social indicators." Yet, now we tell the world's poor, that they shouldn't get cheap energy."
http://www.usatod...5284631/
AGWite socialists WANT fewer, poorer people.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2014
AGW climateers are not pedaling socialism? How about this then
"Christiana Figueres, with the lumpy title of executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), came right out and said it: Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. The really good model is communist China."
"Global warming alarmists "want to change us, they want to change our behavior, our way of life, our values and preferences," according to a man who knows a thing or two about communist regimes, former Czech President Vaclav Klaus. In a speech to Australia's Institute of Public Affairs in 2011, he stressed:
"They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate."
http://news.inves...unism-an

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.