Provocative? Maybe, but it's a list based on observation. I made nothing up.
) One by one, they argued about a dozen or two points (mostly the demonstrably false ones) that you listed in your OP. Both of them are very politically conservative and that seems to be a pattern, at least here in the States.
)
Am I likely to waste my time with you when you post such childish drivel?
Yes, RR's point was a good one and echos my long-term puzzlement about the topic: what is so different about this science? Why do the discussions look so much like creationism vs. evolution?
The problem is that you don't see sceptics criticising one another, even when their views are contradictory: they care only that they are all against the AGW consensus.
How do we know which are markers and which causes? Who can we trust to do the research and report back?
The confusion largely arises because of the strong congruence between GWS and right-wing anti-green sentiment.
And yet this is what has happened. I doubt that will change now, no matter how much we would like it to.
Much the same here in the UK: GWS are nearly always right-wing (to the right of our Conservative Party). The big difference is that GWS doesn't have much presence in politics or even comedy.Only last week I got into a discussion with two of my coworkers (or cow orkers
The US has always had an undercurrent of "us vs. them" mentality that pollutes political discourse, and this has gotten even worse in recent years. A hypothesis that I have is that this philosophy has entered into public scientific debate as well. Toss in a propensity of some people to lump the whole of "the other side" into an exaggerated caricature boogeyman, and it is easy to subconsciously dismiss their arguments merely by their identity.
For instance:
"A/GW smells like environmentalism. eco-terrorists like Greenpeace are idiots. therefore, A/GW is wrong"
"I hate Al Gore because he is a liberal. Liberals are wrong about most everything. A/GW must be wrong."
"A/GW proponents think we need more regulations to curb emissions. I think that burdensome regulations are detrimental to the free market. Therefore, anything that may make regulations seemingly necessary must be wrong."
"Alarmists always exaggerate. Alarmists are bleating that we will be hit with a wall of water. Therefore, A/GW must be no big deal, even if it is real."
To be clear, I don't believe GWS think these things consciously and certainly not universally; I just wonder if, for some, this is a subconscious manifestation of the us-vs-them mentality and the human propensity to lump people into groups of ridiculous boogeymen. And I'm not personally immune:
When I hear arguments against A/GW from the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Steve Milloy, Jeff Beck etc. (not sure if non-US folks know who these yahoos are) I am almost reflexively (and, admittedly, sometimes thoughtlessly) dismissive of them. So, I'm no better in that regard.
The Gnomon made a similar point a few posts ago, and I agree with his "too black and white" notion.
We are talking about how some dismiss the effect of something because its concentration is small. Unless you know the properties of that substance, this is simply an argument from ignorance.
I know of Jeff Beck because you're an idiot?That's because I'm an idiot; he is Glenn Beck.
I know of Jeff Beck because you're an idiot?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Glenn Beck is a name new to me. Is he as big as, say, Limbaugh?
Don't get me wrong. Nothing (well...) would please me more than to see the Dr. Imago Box made a reality. What do you think it would cost?
Absolute statements such as this are preposterous of course. Do you actually believe this, or are you exaggerating?
Talking to yourself is no doubt preferred to your profoundly childish alternative, the defense of the indefensible propaganda statements of AIT.
