|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 4:37:30 GMT
The so called 'climategate documents' are a great example of how casual observers have been manipulated. People who believe the climagate story are as naive as Amanda Knox. You've certainly perfected the art of applying logical fallacy to its fullest. Hello, Magellan! Welcome bro. Got anything of substance to contribute? |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 4:58:49 GMT
The question is denialism
The question is why do you have such a psychological hangup with people who are different from you... who think and process information differently... who reach different conclusions.
You need to see a shrink but your mind has already shrunk.
Nothing there....
... but a singularity. --> .A little, tiny singularity screaming in a tinny, high-pitched squeal that only you hear: "Denialist! Denialist! Denialist!""In particular I found a parallel between the climate denialism so prevelent on this forum and the behaviour of the legal authorities in Italy who drove the imprisonment of this unfortumate girl for the past four years in order to defend their illogical point of view.
It is about denialism, and how it works. How many people continue to assert that this poor, simple girl is a viscious murderer. I think this story tells us a lot about how denialism works."You use the word 'denialism' and 'denialist' as if it is some sort of shield to protect you.
What are you afraid of?
Are you afraid of losing your 'status' among your peers, co-workers, friends and colleagues if they were to discover you had a mind of your own and considered both sides and maybe from time to time reached a different conclusion than the brain-dead masses based on your MIND and BRAIN and actually had the balls to think on your own rather than just surrender to the groupthink and zeitgeist of the time?!?
Find a couch, lay down on it and... think. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2011 6:27:46 GMT
The question is, who is Thermostat? When I read his claims, I am reminded of one of my favorite stories:
Two brothers were sitting in their room one night. "Dude," one of them said as he typed on his computer. "What's a super-cool job?"
"Why?" the other brother asked.
"I'm talking with this chick on the internet, and she just asked me what I do. So what do you think?"
"Tell her you're a rocket scientist."
"Nice," the one said as he typed on the computer. He paused and read, then jumped up and exclaimed, "Dude! You're not going to believe this! She's an Italian super-model!"
So my question to you, Thermostat, is are you the rocket scientist? or the Italian super-model. You can provide no evidence of your thesis or dissertation. Your level of thinking certainly does not give evidence of any advanced degree.
I call BS. I think you just made claims hoping for status here because your arguments didn't work, and you were hoping to wow someone with your credentials. But you don't really have any advanced degree, do you? What are you? A hot-shot undergrad who has aspirations of having a PhD some day? Or just a message board troll? I really want to know. One thing I feel certain in asserting is that you are no climate expert. Another thing I feel confident asserting is that you are no researcher.
So come on, provide us with a link to your thesis or dissertation. Provide even a half-assed defense for it ... convince me there is substance behind the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 8, 2011 22:24:16 GMT
Interesting to see that forum members have no comments. Not to suggest that forum members have no gumption. Denialism is a negative term. Most members are not in denial, they are just not convinced. Since the IPCC are on there fifth (or sixth) set of predictions, I am not convinced. This is science at its worst. If these people were working in a normal scientific/commercial environment, they would have been sacked by now. You accept AGW on the flimsiest of evidence. That makes you a believer. But you are young and have been brainwashed by this dogma. slh1234 is right. If you make the claim on this blog that you have written a paper, you must either print it or provide a link to it. If there are no problems with your method and if the results any of us gain from that method are the same as yours, you should have nothing to worry about. Its standard practice. |
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 8, 2011 22:40:37 GMT
Climate denialists are quite relentless. Pot calling the kettle black. |
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 8, 2011 22:45:10 GMT
That is crap! You were comparing apples and rhubarb. You were making your little pet evil "denialists" equivalent to people who -- in your mind -- would imprison other 'innocent' people just to feed their insatiable appetite for... whatever. You've gone way off the deep end. You've lost it. Got it. Huh? He saying that equating denialism with injustice is analogy too far. It shows a total lack of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 8, 2011 22:49:56 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. The so called 'climategate documents' are a great example of how casual observers have been manipulated. People who believe the climategate story are as naive as Amanda Knox. I suggest you post those kinds of remarks on the Guardian blogosphere. You might find some buyers. |
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 9, 2011 2:47:02 GMT
He saying that equating denialism with injustice is analogy too far. It shows a total lack of perspective. Quite right thingychambers! I should have you write my rants! Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 9, 2011 13:52:51 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. I've never called Pielke, Spencer and Lindzen denialists and I'm not aware of people who have (though I don't visit the more rabid AGW blogs such as Romm's so that may not mean anything). Delusional and denial are different states of mind. Some of the think tanks and lobby groups *are* denialists because they have the resources to investigate whether their point of view on the science has any validity. They refuse to do this, or if they do they do so only to construct arguments against the science. They then publish the arguments against without the arguments for. GWPF in the UK claims to be an education charity and receives tax benefits for doing so, but only provides one-sided "education" which is not, in my book, education. Exxon is well-known for having two faces by claiming to have stopped funding denialist lobby groups while continuing to do so using a variety of covers. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Oct 9, 2011 14:07:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by richardlowe on Oct 10, 2011 0:11:37 GMT
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. I've never called Pielke, Spencer and Lindzen denialists and I'm not aware of people who have (though I don't visit the more rabid AGW blogs such as Romm's so that may not mean anything). Delusional and denial are different states of mind. Some of the think tanks and lobby groups *are* denialists because they have the resources to investigate whether their point of view on the science has any validity. They refuse to do this, or if they do they do so only to construct arguments against the science. They then publish the arguments against without the arguments for. GWPF in the UK claims to be an education charity and receives tax benefits for doing so, but only provides one-sided "education" which is not, in my book, education. Exxon is well-known for having two faces by claiming to have stopped funding denialist lobby groups while continuing to do so using a variety of covers. "The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports." I wonder what was on the rest of that report. Since the story's source was against Exxon, he probably would have reported other support of skeptical think tanks. Now, who is Atlas? Wiki says (go there for links) "The mission of Atlas, according to John Blundell, Atlas' president from 1987 to 1990, "is to litter the world with free-market think-tanks."" "Atlas is not endowed and does not accept government funding. All of its programs depend upon the generosity of foundations, individuals, and corporations that share belief in the importance of independent research. In 2009, foundations represented 74.8% of Atlas's contributions, with individuals and corporations accounting for 21% and 5%, respectively. Atlas requires its protégé think tanks to be "independent," described by Atlas's president in 1999 as "independent of corporations, independent of governments, independent of political parties and even independent of universities." " So they only support people not associated with a university or government. They probably do better on the free market side than the climate side. Even so, I'm surprised they won't go with people at a university. I think that Watts has more influence than Atlas in climate science. Do you think he's a denialist? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2011 2:33:39 GMT
Denialism and how it works:
In no particular order:
Create a strawman;
Cherry pick;
Obfuscate;
Attack the character of opponents;
The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Oct 10, 2011 3:13:16 GMT
Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. Exactly what the proponents of AGW have done. I guess that makes them the original "denialists." it's impossible for them to accept the fact that man cannot trump the forces of nature. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2011 3:26:54 GMT
Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. Exactly what the proponents of AGW have done. I guess that makes them the original "denialists." it's impossible for them to accept the fact that man cannot trump the forces of nature. Finewino, Well, now you tread on thin ice. In particular, asserting that denialist proponents have established scientific substance. |
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Oct 10, 2011 3:29:46 GMT
Exactly what the proponents of AGW have done. I guess that makes them the original "denialists." it's impossible for them to accept the fact that man cannot trump the forces of nature. Finewino, Well, now you tread on thin ice. In particular, asserting that denialist proponents have established scientific substance. Blah, blah, blah. Are you ever going to actually say something? |
|
