6 ms·

I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their argu

I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock. At least 95% of the argument with deniers is basically saying "No, you're wrong, that's been disproven by numerous studies - and here's the link". So yeah, arguing with them (or even just trying to put your point of view across) is annoying and tedious. Like any good programmer, Nigel's just automating away the drudgery.

rick888 16y ago
"I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. It's just as bad (can you show me proof that's not based on this falsified data?). There is a lot of money in global warming. Al gore is not only invested in the carbon credit industry, but he is trying to get the US government to force businesses to purchase these carbon credits (the profits from these will go directly into his pocket). Nobody on the left seems to care about how unethical this is. "Nigel's just automating away the drudgery." No, Nigel doesn't actually want to defend his point. He would rather make fun of the "crackpots" because he arrogantly believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. Excuse me?
  - lzw 16y ago
    The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want. You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please! See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it correctly, it is impossible to disprove, even though the planet is getting colder, because it is based on fantasy models-- you can't disprove a model because it is just a model. And these models having never worked with previous data sets is well known but advocates don't care.)
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - rtp 16y ago
      You don't understand it correctly. Models are supposed to fit the evidence, otherwise they're incorrect. That's how science works. Say you've gathered evidence of the big bang. You create a model for it. Then, suddenly, for some reason observations and measurements of background radiation doesn't fit your model. If that is so, you'll have to either adjust your model as to fit the data, or throw it away and build a new model that fits the data.
      - lzw 16y ago
        Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it. They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.
        rtp 16y ago
        Are you saying that the projections for the future should fit the past? I'm sorry.
        rimantas 16y ago
- anthonyb 16y ago
  >> If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." > All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified.... Thank you for proving my point so concisely.
  - rick888 16y ago
    really? I really have to explain this? You don't remember the breach of data, the emails, and all of the universities that came out and admit that all of their claims were based on the same data? I figured everyone would know what I was talking about, but I guess some people don't pay attention to the news as closely as I do.
    - astrange 16y ago
      There are multiple sets of "data", in whatever sense you want to use it (prediction models and climate measurements), and I don't think you know which one you mean. They back each other up pretty well, anyway.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > There is a lot of money in global warming. Those poor, unprofitable energy companies must have trouble fighting all those overly-funded climatologists!
  - lzw 16y ago
    You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic. Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.
- natnat 16y ago
  There may be a few billion dollars to be made by some investment banks and hedge funds in carbon trading, but keep in mind that as of today, three of the six largest companies by market cap are oil companies (ExxonMobil, PetroChina, Royal Dutch Shell), and another is a mining company with substantial interests in petroleum (BHP Billiton). These four companies alone add up to over a trillion dollars in market value. Also, the profits from purchasing carbon credits do not go directly into Al Gore's pocket. I don't have any idea where anyone would get such a stupid idea.
codefisher 16y ago
"If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." Ok I will take that as a challenge to produce a link, so how is this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_de... Did you pass out? My stance is that all the name calling (ie. deniers) does not help. In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required, and it helps further study. It is only when an issue becomes political (Global Warning) or religious (Evolution/Creationism) and leave their scientific basis that people get pilloried for saying they are not convinced and such n' such an issue is not up to scratch and needs more research to confirm or disprove it. As the the 95% of people. Yes that stat would be right. 95% of people are always out of their depth in any argument of any complexity. But it says nothing about their position. I have lots of friends that believe things, but if faced with a skilled debtor can't hold their own position. Nor should they have to. Life is too busy to be on top of every issue.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-int... for details/pretty graphs. Btw, that argument is #6 in the list of common denier arguments http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php > In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required Scepticism is fine, but the level of scepticism needs to be in proportion to the level of data available. The bulk of the data available strongly indicates that global warming is real, and is caused by humans. Which is why people who don't believe in global warming are now called 'deniers' - they're not really skeptics.
  - lzw 16y ago
    You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument". This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate. The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken. But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.
iuguy 16y ago
That you refer to people who disagree with you as 'deniers' shows that you are not open to debate on the matter, nor being proved wrong. A lot of people used to think the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. The atom used to be described as a pudding. The idea that illnesses were caused by creatures that you cannot see was considered ludicrous. I would be happy to accept any of the above ideas if supported by fact. However I don't feel a need to refer to people who believe such things in a negative manner. The climate deniers you refer to are people too, probably a fair amount of them are intelligent and rational people, just with a different view to you. Name calling doesn't solve anything.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". So yes, they are deniers. If they don't like it, they should start arguing properly, or admit that they're wrong. You know, like scientists do.
  - iuguy 16y ago
    To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either side. There's theories and evidence to support either direction. It's not a binary it is or it isn't happening thing. It's not a binary we cause it, we don't cause it thing. The problem with the debate is that it becomes a religion to both sides.

rick888 16y ago

"I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. It's just as bad (can you show me proof that's not based on this falsified data?). There is a lot of money in global warming. Al gore is not only invested in the carbon credit industry, but he is trying to get the US government to force businesses to purchase these carbon credits (the profits from these will go directly into his pocket). Nobody on the left seems to care about how unethical this is. "Nigel's just automating away the drudgery." No, Nigel doesn't actually want to defend his point. He would rather make fun of the "crackpots" because he arrogantly believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

glhaynes 16y ago
All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. Excuse me?
- lzw 16y ago
  The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want. You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please! See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it correctly, it is impossible to disprove, even though the planet is getting colder, because it is based on fantasy models-- you can't disprove a model because it is just a model. And these models having never worked with previous data sets is well known but advocates don't care.)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtp 16y ago
    You don't understand it correctly. Models are supposed to fit the evidence, otherwise they're incorrect. That's how science works. Say you've gathered evidence of the big bang. You create a model for it. Then, suddenly, for some reason observations and measurements of background radiation doesn't fit your model. If that is so, you'll have to either adjust your model as to fit the data, or throw it away and build a new model that fits the data.
    - lzw 16y ago
      Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it. They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.
      - rtp 16y ago
        Are you saying that the projections for the future should fit the past? I'm sorry.
        rimantas 16y ago
anthonyb 16y ago
>> If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." > All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified.... Thank you for proving my point so concisely.
- rick888 16y ago
  really? I really have to explain this? You don't remember the breach of data, the emails, and all of the universities that came out and admit that all of their claims were based on the same data? I figured everyone would know what I was talking about, but I guess some people don't pay attention to the news as closely as I do.
  - astrange 16y ago
    There are multiple sets of "data", in whatever sense you want to use it (prediction models and climate measurements), and I don't think you know which one you mean. They back each other up pretty well, anyway.
ceejayoz 16y ago
> There is a lot of money in global warming. Those poor, unprofitable energy companies must have trouble fighting all those overly-funded climatologists!
- lzw 16y ago
  You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic. Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.
natnat 16y ago
There may be a few billion dollars to be made by some investment banks and hedge funds in carbon trading, but keep in mind that as of today, three of the six largest companies by market cap are oil companies (ExxonMobil, PetroChina, Royal Dutch Shell), and another is a mining company with substantial interests in petroleum (BHP Billiton). These four companies alone add up to over a trillion dollars in market value. Also, the profits from purchasing carbon credits do not go directly into Al Gore's pocket. I don't have any idea where anyone would get such a stupid idea.

codefisher 16y ago

"If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." Ok I will take that as a challenge to produce a link, so how is this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_de... Did you pass out? My stance is that all the name calling (ie. deniers) does not help. In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required, and it helps further study. It is only when an issue becomes political (Global Warning) or religious (Evolution/Creationism) and leave their scientific basis that people get pilloried for saying they are not convinced and such n' such an issue is not up to scratch and needs more research to confirm or disprove it. As the the 95% of people. Yes that stat would be right. 95% of people are always out of their depth in any argument of any complexity. But it says nothing about their position. I have lots of friends that believe things, but if faced with a skilled debtor can't hold their own position. Nor should they have to. Life is too busy to be on top of every issue.

anthonyb 16y ago
Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-int... for details/pretty graphs. Btw, that argument is #6 in the list of common denier arguments http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php > In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required Scepticism is fine, but the level of scepticism needs to be in proportion to the level of data available. The bulk of the data available strongly indicates that global warming is real, and is caused by humans. Which is why people who don't believe in global warming are now called 'deniers' - they're not really skeptics.
- lzw 16y ago
  You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument". This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate. The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken. But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.

iuguy 16y ago

That you refer to people who disagree with you as 'deniers' shows that you are not open to debate on the matter, nor being proved wrong. A lot of people used to think the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. The atom used to be described as a pudding. The idea that illnesses were caused by creatures that you cannot see was considered ludicrous. I would be happy to accept any of the above ideas if supported by fact. However I don't feel a need to refer to people who believe such things in a negative manner. The climate deniers you refer to are people too, probably a fair amount of them are intelligent and rational people, just with a different view to you. Name calling doesn't solve anything.

anthonyb 16y ago
I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". So yes, they are deniers. If they don't like it, they should start arguing properly, or admit that they're wrong. You know, like scientists do.
- iuguy 16y ago
  To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either side. There's theories and evidence to support either direction. It's not a binary it is or it isn't happening thing. It's not a binary we cause it, we don't cause it thing. The problem with the debate is that it becomes a religion to both sides.