:dubious: Breivik’s RW-populist anti-immigration Progress Party has 41 seats out of 169 in Parliament, that’s full party-list PR representation. What exactly do you think is being artificially silenced, here?
As I have spent many years already on this subject, one has to say NO, folks that deny science and even deny the several exoneration of the scientists in the “Climamategate” scandal are not very deft on this subject.
What, you thought I imagined that? See for yourself who are passing themselves as experts that are still being praised on places like Watt’s up with that and other denier sites.
So, deniers are many, as for right wing media, the choices for talking heads to interview that are skeptical scientists and current experts on the matter (that are against the consensus on AGW) are indeed few and becoming less.
Yeah, sure, and Some Of His Best Friends Are Black, right?
To that extent, he can be useful.
I don’t need the opinions of “NewScientist and others”. I just want their facts.
What percentage do you figure that is? I’ve seen some interesting polls, and am curious as to how big a portion of the population you have in mind.
Uh, no. As I said, I’m pulling the equivalence on this issue as I would for any other, because I don’t want either side having a monopoly on being able to declare who is a skeptic and who is a denialist. That’s what should be debated, not flatly declared. As wrong as I might think you are – and we both know that’s considerable – I’d step in just as vigorously if someone were to merely state that you’re in denial when it comes to the facts; nobody should get to declare that about you at the outset; each should need to lay out the case for it.
Which isn’t to say I want to ban the term, or even bristle at it, or be saddened; just that I want it backed up. Likewise, if someone wants to call you a warmist – well, look, I want to hear his reasoning, right then, if you for some reason find the term objectionable. If he thinks there’s an important distinction between “warmist” and “proponent of warming”, then I want to hear his words on the subject – and if he thinks there’s no such distinction, then I want to hear that likewise.
I don’t need a cite from academics or scientists on what names to call each side; their opinions don’t interest me, only their facts. (Or, rather: their opinions interest me exactly as much as those of any guy who wants to call you a “warmist” or a “denialist” or whatever – because I’m only interested in any such opinions to the precise extent they can be backed up by facts.) When a scholar explains what sort of hypothetical evidence would falsify his tentative conclusions, he’s doing something useful. When he insists people use his preferred terminology, he’s – not.
As mentioned, I have not seen scholars using terms like warmist, denier on the other hand:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2285
The evidence those historians found is that there is a lot of connections with the ones that denied before that tobacco smoke caused cancer. History shows that the “Galileos” of climate change were people like Arrhenius and Calender, not Willie Soon and Bailunas as the idiotic senator inhofe claimed once. Again, denialism is proper to use because it is the science that they deny or misrepresent, often by claiming that there is a huge controversy going on that needs a “debate”. After seeing the history, one has to say that for practical and scientific reasons, even the “debate” that you claim is needed is a very ignorant point.
As mentioned, I don’t give a crap about their opinions; only their facts.
And there we have it: you say my claim reflects “a very ignorant point”, and so I say – for the sake of argument, you understand – that your claim may well reflect a very ignorant point; I add that the latest link you posted reflects that “recent polls showing that more than half of Americans are not particularly worried about the issue”; how, then, shall we proceed? Ah, yes: debate, the least bad solution. I don’t see that either side should be able to declare the other one to be in denial; the “Galileos” of any such issue are at a minimum the ones who can lay out their case, not the ones who want to shut down debate preemptively.
And as anyone can notice not a single fact they said was mentioned by you.
Your solution is a debate on using the term warmist.
Like Breivik? Please remember who are we talking about here, as his manifesto does have global warming denial as a key reason for his rampage. One huge solution is a debate on how the deniers have invented controversy or scandals were there are none, most of the media is guilty for not doing this, some like FOX has even encouraged the demonization of the scientists.
This is a whole nuther can o’ worms. I think it would apply to anti-vaxers, conspiracy nuts in general, and the religious as a whole. Normally, I wouldn’t think that the global warming deniers would be particularly nutty compared to some of the others. It is a rather complex and new subject where the major issues arise on how to address the problem rather than if it exists.
As I have noticed, it is not just AGW, but it is a very important factor as the perpetrator himself mentioned that the proponents of AGW are part of a communist plot to take over the world, Breivik’s main bit of evidence, “climategate”, was debunked many times before; but, you would had a hard time finding that if you relied on the mainstream media and forget about that debunking being mentioned in the right wing media:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/
On edit: Just another point: one big difference with anti-vaxers and other nuts is that they do not have huge media networks setup to encourage their conspiracies.
There are whole channels dedicated to religious crackery. As to how mainstream they are is another matter.
Norway’s Red-Green Coalition don’t look that radical to me.
Blanket ban on all automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
Only penis-less people use guns.
Religious crackers like Pat Robertson still get in trouble for what they say there. As I pointed out some of the merchants of doubt have big networks like FOX to encourage conspiracy thoughts, usually the targets do not go on rampages, but they vote and we get climate zombies elected. Unfortunately the joke has gone far enough as it is now encouraging other unsavory elements, there should be no equivalency in the media on this item as the denier side has been discredited many times already.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/22/275400/bbc-false-balance-climate-change/
It should be good if once in a while the media from the right could debate how twisted their message is regarding subjects like climategate, but I expect no miracles. One could denounce them in public forums I guess.
I don’t disagree with you, but part of me wants to think that’s overstated. Then I realized I can’t come up with any exceptions off the top of my head.
In Norway, where the massacre took place, there already is a blanket ban on full automatic guns. AFAIK, even the police have to to use SAO versions of the MP5 SMG and only the armed forces are equipped with FAO versions. Semi-automatic firearms have their place as very useful tools for both hunting and sports shooting, even if a trained shooter can shoot and - more importantly - hit the target as fast with a bolt-action rifle as with a semiautomatic rifle.
In the largest sports shooting event in Norway, Landsskytterstevnet, one of the disciplines is Colonel Stang’s rapid shooting competition. This discipline, as the otther ones, is open for both civilian shooters using the Sauer STR target rifle and shooters from the armed forces using the H&K G3 assault rifle. Usually the Sauer shooters win that event hands down. Here’s a video showing one of our best Stang shooters in recent time; 17 hits out of 17 shots in 25 seconds with a bolt action target rifle :eek:
If that’s the case, please explain to me how I was able to impregnate my wife thrice. And tell me also what I’ve got hanging between my thighs, just above something that looks very much like a scrotum.
ETA: How did this turn into a global warming debate?
I think the insinuation is that it wasn’t, or couldn’t be, you!
That still doesn’t explain that… “thing”
Apparently, you puked out your vagina.
Oh lawd, that one took me over the edge.
Yeah, that was a bit much for me, too. Eck!
All apologies; are we doing this again? As you’d mentioned, we had previously discussed the issue; you’d laid out what evidence would hypothetically falsify your position; we’re already most of the way there, and the case for falsification gets better and better as your deadline gets closer and closer – but we won’t know until your chosen deadline arrives, which is why I didn’t think there was any reason for us to debate the facts until that deadline actually arrives. We can of course debate the facts anew for some reason if you like.
And the term “denier”. If you believe the world is warming, why shouldn’t we call you a warmist? If someone else denies it, why shouldn’t we call him a denier? If someone wants to correct me and say “I’m not a denier; I’m a skeptic,” then I’ll of course listen to why he feels the distinction is important; likewise for warmist/proponent of warming.
Like anyone on either side who wants to shut down debate.
And if global warming denial – or skepticisim – merely prompted him to persuade and inform, he’d be as unobjectionable as a warmist – proponent? alarmist? – going on a rampage would be objectionable. What’s objectionable is the rampage, not the reasons. What’s commendable is the debate, not the preemptive declaration.
Yes, yes. But for the sake of argument, imagine – and it shouldn’t be too difficult – that a majority of folks feel your side is busily inventing something where there’s nothing: that your side is an unreliable source of information that falsifies data. How shall we address those concerns? Rampage against people like a preemptive Breivik or reason with them like I would?