Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Spot the real denier
#1
From this LINK (JoNova) is a comment that I want to post here and comment on.It is written by our forum member Richard Courtney,who made the comment from personal experience.Something I think many skeptics can relate to in some way from their own personal experience,in dealing with a real denier (AGW believer).

The comment is post # 176 from the link:

Quote:Richard S Courtney:
December 16th, 2009 at 6:38 am

Lionell:

I think your analyses are interesting, but in my opinion there is one thing that all AGW-advocates have in common: viz.

They value opinions and not evidence.

Indeed, this is why they all behave according to the 9 points that Joanne lists above, and it is why I said I would also include a tenth point.

AGW-advocates see “evidence” as being the most valuable opinion and they are incapable of understanding that “evidence” can be of any other kind. The only type of “evidence” they think exists is the kind of “evidence” assessed in a Court of Law. For example, two witnesses may each present an account of a robbery and the jury decides which of the witnesses is the most believable.

So, the idea that there is an absolute truth which is independent of any witness is beyond the comprehension of AGW-advocates. And they see “evidence”, “science” and “scientists” as merely being tools to bolster an opinion. For them, only opinions are important and “evidence” is only useful in so far as it can help to promote an important opinion.

Therefore, empirical evidence has no value to AGW-advocates because they value opinions as having most importance, and they cannot understand why anybody takes any notice of empirical evidence.

Hence, Joanne’s Handbook is an excellent source for use when communicating with those who genuinely seek information on AGW. But it has no value as an aid for discussion with AGW-advocates because they cannot understand it.

In summation, any attempt to get AGW-advocates to provide empirical evidence is pointless. No matter how they are requested to provide empirical evidence they cannot because they are incapable of understanding what they are being asked to provide.

This is why each of them behaves in the completely predictable ways that have the forms of Joanne’s 9 points. For clarity, I will itemise their behaviours as per Joanne’s points.

1. Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed.
Those whose opinions matter do the peer review so the peer review makes a paper an opinion worthy of consideration. The paper is information and, therefore, it only has value as a tool to bolster an opinion. Hence, it is worthless until it has had the blessing of those whose opinions matter.

2. Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist.
Only a “certified climate scientist” has an opinion that is valuable.

3. If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals.
Only the “certified climate scientists” have opinions that enable them to decide what should count as “evidence”. So, a journal cannot contain useful papers if the journal does not use the “certified climate scientists” to peer review its contents.

4. They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper.
They genuinely do think they are providing “evidence” because for them only opinions count as “evidence”.

5. Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence?
The opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are the only kind of “evidence” that they understand has any value. If the “certified climate scientists” all hold that opinion then, of course, that opinion must be right.

6. If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!”
Anybody who refuses to accept the valued opinions the “certified climate scientists” is contemptible.

7. When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
Obviously, people who do not accept the only valued opinions as being “truth” must have a nefarious reason for their failure to accept the only valued opinions. And, clearly, any decent person will want to destroy those who dispute the most valued opinions otherwise some people may not ignore their disputations. This is why a trickle of money from ‘Big Oil’ in the past is thought to have corrupted climate realists (they are by nature corrupt) but massive funding from governments to the “certified climate scientists” has not corrupted them (they are incorruptible). And it is why several web sites have been established to lie about climate realists.

8. Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
The “instruments” are tools to promote opinions. Computer model are the clearest form of this because they are mathematical formulations of the opinions of the “certified climate scientists”. Obviously, anything that does not agree with the most valued opinions must be wrong.

9. They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!
If those who do not accept the most valued opinions cannot be silenced and/or discredited then they must be punished as a sign to all that only the opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are worthy.

Also, as I said, I would have liked a point number 10: i.e.
They try to remain anonymous because they are mostly too cowardly to allow themselves to be accountable for what they do.
Opinions matter and evidence does not. An opinion is discredited if its presenter is discredited. The opinion is protected by preventing attack of its presenter.

Any way, that is how I have seen it for a long time.

Indeed, I used that perception to obtain specific responses from the troll. I talked down to him/her/them and the inevitable response was Point 7. I claimed expertise in my field and cited one of my papers and the inevitable response was Point 3. I explained that climate models cannot have any demonstrated forecasting skill and the inevitable response was Point 8. etc.

So, this thread has not given me a reason to change my perception of the cause of the behaviours of AGW-advocates.

Richard

I sometimes read book reviews at Amazon Books and see the 1 and 2 star reviews of books written by climate skeptics.There they commonly employ #3,4 and especially # 7 in their often horrendous reviews (too often it is obvious they never read the book!).

They also try attacking "think tanks" that some writers are affiliated with,as if that somehow invalidate the books contents.

Here is an excellent example,from this LINK:


Quote:0 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Not so fast!, January 4, 2010
By morphy mcdugall (colorado) - See all my reviews
Quoting from the desmogblog database of climate change deniers: Ian Plimer is listed as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."
Background and Research

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Plimer has published more than 40 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of ore deposits.
Misinformation by yet another 'expert' with an axe to grind and a bottom line to protect.

That was a review of a book?

Or,

This baloney:

Quote: 2 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Telling Lies for the Mining Industry?, December 13, 2009
By B. Tween_DeLions "B.T." (USA) - See all my reviews
Plimer wrote a book attacking creation "science", called "Telling Lies for God".

Since Plimer is a director of three mining companies, and since he has said that the Australian "carbon-trading scheme" could decimate the Australian mining industry, one can only wonder if Plimer is now telling lies for the mining industry.

Two morons thought that was a book review?

or,

Quote:12 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Joins Spencer and Lomborg to make anti-science trio, September 15, 2009
By R. E Westgard "Viking" (Bay Lake & St Paul, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Among the nonsense in this science fiction effort is the claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. From the The USGS: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!" Excel energy's coal plant at Becker, MN alone emits 18 million tons/year of CO2.
Save your money and skip this one. Even sillier than Michael Crichton's State of Fear.
R. Westgard, professional member, Geological Society of America.

12 people thought using Ad Hominiems was useful,that is sad.

ROFLMAO!

That was only a sampling of how rotten these people can be,so far of the rationality path,that I wonder if they are having brain problems.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)