• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AGW Denial - The New Creationism/Holocaust Denial Anti-Intellecual Meme?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a better idea: instead of me proving a negative, how about you provide any shred of proof that I'm doing some sort of "all and not some" description? The fact is that you can't because I don't at any point describe any people. Instead, I describe tactics and general arguments. The only one personalizing here is you.

Please make a positive argument against what I said. You're still being vague and unspecific. If you have a criticism that addresses what I've said and not what you seem to prefer I'd have said, then bring it.
 
Xephyr said:
Are you saying that every single argument in all forums and all blogs and all MSM and all skeptical scientists at all times are utilizing creationist and holocaust denier "tactics" all around on the whole based on the few samples you gave ?
Click to expand...

He isn’t required to prove a negative. He provided evidence these tactics are used, that is sufficient for his claim. If you are suggesting there are sources that don’t use these tactics, you are the one making the claim and are required to produce the evidence.

If you are “just asking questions” but not actually making a claim then you are guilty of one of the pseudo-skeptical arguments he is highlighting, but it seems you are simply using a variant of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. To illustrate, you could just as easily apply your argument to Creationists, and say “sure you can link to fallacies they are committing, but you haven’t proven these represent all creationists, some of them could have valid arguments”
 
lomiller said:
He isn’t required to prove a negative. He provided evidence these tactics are used, that is sufficient for his claim. If you are suggesting there are sources that don’t use these tactics, you are the one making the claim and are required to produce the evidence.

If you are “just asking questions” but not actually making a claim then you are guilty of one of the pseudo-skeptical arguments he is highlighting, but it seems you are simply using a variant of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. To illustrate, you could just as easily apply your argument to Creationists, and say “sure you can link to fallacies they are committing, but you haven’t proven these represent all creationists, some of them could have valid arguments”
Click to expand...

I wonder if we AGW proponents are ever guilty of using the same "tactics" in this neverending circular semantic debate...

Anyone willing to admit to it ? I know I certainly have at times of frustration and I witness it coming from both sides in forum threads all the time (and not just on JREF).

Don't generalize the opposition and don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

The title of this thread points the finger in one direction, albeit with valid points documented within, but fails to solidify its summarized overall logic (closing paragraph) by means of failing to avoid the 'general sweep' fallacy.

If this were a peer-reviewed paper, it would not pass for due to a poor summary/conclusion in its anecdotal findings and its lack of acknowledging the findings as such.

And in terms of creationists having valid arguments - arguments that are sourced from absolutely nothing other than faith based data with no empirical evidence to back it up cannot possibly have any validity to it whatsoever, unless you consider theological philosophy empirical evidence. You just gave a poor analogy in comparison, IMO.
 
Matilda said:
This thread isn't actually about the causes or existence of AGW, but the tactics used by AGW deniers and similarities with other purveyors of woo. Alex Jones is an example of overlap, which may be part of the reason for overlapping tactics.
Click to expand...

No, this thread is about asserting venality on the part of people who 1) don't believe in AGW, or 2) believe in AGW but think predictions are being vastly exaggerated, and 3) people who don't believe in AGW at all.
 
Xephyr said:
I wonder if we AGW proponents are ever guilty of using the same "tactics" in this neverending circular semantic debate...
Click to expand...

Great-- feel free to list them as you see fit, but none of that would refute or disqualify anything I have stated so far. And that is why you continue to fail to have any valid criticism and have to resort to tu quoque.

Xephyr said:
The title of this thread points the finger in one direction, albeit with valid points documented within, but fails to solidify its summarized overall logic (closing paragraph) by means of failing to avoid the 'general sweep' fallacy.
Click to expand...

Then it should be no problem for you to actually prove your assertion by showing evidence of it.

Xephyr said:
If this were a peer-reviewed paper, it would not pass for due to a poor summary/conclusion in its anecdotal findings and its lack of acknowledging the findings as such.
Click to expand...

If it were a peer-review submittal it would have been formatted far differently and not be posted first to an internet forum, so your red herring is duly noted.

Seriously, can you actually provide any real criticism of what I've actually said instead of what you seem to have preferred I said?
 
MikeMangum said:
No, this thread is about asserting venality on the part of people who 1) don't believe in AGW, or 2) believe in AGW but think predictions are being vastly exaggerated, and 3) people who don't believe in AGW at all.
Click to expand...

No, this thread is about exploring the crappy tactics that have been employed in the debate, and displaying how the anti-intellectual aspects aren't novel, logical, or honest. And, in protest after protest of the topic, not a single criticism has actually shown how anything I posted was incorrect or invalid. Don't like the actual similarities I'm pointing out? Okay, then feel free to prove what I actually said wrong.
 
GreNME said:
Great-- feel free to list them as you see fit, but none of that would refute or disqualify anything I have stated so far. And that is why you continue to fail to have any valid criticism and have to resort to tu quoque.



Then it should be no problem for you to actually prove your assertion by showing evidence of it.



If it were a peer-review submittal it would have been formatted far differently and not be posted first to an internet forum, so your red herring is duly noted.

Seriously, can you actually provide any real criticism of what I've actually said instead of what you seem to have preferred I said?
Click to expand...

I did not come onto this thread to debunk your individual claims, because they are true on both sides of the debate on an individual basis.

I entered this thread to point out your fallacious and, IMO, mischievious generalization of an entire group/populace of people.

This needs to be duly noted, in order to convey true fairness to all individuals of whom you have grouped as a whole by means of your lack of clarifying otherwise.

Or :

How about posting a similar thread describing the same tactics on the proponents side and give examples as well (there are plenty)... Why all one-sided ?

One-sided suggests mischieviousness.

If you don't want to admit to a one-sided generalization, that's your choice.

But if you were attempting to come across as fair and balanced, you failed.
 
Right, you didn't come on this thread to refute anything I had to say, you just came on to make assertions without backing them up. Show where I generalized and stop assuming that because you assert it that it must be true.
 
GreNME said:
Show where I generalized and stop assuming that because you assert it that it must be true.
Click to expand...

Simple: the very first post on this thread...

The similarities in structure and argument between the anti-AGW and Holocaust denial are as follows...
Click to expand...

ETA:
you didn't come on this thread to refute anything I had to say
Click to expand...

Generally, when someone opens the discussion with a blanket generalization that accuses others of venality and compares them to holocaust deniers, that person isn't going to get many people who are motivated to argue back and politely "refute" that they are venal and can be compared to holocaust deniers and flat earthers. I hope you aren't surprised by that. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and energy on your initial post by simply boiling it down to "People who argue against the view of AGW that is being pushed by authoritative bodies like the IPCC are either stupid, or evil, but most likely both."
 
Last edited:
MikeMangum said:
Simple: the very first post on this thread...
Click to expand...

And then I go on to list specific similarities, which pretty much is the opposite of what you are asserting.

MikeMangum said:
ETA:


Generally, when someone opens the discussion with a blanket generalization that accuses others of venality and compares them to holocaust deniers, that person isn't going to get many people who are motivated to argue back and politely "refute" that they are venal and can be compared to holocaust deniers and flat earthers. I hope you aren't surprised by that. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and energy on your initial post by simply boiling it down to "People who argue against the view of AGW that is being pushed by authoritative bodies like the IPCC are either stupid, or evil, but most likely both."
Click to expand...

I didn't compare anyone to Holocaust deniers, and the fact that you're still beating that ridiculous drum underscores how little of what I actually said you're even trying to address.

As for the "stupid, or evil, or both" nonsense: you're an expert at being wrong. I don't think that being a denier makes one stupid or evil on its face. Instead, I pointed out the intellectual dishonesty of several tactics used in denier arguments, both in media (TV, blogs, etc.) and organizationally. If you even bothered to read before letting your knees jerk, you (and Xephyr) would have seen that I even named two organizations in particular.

Again, you fail not through stupidity or being evil, you fail because you don't even bother to engage what I said and are trying to have an argument with a strawman.
 
As an anecdotal example of how the tactics I've described so far are translating to everyday people, I want to explain what my significant other and I have heard over the last few days.

Here in the DFW area we've just received record-breaking snowfall that everyone we've talked to says they've never seen the likes of as far as they can remember. Now, compared to the beating the East Coast took over the last week and a half the 12-14 inches Dallas County has gotten isn't a whole lot, but for a good portion of North Texas there was little to no preparation or ability to cope with it. We literally got power restored just a short while ago, and this is after it having been out for approximately 47 hours. Since I grew up on the East Coast and am used to dealing with a foot of snow, I spent much of yesterday helping to dig neighbors' driveways out and getting cars un-stuck while my better half headed to the nearest hotel to get online and get some work done. Both of us heard people mentioning both Al Gore and the snow we got as proof against Global Warming. One older neighbor even asked me point-blank: "well, what do you think Gore has to say about Global Warming now?" It was all I could do to avoid laughing at the absurdity of the question while I shoveled his driveway. My better half bit her tongue while listening to people talking about it as she worked on her laptop in the hotel lobby. It would have done no good but start unresolved arguments to point out the lack of understanding between climate and weather, and I wasn't in the mood to start making fun of the neighbor who was dealing with no heat, no hot water, and no electricity (on top of a wife who is on oxygen in the house).

From the beginning of this thread I've been indicting the anti-intellectualism and ridiculous arguments put forward in the name of "global warming skepticism," named both organizations and specific blogs who use them, and now have provided an example of the general public repeating them without an inkling of the intellectual dishonesty involved in them. FOX News has used the East Coast snowfall (example) to both make the weather/climate fallacy as well as attack Al Gore, further perpetrating the anti-intellectualism meme I've discussed in this thread. The anecdotal examples and the FOX News example are further proof that I'm not simply making blanket accusations and that protestations to the contrary are ignoring the very meme I'm discussing to try to put forth some weak criticism at what I'm saying.

But go ahead and keep claiming that I'm making broad generalizations when the "most trusted" news channel is running crap like this:
 
No you're right...their rhetorical styles are very similar and I think that harks back to the main aspect of the argument. Holocaust denial, AGW denial, and YEC all come from a place of deep intellectual dishonesty. Most of the proponents of these ideas know this, some do not, but all know that their arguments are weak and fatally flawed...yet they continue to engage in them.

BTW; I have also had the distinct displeasure of debating "Right-To-Lifers". They have a similar fascination with conspiracy theories, and their character assassination of Margret Sanger is right up there with the AGW deniers unhealthy fixation on Al Gore.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
No you're right...their rhetorical styles are very similar and I think that harks back to the main aspect of the argument. Holocaust denial, AGW denial, and YEC all come from a place of deep intellectual dishonesty. Most of the proponents of these ideas know this, some do not, but all know that their arguments are weak and fatally flawed...yet they continue to engage in them.

BTW; I have also had the distinct displeasure of debating "Right-To-Lifers". They have a similar fascination with conspiracy theories, and their character assassination of Margret Sanger is right up there with the AGW deniers unhealthy fixation on Al Gore.

-z
Click to expand...

Darn Zombie threads, garlic, holy water, sausage grinders nothing seems to ban the undead!!
<grin>
 
I have to say, my new favorite tactic of the AGW deniers is this infatuation with the media as an arm of the warmer conspiracy.

Sure, some members of the media accept AGW, some deny it, but they mostly don't understand it on either side.

The interesting fact, however, is asymmetrical: AGW denialism ONLY EXISTS because of the media. There is no such thing as AGW denial in the scientific community. It can't survive in nature, like some obese, domesticated house cat that's had its claws removed, unless vapid media types shove gravy-soaked morsels into it's slobbering maw, it would die in a matter of days.
 
TraneWreck said:
The interesting fact, however, is asymmetrical: AGW denialism ONLY EXISTS because of the media. There is no such thing as AGW denial in the scientific community. It can't survive in nature, like some obese, domesticated house cat that's had its claws removed, unless vapid media types shove gravy-soaked morsels into it's slobbering maw, it would die in a matter of days.
Click to expand...

Hard to shake the media when your Nobel Prize winners are out getting tug jobs from message girls. That's not the happy ending to global warming we were thinking of.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Hard to shake the media when your Nobel Prize winners are out getting tug jobs from message girls. That's not the happy ending to global warming we were thinking of.
Click to expand...

You've outdone yourself. Your best combination of "incomprehensible" and "aimlessly malicious" yet. Kudos.

Gotta watch out for those message girls.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom