|
Post by throttleup on Oct 6, 2011 20:23:04 GMT
Dr. T., With the onset of winter approaching (for us in the Northern Hemisphere), many of us here were concerned for your health.
So we all pitched in a bought you a jacket. We all worry about you. Don't deny it.
Thank you for the personal photo!
As you have no doubt noticed, it comes with some extra straps to flatter your figure. Being the fashion maven that you are, we didn't think you'd mind.
Another advantage of the tight, restricting straps is they tend to keep CO2-laden air out between you and your jacket and thus keep you from overheating while working those long hours in the lab.
(Let's face it, bro. Getting overheated, sweaty, smelly and itchy under a designer jacket like that can drive you a little crazy. Am I right?)
Yes, it does come with a key to unlock the straps. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced it at the moment. I'll be sure to send it as soon as I can.
I see you've had some dental work done. Very nice. Certainly an improvement!
I'm sure Miss Rhode Island of 2006 will be very impressed when she sees you at the next Sea Level Convention. Perhaps she'll help you on your next paper: "How Denialism Causes 39 Feet of Sea Level Rise and Human Injustice." You should probably let her do the typing.
And I shouldn't even have to state that if you need some solid peer reviewers, you know you can count on us. We've got your back. And now, with this new jacket, so do you!
One final thing... I have to say your new hair style is very becoming. Becoming WHAT I just don't know...
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 7, 2011 6:19:30 GMT
The prosecution of Amanda Knox and AGW'ers do have something in common: each are financed and supported by, and are a product of overreaching government which is oblivious to individual rights and freedoms. And perhaps "denialists" did not accept the government position that she was guilty, and finally, Amanda, by virtue of the support and judgment of denialists was able to escape the unscrupulous leviathan.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 7, 2011 12:12:20 GMT
denialism is deliberately constructing an argument based on false premises *because* you are benefited by doing so. The benefit may be financial, political or emotional. I think it is fine to label organisations such as CEI or Exxon "denialist". I don't think it is helpful to call debating opponents "denialists" because people may be putting forward the arguments constructed for them by the professional denialist organisations in good faith, so it polarises the discussion.
I don't see particular parallels in the Knox case. In some sense the adversarial legal system allows for construction of such faulty arguments. We sort of accept that, but we expect (perhaps naively) that the lawyers do not tell outright lies and either simply represent what their client tells them or puts the best spin on the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 7, 2011 14:12:20 GMT
So YAD06 and its hockey stick was all in good faith. Really!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 7, 2011 18:08:09 GMT
I meant calling lay people "denialists" was unhelpful - not the people who create the arguments.
That said, I have absolutely no doubt that Michael Mann and the realclimate crowd genuinely think that the Hockeystick was a worthwhile piece of science whose main conclusions still stand, so they are not denialists.
|
|
|
Post by richardlowe on Oct 7, 2011 19:44:54 GMT
I meant calling lay people "denialists" was unhelpful - not the people who create the arguments. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that Michael Mann and the realclimate crowd genuinely think that the Hockeystick was a worthwhile piece of science whose main conclusions still stand, so they are not denialists. Surely Pielke, Spencer, Lindzen and others who create the arguments for the skeptical side genuinely believe their work too. The individuals in positions of power at CEI and Exxon probably genuinely believe their stances as well. I'm sure there are a few cynical people who tout the AGW side or the skeptical side out of "denialism" as you defined it, but I believe that is relatively rare. More likely, self interest or some other driver leads to genuine belief and the arguments follow from there.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Oct 7, 2011 20:11:58 GMT
I meant calling lay people "denialists" was unhelpful - not the people who create the arguments. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that Michael Mann and the realclimate crowd genuinely think that the Hockeystick was a worthwhile piece of science whose main conclusions still stand, so they are not denialists. Surely Pielke, Spencer, Lindzen and others who create the arguments for the skeptical side genuinely believe their work too. The individuals in positions of power at CEI and Exxon probably genuinely believe their stances as well. I'm sure there are a few cynical people who tout the AGW side or the skeptical side out of "denialism" as you defined it, but I believe that is relatively rare. More likely, self interest or some other driver leads to genuine belief and the arguments follow from there. You know what is weird. The people on the skeptical side of the argument always publish their work, and data, and are willing to discuss their findings. The people on the alarmist side of the argument get caught repeatedly hiding, altering, cherry picking, and even destroying their work. So no one can validate their claims. Instead of verifying their claims, they engage in character assassination and a whole host of other unsavory tactics to suppress the fact that they don't have any... facts. I'm sure Steve, that you have absolutely no doubt that Michael Mann and the realclimate crowd genuinely think that the Hockeystick was a worthwhile piece of science. You are too busy carrying their water to wonder why they are so busy hiding all of their data and methods.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 7, 2011 23:28:12 GMT
That said, I have absolutely no doubt that Michael Mann and the realclimate crowd genuinely think that the Hockeystick was a worthwhile piece of science whose main conclusions still stand, so they are not denialists.
Perhaps the defense attorney for the guy who charged a farmer and promised finding water with a forked stick would say the same thing.
And as far as skeptics go the conventional wisdom is to believe nothing you hear and half of what you see. With so much stuff kept under wraps, resisting FOIA, hidden declines, single sick trees influencing interpretations of global temperatures; one would have to be a bleeding fool idiot to not be skeptical.
And skeptical of what? I think the general consensus is the science suggests processes that make the surface warmer and atmospheric gases have a role in that and mankind may also influence to some degree; so what people are skeptical of is "World Ending Catastrophic Out of Control Al Gore Sandpile Effects".
Its like you have to have been born yesterday to not have noticed that people are bombarded with this kind of nonsense continuously.
If somebody is really interested in proving something to save the world, gee why not stop husbanding your intellectual assets in some scheme to try to make more money off them? Don't you have any sense of priorities?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 1:56:28 GMT
My fundamental point was about denialism and how it works.
Climate denialism is the issue that relates to this forum.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 2:02:11 GMT
Denialism and how it works.
Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 2:06:39 GMT
Denialism and how it works,
Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 8, 2011 2:17:11 GMT
Thermos,
Considering your last two post you should change the thread's name to "IPCC modus operadi".
You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 2:20:56 GMT
Thermos, Considering your last two post you should change the thread's name to "IPCC modus operadi". You're welcome. you lost me bro. Could you clarify?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 2:22:53 GMT
Denialism is all about raising objections rather than providing support.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Oct 8, 2011 3:24:55 GMT
Clarification for you Thermos:
Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence. Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next.
The climategate documents have these in spades.
|
|