--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> 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?
I am equating you with a racist? Why on earth would I do that? You surely don't REALLY believe that do you? Perhaps you didn't understand my point. Or perhaps I didn't make it very well. > > 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. "My" subtext? Hardly. It is true that "alarmist" is not appropriate for all AGW proponents. But a great many would be proud to be called "alarmist" - Jim Hansen for one. Who he? "The world's greatest climate scientist" remember? The "father of AGW" as he is sometimes called. And there's the difference. Compared to the distasteful connotations of "denier" and the holocaust, "alarmist" is reasonably neutral and fairly descriptive (there's a big difference between scepticism and denial to preempt your butting in with "denial" being descriptive too). > > 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*. Well there we have it. Do you not see what you are doing? Instaed of enagaging in a dialogue, you are pre- supposing the truth of your viewpoint and then extrapolationg to what is the case as a result. 1) My view is true 2) If my view is true, millions will die 3) Therefore those who contest my view have blood on their hands (shades of Vaj?) . 4) Therefore they are on a par with holocaust deniers (At least that's my best effort to make sense of this pig's ear). Let me do the same trick on you. 1) Your view is false 2) If your false view is acted upon, millions will die 3) Therefore those with your view have blood on their hands (shades of Vaj?) . 4) Therefore you and your ilk are on a par with holocaust deniers On this issue we only get to find out who the "losers" of the debate are maybe 50 years hence. Even so, the logic of the above is completely flawed, as it may well be true now that there are extremely good reasons to believe AGW AND extremely good reasons to be sceptical of AGW such that to end up on the losing side of the debate in no way puts you on a par with a holocaust denier. [snip] > It isn't a matter of bullying the critics but of > expressing contempt for the critics. If you feel > "bullied," that's your problem. Expressing contempt and proud of it, eh? [snip] > > * 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"? Can't you see that "anthropomorphic global warming" is a *better* conjecture than "climate change"? Because it rules out more. Elementary Popper. Which is not to say that the conjecture "anthropomorphic global warming" is readily testable. It isn't, at least not in the way that theories from the "hard" sciences are (A quick run around the block: Global temperature measurement is extremely difficult; Anything other than recent such measurements depend on reconstructions via proxies, itself fraught with difficulties; We only have one planet, so we can't easily run experiments on it, so we have to depend on computer modelling in lieu of test data). > > 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). There are no non-dishonest critics?! Oh gawd... And yes, the Vaj comparison is highly offensive. [snip] > 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. You wish. I hope to get around to that.
