--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" > <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > I'm sorry you choose to perpetuate that silly > > > and intellectually disreputable use of the > > > word "deniers". For shame. How can you live > > > with yourself? > > > > Oh, please. You've used the term yourself: > > > > "Or try this very thoughtful analysis from Judy Curry, > > a climate scientist who again is NOT in the denier > camp:" > [/snip] > > Oh Judy - you've confused a debating point for > something that matters: > > --------------------------- > Coloured person to whitey some day some time ago: > > "The trouble with you master is that you won't treat > us niggers as human beings" > > Then a day or two later: > > "And another thing master, we think that the word > 'nigger' is disrespectful" > > Whitey (a smug smile playing around his lips): "Oh, > please! YOU used the term yourself just the other day. > Don't you remember?" > --------------------------- > > Yeah, right.
"Yeah, right," indeed. Your debating tactic here is to equate me with a racist because I used the term "deniers," and *you're* taking the moral high ground? > Yes I used the term "denier" - but the context should > be obvious to you (viz. trying to engage with people > who seem to think that those who hold differing views > are variously irredeemably stupid, contemptible, > selfish, polluters, and, of course "in denial"). > > The subtext of this word denial hardly needs to be > spelled out does it? Sorry I missed your "subtext." Maybe if you hadn't also used the term "alarmist" to refer to the other camp, it would have been clearer. Or if you had put "denier" in scare quotes, that would have helped. > It is either attempting to make an association with > holocaust deniers, or to invoke the idea of > "psychological denial". Yeah, I think some of both. Or maybe Holocaust deniers covers it, given that such denial is both political and psychological. The real difference being, of course, that the Holcaust deniers are denying something that's already happened to some 6 million people, whereas the climate change deniers are denying something that is likely to kill many more millions in the future if we don't do something about it *now*. > By using either (with intent - see my first point), I > don't think you are covering yourself in rational > glory. In fact I think it makes those that stoop that > low, look transaparently ignorant. And I think those who use the term "alarmist" look irrational and transparently ignorant. Next? I am not used to > seeing you in that light. > > And given that it is generally folks that do this that > also seem to be persuaded that they stand on the > rational high ground - it is deeply ironic. Funny, your stance looks deeply ironic from this side. Next? > Of course in the public domain the term is used in an > "end justifies the means" strategy to try to elbow and > bully critics out beyond the pale. It isn't a matter of bullying the critics but of expressing contempt for the critics. If you feel "bullied," that's your problem. But as this is > ultimately a scientific question, and as a progressive > and rationalist you should "stand up" for Science, > then it is in fact YOU, not I (a sceptic) that should > be at the forefront of protest on this point. Protest what, exactly? I've already weighed in on Curry's side in protest of "tribalism." By > discrediting yourself in this way you harm the genuine > arguments that can be made for your cause. > > As do the exposed emails. > > Which is exactly the point you make later in your post > (and with which you are in contradiction as long as > you waltz around calling folks "deniers"): Uh, no. No contradiction. The point I made is that the "tribalism" doesn't discredit the science, but the anti-AGW folks are dishonestly trying to use it to do so. > > The whole "tribalism" thing needs to be cleaned > > up, unquestionably, but not because it > > legitimately calls the science in question. It > > needs to be cleaned up because it gives the > > anti-AGW folks weapons they can misuse--*have > > been* misusing--to shake the public's faith > > in the science. > > Some unsolicted advice to those on your side of the > debate? > > * Stop using the word "denier" How about you stop using the word "alarmist"? Or better yet, stop wasting time and effort in a quibble over Political Correctness with regard to the use of shorthand. It's not going to change the fact that you think we're alarmists and we think you're deniers. In other words, you're confusing a debating point with something that matters. Is there an echo in here? > * Go back to the falsifiable (and therefore > interesting) conjecture of AGW "anthropomorphic global > warming" and drop the glib, unfalsifiable "climate > change" Er, and exactly how does using a longer term make it properly "falsifiable"? Would it be less offensive to you if I used the term "AGW deniers"? > * Dump the picture in your head that you are the > beacons of rationality whose only critics are the > stupid, misinformed, illiterate barbarians at the gate. I don't think the critics--the prominent ones, at any rate--are any of those things. I think they're dishonest. Like Vaj (the original point of my post). > Finally (I'm not done yet!): > > You quoted David Hume yesterday. If you are not > already familiar with him, why not try the great > American philosopher and scientist C.S. peirce? You > know what he thought? - The greatest (and only) > enemies of Science are those who seek to close down > debate. You've (collective "you") had quite awhile now to produce something worthwhile in this debate. Do you think those who believe the moon landing never happened should continue to be accorded respectful attention? The question is whether those on the other side are actually engaging in scientific debate or are just being obstructionist. > And I have no doubt Hume would have agreed. > > The term "denier" in this debate is the tool of those > who are the real enemies of Science. And I think the term "alarmist" is such a tool. Next? > OK... gasp for breath...now I'm done. I notice you chose not to respond to my question about your take on the famous "trick/hidden" email. That speaks louder than any of your words.
