Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Actually the largest group, all of us, decide what words are offensive. Certain groups often try and they have varying degrees of success. I'm miffed that saying the word "retarded" has become offensive for any human to say no matter what you're talking about. They probably want to ban it's scientific use too...

The last time I checked blacks were still a minority in the US and anywhere else the "n" word may be used. And unless I'm mistaken they decided, not the white majority, that it was offensive. Over time that minority (the offended) became a majority. In every case that comes to mind it started with a minority that became a majority and certainly not the other way around.

Niger is the Latin word for the color black.

That's it. After I wrote it there was something niggling me and that's what it was. (yah I said it) It's not a particularily offensive term, I don't mind being called white and "blancer" wouldn't offend me. Honky doesn't offend me either, but I'm pretty much like you in the sense that I don't get offended by words and I don't understand why people let themselves be offended by words. Either of two things have to occur in order for it to be offensive; someone has to use it in a derogatory way or someone has to let themselves be offended by it. In the case we're talking about I'm sure it's both. It's posturing, but it's equally naive to say "Aww, he shouldn't be offended' knowing it was used in derogatory way as it is to say "People are using the term deliberately to invoke emotion associated with the Holocaust" knowing full well it's a fairly common term that is somewhat accurate.

All accurate words are trying to influence the debate, the people unfairly trying to influence the debate are the ones trying to cook up an offence to a word. Really people would try say it's trying to bring in the "holocaust denier" thing? That's completely wrong and unfounded and desperate.

I disagree. At the point where someone points out they are offended by it, continuing to use it lays the foundation for it to become derogatory. Since things don't really "slip out" on the internet it's certainly deliberate. Unfortunately you can't prove someone is "cooking up" offense or if they truly are offended. I can prove you are using a word deliberately after I told you I was offended by it. That's why it's easier to apologize and not use it. It's not essential to the discussion, unlike using the letter "e". Yes, you would be crippled trying to discuss something and not using the letter "e", not using the word "denier" won't affect anything.
If you could prove it was "cooked up" it would be a different story and I would agree with you.

We can't call them skeptics or unbelievers, and they aren't just wrong, they actually deny real evidence. What should we label them as instead?

Here's the list of synonyms for deny: abjure, abnegate, ban, begrudge, call on, contradict, contravene, controvert, curb, disacknowledge, disallow, disavow, disbelieve, discard, disclaim, discredit, disown, disprove, doubt, enjoin from, eschew, exclude, forbid, forgo, forsake, gainsay, hold back, keep back, negate, negative, not buy, nullify, oppose, rebuff, rebut, recant, refuse, refute, reject, repudiate, restrain, revoke, sacrifice, say no to, spurn, taboo, take exception to, turn down, turn thumbs down, veto, withhold

I'm fond of "abnegater", probably because I recently saw Catch Me If You Can and Ab-n-gal-lee has been stuck in my head. You may be fond of "contraverter" or if your a fan of the J Geils band "repudiator" (Reputa Reputa Da Beautah) YMMV considerably.

It's not a label it's an accurate description of what we think their problem is. An evolution denier says "There is no evidence for evolution" There is no better description. If you say "There is no evidence for AGW" you are an AGW denier.

Unfortunately that's not the case. I'm aware there's plenty of evidence in support of AGW, I know it's warmed over the last 150 years due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels and yet I've still been labelled a "denier". I don't know Anthony Watts' thoughts on it, but I don't believe he "denies" AGW. The few things I've read of his suggests he questions the extent of A in AGW and things like the hockey stick and how it was contrived. If it was left to "denial" in the absolute sense then I would probably agree with you. I don't think it is however and I do think it's being used as an inflammatory. That's just my opinion.

Again it's an accurate description and if they want to be treated with respect they shouldn't deny the bloody evidence in the first place. The people who call them deniers are also risking their reputations if they turn out to be wrong, it's an even playing field but the losers cry foul just because they can. Everyone wants a civilized discussion, everyone wants to live up to that dream, but it's utopian, if I think you're wrong I think you're stupid in a sense, everyone just get over it and move on and do some work, whiners.

I really want to disagree with you but I don't. I'm more of a "suck it up" kinda person as well.
I don't know, the thing is you can't disrespect someone because they disagree with you. I don't think it's half as big a deal to him as we've made it here. As far as i know this is one comment he made and isn't some mission he's on.

It's still possible to refer to them as AGW deniers but still review their books, engage them in debate and debunk their work. The term doesn't carry all of these other associations you want it to. This is what the deniers want because it would serve their main goal which is to get people to think of them as an oppressed minority which is hogwash.

I don't really disagree with this either, although I think it's more to do with the association with denying one of the biggest crimes in history than looking oppressed. It's about posturing and that's just a natural part of debate. Being pragmatic it still seems easier to apologize and stop using a word than expect people to not be offended. Continuing to use the word once it's been identified as offensive will make them oppressed. Just sayin.

 

[DC]

And the Warmer Religion purposefully engineered the use of the word Denier, and applied it to those who dared blaspheme against their true faith. Starting with Noam Chompsky, as I recall in 2006.

You know, Chompsky? The propagandist?

evidence ?

 

[Aepervius]

The increase is approximately 1% per year. That's 1%, then 1% then 1%. It doesn't change and by definition is linear. You can't deny this.

I can't believe I'm explaining straight lines in a science forum.

The percentage is constant. But percentage calculation automatically lead to non linear , geometric progression.
A rate of change of 100% is a doubling. SO year 1=1 , year 2=2 , year 3=4 ,... year 10=1024. Plotting it will be obvious there is no linear change.

OTOH a linear change will not have a constant percentage of change : If we have year 1=1 year 2=2 ,.... year x=x in value, then the change from year 1 to year 2 is 100%, from year 2 to year 3 50%(2 multiply by 1.5=3) , from year 3 to year 4 : 33% (you multiply by 3*1.33=4)

SO the percentage is actually diiminushing and percentage from year n to year n+1 = 1/n

You are definitively wrong with saying a 1% constant change per year is linear unless speaking of the constant RATE of change (constant is a form of lienar with a incline of zero). But that would be definitively worthless info to give. The value change is actually (percentage)^year quite an hint that it does not look linear in any way shape or form.

ETA: and yes basic math is that constant percentage are geometric. The MOST basic "legend" story is the one with the reward of rice on a chess board (from a king to a paysant) : a grain of rice is on the first square of the chess board, and the number grain of rice on each case which is doubled (constant rate of change of 100%) 2 on second square, 4 on third, 8 on fourth, etc... and the king realizing by the middle of the board that he would have to give his own kingdom and there is not enough trice on earth or history to fill the last board square.

ETA:ETA "the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year. " is definitively wrong due to the above. The rate of increase is constant and as such linear (1%) but the increase itself is geometrical (1.01, 1.01*1.01 , 1.01*1.01*1.01 etc...).

 

[Joey McGee]

The last time I checked blacks were still a minority in the US and anywhere else the "n" word may be used. And unless I'm mistaken they decided, not the white majority, that it was offensive. Over time that minority (the offended) became a majority. In every case that comes to mind it started with a minority that became a majority and certainly not the other way around.

Whatever minority it was convinced the majority over time. It was used in many places the same way colored or negro was, Nig was a common nickname, but over time it became seriously brutal in certain places. I think the problem was the way the word sounds, that one was chosen for verbal assaults the most often, the same way it is used now in causal conversation in every sentence, it's a meme.

It's not really the best analogy. a) There's nothing bad about being black. b) There's something bad about being a denier c) the "n" word had become synonymous with hatespeech d) I don't hate deniers, I think they deny evidence. We tend to be angry at people who do this because it wastes time, holds back humanity, occasionally leads to direct suffering. This is fair. Hey what about my rights to accurately express myself?

Either of two things have to occur in order for it to be offensive; someone has to use it in a derogatory way or someone has to let themselves be offended by it. In the case we're talking about I'm sure it's both.

Any argument against another can be construed as derogatory, if I accuse an creationist of denying the evidence for evolution, I am being derogatory by implying that they are too stupid to understand basic evidence. That's all this really is, to take offence you have to prove the offence was intentioned, everything else is unacceptable moral hysterics. Even if the person was just ignorant about the word, you still don't get to appeal emotion against them, despite soft-headed gatekeepers enabling hysterical groups to do this from time to time. (See: Semengate)

It's posturing, but it's equally naive to say "Aww, he shouldn't be offended' knowing it was used in derogatory way as it is to say "People are using the term deliberately to invoke emotion associated with the Holocaust" knowing full well it's a fairly common term that is somewhat accurate.

I disagree. At the point where someone points out they are offended by it, continuing to use it lays the foundation for it to become derogatory.

If people take offence when they shouldn't, we don't redefine the word, we hand them a dictionary and an English textbook. Sometimes social movements are so intense that a word is redefined, this is not one of those times.

Since things don't really "slip out" on the internet it's certainly deliberate. Unfortunately you can't prove someone is "cooking up" offense or if they truly are offended. I can prove you are using a word deliberately after I told you I was offended by it. That's why it's easier to apologize and not use it. It's not essential to the discussion, unlike using the letter "e". Yes, you would be crippled trying to discuss something and not using the letter "e", not using the word "denier" won't affect anything.
If you could prove it was "cooked up" it would be a different story and I would agree with you.

There's no need to prove that the offence is feigned, all I have to do is show that the offence is ridiculous. If we didn't resist shifts in meanings of words our language would be less robust, it would be less useful. The language is already pretty good we don't need to expand or shift...

Here's the list of synonyms for deny: abjure, abnegate, ban, begrudge, call on, contradict, contravene, controvert, curb, disacknowledge, disallow, disavow, disbelieve, discard, disclaim, discredit, disown, disprove, doubt, enjoin from, eschew, exclude, forbid, forgo, forsake, gainsay, hold back, keep back, negate, negative, not buy, nullify, oppose, rebuff, rebut, recant, refuse, refute, reject, repudiate, restrain, revoke, sacrifice, say no to, spurn, taboo, take exception to, turn down, turn thumbs down, veto, withhold

I'm fond of "abnegater", probably because I recently saw Catch Me If You Can and Ab-n-gal-lee has been stuck in my head. You may be fond of "contraverter" or if your a fan of the J Geils band "repudiator" (Reputa Reputa Da Beautah) YMMV considerably.

9/11 Abnegaters, AGW repudiaters? Evolution disallowers? When you attempt this experiment you realize that 9/11 denier conveys exactly what we want to imply. Always looking for new 60s rock bands, these guys I good I won't gainsay it.

Unfortunately that's not the case. I'm aware there's plenty of evidence in support of AGW, I know it's warmed over the last 150 years due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels and yet I've still been labelled a "denier". I don't know Anthony Watts' thoughts on it, but I don't believe he "denies" AGW. The few things I've read of his suggests he questions the extent of A in AGW and things like the hockey stick and how it was contrived. If it was left to "denial" in the absolute sense then I would probably agree with you. I don't think it is however and I do think it's being used as an inflammatory. That's just my opinion.

It's technically possible to split hairs over the difference between denial and skepticism but it shouldn't happen often. Denial is obvious because it's a repeated unwillingness to accept real evidence or obvious logic that is right in front of your face. It you could show it was genuine skepticism then the embarrassment should lie with the people who were overzealous in their persecution of real skeptics. But this is just all part of the debate, it doesn't matter what words you use, it matters if you're winning. AGW skeptics are welcome, deniers aren't, the difference is important and if this is your concern I will agree with you.

I really want to disagree with you but I don't. I'm more of a "suck it up" kinda person as well.
I don't know, the thing is you can't disrespect someone because they disagree with you. I don't think it's half as big a deal to him as we've made it here. As far as i know this is one comment he made and isn't some mission he's on.

Indeed, but you shouldn't give someone respect that doesn't deserve it either. The major issue in my eyes is that cranks are so starved for respect from being on the fringe they desperately plead for respect of their skepticism itself. Case in point, twoofers: "We're just asking questions!" when they obviously have their minds made up 100%. So there's a fine line, to be drawn. It would be nice to treat everyone with respect and without rudeness, but we'd lose some of our bearings on reality if I know anything about human beings.

I don't really disagree with this either, although I think it's more to do with the association with denying one of the biggest crimes in history than looking oppressed. It's about posturing and that's just a natural part of debate. Being pragmatic it still seems easier to apologize and stop using a word than expect people to not be offended. Continuing to use the word once it's been identified as offensive will make them oppressed. Just sayin.

I can kind of sympathize with a scientist who has lost the feeling of solidarity they once had with their colleagues and the world. In their eyes they are doing real science and skepicism and they are being treated as cranks. I don't think that people should treat them with any less harshness, but I do think we could treat them as deniers scientifically but not as outcasts socially or intellectually.

 

[Furcifer]

The percentage is constant. But percentage calculation automatically lead to non linear , geometric progression.
A rate of change of 100% is a doubling. SO year 1=1 , year 2=2 , year 3=4 ,... year 10=1024. Plotting it will be obvious there is no linear change.

OTOH a linear change will not have a constant percentage of change : If we have year 1=1 year 2=2 ,.... year x=x in value, then the change from year 1 to year 2 is 100%, from year 2 to year 3 50%(2 multiply by 1.5=3) , from year 3 to year 4 : 33% (you multiply by 3*1.33=4)

SO the percentage is actually diiminushing and percentage from year n to year n+1 = 1/n

You are definitively wrong with saying a 1% constant change per year is linear unless speaking of the constant RATE of change (constant is a form of lienar with a incline of zero). But that would be definitively worthless info to give. The value change is actually (percentage)^year quite an hint that it does not look linear in any way shape or form.

ETA: and yes basic math is that constant percentage are geometric. The MOST basic "legend" story is the one with the reward of rice on a chess board (from a king to a paysant) : a grain of rice is on the first square of the chess board, and the number grain of rice on each case which is doubled (constant rate of change of 100%) 2 on second square, 4 on third, 8 on fourth, etc... and the king realizing by the middle of the board that he would have to give his own kingdom and there is not enough trice on earth or history to fill the last board square.

ETA:ETA "the increase has been linear and approximately 1% per year. " is definitively wrong due to the above. The rate of increase is constant and as such linear (1%) but the increase itself is geometrical (1.01, 1.01*1.01 , 1.01*1.01*1.01 etc...).

I'm a physics guy, constant acceleration means increasing velocity. Constant velocity means increasing distance. It's just the way I relate things.

NB-ETAETA, yes, it's wrong. It should say "the rate increase has been linear..." That's lazy on my part, but the point is it's 1%,1%,1%.... and therefore linear. It's actually 0.5% so it's doubly wrong.

I'm finding it odd that my overstating the increase exponentially has met with so much criticism. I've finally, inadvertently, got the alarmists to admit "Hey, whoah, it isn't that bad"

 

[Aepervius]

I'm a physics guy, constant acceleration means increasing velocity. Constant velocity means increasing distance. It's just the way I relate things.

NB-ETAETA, yes, it's wrong. It should say "the rate increase has been linear..." That's lazy on my part, but the point is it's 1%,1%,1%.... and therefore linear. It's actually 0.5% so it's doubly wrong.

I'm finding it odd that my overstating the increase exponentially has met with so much criticism. I've finally, inadvertently, got the alarmists to admit "Hey, whoah, it isn't that bad"

I might be wrong , but my feeling is that it is not the error which met such a reaction, but rather the tergiversing and not immediately admiting "yes you are right, I should have said the RATE of increase is constant, not the increase itself".

 

[Furcifer]

Sometimes social movements are so intense that a word is redefined, this is not one of those times.

No probably not. I'm just saying you run the risk of alienating people if they hear that it's being used to compare him to a Holocaust denier. He's got the most visited site on the internet for climate change and global warming. I'm not sure it's worth the fight to continue using the word and say "Oh just suck it up" and try to hand wave it away by saying it's "generic". That's just my opinion.

 

[Joey McGee]

No probably not. I'm just saying you run the risk of alienating people if they hear that it's being used to compare him to a Holocaust denier. He's got the most visited site on the internet for climate change and global warming. I'm not sure it's worth the fight to continue using the word and say "Oh just suck it up" and try to hand wave it away by saying it's "generic". That's just my opinion.

No one should be concerned about alienating those people, they have alienated themselves by fallaciously drawing an improper conclusion. It's too bad but people are going to have to learn the hard way that this just bites them in behind eventually and it's unacceptable. People need to learn how to think critically somehow, I doubt pandering to them will help much.

Watts has clearly taken the "holocaust denial" angle and run with it.

Then he accuses ABC of shutting down an online poll after he posted it to his blog.

Is the phrase "climate change denier" offensive?
Yes 46%
No 54%
4025 votes counted
http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/

I find this insane. First, that poll got twice as many votes as the polls before and after that. Second, how does he know that they don't shut down the poll at the same time automatically? Conspiratorial, accusatory and refuses to admit he's wrong until we say were sorry, evidently because he thinks well call them Nazi-lovers or something. Really, really stupid.

 

[Furcifer]

I might be wrong , but my feeling is that it is not the error which met such a reaction, but rather the tergiversing and not immediately admiting "yes you are right, I should have said the RATE of increase is constant, not the increase itself".

As soon as I realized tshaitanaku was talking about CO2 ppm and I was talking about the emissions I said that. He said something to the effect of "CO2 and temperature increase aren't linear affairs". I said yes they were, CO2 is increasing at approximately 1%.

I don't know if I said "ppm" and meant "emissions" or if I said just CO2 or what, you'd have to check the moderated thread for a play by play. In any event I admitted I may have screwed up, they haven't and I believe are still maintaining it's not linear despite their own evidence showing otherwise. I've also shown links to climate models where they use a linear 1% increase for 70-80 years and references that suggested it will maintain a 1% increase for the next 90 years.

 

[Furcifer]

No one should be concerned about alienating those people, they have alienated themselves by fallaciously drawing an improper conclusion. It's too bad but people are going to have to learn the hard way that this just bites them in behind eventually and it's unacceptable. People need to learn how to think critically somehow, I doubt pandering to them will help much.

I think because it's political you can't run the risk.

Watts has clearly taken the "holocaust denial" angle and run with it.

Coulda seen that coming.

Then he accuses ABC of shutting down an online poll after he posted it to his blog.

All I saw was this:"ABC Closed the poll within about two hours of it being mentioned on WUWT, voting is no longer allowed."

That isn't accusatory, it's just a statement of fact.

I find this insane. First, that poll got twice as many votes as the polls before and after that. Second, how does he know that they don't shut down the poll at the same time automatically? Conspiratorial, accusatory and refuses to admit he's wrong until we say were sorry, evidently because he thinks well call them Nazi-lovers or something. Really, really stupid.

You must have read more, was there another link? I didn't see anything that suggested they closed the poll early. I agree though, without knowing when they close the poll or why it's just empty conspiratorial speculation.

 

[mhaze]

This is the funniest thing I have read all day. The deniers are whining about being called deniers? Oh my god what would they prefer, "most holy Gods of skepticism"? So did Chomsky steal that from "evolution denier" which had been used for many years before that?
.....

Nope, Chompsky specifically made the comparison to Holocaust deniers. Other AGW Alarmists picked up on it and printed articles using this comparison. It's quite well documented, like you know, because it all occurred in print?

So the proper thing for the glazed eyed members of Warmerism is to embrace the term, apply it to those who you have been told were your enemies, the Unbelievers in Fanatical AGW, and run with the proper inflammatory definition as handed to you.

Don't dilute the message when you propagate...

...The propaganda...

Then simplify the message and produce a couple of false analogies, conjure up some terrifying images and emotional hot buttons, and promote your fanaticism, rather like those Jehovah's witnesses going door to door.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

After all....like them....you believe in the coming Apocalypse, the end times are near, only a few years or decades off, man is a sinner, yet redemption and salvation are possible if one lives the proper life of a greenie.

That is the FAIL. That's the bastardization of actual science to a religious mythology.

Use the tactics of fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

And guilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE

The Righteous. The True Believers. The AGW fanatics.

 

[Joey McGee]

All I saw was this:"ABC Closed the poll within about two hours of it being mentioned on WUWT, voting is no longer allowed."

That isn't accusatory, it's just a statement of fact.


You must have read more, was there another link? I didn't see anything that suggested they closed the poll early. I agree though, without knowing when they close the poll or why it's just empty conspiratorial speculation.

My bs detector went off because why would he say "within two hours of being mentioned on WUWT" if he didn't think the two events were related? Why did he say "closed the poll" AND "no longer allowed?" All he had to say is "The poll is closed now, here are the results" I could be wrong it just seemed bleeding obvious. There are 800 polls in that list they probably have one almost every 24 hours. Also I caught this in the comments.

What are they afraid of?”

Ans – Losing. The ABC does not like to have too much comment or voting after it has got the result it is after from the home fans.

This also struck me as odd from a connected article

“We know that she is trying to allude to the Holocaust. It is offensive and it must stop”.

Speaker Harry Jenkins refused to accept the basis of the complaint

lol

 

[a_unique_person]

What we'll see with Watts, and almost all deniers, is ever-increasing petulance like this. Eventually most of them will just stop talking about it and move on to some new gummint conspiray to "take control of US business". The true AGW denial cult will have a long tail, like the Hollow Earthers and Millerites.

The major cult figures are of an age to go to their graves still denying, leaving a small group of younger acolytes to carry the torch. Then factions will emerge based on preferred Apostles (Watts, McIntyre, Spencer, Munchkin ...), there will be splits and schisms and venemous language, Judith Curry will attempt to arbitrate and get the Mary Magdalane treatment from all of them ...

Or something like that . I'm really enjoying the melt-down of the cult already, and it can only get more hysterical (in both senses).

McIntyre is now reduced to self parody.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/12/mo-money-mo-problems/

Why should readers of the Climategate emails be surprised that young climate scientists want to act like real thugs, just like the Team?

 

[Furcifer]

My bs detector went off because why would he say "within two hours of being mentioned on WUWT" if he didn't think the two events were related? Why did he say "closed the poll" AND "no longer allowed?" All he had to say is "The poll is closed now, here are the results" I could be wrong it just seemed bleeding obvious. There are 800 polls in that list they probably have one almost every 24 hours. Also I caught this in the comments.

I guess so, I thought it was posted after the fact to let people know they couldn't vote and suggest nobody on WUWT got a chance to do so.

 

[mhaze]

No probably not. I'm just saying you run the risk of alienating people if they hear that it's being used to compare him to a Holocaust denier. He's got the most visited site on the internet for climate change and global warming. I'm not sure it's worth the fight to continue using the word and say "Oh just suck it up" and try to hand wave it away by saying it's "generic". That's just my opinion.

But creating a us-versus-them dichotomy, then stereotyping, then demonizing, and ridiculing the (created and falsely defined) opposition is standard propaganda techniques. So this is "by the book".

Where and how it becomes a FAIL is when the general population realized the shrill and radical actual attitudes of the fanatics, also when they realize the economic takings that are part of the so-called "climate change" agenda. So considering this, let's encourage these radical alarmists to produce adds that clearly show their ecological-fascist nature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

 

[Joey McGee]

Nope, Chompsky specifically made the comparison to Holocaust deniers. Other AGW Alarmists picked up on it and printed articles using this comparison. It's quite well documented, like you know, because it all occurred in print?

The next time you go to hit quote on one of my posts, think to yourself, "Am I completely missing the point, again?"

Like I would even care if that were true. Denialism is a concept that existed before Chomsky and before the holocaust, that's my point. I fight against lots of denialism. Vaccine, 9/11, AIDS, Cancer (yes there are cancer denialists) it's all the same thing. It's only offensive when it's your pet issue. The only reason holocaust denial comes to everyone's mind is because it's the most well known because it's the most offensive and insane.

 

[lomiller]

It is constant, it's increasing at 0.5% per year.

No. CO2 rise is caused by human CO2 emissions. Specifically the airborne faction, the amount of fossil CO2 that remains in the atmosphere is a roughly constant 43% of emissions.

The increase in CO2 therefor goes up and down with human emissions and tends to change a lot from year to year. If you compare the last decade to the 50's or 60's you are going to get a different number because it isn't constant.

Also worth nothing that your original claim was that it was both linear and constant, even though clearly a constant % increase each year isn't linear.

David Suzuki is the biggest one that comes to mind. As an activist he was rather extreme. In a 1997 tour he was talking about rising sea levels and catastrophic events due to warming by 2000.

I asked for evidence, not handwaveing. Link us to what he said, show that it was not consistent with the published science and explain why you think his opinion is relevant to this thread.

 

[lomiller]

No one should be concerned about alienating those people, they have alienated themselves by fallaciously drawing an improper conclusion. It's too bad but people are going to have to learn the hard way that this just bites them in behind eventually and it's unacceptable. People need to learn how to think critically somehow, I doubt pandering to them will help much.

Watts has clearly taken the "holocaust denial" angle and run with it.

Then he accuses ABC of shutting down an online poll after he posted it to his blog.



I find this insane. First, that poll got twice as many votes as the polls before and after that. Second, how does he know that they don't shut down the poll at the same time automatically? Conspiratorial, accusatory and refuses to admit he's wrong until we say were sorry, evidently because he thinks well call them Nazi-lovers or something. Really, really stupid.

Not that this type of online poll is all that useful to begin with but polls become useless as soon as the base the sample is coming from becomes skewed, so Watt's attempts to rally people to skew the poll in the direction he wants it to go is an absolutely legitimate reason for shutting it down.

 

[macdoc]

Change Is the Order of the Day in the Arctic

ScienceDaily (May 12, 2011) — Climate change in the Arctic is occurring at a faster and more drastic rate than previously assumed, according to experts attending the AMAP conference in Copenhagen. The latest scientific data show that developments in the Arctic's climate are closely related to developments in the rest of the world.
"The order of the day in the Arctic right now is change. But we shouldn't expect that those changes will be linear in the sense of a little bit each day. We're going to see dramatic changes. If the ice in the Arctic melts it is going to lead to water level problems on a global scale that we all will feel the consequences of," says Associate Dean Katherine Richardson.
400 experts in Copenhagen
The Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and the universities of Aarhus and Copenhagen organised the Arctic conference, which featured about 400 scientists from 20 countries presenting their scientific data.
Those studies show a worrying state of affairs for the snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511101047.htm

 

[Furcifer]

This was clearly his original intent but he's since disavowed it to try and defend his claim that such an increase is linear. In any case this and all his previous iterations of his claim are useless because they don't go anywhere.

Nonsense, the point still stands, at a 0.5% increase per year this +7C world is further in the future than warp drive. It pushes it well outside the realm of possible and into fantasy.

And dodge noted. I asked when we could see a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the current accepted sensitivity of +2.5C at the current rate of 0.5% but nobody has been forthcoming.