17 replies to this topic

[maineman]

Look, forget it. For some reason for months now you've had a hair trigger for whatever I post. I may not agree with some or all of your political positions and you've been jumping down my throat when I share an alternate or "devil's advocate" view. So there's no real dialogue. My posts --> your bashing or putting me on moderation. I'm probably the most middle of the road, moderate guy I know. Whatever. Look, you perceived some "denial slur" in my earlier post. You read it wrong. Period. Was no slur. Your perception = your paranoia = your eagerness to (for whatever reason) jump down my throat. That said, not sure how you get to Holocaust Denial. Don't get me started on that, having lost a good chunk of my family in the furnaces. And, in case you missed it, I never saw Al Gore's movie and I'm not on his mailing list. mm

[OEXCHAOS]

Look, forget it. For some reason for months now you've had a hair trigger for whatever I post. I may not agree with some or all of your political positions and you've been jumping down my throat when I share an alternate or "devil's advocate" view. So there's no real dialogue. My posts --> your bashing or putting me on moderation. I'm probably the most middle of the road, moderate guy I know. Whatever.

Look, you perceived some "denial slur" in my earlier post. You read it wrong. Period. Was no slur. Your perception = your paranoia = your eagerness to (for whatever reason) jump down my throat.

That said, not sure how you get to Holocaust Denial. And, in case you missed it, I never saw Al Gore's movie and I'm not on his mailing list.

We appear to have a misunderstanding. Discussions on AGW are an indulgence for me. I probably shouldn't do it, but I have spent the time learning about this, so I'm going to debate with anyone unfortunate enough to repeat the errant propaganda. It's not personal. It's also only barely appropriate on my part.

But, I do need to be clear, "Denier" is a well-documented slur commonly used against skeptics and it's a direct attempt to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

I'll take you at your word that you didn't mean it that way, but it's hardly paranoia on my part. It most assuredly LOOKED like you were making the same reference I've seen over and over and over again, albeit in an oblique manner. If you say you didn't mean to, I'll believe you, but it seems inappropriate at best to accuse me of paranoia when it should be clear that you "stepped in it" even though you didn't know why.

The paranoia accusation then APPEARED to be an attempt at marginalizing the umbridge I took at exceedingly common "denier" slur (that you seem to be unaware of).

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm jumping down your throat, but when I see the "denier" shtick over and over and over and then get one in my email box from Repower America (a project of Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection), I'm going to react, and when it's used so often by so many AGW advocates, it's not paranoid to get one's hackles up. Beyond that, I was only demanding civility on this matter. Other matters beside TA, I'd rather avoid entirely. I'll promise you, however, that I'm never going to punish you for disagreeing with me on this matter.

M

[maineman]

"But, I do need to be clear, "Denier" is a well-documented slur commonly used against skeptics and it's a direct attempt to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers."

Well, I was unaware that there was movement to equate climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers. First I'm hearing about that. If so, those folks are morons. Anyone who equates anything with the holocaust is a moron.

But, come on. There is only one word for denial. Its "denial". So if someone denies the existence of climate change and someone else denies evolution and someone else denies that smoking causes lung cancer and someone else denies Obama's citizenship it cannot be concluded that they are all also holocaust deniers. Right? Relax a little?

mm

[Rogerdodger]

APNewsBreak: Top UN climate official resigning
Feb. 18, 2010
LINK
His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases. De Boer's resignation adds to the uncertainty that a full treaty can be finalized there.


To me it's is no coincidence that Al Gore left DIVINITY school only to become another kind of evangelist, saving mankind from the fires of man-made global warming hell.
And making more money than most TV evangelists in the process.

Well done brother Gore.


Michael Crichton warned us!

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in *******, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 18 February 2010 - 10:12 AM.

[OEXCHAOS]

"But, I do need to be clear, "Denier" is a well-documented slur commonly used against skeptics and it's a direct attempt to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers."

Well, I was unaware that there was movement to equate climate change skeptics to holocaust deniers. First I'm hearing about that. If so, those folks are morons. Anyone who equates anything with the holocaust is a moron.

But, come on. There is only one word for denial. Its "denial". So if someone denies the existence of climate change and someone else denies evolution and someone else denies that smoking causes lung cancer and someone else denies Obama's citizenship it cannot be concluded that they are all also holocaust deniers. Right? Relax a little?

mm

I'll just offer a two word analogy, "You people". Be careful when you use those very commonly accepted words.

Like it or not, common terms take on new meanings, particularly in certain contexts. In this interest, the very real intent it conflate healthy skepticism regarding AGW alarmist claims with Holocaust denialism. It's an attempt at shutting down ANY dissent.

Also, fwiw, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change or warming. They may exist, but I don't know them. I DO know lots of folks who are skeptical of claims of unprecedented and/or statistically significant abnormal or unnatural warming. There are a lot of claims made, and more and more of them are now being proven to be overblown, incorrect, or outright falsehoods. Yet all the people who were pointing these things out were called "deniers" when they wanted to have frank discussion of real and legitimate issues.

So, I've made it a point to call folks on it.

M

[*JB*]

But, I do need to be clear, "Denier" is a well-documented slur commonly used against skeptics and it's a direct attempt to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

Mark -- It raises it's head so VERY often and ANYONE in reach who called me a "denier' would risk a broken nose.

Senator Sanders: Skeptics like Nazi deniers
By: Marin Cogan
February 23, 2010 02:20 PM EST

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

"It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s," said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. "During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"
<SNIP>

Full Article -- Politico.com

Edited by *JB*, 23 February 2010 - 11:28 PM.

[stocks]

Snow, Science, and Prizes

The very title of Gore’s film leads us to the deepest issue here. The chief newspaper of the Soviet state was also called, Pravda (“Truth”). But those who truly seek truth know that they can never be certain they have found it. Gore, in contrast, exemplified the conceit of the alarmists that “the science is settled.” Science, however, is less a body of knowledge than a way of knowing, and one of its principles is that conclusions are always provisional, awaiting further reinforcement, refinement, or contradiction. If it’s settled, it’s not science.


Climate science, which entails the intersection of several areas of inquiries that must be explored outside a laboratory, is unlikely to yield much certainty. If Gore were more devoted to truth, he would have titled his film, A Troubling Hypothesis. This might have won no awards from Oslo or Hollywood. But it would have left him much less susceptible to the ridicule of the heavens.

http://www.worldaffa...blogs/muravchik

[colion]

Gore, in contrast, exemplified the conceit of the alarmists that "the science is settled." Science, however, is less a body of knowledge than a way of knowing, and one of its principles is that conclusions are always provisional, awaiting further reinforcement, refinement, or contradiction. If it's settled, it's not science.

Within the "settled" claim is the unspoken assertion that the science is settled because there is a consensus. Nobody mentions how the consensus was established just that it is. More importantly, however, is the simple fact that consensus is not part of science but is used as justification when the results are not "set in concrete." How many agreed with Galileo, etc.? If consensus ruled we would all be watching the sun circle the earth. As Reiter, Institut Pasteur, famously said "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science". That sums it up.