--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > [snip] > > I'm sorry you choose to perpetuate that silly > > and intellectually disreputable use of the > > word "deniers". For shame. How can you live > > with yourself? > > Oh, please. You've used the term yourself: > > "Or try this very thoughtful analysis from Judy Curry, > a climate scientist who again is NOT in the denier camp:" [/snip]
Oh Judy - you've confused a debating point for something that matters: --------------------------- Coloured person to whitey some day some time ago: "The trouble with you master is that you won't treat us niggers as human beings" Then a day or two later: "And another thing master, we think that the word 'nigger' is disrespectful" Whitey (a smug smile playing around his lips): "Oh, please! YOU used the term yourself just the other day. Don't you remember?" --------------------------- Yeah, right. Yes I used the term "denier" - but the context should be obvious to you (viz. trying to engage with people who seem to think that those who hold differing views are variously irredeemably stupid, contemptible, selfish, polluters, and, of course "in denial"). The subtext of this word denial hardly needs to be spelled out does it? It is either attempting to make an association with holocaust deniers, or to invoke the idea of "psychological denial". By using either (with intent - see my first point), I don't think you are covering yourself in rational glory. In fact I think it makes those that stoop that low, look transaparently ignorant. I am not used to seeing you in that light. And given that it is generally folks that do this that also seem to be persuaded that they stand on the rational high ground - it is deeply ironic. Of course in the public domain the term is used in an "end justifies the means" strategy to try to elbow and bully critics out beyond the pale. But as this is ultimately a scientific question, and as a progressive and rationalist you should "stand up" for Science, then it is in fact YOU, not I (a sceptic) that should be at the forefront of protest on this point. By discrediting yourself in this way you harm the genuine arguments that can be made for your cause. As do the exposed emails. Which is exactly the point you make later in your post (and with which you are in contradiction as long as you waltz around calling folks "deniers"): > The whole "tribalism" thing needs to be cleaned > up, unquestionably, but not because it > legitimately calls the science in question. It > needs to be cleaned up because it gives the > anti-AGW folks weapons they can misuse--*have > been* misusing--to shake the public's faith > in the science. Some unsolicted advice to those on your side of the debate? * Stop using the word "denier" * Go back to the falsifiable (and therefore interesting) conjecture of AGW "anthropomorphic global warming" and drop the glib, unfalsifiable "climate change" * Dump the picture in your head that you are the beacons of rationality whose only critics are the stupid, misinformed, illiterate barbarians at the gate. Finally (I'm not done yet!): You quoted David Hume yesterday. If you are not already familiar with him, why not try the great American philosopher and scientist C.S. peirce? You know what he thought? - The greatest (and only) enemies of Science are those who seek to close down debate. And I have no doubt Hume would have agreed. The term "denier" in this debate is the tool of those who are the real enemies of Science. OK... gasp for breath...now I'm done.
