3 ms·

This is a very weak response of the type that creates climate change skeptics. 1. Numbering your opponents arguments isn't a response to them. 2. He isn't ask

This is a very weak response of the type that creates climate change skeptics. 1. Numbering your opponents arguments isn't a response to them. 2. He isn't asking questions, he's making a variety of statements that have a factual basis and can be debated to determine to what extent they're right or wrong. You're straw-manning to claim these are questions. 3. Asserting there's no debate when someone is telling you there is debate, is exactly the kind of strategy that makes neutral onlookers more likely to agree with him, not you, especially as one of his claims is that journals etc block any alternative viewpoint.

igorkraw 5y ago
1. The point of numbering them is to highlight all of them have been answered already, but he's not interested in the answers. Otherwise, a good faith skeptic would have found the anders to his "concerns" 2. The debate you are alluding to has been done, see point 1. But he ignores this, because as long as the debate don't stop, his position is unchanged 3. Asserting there is a debate until someone who has done 0 to engage with an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees there isn't is false neutrality. That one random guys opinion (and mine, for the record) is worth jack shit compared to the IPCC ans the 97-99% of experts who have come to a consensus based on the data they spend their whole career studying. To go against their consensus is perfectly valid but needs to be done in a manner which integrates all the data collected in the consensus explanation at least as well, or better. Not just by listing context free gotchas and claiming the debate hasn't been finished yet As for the question of creating climate skeptics: I'm much more interested in pointing out to readers that a rhetorical playbook is being used and provide a counter voice than to argue with someone who isn't themselves arguing in food faith. See point 1
- native_samples 5y ago
  The website you give that numbers the arguments provides answers to each one, but some of these answers are so poor as to effectively be doing work for the other side. For example, point 43 is "CO2 is plant food". No such point is made anywhere in the post you're replying to, so you must be reading it into something else he said. Point 44 is "there is no empirical evidence". Again, the person you're responding to didn't say that. This time I can't even see anywhere you might be reading an implication of it. Regardless, the given answers are often not really answers at all; e.g. point 90 "Q: Peer review process was corrupted" is answered by "A: An Independent Review concluded the CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review". I recall reading those emails and they were very explicitly doing exactly that. The "independent review" in question is actually organized and the website is hosted by the University of East Anglia itself. The answer is basically saying everyone should trust academics when they clear themselves of wrongdoing, and if you don't you're a conspiracy theorist. I looked into this one a bit more and there's a response written by the climate skeptics themselves to this review here, which is far more convincing: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... Russell's inquiry was slated by MPs, apparently for good reasons: "The Muir Russell inquiry held no public hearings and did not interview any CRU critics ... Although Muir Russell had been appointed in December 2009 and was due to report in spring 2010, as of the start of April, nobody at CRU had been interviewed on anything to do with the Hockey Stick or IPCC" An MP said: "In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again." "Subsequently, it turned out that Vice Chancellor Action’s reassurances that nothing had been deleted were untrue. Following up on that supposed reassurance, one of us (McIntyre) submitted an FOI request for the attachments to the emails which Jones had sought to destroy, attachments which contained the surreptitious and hidden edits to the IPCC report by Mann’s associates after close of external review. The University reported that the documents about which Acton had reassured the Committee did not exist after all."

igorkraw 5y ago

1. The point of numbering them is to highlight all of them have been answered already, but he's not interested in the answers. Otherwise, a good faith skeptic would have found the anders to his "concerns" 2. The debate you are alluding to has been done, see point 1. But he ignores this, because as long as the debate don't stop, his position is unchanged 3. Asserting there is a debate until someone who has done 0 to engage with an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees there isn't is false neutrality. That one random guys opinion (and mine, for the record) is worth jack shit compared to the IPCC ans the 97-99% of experts who have come to a consensus based on the data they spend their whole career studying. To go against their consensus is perfectly valid but needs to be done in a manner which integrates all the data collected in the consensus explanation at least as well, or better. Not just by listing context free gotchas and claiming the debate hasn't been finished yet As for the question of creating climate skeptics: I'm much more interested in pointing out to readers that a rhetorical playbook is being used and provide a counter voice than to argue with someone who isn't themselves arguing in food faith. See point 1

native_samples 5y ago
The website you give that numbers the arguments provides answers to each one, but some of these answers are so poor as to effectively be doing work for the other side. For example, point 43 is "CO2 is plant food". No such point is made anywhere in the post you're replying to, so you must be reading it into something else he said. Point 44 is "there is no empirical evidence". Again, the person you're responding to didn't say that. This time I can't even see anywhere you might be reading an implication of it. Regardless, the given answers are often not really answers at all; e.g. point 90 "Q: Peer review process was corrupted" is answered by "A: An Independent Review concluded the CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review". I recall reading those emails and they were very explicitly doing exactly that. The "independent review" in question is actually organized and the website is hosted by the University of East Anglia itself. The answer is basically saying everyone should trust academics when they clear themselves of wrongdoing, and if you don't you're a conspiracy theorist. I looked into this one a bit more and there's a response written by the climate skeptics themselves to this review here, which is far more convincing: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... Russell's inquiry was slated by MPs, apparently for good reasons: "The Muir Russell inquiry held no public hearings and did not interview any CRU critics ... Although Muir Russell had been appointed in December 2009 and was due to report in spring 2010, as of the start of April, nobody at CRU had been interviewed on anything to do with the Hockey Stick or IPCC" An MP said: "In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again." "Subsequently, it turned out that Vice Chancellor Action’s reassurances that nothing had been deleted were untrue. Following up on that supposed reassurance, one of us (McIntyre) submitted an FOI request for the attachments to the emails which Jones had sought to destroy, attachments which contained the surreptitious and hidden edits to the IPCC report by Mann’s associates after close of external review. The University reported that the documents about which Acton had reassured the Committee did not exist after all."