Mods, you are playing their ignorant game if "climate change deniers" is offlimits.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

With respect, you might want to update your question, to wit: can informed global warming skeptics exist in 2012?

In 1992 Nordhaus advocated an optimal carbon tax of $5, and said that it was too small to bother with if passed in a revenue neutral manner. The low figure was tied to his social rate of discount. He has kept his model, but if I understand it correctly harms have moved closer with the passage of time, so now he's up to $30/ton. Recently he penned the column, "Why Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong".

Anyway, c. 1992 I'd characterize Nordhaus as a Global Warming Skeptic. c. 2007-8, I'd say that he's dovish on the topic, if not quite a dove. Well, "Deluded" is certainly a loaded expression. "Confused" might be better, though still derogatory. "AGW theory advocate" has problems of tone that are comparable to "AGW theory denier" IMHO: both concerns are very mild: I don't see a problem with either in polite debate.

Heh. Here's a good slam for those who accept mainstream climate science: call them "The warming establishment".

The point is that you're getting too close to a "no-true-skeptic" fallacy.
I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an "oh-my-god" catastrophe (or even something worrysome). I have no financial, social, or political advantage to fake my skepticism. I'm more than ready to assess any new information and change my stance.

I know deluded is loaded, as is denier. "The warmin establishment" has a nice ring to it, but it no a good comeback to denier.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

The point is that you're getting too close to a "no-true-skeptic" fallacy.

I don't think so, or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Nordhaus qualified as a skeptic c. 1992 as his position basically was, "Don't bother to regulated CO2 unless you're simply trying to raise revenue for deficit reduction." But he renounced such a label this year and indeed has explicitly called for (modest) action. AFAICT, he wanted to draw a bright line between himself (a very mainstream economist) and the crackpots, albeit tenured ones. I know "Crackpot" is a strong word, but some of the arguments he was addressing truly were of the crank variety, though they received some airplay in conservative channels.


Heh. Here are two other possibilities: the credulous and the dupable. Getting pitworthy, but they have comeback potential.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I don't think so, or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Nordhaus qualified as a skeptic c. 1992 as his position basically was, "Don't bother to regulated CO2 unless you're simply trying to raise revenue for deficit reduction." But he renounced such a label this year and indeed has explicitly called for (modest) action. AFAICT, he wanted to draw a bright line between himself (a very mainstream economist) and the crackpots, albeit tenured ones. I know "Crackpot" is a strong word, but some of the arguments he was addressing truly were of the crank variety, though they received some airplay in conservative channels.


Heh. Here are two other possibilities: the credulous and the dupable. Getting pitworthy, but they have comeback potential.

How about "warmists" and "coolists"'.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

How about "warmists" and "coolists"'.

Even I pointed before that warmist could be applied to people like Al Gore that is not a scientist, the problem is that one looks at the contrarian sources and sites and they apply it even to the expert scientists.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Even I pointed before that warmist could be applied to people like Al Gore that is not a scientist, the problem is that one looks at the contrarian sources and sites and they apply it even to the expert scientists.

Highsensitiviters and Lowsensitiviters?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Highsensitiviters and Lowsensitiviters?

Yangs and Kohms?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

With respect, you might want to update your question, to wit: can informed global warming skeptics exist in 2012?

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an "oh-my-god" catastrophe (or even something worrysome).

No, no you don't know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

It is absolutely no different from someone, in questioning evolution as a theory, saying, “I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an explanation how such complicated mechanisms as an eye could have developed by pure random chance.” You no more understand climate change than this person understands evolution.

Note further that there are great areas of controversy and knowledge-building in evolutionary theory, as in climate science. This is distinct from being a creationist or a denier, and merely proclaiming to be an informed skeptic is far from adequate to be considered one.

So being lumped in with creationists, birthers, and truthers is noisome to you because those people don’t really understand the issues, whereas you (mistakenly) believe that you do. Given the low reputation they have on the Board, it is understandable that you do not like being a member of that cohort.

On the other hand, the ‘denier’ moniker can imply a conscious choice to be duplicitous. It suggests that the person is aware of something, yet chooses to speak out against that thing for some other purpose, whether profit, faith, political bent, or some intangible abstraction that escapes even the speaker. It is, in this aspect, tantamount to calling someone a liar or zealously self-deluded. It is never clear whether the Stormfrnt visitor that cherry picks his evidence and twists logic to match his theory is intentionally doing so or is lying even to himself. Again, it is understandable why you would not be comfortable with the characterization.

Your umbrage is understandable. No one on a board dedicated to ‘fighting against ignorance’ wants to be lumped in with creationists, dowsers, homeopathic practitioners, scientologists, etc. And as the OP was premised on, dancing around terminology to avoid offending the crystal practitioners gives undue credence to their woo; the same is with climate change deniers. Though the terms can be used as an ad hominem (and already against the rules), the general application is appropriate.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

No, no you don't know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

How do you know that?

Just because he/she isn't very worried about the possible consequences doesn't mean he/she doesn't understand.

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

How do you know that?

Just because he/she isn't very worried about the possible consequences doesn't mean he/she doesn't understand.

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

You are correct. This, actually, is the easy case, but I should have accounted for it in my post.

I should have added that someone who actually does understand the range of implications of climate change impacts and still states that it “falls short of an "oh-my-god" catastrophe (or even something worrysome)" is either inherently sociopathic (for a lay understanding of the term) or inherently evil (for a common understanding of the term).

It is the equivalent of someone in the 1980s saying that though they recognize, understand, and accept as true that AIDS will kill millions of people, they just don’t think that such widespread death falls short of an "oh-my-god" catastrophe (or even something worrysome).”



ETA:

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

Afraid is a difficult term. I’m not afraid; I have the resources and am in a location to be personally safe. However, there are tens of millions of people (note there is a time element here) that are directly vulnerable to both death and increased suffering due to the direct and indirect results of climate change. Another reason why taking the position that this is not a concern is that most of those people are not the proximate cause of climate change; those safest and least likely to suffer bear the greater responsibility.



Note, however, that he/she did not take the position (AFAIK) that the IPCC reports are largely correct, etc., but just doesn't give a shit about the impacts. That's largely why I didn't include it above.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

No, no you don't know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

It is absolutely no different from someone, in questioning evolution as a theory, saying, “I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an explanation how such complicated mechanisms as an eye could have developed by pure random chance.” You no more understand climate change than this person understands evolution.

Note further that there are great areas of controversy and knowledge-building in evolutionary theory, as in climate science. This is distinct from being a creationist or a denier, and merely proclaiming to be an informed skeptic is far from adequate to be considered one.

So being lumped in with creationists, birthers, and truthers is noisome to you because those people don’t really understand the issues, whereas you (mistakenly) believe that you do. Given the low reputation they have on the Board, it is understandable that you do not like being a member of that cohort.

On the other hand, the ‘denier’ moniker can imply a conscious choice to be duplicitous. It suggests that the person is aware of something, yet chooses to speak out against that thing for some other purpose, whether profit, faith, political bent, or some intangible abstraction that escapes even the speaker. It is, in this aspect, tantamount to calling someone a liar or zealously self-deluded. It is never clear whether the Stormfrnt visitor that cherry picks his evidence and twists logic to match his theory is intentionally doing so or is lying even to himself. Again, it is understandable why you would not be comfortable with the characterization.

Your umbrage is understandable. No one on a board dedicated to ‘fighting against ignorance’ wants to be lumped in with creationists, dowsers, homeopathic practitioners, scientologists, etc. And as the OP was premised on, dancing around terminology to avoid offending the crystal practitioners gives undue credence to their woo; the same is with climate change deniers. Though the terms can be used as an ad hominem (and already against the rules), the general application is appropriate.

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don't accept AG you're ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn't be a skeptic.

I know that the supposed consequences are terrible, but I don't believe those consequences are going to happen because I don't believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities.

It's "fighting ignorance" (not against) and you cannot imagine how little I care about being classified with creationists, birthers or even vegans, in an anonymous board.

[Rhythmdvl]

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don't accept evolution, you're ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn't be a skeptic.

The same thing applies to those that deny climate change.

No, emphatically and unequivocally no, you do not understand climate science.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don't accept evolution, you're ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn't be a skeptic.

The same thing applies to those that deny climate change.

No, emphatically and unequivocally no, you do not understand climate science.

Good to see that your crystal ball is working so well. I hope you use it only for good and not for evil.

[Rhythmdvl]

That made absolutely no sense.

Crystal ball?

Science. It works, bitches.


You are, without any doubt, from any rational point of view, equivalent to a creationist that suggests she knows and understands evolution but denies that it can account for the creation of an eye.


Pretending that it's okay to be ignorant of basic science because otherwise you're caught in a catch-22 doesn't help.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

That made absolutely no sense.

Crystal ball?

Science. It works, bitches.


You are, without any doubt, from any rational point of view, equivalent to a creationist that suggests she knows and understands evolution but denies that it can account for the creation of an eye.


Pretending that it's okay to be ignorant of basic science because otherwise you're caught in a catch-22 doesn't help.

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. "I know it because you don't believe in AGW like I do")

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. "I know it because you don't believe in AGW like I do")

Well, a few questions can clarify that:

1) Why do you trust non experts sources like Forbes Magazine over the published science journals or science magazines regarding climate change?

2) Why do you trust non expert sites or your opinion over what expert in polling or surveys are finding regarding the actual levels of consensus among the climate scientists on the issue?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. "I know it because you don't believe in AGW like I do")

The closest example at hand:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I know that the supposed consequences are terrible, but I don't believe those consequences are going to happen because I don't believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities. ( emphasis added)

You don’t seem to be hingeing your statements on an inhuman callousness, nor on duplicity. Given the state of climate science and body of evidence, that only leave one option: ignorance. Again, it makes sense that you would object to the term, as sharing a label with creationists et al can’t be very comfortable on this board.

Your “actual” knowledge of climate science is extremely limited. You would be much better off educating yourself than pretending that an accurate description of your lack of knowledge is somehow inimical to debating the issues.

[John DiFool]

Actually, I would welcome a substantive discussion on the predicted extent of AGW, along with other various side issues. This however would require that all parties share a common ground of theories and data, and that said discussion would not get hijacked in short order by those with their axes to grind. I can't remember the last time we had such a discussion here, too bad...

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Well, a few questions can clarify that:

1) Why do you trust non experts sources like Forbes Magazine over the published science journals or science magazines regarding climate change?

2) Why do you trust non expert sites or your opinion over what expert in polling or surveys are finding regarding the actual levels of consensus among the climate scientists on the issue?

1) Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I've told you I won't watch?
2) Polling like 75 of 3000?

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

The closest example at hand:
You don’t seem to be hingeing your statements on an inhuman callousness, nor on duplicity. Given the state of climate science and body of evidence, that only leave one option: ignorance. Again, it makes sense that you would object to the term, as sharing a label with creationists et al can’t be very comfortable on this board.

Your “actual” knowledge of climate science is extremely limited. You would be much better off educating yourself than pretending that an accurate description of your lack of knowledge is somehow inimical to debating the issues.

(and this will be the last specific topic I'll talk about, this is an ATMB thread about denier, not an AHW thread.)
The specified feedback of a doubling of CO2 concentration is estimated (in pro-AGW sources) at about 3ºC. Tracking back that high sensitivity backwards in the instrumental record, doesn't fit observed temperastures. Also, high sensitivities would point to an inherently unstable system and climate isnt.
The 3ºC per doubling would get us fro the 1850 to now with a 1.5º increase and not the 0.8º observed. Aersols are brought to save the day, but their short lves an poor mixing means that, to average out, they would need to provide astonishing cooling in the areas where they are very high (we're talking 5º).

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Actually, I would welcome a substantive discussion on the predicted extent of AGW, along with other various side issues. This however would require that all parties share a common ground of theories and data, and that said discussion would not get hijacked in short order by those with their axes to grind. I can't remember the last time we had such a discussion here, too bad...

This being an ATMB thread about the use of the word denier, this isn't the place to have yet another AGW thread. Open one and I'll see if I can be bothered.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

1) Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I've told you I won't watch?

And here is the problem, that pedantic website links to the published science, claiming in essence that that source should be dismissed is being done by you without any good reason whatsoever. One meta point that do like to do is that the inability to identify bad sources is what allows many unsavory contrarian sources to poison the discussions.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

2) Polling like 75 of 3000?

And here we go again, it is clear to other observers that even a well documented item, that shows that there is virtually no controversy on the basic items of AGW among the scientists, has to be rejected a all costs, my beef as always will be with the merchants of doubt that were identified already many times before.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

And here is the problem, that pedantic website links to the published science, claiming in essence that that source should be dismissed is being done by you without any good reason whatsoever. One meta point that do like to do is that the inability to identify bad sources is what allows many unsavory contrarian sources to poison the discussions. .

That's why I go straight to the source (the actual science), not to the pedantic rehashers nor those with no personal view..

And here we go again, it is clear to other observers that even a well documented item, that shows that there is virtually no controversy on the basic items of AGW among the scientists, has to be rejected a all costs, my beef as always will be with the merchants of doubt that were identified already many times before.

You're saying it isn't 75 out of 3000? I can quote the study.
Did you miss the several ocassion where I said that I (and most skeptics) would also agree with both of the questions posted in the survey? Or is that too inconvenient?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

The specified feedback of a doubling of CO2 concentration is estimated (in pro-AGW sources) at about 3ºC. Tracking back that high sensitivity backwards in the instrumental record, doesn't fit observed temperastures. Also, high sensitivities would point to an inherently unstable system and climate isnt.
The 3ºC per doubling would get us fro the 1850 to now with a 1.5º increase and not the 0.8º observed. Aersols are brought to save the day, but their short lves an poor mixing means that, to average out, they would need to provide astonishing cooling in the areas where they are very high (we're talking 5º).

And sure enough, what this demonstrates is that there are good reasons why a source like Skeptical Science is ignored, this item has already been shot down many times before:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Eart...al-warming.htm

What Does This Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity?

So far, global surface air temperatures have increased approximately 0.8°C in response to these radiative forcings. Since we're 0% to 66% of the way to the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (most likely value of 34%), the amount we should expect the planet to warm if CO2 doubles (also known as "climate sensitivity") has a most likely value of 2.4°C, with a minimum of 1.2°C (because of the large aerosol cooling effect uncertainty and the fact that we may only be 0% of the way to the doubled CO2 forcing, we can't place an upper limit on the climate sensivity parameter with this calculation). Using a much wider range of evidence, the IPCC puts the likely climate sensitivity range to a doubling of CO2 at 2 to 4.5°C with a most likely value of 3°C. Our calculation is consistent with IPCC the most likely value.
How Much Warming Should We Have Seen?

We can also flip the calculation backwards, assuming the IPCC most likely climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and using the numbers above. In this case, we should have seen from 0% to 66% of 3°C, or about 0 to 2.0°C. Clearly the amount of warming we have seen so far is well within this range. Additionally, the most likely amount of warming is 34% of 3°C, which is 1.0°C. In other words, we have seen very close to the amount of warming that we "should have" seen, according to the IPCC.

Warming is Consistent with What We Expect

In short, contrary to Lindzen's claims, the amount of surface warming thus far (0.8°C) is consistent with what we "should have seen" based on the IPCC numbers. Moreover, this calculation puts the most likely climate sensitivity parameter value within the IPCC's stated range, whereas the much lower value claimed in Lindzen and Choi (2009) (less than 1°C for CO2 doubling) is inconsistent even with our calculated climate sensitivity lower bound (1.2°C). For additional discussion of the errors with Lindzen and Choi (2009), see here.

When we actually account for thermal inertia and negative forcings, we find that the amount of warming we have seen is consistent with what the IPCC would expect, but inconsistent with Lindzen and Choi 2009. Thus the correct conclusion is that if Lindzen is correct about low climate sensitivity, we should already have seen much less warming than we have seen thus far.

So once again, even the sources of that myth can be identified and the rebuttals that were already made in scientific journals are available. The main point here is that in this subject when all that evidence is available, one should be skeptical of the skeptics.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

An sure enough, what this demonstrates is that there are good reasons why a source like Skeptical science is ignored, this item has already been shot down many times before:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Eart...al-warming.htm

So once again, even the sources of that myth can be identified and the rebuttals that were already made.

0 to 66%???!! You're kidding, aren't you.
Does your source know absortion in not a linear progression?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

0 to 66%???!! You're kidding, aren't you.
Does your source know absortion in not a linear progression?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lind...ensitivity.htm

Wholly Debunked

A full understanding of climate requires we take into account the full body of evidence. In the case of climate sensitivity and satellite data, it requires a global dataset, not just the tropics. Stepping back to take a broader view, a single paper must also be seen in the context of the full body of peer-reviewed research. A multitude of papers looking at different periods in Earth's history independently and empirically converge on a consistent answer - climate sensitivity is around 3°C implying net positive feedback.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lind...ensitivity.htm

As usual, non-responsive. It must be scary to face the truth.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

As usual, non-responsive. It must be scary to face the truth.

Nope, serious rebuttals don't work that way, already on several occasions it is clear that you have to refute several surveys or papers that support what that experts are saying, what happens next is just like a telephone hung up on a dial tone repeating "tut tut tut". What is observed is clear, no good sources can be found by you to support what you claim.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

That's why I go straight to the source (the actual science), not to the pedantic rehashers nor those with no personal view..

What it is clear is that that is not the case, the links go to the published science, it is only wishful thinking that tells you that what the site reports is at odds with the published science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...y-advanced.htm

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

What it is clear is that that is not the case, the links go to the published science, it is only wishful thinking that tells you that what the site reports is at odds with the published science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...y-advanced.htm

Since I never said "it's at odds", I only said "pedantic", you are saying something untrue. I said I didn't need that website's explanations of the published science.

[Zoe]

Aji de Gallina: In English the term isn't neutral.

Aji de Gallina: 1) Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I've told you I won't watch?

]

One link that Gigobuster provided is the Oxford Dictionary. That is about as good as it gets for the English language. In its definition, that dictionary does not suggest at all that the term "denier" is a perjorative. If it is loaded or slanted, it would usually carry a designation saying so.

Can you provide a link to a dictionary of the English language that suggests that the term "denier" is not neutral?

You may be offended by the use of the term "denier." Have you studied English semantics or linguistics? "The message sent is not always the message received." Just because you feel offended, that doesn't mean that the word itself is loaded.

Aji de Gallino: I don't believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities.

Speaking anecdotally, I have to disagree. The temperatures this past July broke all heat records for the month here and in many places across the US. There was never a hotter July. Further, the hottest day ever on record here was 111 degrees. That was from July also. Here in the South the humidity coupled with that temperature was very "worrysome." People were told to stay in their houses if they could at all because the temperature was dangerous. And people do die from heat-related problems. Even when I was teaching, the schools closed because of high temperatures.

Also, people who are my age (late sixties) can remember when we used to have very snowy winters. We had only a few snowflakes this past winter. I've watched that change for the last fifty years. It will probably snow again, but not as often as it used to. And the math does bare me out.

People can claim just about anything in the world of science. Look for articles in well-known science journals. Peer review is extremely important and these articles published in science journals must provide evidence. Be a little wary of anthing that claims "proof" in science.

[Zoe]

"Confused" is not derogatory, Aji. Where do you find a cite for that? Everyone has been confused at one time or another. That's human. It is also human to be ignorant. Everyone is ignorant about certain things. And being "skeptical" is no sin. Some of us are skeptical of your main source.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Zoe

]Speaking anecdotally, I have to disagree. The temperatures this past July broke all heat records for the month here and in many places across the US.

And you think that's because of global warming?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

And you think that's because of global warming?

Indeed, one has to be careful on not blaming the recent temperatures to global warming, they still have a natural reason for being, but global warming makes heat waves worse, more likely, and causes them to last longer.

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attri...climate-change

explaining why some people call carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gases) the steroids of the climate system. Statistics and extreme behavior are involved, whether we're talking about baseball or Earth's atmosphere. NCAR scientist Gerald "Jerry" Meehl explains why.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by RaftPeople

And you think that's because of global warming?

It's too bad no one who works in the field ever asks those kinds of questions.


About the inherent negativity, I don't think it resides in the dictionary definition per se but in its clear, obvious, and intentional implications. Most people on the board do not want to be lumped in with creationists, truthers and birthers. Being labeled as such, it says several things to the rest of the board. It says to other Board members that the denier is incapable or unwilling to understand basic science. No one who professes to be a creationist is taken seriously in evolutionary debates (except by other creationists) and when people try and have any sort of conversation about evolution, they tend to come in and ruin it (by hijacking the real conversation into the inannities of creationism and other junk science).

So too with a climate change denier. Calling some other site or advocate or even a poster a "denier" is to refer to them as someone who, willfully or not, is ignorant of basic science. It does not mean that they're not addressed (GIGO has infinite patience in that regard), just as creationists are provided with links that retire (or should retire) their hackneyed claims.

It does carry negative implications, but as GIGO said in the OP, because it's an accurate descriptor, making any sort of generalized rule would cede to the ignorance.

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

It's too bad no one who works in the field ever asks those kinds of questions.

I'm confused by your comment.

My question to the other poster was because he/she seemed to think that the current heat wave in the US could be directly attributed to AGW. Given the immense complexities of our system, it seems ridiculous for someone to do that for a short term local event with any kind of confidence.

What do your links and statement about working in the field have to do with that person's post?

[Ají de Gallina]

I don't care about being called a denier by anonymous people on a message board.
I take back any and all comments that might even tangently would appear that I do care.
I am done with this thread.
Tip your waiter.