Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

No that is sea ice not glaciers. Try measuring the water level, then drop an ice cube in and measure the water level again. That's what a melting glacier does to sea level.

Good lord, is it now glaciers that are going to cause the catastrophic rise in the sea levels?

I thought that in Al Gore's 'an inconvenient truth' it was sea ice.

cepheus

A._Badger wrote: »

Anyone still believing the hoary old 'sceptics are funded by big oil and coal' chestnut may find the following interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/warmist_slander_of_scientific.html

It won't convince a true believer, of course. But anyone with an open mind might pause for useful thought.

Why not just read what the Deniers actually say, what is the point in posting anything if you completely ignore all evidence? How can anything be clearer than that? Is the Pope a Catholic?

Prominent climate skeptic Pat Michaels admitted on CNN that an estimated 40% of his funding came from petroleum industry sources. In and of itself, this was hardly news

American-thinker is the most biased set of politically motivated misinformation on the web. How can anyone criticise science whist taking that crap seriously it beggars belief

A._Badger

cepheus wrote: »

Why not just read what the Deniers actually say, what is the point in posting anything if you completely ignore all evidence? How can anything be clearer than that? Is the Pope a Catholic?

Prominent climate skeptic Pat Michaels admitted on CNN that an estimated 40% of his funding came from petroleum industry sources. In and of itself, this was hardly news

American-thinker is the most biased set of politically motivated misinformation on the web. How can anyone criticise science whist taking that crap seriously it beggars belief

I did, quite specifically, say anyone with an open mind. I wasn't thinking of you.

Cardew

More graphs please - graphs can't lie!


Who said 'powerpoint' was rubbish? It got Al Gore the nobel prize!

cepheus

I think you are getting open minds confused with vacant ones.

...change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. "Target 1: Older, less educated males"..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

PS Sorry about all the graphs and evidence, I know evidence isn't your thing.

Try one of your propagandists spouting rhetoric then

Delingpole apparently complained to the BBC afterwards that he had been "intellectually raped" by Nurse

It's been long past time since these charlatans who can't get even one fact right had a taste of their own medicine.

grahamc2003

Oh dear. If there's one thing these climate change zealots have in common is the extremely rapid resort to abuse aimed at anyone who questions their climate change religion. It's absolutely pointless trying to have an intelligent conversation with them - you can tell that from the instant form of abuse 'denier' aimed at those simply questioning the very flaky 'science' behind it all.

But a good question from the thread title - what exactly is a climate denialist? or a climate denier (to make it correct English)? I've never met anyone who denies the climate exists.

Watch out for all the usual zealot tricks. Implying the debate is between 'deniers' and scientists. Well, as everyone who follows this topic knows, the most respected climate-type scientists are very sceptical (as they are supposed to be as proper scientists). The debate is really between sceptical scientists and non-sceptical scientists.

To simply accept man causes climate change to any non-trivial degree (which is an extremenly bold scientific postulate) on the scientific evidence available is the domain of the paradoxical non-sceptical scientist, driven at the highest level by politics, not science.

I'd like to ask Cepheus how, in an ideal world where he were the ruler, he would deal with people who question his views.

cepheus

I would ask the most experienced scientists who are most qualified, and are genuinely sceptical of any contrary evidence what the best approach is and try to implement those measures. Now could you name me one qualified climate scientist who now doesn't accept some anthropogenic climate change an indisputable fact? (no fake petitions please).

It is in fact physically impossible not to be any. If you had any knowledge of this subject you would already know this.

Man made climate change is indeed non-trivial it has almost 200 years of evidence and history of study.

Now answer me this question: Why aren't you sceptical of the Deniers, considering they have been throughly discredited by the top scientists?

grahamc2003

cepheus wrote: »

I Now could you name me one qualified climate scientist who now doesn't accept some anthropogenic climate change an indisputable fact? (no fake petitions please).

It is in fact physically impossible not to be any. If you had any knowledge of this subject you would already know this.

Cepheus. you posted the above in response to a post of mine containing this

To simply accept man causes climate change to any non-trivial degree ....

I think that proves my view that it is totally pointless engaging in discussion with you.

Anyhow, good luck with your beliefs, but I feel you'll eventually reassess over the coming years as the central theories of man made global warming, or cooling for that matter, are viewed with more scepticism by both proper scientists and the general public, as I sense is currently happening.

keith_r59

For me, the argument is lost as soon as the protagonists start using terms with "denier" on the end.

cepheus

'meet the sceptics' last night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y5j3v/Storyville_20102011_Meet_the_Climate_Sceptics/