Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You have seemed to think we know enough to have completely rejected AGW.
What authority did I appeal to?? I was just pointing out that Abraham is a bigger DENIER than I am..
And you didn't answer my question.. IF Lindzen is a poor approximation of a scientist -- why did the IPCC hire him TWICE???
Don't care if he's as bad at climate science as the OTHER IPCC clowns.. That's your problem. Lindzen is a RENOWN Atmos. Physics guy.. That's the point. And when he has problems with the IPCC reports --- he's got the inside credentials to criticize.
Anyone DENYING that --- is a crank..
Amazing how doubt has entered the world of the republican conservative, no need for them to think, all they need is someone with a few initials after their name and they believe like children. They believe and follow.
"On first glance, it seems just plain weird that several of the same individuals all retired physicists were involved in denying that cancer causes smoking, that pollution causes acid rain, that CFCs destroy ozone, and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. But when you put these things together tobacco regulation, banning of CFCs, delay of controls on CO2 emissions a pattern does emerge, insofar as all are expressions of a radical free market ideology opposing any kind of restriction ~!1 the pursuit of market capitalism, no matter the justification.
Throughout the literature of climate change denial, a recurrent theme is that environmentalists are motivated by a desire to bring down capitalism and to replace it with socialism or communism. There is also the implication-and sometimes the overt accusation-that the environmentalists' goal is some kind of world government.
In a 1991 piece on global warming, for example, Fred Singer suggested that the threat of global warming had been manufactured by environmentalists based on a "hidden political agenda" against "business, the free market, and the capitalistic system. "80 The true goal of those involved in the global warming issue was not so much to stop global warming-which he insisted did not exist-but rather to foster "international action, preferably with lots of treaties and protocols."
A similar argument was made by political scientist Aaron Wildavsky in a 1992 preface to a book denying global warming.F Wildavsky suggested that the true goal of the environmentalist movement was the redistribution of wealth, and that characterizing environmentalists this way was "an accurate rendition of what environmentalist-cum-post-environmentalist leaders are trying to accomplish." This, he suggests, is why environmentalists are so enamored of international treaties and regulation: they view them as levers toward achieving a new world order."
Excellent analysis on the doubting Thomas's and the whys. Quote above is from book noted below.
"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'
Amazing how doubt has entered the world of the republican conservative, no need for them to think, all they need is someone with a few initials after their name and they believe like children. They believe and follow.
"On first glance, it seems just plain weird that several of the same individuals all retired physicists were involved in denying that cancer causes smoking, that pollution causes acid rain, that CFCs destroy ozone, and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. But when you put these things together tobacco regulation, banning of CFCs, delay of controls on CO2 emissions a pattern does emerge, insofar as all are expressions of a radical free market ideology opposing any kind of restriction ~!1 the pursuit of market capitalism, no matter the justification.
Throughout the literature of climate change denial, a recurrent theme is that environmentalists are motivated by a desire to bring down capitalism and to replace it with socialism or communism. There is also the implication-and sometimes the overt accusation-that the environmentalists' goal is some kind of world government.
In a 1991 piece on global warming, for example, Fred Singer suggested that the threat of global warming had been manufactured by environmentalists based on a "hidden political agenda" against "business, the free market, and the capitalistic system. "80 The true goal of those involved in the global warming issue was not so much to stop global warming-which he insisted did not exist-but rather to foster "international action, preferably with lots of treaties and protocols."
A similar argument was made by political scientist Aaron Wildavsky in a 1992 preface to a book denying global warming.F Wildavsky suggested that the true goal of the environmentalist movement was the redistribution of wealth, and that characterizing environmentalists this way was "an accurate rendition of what environmentalist-cum-post-environmentalist leaders are trying to accomplish." This, he suggests, is why environmentalists are so enamored of international treaties and regulation: they view them as levers toward achieving a new world order."
Excellent analysis on the doubting Thomas's and the whys. Quote above is from book noted below.
"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'
Nice appeals to authority, flac. But why not discuss science, like the rational side does? Instead of gushing about how great he is because he agrees with you, tell us something that Lindzen actually predicted correctly within the past decade. Point to his good science.
I understand that will be difficult, being Lindzen is so vague on everything. His position hasn't varied since 1990, despite all the new evidence. He's a "It has to be a natural cycle, because I've been saying that for so long!" guy. Lots of handwaving, no data to back it up. And he's also a "I'm a victim because people actually want evidence from me" guy, and a "Anyone who disagrees with me is an alarmist!" guy. All favorite denialist tactics.
So no one is willing to defend Lindzen's science.
Heck, they don't even know what his science is. They don't even care what his science is. They just know he said something they like, hence they adore him.
Amazing how doubt has entered the world of the republican conservative, no need for them to think, all they need is someone with a few initials after their name and they believe like children. They believe and follow.
"On first glance, it seems just plain weird that several of the same individuals all retired physicists were involved in denying that cancer causes smoking, that pollution causes acid rain, that CFCs destroy ozone, and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. But when you put these things together tobacco regulation, banning of CFCs, delay of controls on CO2 emissions a pattern does emerge, insofar as all are expressions of a radical free market ideology opposing any kind of restriction ~!1 the pursuit of market capitalism, no matter the justification.
Throughout the literature of climate change denial, a recurrent theme is that environmentalists are motivated by a desire to bring down capitalism and to replace it with socialism or communism. There is also the implication-and sometimes the overt accusation-that the environmentalists' goal is some kind of world government.
In a 1991 piece on global warming, for example, Fred Singer suggested that the threat of global warming had been manufactured by environmentalists based on a "hidden political agenda" against "business, the free market, and the capitalistic system. "80 The true goal of those involved in the global warming issue was not so much to stop global warming-which he insisted did not exist-but rather to foster "international action, preferably with lots of treaties and protocols."
A similar argument was made by political scientist Aaron Wildavsky in a 1992 preface to a book denying global warming.F Wildavsky suggested that the true goal of the environmentalist movement was the redistribution of wealth, and that characterizing environmentalists this way was "an accurate rendition of what environmentalist-cum-post-environmentalist leaders are trying to accomplish." This, he suggests, is why environmentalists are so enamored of international treaties and regulation: they view them as levers toward achieving a new world order."
Excellent analysis on the doubting Thomas's and the whys. Quote above is from book noted below.
"The focus here is on ignorance or doubt or uncertainty as something that is made, maintained, and manipulated by means of certain arts and sciences, The idea is one that easily lends itself to paranoia: namely, that certain people don't want you to know certain things, or will actively work to organize doubt or uncertainty or misinformation to help maintain (your) ignorance. They know, and may or may not want you to know they know, but you are not to be privy to the secret. This is an idea insufficiently explored by philosophers, that ignorance should not be viewed as a simple omission or gap, but rather as an active production. Ignorance can be an actively engineered part of a deliberate plan. I'll begin with trade secrets, moving from there in the next three sections to tobacco agnotology, military secrecy, and the example of ignorance making (or maintenance) as moral resistance." Robert N. Proctor 'Agnotology'
Apparently quite a few people are willing to defend his science:
Apparently quite a few people are willing to defend his science:
Yes, yes, I get that you rely on an Appeal to Authority fallacy. That was one of my points, so thank you for reinforcing it.
Now how about _you_ talk about his science? Like I said, tell us what predictions he made in the past decade that turned out to be correct. I could point out some that didn't, but I figured I'd give you a chance to explain why you regard him as infallible. So far, it appears the reason for that is "Because he agrees with me."
Apparently quite a few people are willing to defend his science:
Yes, yes, I get that you rely on an Appeal to Authority fallacy. That was one of my points, so thank you for reinforcing it.
Now how about _you_ talk about his science? Like I said, tell us what predictions he made in the past decade that turned out to be correct. I could point out some that didn't, but I figured I'd give you a chance to explain why you regard him as infallible. So far, it appears the reason for that is "Because he agrees with me."
Linzden isn't in the business of making predictions about that climate. That's the domain of the AGW cult wizards. You can observe a few of them working on the next IPCC report below:
Yes, yes, I get that you rely on an Appeal to Authority fallacy. That was one of my points, so thank you for reinforcing it.
Now how about _you_ talk about his science? Like I said, tell us what predictions he made in the past decade that turned out to be correct. I could point out some that didn't, but I figured I'd give you a chance to explain why you regard him as infallible. So far, it appears the reason for that is "Because he agrees with me."
Linzden isn't in the business of making predictions about that climate. That's the domain of the AGW cult wizards. You can observe a few of them working on the next IPCC report below:
LLMFAO......but hey, I wouldn't be surprised!!
And it doesn't surprise me that the lot of you should be as racist as you are. As a parallel truism to a sig we see around here frequently: Not all conservatives are racist bigots, but damn near EVERY SINGLE FUCKING RACIST BIGOT IS A POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE.
And it doesn't surprise me that the lot of you should be as racist as you are. As a parallel truism to a sig we see around here frequently: Not all conservatives are racist bigots, but damn near EVERY SINGLE FUCKING RACIST BIGOT IS A POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE.
That's true...if you conveniently ignore all the fucking racist bigot liberals.
Horseshit.And it doesn't surprise me that the lot of you should be as racist as you are. As a parallel truism to a sig we see around here frequently: Not all conservatives are racist bigots, but damn near EVERY SINGLE FUCKING RACIST BIGOT IS A POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE.
That's true...if you conveniently ignore all the fucking racist bigot liberals.
It is true because I didn't ignore them
