Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.


Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.

Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.

Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.

Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.

Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.

of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.
 
as the thread is about morality, perhaps we should discuss religion. Western Civilization developed under the influence of Christianity. Do you believe in the fairy tale of a 15 year old girl who showed up pregnant, but not in the regular way, apparently God was the father. and her offspring magically arose from the dead after three days?

I am not scoffing at the Bible or any of the religious sects. I am trying to point out that incongruous ideas can be accepted by otherwise logical people because they need to fit in to the social structure. I can take out the powerful messages for good that reside in the Bible and delete the provision that God intervenes on a personal level.

AGW, and especially CAGW, seems to have replaced religion as the scare card in people's lives, who need spirituality but have rejected religious teachings. Man's sin must be atoned for and all that.
 
It is immoral to be stupid ?

Yes. Society definitely thinks so. For example, drunk driving is a crime, even if you don't think you're doing anything wrong. You can be criminally cited for other forms of negligence. Malicious intent is not required, just stupidity taken past a reasonable level.

So, since deniers are taking stupidity past a reasonable level, deniers can be reasonably be defined as immoral. They have a moral responsibility to not be so stupid, and have failed to live up to it.

Such reasoning can only come from a crusader.

Like so many in a crusade, new "logic" finds its way into the public discussion.

Deniers might be dishonest, but they are not stupid.

They've outmaneuvered the AGW group with a pretty good public relations campaign that has shut down all the Chicken Little's on the other side.

Unless you want to admit you are REALLY stupid.

Mamooth is an enviromarxist, she would strap on a vest of C4 and yell AGW Akbar before blowing herself
 
Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.


Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.

Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.

Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.

Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.

Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.

of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.

And this is where the dishonesty of the AGW group shines through as being so hypocritical.

I've worked with many PhD's in my career. And the one thing I've found is that they are very intolerant of those who don't agree with them.
 
Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.


Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.

Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.

Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.

Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.

Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.

of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.

Good thing there's no reason to be skeptical about the motivations of deniers.
 
Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.


Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.

Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.

Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.

Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.

Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.

of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.

Good thing there's no reason to be skeptical about the motivations of deniers.
most of us have no motivation , just political junkies and been around a while who loves to slap it in the face of alarmist

You guys act like children that I taught swimming yesterday.

In case you forgot, this is the United States of America and we don't play by anyone's rules.We don't bow down to no one.
 
Crick is still doing the straw man argument thing.

There is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. Scientists are social creatures, and science funding even more so. Groupthink and incompetence are more than sufficient reasons for the headlong rush down a blind alley.

Again, there are a large amount of skeptics out there who believe that CO2 increase is substantially man-made, and will cause at least some warming. But 1C is a far cry from 3C or 6C. As it stands now there is little evidence that 1C warming has a detrimental effect, it certainly has benefits as well. At the very least, the Pause has shown that there is little reason to stampede into immature technologies that have obvious drawbacks.
The deniers are apparently modern day Galileos.


Galileo 'repented'. I prefer to think of the modern skeptical scientists as Copernicus-like. Copernicus only published his work at the end of his life when he couldnt be forced to recant. If you look at the modern skeptical scientists they are usually at an age where pressure from outside forces have little influence on their careers, either because they are tenured, or close to retirement, or actually retired.

Pielke Sr has written hundreds of papers reflecting badly on climate consensus but Pielke Jr has finally succumbed to the pressure and is now actively avoiding climate science issues when possible.

Nic Lewis is a retired statistician who took up the field of climate sensitivity studies as an amateur, and has cleaned up and transformed the field tremendously, including forcing the IPCC to issue a corrigendum.

Steve McIntyre retired from flushing out bogus claims in mining, and became preeminent in flushing out bogus claims in paleoreconstructions.

Richard Lindzen is a close to retired physicist who's occasional forays into climate science were savagely criticized but seem to keep popping up again in other scientist's work. As good ideas that are close to the truth are apt to do.

of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why? it would be a career killer and stunt funding resources and publication opportunities down to next to nil. in other fields you can have contrary ideas and survive but not in climate science.

Good thing there's no reason to be skeptical about the motivations of deniers.
most of us have no motivation , just political junkies and been around a while who loves to slap it in the face of alarmist

You guys act like children that I taught swimming yesterday.

In case you forgot, this is the United States of America and we don't play by anyone's rules.We don't bow down to no one.

Poor kids.....I hope they don't drown.
 
of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why?

For exactly the same reasons you don't see new PhDs pushing the flat earth theory.

To push something as crazy as denialism, a person has to be emotionally invested in their conspiracy theories to the point of completely overriding reason and good morality. It takes many years of brainwashing and self-delusion to reach that level of irrationality, therefore we overwhelmingly see old people embracing denialism.
 
of course the list goes on but the one thing you wont find is freshly minted PhDs being vocal about skepticism of consensus climate science. why?

For exactly the same reasons you don't see new PhDs pushing the flat earth theory.

To push something as crazy as denialism, a person has to be emotionally invested in their conspiracy theories to the point of completely overriding reason and good morality. It takes many years of brainwashing and self-delusion to reach that level of irrationality, therefore we overwhelmingly see old people embracing denialism.




So s0n.....exactly where is the "denier" campaign winning??? Links please...................



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/atomic-bomb-blast-explosion-trollface-troll-face.gif.html][/URL]
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top