Global Warming: How to approach the science (R Lindzen)
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The Angeleño Ledger Daily Press
Next: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest ?mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
From: Dawlish on 23 May 2010 03:56 On May 22, 9:01 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 22, 4:10 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 21, 4:49 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > Yeah. It was refreshing to see Lindzen go after the term "skeptic", > > > but he didn't have the balls to go after the propaganda term > > > "denier". > > > > If you ever needed any proof that "climate change" is a POLITICAL > > > rather than "scientific" issue, the use of the term "denier" to > > > describe any scientist not blindly supporting Anthropogenic Global > > > Warming is IT! > > > Well, it would be, if all scientists that didn't "bilndy > > support........" were deniers and not sceptics, but mostmany that have > > doubts, in the same way I do and are sceptical and certainly nor > > deniers. There are very few deniers amongst scientists because they > > realise what is most likely to be the truth. Many of those, having > > worked in this field closely, are convinced. I can understand that > > easily. I can't understand how a scientists can be completely > > convinced of the opposite in the face of so much research and data. > > So what you are saying is that you don't understand politics! > "Denier" is of course not a scientific term. In fact it's not even a > straight descriptive term, but a propaganda term carefully crafted to > use the semantics of the Neo-Nazi holocaust "deniers" where the term > was invented to smear anyone questioning the "standard story" of WWII > German concentration camps... even historical scholars. Hence my > statement that the use of the term is proof of politics stands. > > Science is not, however, decided by popular vote nor even by the > actual amount and/or quantity of data. A pile of manure is STILL a > pile of manure no matter how high the pile! The question is the > quality and reliability of the information in question. What you > apparently can't seem to understand is the way politics by subverting > a few men in leadership roles at universities, foundations, > professional associations, and most importantly funding agencies can > exercise a tight control over what scientists can say without > jeopardizing incomes or careers. That is the TRUE "global warming" > issue here.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A few men? (and women, of course. 37 NAS's, 97% of all climate scientists etc, etc and scientists being an incredibly sceptical bunch who would never be cowed like that. It's a godwin, of course. People who deny the holcaust are not smeared, they are wrong and they have a particular grudge which goes way beyond anything experienced in climate science. It is only ever denialists who make the connection. The rest of us know it has not a jot to do with connotations from WW2. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the term "denier", for those reasons, though I am trying to use using denialist as a separation from other coincidental connotations. I don't understand "it" (i.e. you wish to tar all your opponents with a political brush) because I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or a proliferation of oligarchies in democratically elected, or appointed, science institutions. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you are implying the norm. That wouldn't be true at all. It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "political" and you don't have to concentrate any more on the science. You just play on the ignorance of the masses.
From: Androcles on 23 May 2010 06:33 "Dawlish" <pjgno1(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1c9832c4-057b-4b19-8e51-6f8abf400a17(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com... I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the term "denier", for those reasons, though I am trying to use using denialist as a separation from other coincidental connotations. I don't understand "it" (i.e. you wish to tar all your opponents with a political brush) because I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or a proliferation of oligarchies in democratically elected, or appointed, science institutions. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you are implying the norm. That wouldn't be true at all. It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "political" and you don't have to concentrate any more on the science. ========================================= Forget political, forget deniers. Summarize the science so that we can concentrate on it. Global warming is caused by:_____________ because: ___________________________ and the evidence is:_____________________
From: Dawlish on 23 May 2010 08:30 On May 23, 11:33 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dawlish" <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1c9832c4-057b-4b19-8e51-6f8abf400a17(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the term > "denier", for those reasons, though I am trying to use using denialist > as a separation from other coincidental connotations. > > I don't understand "it" (i.e. you wish to tar all your opponents with > a political brush) because I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or > a proliferation of oligarchies in democratically elected, or > appointed, science institutions. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but > you are implying the norm. That wouldn't be true at all. > > It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "political" and you > don't have to concentrate any more on the science. > ========================================= > Forget political, forget deniers. > Summarize the science so that we can concentrate on it. > Global warming is caused by:_____________ > because: ___________________________ > and the evidence is:_____________________ Done it so many times, I lost count a long time ago; however, I'd insert the term "Extremely likely that", in front of your first demand. OK?
From: Androcles on 23 May 2010 09:08 "Dawlish" <pjgno1(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:86940512-4d1e-4856-9f2f-d4ecc8d0a05b(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On May 23, 11:33 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dawlish" <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1c9832c4-057b-4b19-8e51-6f8abf400a17(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the term > "denier", for those reasons, though I am trying to use using denialist > as a separation from other coincidental connotations. > > I don't understand "it" (i.e. you wish to tar all your opponents with > a political brush) because I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or > a proliferation of oligarchies in democratically elected, or > appointed, science institutions. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but > you are implying the norm. That wouldn't be true at all. > > It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "political" and you > don't have to concentrate any more on the science. > ========================================= > Forget political, forget deniers. > Summarize the science so that we can concentrate on it. > Global warming is caused by:_____________ > because: ___________________________ > and the evidence is:_____________________ Done it so many times, I lost count a long time ago; however, I'd insert the term "Extremely likely that", in front of your first demand. OK? ================================================ Not ok. If you've done it that often you can cut and paste your mantra. If not then you just another denialist who doesn't understand science. It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "science" and you don't have to concentrate any more on real science. Put up or shut up.
From: Dawlish on 23 May 2010 09:59
On May 23, 2:08 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dawlish" <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:86940512-4d1e-4856-9f2f-d4ecc8d0a05b(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On May 23, 11:33 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Dawlish" <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1c9832c4-057b-4b19-8e51-6f8abf400a17(a)o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the term > > "denier", for those reasons, though I am trying to use using denialist > > as a separation from other coincidental connotations. > > > I don't understand "it" (i.e. you wish to tar all your opponents with > > a political brush) because I don't believe in conspiracy theories, or > > a proliferation of oligarchies in democratically elected, or > > appointed, science institutions. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but > > you are implying the norm. That wouldn't be true at all. > > > It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "political" and you > > don't have to concentrate any more on the science. > > ========================================= > > Forget political, forget deniers. > > Summarize the science so that we can concentrate on it. > > Global warming is caused by:_____________ > > because: ___________________________ > > and the evidence is:_____________________ > > Done it so many times, I lost count a long time ago; however, I'd > insert the term "Extremely likely that", in front of your first > demand. OK? > ================================================ > Not ok. If you've done it that often you can cut and paste your mantra. > If not then you just another denialist who doesn't understand science. > It's a typical denialist ploy. Say everything is "science" and you don't > have to concentrate any more on real science. Put up or shut up.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Whatever. I really don't care if you can't be bothered to scroll back and read what I've said. Another deniaist tactic is for them to keep asking the same tired questions of as many people as they can. They think the lack of an answer means something. Here's the latest global temperatures; together with the 150 year trend, that actually does mean something to one hell of a lot of scientists. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001 I do hope you understood this: "however, I'd insert the term "Extremely likely that", in front of your first demand. OK?", as you ignored it in your haste to demand something else of me. |