Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

If you want to discredit your side of this discussion, go for it.

Well, another thread with crazed Warmers goes into the depths of nothingness.

I'm not playing the game.

However, they do show attributes of religious cultists and fanatics. Stereotyping and demonizing the "opposition", for example. The thing is, once you've stereotyped someone, you don't have to consider their arguments at all. It's convenient, particularly if thinking things out is hard. And if someone is a demon, why, certainly you wouldn't want to think about what they said. It would lead you to perdition. We know these demons are very clever, and they will try to lead us into sin. Avoid dangerous and sinful thoughts, and people who tempt you into such paths.

Yea, brothers and sisters, I say unto thee: No sooner than you greet a Denier, than he may cause you to slip from the ways of the Righteous, and down the path which leads not just you, but the entire Earth, into a future of hellfire and brimstone. Stay pure in your thoughts and in your ways, Brother, lest we perish with billions from evil ways of the Demon-Deniers of Carbon.

 

[DC]

I'm inclined to say "Dodge noted".

Of course you can't, it's a strawman. There's nobody actually "denying" Global Warming or the science. When alarmists fail to generate alarm they cry "denier".

denial of the Anthropogenic part is still denial.

 

[Furcifer]

You are apparently one of them. Others in this thread include Malcolm and Mhaze. Then there's chaps like Anthony Watts, Monckton, McIntyre etc.

More boring rhetoric. I've "denied" nothing, you're lying because that's what alarmism dictates.

What does Watts "deny"? Be specific and provide evidence because I know you're just making it up. It's a strawman.

Monkton? Fringe. McIntyre? I'm not familiar with.

So 3 guys and 3 members of the JREF make up the "denialsphere"? That's laughable. What this is is alarmists having a tantrum because they can't incite fear in the general public so they make up scary "denier" ghosts.

The hard science you guys deny is the hard science showing AGW to be real and a real problem with serious consequences unless acted upon now.

Still waiting for evidence....

Specific enough for you?

No. Not even close.

 

[jj]

Still waiting for evidence....

You've been shown evidence. Since you've been shown evidence, you will retract all of your ridiculous personal insults now, right?

 

[Furcifer]

denial of the Anthropogenic part is still denial.

Who is denying anthropogenic CO2 isn't affecting the climate? BE SPECIFIC. I don't, I realize CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and we've released tons, million, billion of tons of it. But I've been called a "denier". So what am I denying?

Please, answer the question.

 

[citizenzen]

But I've been called a "denier". So what am I denying?

I don't know.

What are you denying?

 

[bit_pattern]

What does Watts "deny"? Be specific and provide evidence because I know you're just making it up. It's a strawman.

Um... The temperature record, for starters

http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html

But, wait, it's published on whatever infantile name you are calling SkS these days so I predict that you will simply deny it

 

[Furcifer]

You've been shown evidence. Since you've been shown evidence, you will retract all of your ridiculous personal insults now, right?

What "evidence", there's been none? I want evidence of "denial", specific examples of "denial" refuting science. WHO and WHAT they said.

Specifically. Not these empty rhetorical claims. You're fighting phantom strawmen. It's exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

 

[lomiller]

Or RealCrapClimate or SoCalledSkepticalScience, none of them.I stick to journals. Anyone linking those sites is obviously caught up in the pseudoscience of proving their own political agenda.

As pointed out by MANY people in the moderated thread the sites are called Realclimate and skeptical science. You adding the "crap" into the site name just shows you are trying to poison the well because you have no arguments or evidence.

Second Realclimate is written by actively publishing high profile climate scientists who extensively cite peer reviewed journals in their postings. If you really wanted peer reviewed journals (Which you never actually reference yourself) you could follw the links provided, but somehow you don't

Skeptialscience, while not run by publishing climate scientists the way Realclimate is, is also a fine site that provides extensive citation on everything they post.

You refuse to read the peer reviewed literature and you call the people who publish in the peer reviewed literature "psudoscintists" . This is what makes you a denier.

 

[bit_pattern]

lol.



Oh snap!



Yes, that's exactly what your vapid claim amounts to. Deal with it.




Boring rhetoric. Who said what exactly? The "denialsphere" is no less meaningless than "they"and "them".



Strawman.


Boring rhetoric.

An alarmists chasing ghosts.

It amuses me that you'd accuse anyone else of being vapid in a post that like that.

"lol

Oh Snap!

Strawman

Boring rhetoric"

Yeah, that's real scintilalting stuff, furficer.

 

[mhaze]

I don't know.

What are you denying?

You know it's there, Brother and Keeper of the Faith, deep down, he is denying, as he argues with the Faithful, and that's a Denier, that does that.

Praise be to the Most Holy, the Mann Gore Hansen Pig!

 

[Furcifer]

Um... The temperature record, for starters

http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html

But, wait, it's published on whatever infantile name you are calling SkS these days so I predict that you will simply deny it

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.-Anthony Watts

Yeah, that's "denial"

I don't pay attention to this rhetoric, I suggest people stick to reading the science.

 

[DC]

Who is denying anthropogenic CO2 isn't affecting the climate? BE SPECIFIC. I don't, I realize CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and we've released tons, million, billion of tons of it. But I've been called a "denier". So what am I denying?

Please, answer the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEXe4y1d8Q

he is in denial of the anthropogenic part of AGW.
and his research he points out here was refuted very quickly, it contained huge errors.

 

[bit_pattern]

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.-Anthony Watts

Yeah, that's "denial"

I

Yes but he DIDN'T accept their result, did he? The conspiracy just got deeper instead

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

don't pay attention to this rhetoric, I suggest people stick to reading the science.

Then why did you demand we prove he is a denier?

 

[lomiller]

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.-Anthony Watts

Yeah, that's "denial"

You seem to have missed the part of the story where Watts rejects their findings and insists it was all a big whitewash when they publish their results rejecting his premise.

 

[Furcifer]

As pointed out by MANY people in the moderated thread the sites are called Realclimate and skeptical science. You adding the "crap" into the site name just shows you are trying to poison the well because you have no arguments or evidence.

Because pseudoscience is "crap" or "junk" or "hokum". It's appropriate.

Second Realclimate is written by actively publishing high profile climate scientists who extensively cite peer reviewed journals in their postings. If you really wanted peer reviewed journals (Which you never actually reference yourself) you could follw the links provided, but somehow you don't

And as I said many times, it really wouldn't be pseudoscience if it was coming from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's a Cargo Cult.

You refuse to read the peer reviewed literature and you call the people who publish in the peer reviewed literature "psudoscintists" . This is what makes you a denier.

Nonsense. All I read is peer reviewed literature.

If you want to use these pseudoscience sites as a "jumping off point", by all means go right ahead. I think in the process you will actually digest some real climate science.

 

[citizenzen]

Yeah, that's "denial"

Actually, I'm on to Furcifer.

I've known him just long enough to know he's more interested in spreading chaos than anything.

Most of the time he's easy to ignore.

When he actually comes up with a sincere thought, I might pay more attention.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes but he DIDN'T accept their result, did he? The conspiracy just got deeper instead

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/



Then why did you demand we prove he is a denier?

The peer review process isn't "denial".

 

[bit_pattern]

The peer review process isn't "denial".

I realise that. What I don't understand is your point in mentioning PR when talking about Anthony Watts

 

[bit_pattern]

All I read is peer reviewed literature.

What journals are you subscribed to? Must be an expensive hobby