Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Winehole23]

Ooh, "deliverables". That's quite the red flag.

actually, the non-disclosure is the bigger issue.

[Winehole23]

"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics

[boutons_deux]

Darrin's delivery boy is paid by BigCorp to lie, IPCC science delivery boys are paid to do science.

[DarrinS]

"the other side does it too" is hardly exonerating from the standpoint of science and professional ethics

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

[boutons_deux]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

Can you list any scientists who got paid by BigCarbon/BigCorp whose "sound work" confirmed AGW?

[DarrinS]

Can you list any scientists who got paid by BigCarbon/BigCorp whose "sound work" confirmed AGW?

I already did

[RandomGuy]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

Link?

Just like cigarette companies sponsored a lot of cancer research?

[RandomGuy]

It was a move, own it.

(shrug)

Getting to the actual people involved is what the internet is for. I have, during the run of this thread, actually contacted one of the scientists involved in some study or another to ask a question and gotten an actual answer.

How exactly is getting to the best information possible a big thing?

[RandomGuy]

"I do not believe the scientists, because it is their profession and not their hobby".

What's the point of taking the excerpts? When you cherry pick, you can show one side. I wonder what the full C-Span clip would tell us?

That the Republicans on the science oversight panel care far less for actual science than they do the politics and feelings about the "truthiness" of facts.

You tell me, because the nitwit politician is pretty much aping your favorite conspiracy theory, and the one you, and Yoni, have failed so hard in proving, just like Cosmored has failed to prove his.

Well, I disagree, and it is not presented in context. What you posted is very unethical.

By all means, present what you think the proper context for their ed and ignorant statements is.

Unethical, how? Be specific.

How about specifying how it was ethical first?

I'm not the one making a claim sport-o.

Your claim, your burden.



I will ask again, how was posting a summary unethical?

[boutons_deux]

I already did

and after they confirmed AGW, they continued to receive $$$ from BigCarbon/BigCorp?

[DarrinS]

and after they confirmed AGW, they continued to receive $$$ from BigCarbon/BigCorp?

There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.

[boutons_deux]

There's no need to "confirm" AGW. No one denies the A or the G or the W. The "denial" is about the immediate need to "take action", or else climategeddon.

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

[Wild Cobra]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

Only double digit midgets believe that.

Oops...

My apologies to the little people. I didn't mean to offend you...

2. global warming is natural

Are you saying none of it is natural?

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

We are still asking for a reliable explanation and model that will hold for the next 20 years.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

Who is saying that? Link please.

Of course we play a role. We just aren't 100% of the changes.

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

My God, you have one active imagination!

[DarrinS]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

[boutons_deux]

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.

[Wild Cobra]

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.

Well, your paraphrasing is definately inaccurate.

Are you being intellectually dishonest, or is it stupid ignorance?

I suspect the latter.

[DarrinS]

You right wingers are so misinformed.

I've heard every one of those 7 points repeatedly, and most of them right here from You People.

I've talked about "the pause", or hiatus, which is even acknowledged by the IPCC.

[Winehole23]

As long as your work is sound, it doesn't matter who signs your paycheck. Evil "for profit" BigCarbon sponsors a LOT of climate change research, conferences, etc.

Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?

[DarrinS]

Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?

Oh well, at least he didn't have to resign amid sexual harassment allegations. That's what happened to the head of the IPCC today.

[RandomGuy]

Regardless of who signs the paycheck, professional ethics requires disclosure of possible conflicts of interest.

If your work is sound, why would you be furtive about who paid for it?

Good question. The answer:

"Because your work might attract a bit more skepticism and scrutiny, or the people paying for it, asked that they not be named as funding sources"

[RandomGuy]

BS, the key denier points are:

1. global warming is not caused by man

2. global warming is natural

3. global warming has paused, so back off, cool it.

4. global warming can't be affected by man one way or the other, so do nothing (and above: emissions regulations, no carbon tax, don't touch BigCarbon/BigCorp profits)

5, AGW is a hoax

6. AGW is world-wide conspiracy.

7. don't call it AGW, call it the harmless sounding "climate change" euphemistic "issue"

Pretty much.

I could comb through the last few hundred pages and find rather specific examples. WC is fond of the conspiracy angle and Darrin parrots it endlessly as well.

[DarrinS]

Pretty much.

I could comb through the last few hundred pages and find rather specific examples. WC is fond of the conspiracy angle and Darrin parrots it endlessly as well.

liar

From a few years back: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5414665


No conspiracy here.

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with re ed doesn't add much to the debate.

[DarrinS]

Good question. The answer:

"Because your work might attract a bit more skepticism and scrutiny, or the people paying for it, asked that they not be named as funding sources"

The CRU has taken in millions from "BigOil". FYI.

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...denier-studies

[Winehole23]

Oh well, at least he didn't have to resign amid sexual harassment allegations. That's what happened to the head of the IPCC today.

for sure you can deflect what you can't rebut, that hasn't changed.