--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" > <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > "Yeah, right," indeed. Your debating tactic here is > > to equate me with a racist because I used the term > > "deniers," and *you're* taking the moral high ground? > > I am equating you with a racist? Why on earth would I > do that? You surely don't REALLY believe that do you?
Well, you may not have realized that's what you were doing. But you're clearly making me parallel to "Whitey" in the above. > Perhaps you didn't understand my point. Or perhaps I > didn't make it very well. I vote for door #2. Want to try again? > > > 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? > > > > Sorry I missed your "subtext." Maybe if you hadn't > > also used the term "alarmist" to refer to the other > > camp, it would have been clearer. Or if you had put > > "denier" in scare quotes, that would have helped. > > "My" subtext? Hardly. Come on, you just *said* it was your subtext, i.e., "trying to engage with people who seem..." etc. > It is true that "alarmist" is not appropriate for all > AGW proponents. But a great many would be proud to be > called "alarmist" - Jim Hansen for one. I don't think so, since the connotation of "alarmist" is usually that of promoting alarm unnecessarily. > And there's the difference. Compared to the > distasteful connotations of "denier" and the > holocaust, "alarmist" is reasonably neutral and fairly > descriptive (there's a big difference between > scepticism and denial to preempt your butting in with > "denial" being descriptive too). Gonna butt in anyway. Both terms are "descriptive." Both terms are also pejorative. Neither is neutral. <snip> > > The real difference being, of course, that the > Holcaust > > deniers are denying something that's already happened > > to some 6 million people, whereas the climate change > > deniers are denying something that is likely to kill > > many more millions in the future if we don't do > > something about it *now*. > > Well there we have it. Do you not see what you are > doing? Instaed of enagaging in a dialogue, you are pre- > supposing the truth of your viewpoint and then > extrapolationg to what is the case as a result. You're arguing that someone with my viewpoint should not be using the term "denier" because it associates your viewpoint with Holocaust deniers. I'm pointing out that from my point of view, the association is entirely valid, therefore it *is* appropriate for me to use the term "denier." We're having a "meta" debate here, not one about the issue itself. > 1) My view is true > 2) If my view is true, millions will die > 3) Therefore those who contest my view have blood on > their hands (shades of Vaj?) . > 4) Therefore they are on a par with holocaust deniers > > (At least that's my best effort to make sense of this > pig's ear). > > Let me do the same trick on you. > > 1) Your view is false > 2) If your false view is acted upon, millions will die > 3) Therefore those with your view have blood on their > hands (shades of Vaj?) . > 4) Therefore you and your ilk are on a par with > holocaust deniers Mmm, and millions are going to die if we take steps to arrest AGW exactly how? > On this issue we only get to find out who the "losers" > of the debate are maybe 50 years hence. Even so, the > logic of the above is completely flawed, as it may > well be true now that there are extremely good reasons > to believe AGW AND extremely good reasons to be > sceptical of AGW such that to end up on the losing > side of the debate in no way puts you on a par with a > holocaust denier. Yes, but you see, I don't agree that there are extremely good reasons to be skeptical of AGW. <snip> > > > * Go back to the falsifiable (and therefore > > > interesting) conjecture of AGW "anthropomorphic > > > global warming" and drop the glib, unfalsifiable > > > "climate change" > > > > Er, and exactly how does using a longer term make it > > properly "falsifiable"? Would it be less offensive to > > you if I used the term "AGW deniers"? > > Can't you see that "anthropomorphic global warming" is > a *better* conjecture than "climate change"? Because > it rules out more. OK. But in the present context, on the level of informal conversation, "climate change" is simply short for "anthropogenic global warming." We all know that. Elementary Popper. Which is not to > say that the conjecture "anthropomorphic global > warming" is readily testable. "Anthropogenic," not "anthropomorphic." What does "testable" mean in this context? We can certainly test whether the earth *has been* warming due to human activity, and have done so. We can't test whether the earth will continue to warm catastrophically, obviously, because we can't see into the future. It isn't, at least not > in the way that theories from the "hard" sciences are > (A quick run around the block: Global temperature > measurement is extremely difficult; Anything other > than recent such measurements depend on > reconstructions via proxies, itself fraught with > difficulties; We only have one planet, so we can't > easily run experiments on it, so we have to depend on > computer modelling in lieu of test data). Yup. However, the overwhelming scientific *consensus* (a perfectly appropriate term in this context, Michael Crichton's sophistry notwithstanding) is in favor of the reliability of the computer modeling we've been doing. (Not that there's no room for refinement, but not to the degree that it would change the overall conclusion.) > > I don't think the critics--the prominent ones, at > > any rate--are any of those things. I think they're > > dishonest. Like Vaj (the original point of my post). > > There are no non-dishonest critics?! Oh gawd... No honest critics among those who are making all the noise about how the emails reveal that the AGW thesis is scientifically fraudulent. (Well, maybe some of them *are* just stupid.) > And yes, the Vaj comparison is highly offensive. Both Vaj's TM-denial and AGW-denial are highly offensive, and for the same reason. > > I notice you chose not to respond to my question > > about your take on the famous "trick/hidden" email. > > That speaks louder than any of your words. > > You wish. I hope to get around to that. As Barry would say, I'll wait. Not sure why it should take you any more time than any of your points above, though.
