How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Pipirr]

I'm reminded of the JFK conspiracies. I've heard a lot of them and sometimes they seem really, really persuasive. Then I remind myself that all of these really, really persuasive conspiracy theories can't be true, since they are mutually exclusive. There is only one objective truth to the matter.

Which is why I think the list, albeit cheeky, is useful. Encounter these arguments in isolation and they can sound plausible. Put them all together, not so much...

 

[mhaze]

So finally you start to get it? That's funny already. How slow is that, after how many days?

Now, did you follow these links?
Wikiality
STR
Conservapedia
Those might be too subtle (as this thread appears to be for some), so try this
radio comedy sketch

My my, no, you don't understand.

I've been waiting for the, uh, you know, the quality stuff.

Is there going to be some?

 

[neltana]

Oh, I think all of these threads are useful. They get people thinking and talking about complex issues--something that can be pretty hard to do in this modern world!

I just find the whole debate odd. The real questions are whether we should:

- reduce air pollution
- improve the efficiency of our energy use
- find more renewal sources of energy

I believe the answers to these are "yes" and, if we found ways to do them economically, both sides would be happy. In my opinion, an anti-AGW person who works towards those goals does just as much good as a pro-AGW who works towards those goals.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The quote that CapelDodger pointed out above is one of the funniest things I've seen on the internet today:

"In summary, each and every one of the above has been found to be the true culprit responsible for global warming which does not exist."

Have you read the rest of it? The whole thing is very good and very funny.

I'm reminded of the JFK conspiracies. I've heard a lot of them and sometimes they seem really, really persuasive. Then I remind myself that all of these really, really persuasive conspiracy theories can't be true, since they are mutually exclusive. There is only one objective truth to the matter.

That is is the point of this thread.

I don't feel any great need to be pro or anti-AGW...but I recognize the GWS that you guys are parodying here. You get the impression that they will grasp at any straw possible, as long as it is an anti-AGW straw.

The site I linked to above is a parody but the items in my list are not paraodies. You can easily find GWS saying these over and over, including some who are supposed to be respected experts!

That being said, I think there are sincere anti-AGW folks as well. They see problems with the IPCC models and doubt their conclusion, but they could be convinced by more and better evidence.

That is the real issue. This subject is complex and there are real questions to be asked and answered, yet they are obscured by all the contradictory nonsense. The GWS "industry" is not interested in the truth: it is interested only in creating doubt and confusion.

Let's face it, even if the IPCC models are correct, there is a lot of more work to do before ALL the questions are answered. The IPCC report makes that clear (they stand behind their conclusion, be admit there are open questions). While there are still outstanding scientific questions, I think it is a little early to declare ALL anti-AGW folks as deliberately ignoring the truth.

There are no "IPCC models". The IPCC represents the work of the climate science community; it does not do that work.

As I said above, there are real questions, and those doing their best (worst?) to obscure those are the denialists, not the real sceptics (such as climate scientists).

 

[TrueSceptic]

My my, no, you don't understand.

I've been waiting for the, uh, you know, the quality stuff.

Is there going to be some?

I dunno. It's down to what GWS say. When they come out with the side-splitters I'll mention them.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Which is why I think the list, albeit cheeky, is useful. Encounter these arguments in isolation and they can sound plausible. Put them all together, not so much...

Why is it cheeky? Do GWS not say these things? The cheek is in these "sceptics" thinking that the rest of us won't notice and that they can get away with it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, I think all of these threads are useful. They get people thinking and talking about complex issues--something that can be pretty hard to do in this modern world!

I just find the whole debate odd. The real questions are whether we should:

- reduce air pollution
- improve the efficiency of our energy use
- find more renewal sources of energy

I believe the answers to these are "yes" and, if we found ways to do them economically, both sides would be happy. In my opinion, an anti-AGW person who works towards those goals does just as much good as a pro-AGW who works towards those goals.

Yes, it is odd. Why is there so much effort put into attempting to show that there is no warming, or if there is, it's nothing to do with us?

 

[David Rodale]

Why is it cheeky? Do GWS not say these things? The cheek is in these "sceptics" thinking that the rest of us won't notice and that they can get away with it.

Let's make a list of what the AGW side say. That would be interesting wouldn't it?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Let's make a list of what the AGW side say. That would be interesting wouldn't it?

Perhaps you're not very observant but an attempt has already been made.

Perhaps you could do better? In fact, I know you could because just about anyone could do better than LR.

 

[neltana]

There are no "IPCC models". The IPCC represents the work of the climate science community; it does not do that work.

I guess I should have said "the models IPCC used to draw their conclusions. You know, the ones they talk about in the entire darn report. Those ones."

Sorry I wasn't clearer.

 

[mhaze]

I dunno. It's down to what GWS say. When they come out with the side-splitters I'll mention them.

Great!

Since prima facia evidence is that major comedians regulars bombast Global Warming and it's Shrill Alarmists and do a pretty bang up job of it. I would not want your attempt to elevate Skepticism to a similar venue to not succeed, or to be heavy on circuituous and cheap sarcasm, supplanted by a variety of personal snipes.

Caution - it might be really, really hard for Skeptics to produce anything as ridiculously, basically comical as Planet Gore.

Just ask: Is the spin I just made on Skeptics worthy of Leno? Cobert?

The introduction to the piece could be like this. "Some shrill Warmologists, you know, those guys alwaaays screaming about Polar Bears and nasty polluting SUVs, the ones who quake in fear at night due to their Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom, had this to say about people who made fun of them -"

Fill in the blanks.

_____ ___________ ________ __________ ___________

 

[TrueSceptic]

I guess I should have said "the models IPCC used to draw their conclusions. You know, the ones they talk about in the entire darn report. Those ones."

Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Sorry, but some people think that the IPCC actually do the science and I had to clarify that.

 

[neltana]

How about:

A global warming skeptic, an anthropogenic global warming believer and a polar bear walk into a bar...

the GWS orders a flaming shot of Bacardi 151
the AGW believer orders a club soda
the polar bear then eats the other two.

 

[mhaze]

Bwhahahahaha!!!!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Great!

Since prima facia evidence is that major comedians regulars bombast Global Warming and it's Shrill Alarmists and do a pretty bang up job of it. I would not want your attempt to elevate Skepticism to a similar venue to not succeed, or to be heavy on circuituous and cheap sarcasm, supplanted by a variety of personal snipes.

Dunno about the USA but I don't remember any comic having a go at the "Shrill Alarmists"* here. In fact the only thing I've heard from comedians on the topic at all is the one I linked to earlier.

Caution - it might be really, really hard for Skeptics to produce anything as ridiculously, basically comical as Planet Gore.

Just ask: Is the spin I just made on Skeptics worthy of Leno? Cobert?

The introduction to the piece could be like this. "Some shrill Warmologists, you know, those guys alwaaays screaming about Polar Bears and nasty polluting SUVs, the ones who quake in fear at night due to their Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom, had this to say about people who made fun of them -"

Fill in the blanks.

_____ ___________ ________ __________ ___________

So your new GWS claim is that US comedians make good jokes about AGW Alarmists so therefore AGW is false?

*I notice the word "shrill" being used a lot. Do you get this from some "How To Be An Insulting Global Warming Sceptic" guide?

BTW when are you going to answer the very reasonable question I asked here and again here?

 

[mhaze]

Just ask: Is the spin I just made on Skeptics worthy of Leno? Cobert?

The introduction to the piece could be like this. "Some shrill Warmologists, you know, those guys alwaaays screaming about Polar Bears and nasty polluting SUVs, the ones who quake in fear at night due to their Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom, had this to say about people who made fun of them -"

Fill in the blanks.

_____ ___________ ________ __________ ___________
​

Dunno about the USA but I don't remember any comic having a go at the "Shrill Alarmists"* here. In fact the only thing I've heard from comedians on the topic at all is the one I linked to earlier.

So your new GWS claim is that US comedians make good jokes about AGW Alarmists so therefore AGW is false?

*I notice the word "shrill" being used a lot. Do you get this from some "How To Be An Insulting Global Warming Sceptic" guide?

BTW when are you going to answer the very reasonable question I asked here and again here?

My My. Don't you get it? You respond by filling in the blanks in such a way that you actually produce something funny. This thread is not about the serious discussion of AGW so I shall disregard your other comments.

I apologize for "shrill". It is indeed a word never used in a comedy context and reminds one immediately of a certain Rosie who is no longer funny. Therefore -

Replace "shrill" with

"___________________"

???

Bugeyed vegan low carbon footprint humanoid, fawning supplicants of the apocalypse of global warming and member of the Order of Eternal Friends of the Polar Bears

???

 

[TrueSceptic]

My My. Don't you get it? You respond by filling in the blanks in such a way that you actually produce something funny. This thread is not about the serious discussion of AGW so I shall disregard your other comments.

Oh I get it alright. You are arrogant enough to demand that I perform a trick for you! (FWIW I'm rubbish at jokes.)

I doubt that you are capable of a serious discussion of anything without resorting to ranting insults.

The OP represents the GWS mindset by listing real GWS claims and behaviour. This is intrinsically funny but my intent is serious. I really want to know how you get to be like this.

 

[Pipirr]

This thread is not about the serious discussion of AGW so I shall disregard your other comments.

Who says this thread isn't about serious discussion of AGW? You?

This is a forum for critical thinking and skepticism, after all. In this context, a list of mutually contradictory arguments put forward by one side of a debate can certainly be taken seriously.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Who says this thread isn't about serious discussion of AGW? You?

This is a forum for critical thinking and skepticism, after all. In this context, a list of mutually contradictory arguments put forward by one side of a debate can certainly be taken seriously.

Quite, even if some of the individual arguments cannot. IOW this is a sceptical look at GW Scepticism (note capital S).

 

[mhaze]

Oh I get it alright. You are arrogant enough to demand that I perform a trick for you! (FWIW I'm rubbish at jokes.)

I doubt that you are capable of a serious discussion of anything without resorting to ranting insults.

The OP represents the GWS mindset by listing real GWS claims and behaviour. This is intrinsically funny but my intent is serious. I really want to know how you get to be like this.

Ranting insults? Of course not. Even if my attempts at humour are lame, and even if you admit to being poor at jokes, a vein of satire to put it in its most positive light runs through this thread, and to put it in its most negative, sarcastic cynicism.

Be that as it may, it cannot be ranting insults that I suggest the production of comments worthy of Jay Leno or Cobert, unless such would in fact suit their mode of comedy.

Alternately, of course, GW and it's true believers (or here, it's skeptics) might should be protected from the potentially vicious snipes of comedy as have been protected race, ethnicity, and many other societal segments.

People have baskets of feelings we might hurt, yes. But since GW already is standard fare for stand up comedians, I'm only asking that GW Skeptics be allowed equal time, and be made fun of just as much.