Forget Global Climate warmig, we're gonna freeze!

[TimG]

We have to come up with a word that describes grouping all who oppose you into the same category.

Waldo, Al Gore and anyone else who takes a fundamentalist position on AGW and CO2 mitigation are in the same group - this is a necessary requirement since anyone who deviates from the official message is branded as a "denier" and cast out. I doubt Waldo could explain exactly how his beliefs differ from Al Gore (i.e. where does he disagree with Gore on science or policy). Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo, Al Gore and anyone else who takes a fundamentalist position on AGW and CO2 mitigation are in the same group

and yet he called him 'inconsequential' in the post above. Grouping of one's opponents is a tiresome habit... I'm sure there are similarities between Waldo and Gore but I don't care about them, and it doesn't seem to affect my evaluation of the arguments.

[waldo]

Waldo, Al Gore and anyone else who takes a fundamentalist position on AGW and CO2 mitigation are in the same group - this is a necessary requirement since anyone who deviates from the official message is branded as a "denier" and cast out. I doubt Waldo could explain exactly how his beliefs differ from Al Gore (i.e. where does he disagree with Gore on science or policy).

did you just come from an inspired reading of a denier101 marginalization technique? Buddy, revel in your boogeyman Gore!

of course, to you, a "fundamentalist position" is one held by anyone that dares to steer from your Adapt-R-Us only game plan of fake skeptics or the delaying posture of Concern Trolls. It doesn't matter how many times you're presented with a three-fold strategy, inclusive of mitigation, adaptation and prevention, you will ignore that in favour of playing your ideological/fundamentalist labeling BS. I guess you need something though - must be a real beeatch not to be able to argue the science, hey?

[TimG]

and yet he called him 'inconsequential' in the post above.

That does not mean he disagrees with Al Gore - he is just trying to distance himself from the guy because Al Gore is now a liability to the alarmist cause. I will change my opinion on the grouping if Waldo can explain exactly where there are significant differences between what Al Gore says on the science and what he believes. I don't think he will be able to.

If he refuses, I will assume that he agrees and you should not object to me putting waldo and al gore in the same group.

Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

That does not mean he disagrees with Al Gore - he is just trying to distance himsel from the guy. I will change my opinion if Waldo can explain exactly where there are significant differences between what Al Gore says on the science and what he believes.

he's your boogeyman! You flush him out.

[Michael Hardner]

I will change my opinion on the grouping if Waldo can explain exactly where there are significant differences between what Al Gore says on the science and what he believes.

He already gave you one: "the science is settled".

[TimG]

He already gave you one: "the science is settled".

Your are missing the forest for the trees. The "science is settled" is a code word for the bait and switch which alarmists use when spreading their propoganda. Al Gore used the same bait and switch in the article I referenced if you read it carefully.

The bait and switch works like this: Alarmists will make some comment that says something like the "science is settled" followed by a claim that implies that their various pet policies are necessary because the "science is settled".

Here is a more convoluted example of the "bait and switch" from Michael Mann:

And so I think we have to get away from this idea that in matters of science, it's, you know, that we should treat discussions of climate change as if there are two equal sides, like we often do in the political discourse ...[snip]... all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147815862/michael-mann-from-the-trenches-of-the-climate-war

Note that he does not claim that national academies claim that warming because of CO2 is dangerous - he leaves that unstated while being fully aware that typically listeners will make that assumption and falsely believe that is is no debate on that point because he makes it himself in many other places in the same interview.

IOW - the 'science is settled' meme is constantly used by alarmists like waldo and there is no difference between waldo and al gore on that point.

Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Your are missing the forest for the trees. The "science is settled" is a code word for the bait and switch which alarmists use when spreading their propoganda. Al Gore used the same bait and switch in the article I referenced if you read it carefully.

The bait and switch works like this: Alarmists will make some comment that says something like the "science is settled" followed by a claim that implies that their various pet policies are necessary because the "science is settled".

That's not really a bait and switch but ok.

IOW - the 'science is settled' meme is constantly used by alarmists like waldo and there is no difference between waldo and al gore on that point.

So, you're ok with him lumping you in with flat-earth deniers that warming is even happening then ? Because that's what you're doing.

[cybercoma]

Actually not all scientists believe it, there's just as many that believe we are in for global cooling

No.

[TimG]

That's not really a bait and switch but ok.

Why not? The speaker gets the listener to accepts a proposition that is well supported and uses that agreement to trick the listener into believing a slightly different proposition which is not supported. It is a technique often used by fraudsters.

Because that's what you're doing.

I said I would change my opinion if someone would explain how waldo and al gore differ. So far we got nothing from waldo. You tried to claim that the use of the term 'the science is settled' is a difference but I disagree because when I talk about the 'science is settled' meme I am talking about the bait and switch technique - not the actual words 'science is settled'.

[cybercoma]

arrogant to believe we could have that affect on earth's temperature, it's possible that Co2 will warm a city, like Toronto, but on a worldwide scale...no

Really?

[cybercoma]

People can deny global warming all they want, but until they can provide a better explanation than AGW, their denial doesn't mean crap.

[olpfan1]

People can deny global warming all they want, but until they can provide a better explanation than AGW, their denial doesn't mean crap.

It's probably a good thing that Global Warming deniers don't think they have anything to prove to you or anyone

Trying to prove GW is a fraud to GW people is like trying to tell someone that their religion is a fraud

and that God doesn't have any plans for them and there's no heaven to go to when you die

That's why GW is considered a cult

[Michael Hardner]

Why not? The speaker gets the listener to accepts a proposition that is well supported and uses that agreement to trick the listener into believing a slightly different proposition which is not supported. It is a technique often used by fraudsters.

Well.... the offer in a bait-and-switch is not deceptive, as it is under your example so that's something different to me. In any case, it's a minor quibble and I have no desire to argue that.

So far we got nothing from waldo. You tried to claim that the use of the term 'the science is settled' is a difference but I disagree because when I talk about the 'science is settled' meme I am talking about the bait and switch technique - not the actual words 'science is settled'.

The bait and switch technique, the titling of that technique - it's all an observation and idea that came from you. Waldo won't buy into it based on the basic fact that it came from you.

He differs from Gore and you both, but I'll bet he'd rather it be said that he differs from you.

[TimG]

People can deny global warming all they want, but until they can provide a better explanation than AGW, their denial doesn't mean crap.

Nonsense. Back in the dark ages the 'geocentric' model of the universe was still wrong even though no one had the data that could disprove it. A scientific hypothesis can be rejected without providing an alternative explanation. If you don't understand that then you don't understand science. Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Trying to prove GW is a fraud to GW people is like trying to tell someone that their religion is a fraud

and that God doesn't have any plans for them and there's no heaven to go to when you die

You doubt that humans walked on the moon, so the analogy to religion is a reach. Do you believe in other things science tells you that you haven't seen with your own eyes ?

If I were on the fringes of society in a certain set of beliefs, I would excuse myself from the discussion. In fact, I have done this on this very board on the topic of defining Christianity, i.e. my definition seems so far from the mainstream that I don't expect my perspective to be accepted. This also means that my observations on "mainstream" thought on the definition of Christianity aren't useful either.

So -> you believe that the entire scientific establishment is lying about humans landed on the moon, ergo you hold a fringe view (perhaps 6-20%)believe as you do. So why would you opine on people's faith in science ? Your foothold around this topic is shaky at best.

[TimG]

The bait and switch technique, the titling of that technique - it's all an observation and idea that came from you.

It is not just me. It is what sceptics are responding to when they refer to the 'science is settled' meme. Waldo's response simple means he does not understand the points being made. Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is not just me. It is what sceptics are responding to when they debunk the 'science is settled' meme. It would not be the first time waldo fails to refute an argument with a strawman.

Ok - do they actually SAY "the science is settled" then ?

[olpfan1]

You doubt that humans walked on the moon, so the analogy to religion is a reach. Do you believe in other things science tells you that you haven't seen with your own eyes ?

If I were on the fringes of society in a certain set of beliefs, I would excuse myself from the discussion. In fact, I have done this on this very board on the topic of defining Christianity, i.e. my definition seems so far from the mainstream that I don't expect my perspective to be accepted. This also means that my observations on "mainstream" thought on the definition of Christianity aren't useful either.

So -> you believe that the entire scientific establishment is lying about humans landed on the moon, ergo you hold a fringe view (perhaps 6-20%)believe as you do. So why would you opine on people's faith in science ? Your foothold around this topic is shaky at best.

Religion in general is a crutch, a bad one at that, people need their lives to have answers..most people can't be living life thinking life is meaningless in the end while it is just that, meaningless, you live..you die, that's it

I don't believe humans walked on the moon, I don't believe the Twin Towers fell from getting hit by 2 planes, I don't believe Bin Laden was buried at sea, I don't believe there isn't a cure for every cancer

I guess I have a hard time believing what most people believe is true, why should I believe it?

[TimG]

Do you believe in other things science tells you that you haven't seen with your own eyes?

It comes down to trust. The scientific establishment has repeatably shown that it cannot be trusted to be a fair and neutral party in this field which means all claims made by scientists in this field must be presumed to be biased.

You obviously don't share my distrust of the scientific establishment and that difference in trust explains why two people can look at the same data come to different conclusions.

Although the AGU has started the process that would allow the establishment to regain my trust with its unequivocal condemnation of Gleick.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/agu-president-on-gleicks-shocking-fall-from-grace-his-transgression-cannot-be-condoned-regardless-of-his-motives/

Edited March 8, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Ok - do they actually SAY "the science is settled" then ?

The poster did in this thread.

[olpfan1]

It comes down to trust. The scientific establishment has repeatably shown that it cannot be trusted to be a fair and neutral party in this field which means all claims made by scientists in this field must be presumed to be biased.

You obviously don't share my distrust of the scientific establishment and that difference in trust explains why two people can look at the same data come to different conclusions.

I agree with that, Scientists have their own agenda and it is what makes them the most money..they're no different than the religious institutions who make money brain washing people

I believe in a combination of Evolution and Creationism! According to scientists I am a whacko for believing both have played in a part of why we're here

We all believe what we believe & that is all there is

[Michael Hardner]

I guess I have a hard time believing what most people believe is true, why should I believe it?

That's your business, but do you see my point on your comments ? You have far less faith in institutions than most people, so you might want to factor that into your comments.

[waldo]

I believe in a combination of Evolution and Creationism!

nuff said!

[Michael Hardner]

It comes down to trust. The scientific establishment has repeatably shown that it cannot be trusted to be a fair and neutral party in this field which means all claims made by scientists in this field must be presumed to be biased.

Context -> the poster I was speaking to believes the moon landing could have been faked.

You obviously don't share my distrust of the scientific establishment and that difference in trust explains why two people can look at the same data come to different conclusions.

I distrust establishments as far as their own failures have shown me to distrust them. Bringing up Galileo or Einstein in response to every theory isn't warranted - as their discoveries amounted to once-a-century or once-a-millennium theory breakers.