GIGO, you seem to want to elevate AGW to the level of evolution, but it’s not that conclusive, it’s still a work in progress.
You can’t just assume your side is right and anyone that disagrees is a “denier”.
If your debating position relies on the fact that everyone first agrees you are correct and anyone that disagrees is just a “denier”, what’s the point of even debating the various points?
Well, this has more than 100 years of history, and ever since 50 years ago the basics of the issue became clear, the assumption that we could treat the atmosphere like a sewer with no repercussion whatsoever was the incorrect one.
Nope, I assume always that a new person I’m dealing with is an skeptic. When in the course of the long discussions the opponent only copies and pastes the already worn out myths:
Then I go for the alternative. Like Feynman said, down to the dismissed pile they go when they use already debunked points.
Life is short, in this particular case ignoring that this is the 21st century is silly, the best way to progress when a scientific case is discussed is to show the evidence when a myth appears, then if there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the scientific information that is available, then it is clear where the opponent is coming from.
Otherwise, I think setting yourself up as the arbiter of what scientific information must be acknowledged before a rebuttal can be offered is sort of poisoning the well don’t you think?
If what the politicization of this issue does show is that there a sea of items that should be discussed now and they are not discussed precisely because the intent is to delay any action in this issue.
Issues like how will be the most effective way to deal with the issue, how to get free enterprise to get more active as many industries are already getting into the act, how to get the industries responsible for this deal with the issue properly instead of funding contrarian think tanks.
Etc, Etc, the insistence on going back to tell others that we should still “deal with the controversy” * when there is virtually none among the experts that we depend on is in reality just like the old “teach the controversy” point by the creationists. They are demanding an equality that is not there anymore, and when Republicans are doubling down on the already explained myths, there is no progress whatsoever, it is a clear case of the blind leading the blind.
*
(It is true that what is happening here is that this subject is complex, but there are already many pieces that do not generate any controversy among scientists)
(video by Richard Alley, scientist that is a Republican, but I wonder for how long considering the flack they get now…)
That is projection, what I suggest here is precisely a way to identify the ones that only are parroting myths, it is an effort to clean the well.
Otherwise, scientists like Feynman where trolls.
And while not all of the ones that bring myths are trolls, one can uncover very quickly the ones who are depending on the answer they give, generally it is most of the ones who never think to complain to the ones that gave them that misleading information they bring to the plate.
I’m aware, thanks very much, of the relevant scientific information and understand it very well.
I’ll re-repeat. I myself do not object the word “denier” (which I’ll always answer with “deluded”); I simply think it doesn’t foster polite debate. Just in case: I didn’t report you or anyone on the thread.
I’ll re-re-repeat: I don’t object the definition of the term or even if it is applicalbe to me(it isn’t, but it doesn’t matter); a 100% linguistically correct term and still not be good for a nice debate.
There is no problem with the term’s meaning in Spanish. In English the term isn’t neutral. Thequintescential denier is the Holocaust denier, it’s a heaviliy loaded term.
As Measure by Measure noticed, indeed, the real reason for this fake issue is the attempt at turning the term into an offensive one by recalling that it is used also for the ones that deny the holocaust, the reality is that just because the tactics to deny evidence are very similar, it does not follow that they are killing Jews and minorities. The focus is, as it is with any other denialist efforts like denying that the HIV virus causes AIDS, is in denying evidence that is inconvenient.
Even dictionaries tell one that, but I guess I will have to say some are willing to deny them too!
As physicist Mark Hofnagle would say, do not mistake denialism with debate.
Well, it is just pointing out that this may be one of the most recursive points ever made by the ones supporting ignorance, once again, their idea is an attempt at censorship, and to attach themselves to already defined therms like “skeptic”, when scientists and even reporters of science know that even this point is a myth itself (that the word “denier” is by itself an insult) the big guns and evidence have to be mentioned for support, specially when many do appear to just have plain normal little ignorance, there was already a poster that sincerely thought that most of the basis of this is not at the same level of things like evolution, and therefore there must be a huge debate going among scientists or that this was invented just recently.
I’m going to make the reasonably safe assumption that there is at least a solid 14% chance you could be talking about me.
I won’t go too far on a tangent here in ATMB, just one quick question: do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution?
He explains it better than I can, but suffice to say, it is mostly in the areas like what clouds will ultimately do, will they become mostly a negative or positive feedback? Will extreme weather become worse (hurricanes, tornadoes), the point is that one should not wait to act just because **some **pieces of the puzzle are harder to figure (The longer that this goes, regarding clouds, it is more likely that clouds are not harming or helping, or that their effect in the whole climate change of the earth is of such a small scale that they may eventually be ignored for practical reasons). For other items, the evidence is overwhelming. This includes items like the one that says that human emissions of CO2 are driving the current warming.
And the science is telling us that the risks are so enormous of getting worsening climate in many regions of the earth (This is not referring to extremes like hurricanes and tornadoes, but the more likely worsening droughts and ocean rise and acidification) that it is appalling that we are not doing much, even more appalling that basic economics tell us that it would be cheaper to deal with it now rather than wait when things get worse. (Actually, what makes it worse is that some political groups even go to the extreme of telling us that even preparing for the most likely outcomes is not needed as they claim that there is no problem at all)
Just like in evolution, one not just drops the whole theory just because there are doubts about an item like punctuated equilibrium. Most of the basis of the theory of evolution remains solid to this day.
Seriously Aji, I only made the Holocaust connection upthread. To my American ears, if “Denier” has any connotations at all, they are Freudian, not mid-20th century central European. (i.e. some people are said to be “In denial” when they are failing to observe the obvious because it’s too emotionally uncomfortable. But that’s “In denial” and not “Denier” per se). I’ll add that about a third of my high school class were Jewish, so I am somewhat attuned to these concerns.
One thing “Denier” does denote is that the subject is denying a mainstream viewpoint. But among climate scientists this is indeed the case. That temperatures and CO2 levels rose during the 20th century isn’t controversial. That greenhouse gases exist and tend to warm the earth is pure physics and is demonstrated most vividly by Venus, whose surface temperatures exceed that of Mercury. It’s the dose-response relationship that’s in question, partly because of the many confounding factors, some offsetting, others exacerbating.
But I was hoping you would answer my question: Do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution?
Sorry but your extreme demands are showing :), in practical terms the scientific community **agrees **that the evidence is AGW is as concussive, and there is really no controversy, as Richard Alley would tell you there is controversy on some items, but on the whole, not enough to justify inaction or the denial of the evidence and science found so far.
Or in other words, as an environmental scientist Dr Haydn Washington would say:
Bullshit. I’ll agree with you that the term “denier” isn’t neutral, it conveys the idea that one opinion is accepted as fact and the other opinion is a rejection of that fact. It looks to the person’s motivations rather than their argument. But there’s not reason to conclude use of the term “denier” is meant in any way to suggest “Holocaust denier”, or to make the audience associate them with their distaste for racists.
It’s a word, and it’s appropriate for at least some of the ones so labeled. It may not be conducive to constructive debate to label one’s opponent that way, but it certainly isn’t the same thing as even calling them an “idiot”.
Since none of those who would be affected by the word “denier” prompted the ban, it’s irrelevant for this particular ATMB thread (and the original one) what others do.
Simple question: Can climate skeptics exist?
I take back my Holocaust comments to stop this sidetrack.
What I still don’t know is what prompted the ban on “denier” and “deluded” for that specific thread. Was it reported by someone?
No doubt about it as mentioned before. The only issue is that there is a need of being aware of what was already discussed and the levels of the current areas of doubt.
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”.
