orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!
Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch
Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology
Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..
The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..
Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.
Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..
As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,
Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers
"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."
And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:
1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.
3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.
4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).
5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.
There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.
I know the English language is not a second language for you. Try reading the post. bubba.