Global Warming "Skeptics"

[Pangloss]

And you wonder why nothing changes.

 

Guess who said it:

 

Spend time actually talking to Americans, and you discover that most evangelicals are more tolerant than the media would have us believe, most secularists are more spiritual. Most rich people want the poor to succeed, and most of the poor are both more self-critical and hold higher aspirations than the popular culture allows.

 

I find [President Bush] and those who surround him to be pretty much like everybody else, possessed of the same mix of virtues and vices, insecurities and long-buried injuries, as the rest of us. No matter how wrong-headed I might consider their policies to be -- and no matter how much I might insist that they be held accountable for the results of such policies -- I still find it possible, in talking to these men and women, to understand their motives, and to recognize in them values I share.

 

These quotes are from The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, page 51 (paperback edition).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That reminds me of an interesting story (or so it seemed to me at the time).

 

I got into a debate with one of my wife's friends a couple of weeks ago about a major political issue familiar to everyone here (the substance of which is not important). She went on at some length about how she couldn't understand how anybody could feel a certain way, that it was wrong and evil, and that she had to speak out against it.

 

She said all this knowing I agreed with her, but what she wasn't aware of is that my wife disagreed with her position, and in fact held the position that her friend thought evil and intolerable. I knew this from private discussions at home, but not once in the conversation did my wife open her mouth. She just smiled, laughed when her friend made a joke, and waited for the conversation to move on.

 

I suppose it comes as no surprise to anyone here that my wife has a lot more friends than I do! But I think it's also an example of how not everyone feels the need to change society overnight.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

I find [President Bush'] and those who surround him to be pretty much like everybody else, possessed of the same mix of virtues and vices, insecurities and long-buried injuries, as the rest of us. No matter how wrong-headed I might consider their policies to be -- and no matter how much I might insist that they be held accountable for the results of such policies -- I still find it possible, in talking to these men and women, to understand their motives, and to recognize in them values I share.

 

Spoken like a true politican... we're talking about a dude who had civil discourse with Bill O'Reilly. Those are great attributes of a politican, meaning he's good at disguising his own prejudices and playing it off all suave. I suppose the other word for that is "lying". Sometimes I feel the guy is lying to me, saying one thing during his campaign and doing the complete opposite once he holds office. Whatever, he's a politican, no doubt. But a damn good one

[Pangloss]

Spoken like a true politican... we're talking about a dude who had civil discourse with Bill O'Reilly. Those are great attributes of a politican, meaning he's good at disguising his own prejudices and playing it off all suave. I suppose the other word for that is "lying". Sometimes I feel the guy is lying to me, saying one thing during his campaign and doing the complete opposite once he holds office. Whatever, he's a politican, no doubt. But a damn good one

 

Interesting. Let me approach that from the perspective of a confused American voter seeking a sensible and responsible ideology, using your stated (and very commonly held) opinion as a guide.

 

First, do you think Obama is lying about empathizing with George W. Bush, or lying about being able to have empathy for people who disagree with him?

 

If your answer is the former, then you seem to be saying that you believe Obama cannot empathize with Bush because no reasonable person could. But is Obama reasonable? In fact you say he is lying, which would be an hypocrisy, and surely hypocrisy is an unreasonable act. This presents a fascinating Catch-22: You believe it's not impossible for him to believe one thing and state the opposite. In other words, if he said he DIDN'T empathize with Bush, he could be lying and actually DOES -- but you say that's impossible.

 

(I'm not criticizing -- I think people do this all the time, and I think it's fascinating!)

 

And if it's the latter (that you don't think he can honestly feel empathy for people who disagree with him, which gets back to the subject of this thread), then doesn't your belief that he's a liar preclude you from being able to support him in any manner, on any issue? Haven't you just cut yourself off from accessing this man ever again as a source of hope?

 

So our confused voter has quite a dichotomy to deal with here, but as I say I think it's an ABSOLUTELY DEAD-ON ACCURATE reflection of how people think. I see people go down this exact same path of reasoning all the time, and I think it's just amazing. I think it says a great deal about the extent of the problem we face if we're ever going to learn how to work together to accomplish anything.

[swansont]

Both iNow and now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said you *advocated* it, I asked if you thought the labels were helpful.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Sorry. I was just clarifying my position in light of your comment about applying a label at the outset of a discussion.

 

I agree — I think there are times where people are labeled far too quickly, and that detracts from any discussion. Labels are a convenience, and a double-edged weapon: they make for easier sorting of people and their arguments, but you run the risk of assuming a certain position based on the label. (Label someone based on one or two positions and one tends to assume that seven or eight other positions are held as well, and this is probably not the case.) However, there are those that reverse this as bascule pointed out in the OP. Someone labels themselves as a skeptic when they are actually not a skeptic — you assume from the self-label that they carefully and objectively weigh evidence, applying logic and scientific rigor, and then you find that they aren't doing that.

[bascule]

First, do you think Obama is lying about empathizing with George W. Bush, or lying about being able to have empathy for people who disagree with him?

 

Actually, lately I think Obama may have a bit too much empathy for George W. Bush, what with the continuation of domestic spying and suspension of habeas corpus, two things he's routinely criticized the Bush administration for.

 

So no, probably not lying, perhaps a far more sinister alternative.

 

doesn't your belief that he's a liar preclude you from being able to support him in any manner, on any issue? Haven't you just cut yourself off from accessing this man ever again as a source of hope?

 

No, because I feel he's presently the best available person for the job, vices and all.

 

This discussion should probably be moved to Politics.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In light of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, I'm wondering what you all think about Buzz Aldrin's reaction to a moon landing denier:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw

Edited July 21, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Has violent confrontation thwarted moon hoax denial, or encouraged it?

[GutZ]

Probably did nothing for or against the cause, but Buzz felt better, and that guy probably won't harass people as willing as before. It definitely made me feel better.

 

I accept the event as inconsequential overall though. Name one significant event that hasn't had two sides arguing over it. You still have flat earth people arguing crap and the evidence is blinding....I don't know how you can trump satellite imagery. besides taking every FEer (LABEL!) to outer space and let them see for themselves.

 

World still spins.

 

I think a more proper course of action would for everyone to stop being offended by labels. I understand labels can be bad, like pedophile, or whatever. I am talking about when people label you "whatever", if it's not true just laugh it off.

 

If someone calls me a socialist because I believe in free health care, then they are the ones makes the general assumption.

 

It seems hard to not take things personally, I don't know if that in itself is productive for discussion.

Edited July 21, 2009 by GutZ

[bascule]

Has violent confrontation thwarted moon hoax denial, or encouraged it?

 

I'm sure it made Buzz Aldrin feel better.

 

Do you think that a rational, evidence-based discussion with the individual he punched would eventually bring him around to the realization that the Apollo landings are in fact real?

 

That individual is clearly quite passionate about the disinformation he's spreading, and the very fact he's spreading it indicates that he lacks some basic skills in reasoning and evidence-based thinking.

 

What's to be done with these sorts of individuals? I'm of the opinion they should be ostracized for spreading disinformation. It seems you and Phi think they can be reasoned with.

 

I have tried awfully hard to reason with these sorts of individuals and present them evidence specifically in regard to climate change. So far I don't think I have managed to convince any of them of anything, but that's difficult when they're unwilling to even entertain information to the contrary. When they do actually read information I present, they are not doing so for the informational value, they're looking for minor details to cherry pick and incorporate into their argument by claiming they're wrong. Any mention of estimates or uncertainties or statistical analysis are just fodder for claiming the mainstream scientific community is wrong.

 

I'm sick of it. So was Buzz Aldrin. There is no convincing these people.

[Phi for All]

What's to be done with these sorts of individuals? I'm of the opinion they should be ostracized for spreading disinformation. It seems you and Phi think they can be reasoned with.

When someone has been shown bogus photos, or only given one explanation for a piece of evidence, they can be mislead into spreading that disinformation. If those people can be shown the errors in reasoning, or the evidence can be shown to be bogus, those folks might, just maybe, be more amenable to a reasoned explanation if they aren't labeled kooks or crackpots right off. For this particular guy to make the effort to seek out Buzz Aldrin with his crap conspiracy, I think he falls on the side of the fence with an agenda, and no, I don't think those people can be reasoned with. They have a reason for spreading their conspiracies that overrides the truth.

 

I have tried awfully hard to reason with these sorts of individuals and present them evidence specifically in regard to climate change. So far I don't think I have managed to convince any of them of anything, but that's difficult when they're unwilling to even entertain information to the contrary. When they do actually read information I present, they are not doing so for the informational value, they're looking for minor details to cherry pick and incorporate into their argument by claiming they're wrong. Any mention of estimates or uncertainties or statistical analysis are just fodder for claiming the mainstream scientific community is wrong.

You mentioned jryan before. I'm not sure which category he falls in, someone with an agenda or someone who was misinformed and is simply passing on a bad argument, but the second post in his "Is 'Consensus' shifting?" thread used terms like "stupid" and "non sequitur" and I think that made him unnecessarily antagonistic and determined in his future posts. It could well be that he has some kind of agenda that made him turn to fallacies in order to "win" his argument, but it may have just been that he was being stubborn due to being labeled, pigeonholed and marginalized.

 

I'm sick of it. So was Buzz Aldrin. There is no convincing these people.

Buzz just asked the guy to get away from him while the guy was claiming he didn't walk on the moon. Buzz didn't hit him for his misinformation or his stance. Buzz hit him because the guy got in his face and called him a coward and a liar. If that was 100 years earlier, Buzz could have shot him dead.

 

It's one thing to question evidence. It's a whole other thing to call an Apollo astronaut a coward to his face.

[swansont]

It could well be that he has some kind of agenda that made him turn to fallacies in order to "win" his argument, but it may have just been that he was being stubborn due to being labeled, pigeonholed and marginalized.

 

When your argument starts with a logical fallacy such as poisoning the well, there isn't a lot of intellectually honest high ground to complain about anyone else's purported appeal to emotion. You've chosen the set of rules to include arguments outside of the scientific realm. Logos, pathos and ethos. If you are going to wield pathos, don't complain when it is wielded in return.

 

http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html

 

And that's the point of calling attention to logical fallacies — they represent a deviation from a scientific discussion. It's not fair if you demand a different set of rules to apply to the two sides of a discussion.

[iNow]

You mentioned jryan before. I'm not sure which category he falls in, someone with an agenda or someone who was misinformed and is simply passing on a bad argument, but the second post in his "Is 'Consensus' shifting?" thread used terms like "stupid" and "non sequitur" and I think that made him unnecessarily antagonistic and determined in his future posts.

Two points.

 

1) Those comments were specifically in reference to the WSJ article shared by jryan, and not directed at jryan himself.

 

2) That was hardly jryan's first ever post on the subject of climate change. His denialist credentials had been long ago established during his membership here at SFN via consistent precedent. Practically every single post jyran has ever made here regarding that topic (and, there are scores of them) have ignored and misrepresented evidence, and been wrought with lies and half-truths.

 

 

At some point you have to stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt and just call a spade a spade.

[bascule]

So for posterity:

 

There is a similar problem with waitforufo: a predisposition towards a certain opinion, and a massive degree of confirmation bias in analyzing the available information.

 

As I consider myself a scientific thinker, I've created a new thread: the "I Admit I'm Wrong" game! Here is a thread where you can post previous statements/opinions you had which you now feel are wrong.

 

I posted something I stated in the same thread which I now realize was wrong. From there we can all acknowledge I was wrong and move forward:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=504538#post504538

 

I have invited waitforufo to do the same. We'll see how it goes.

[Pangloss]

You folks should know better than to inject an SFN policy discussion into this. In case you've forgotten, SFN has rules that essentially remove the SFN community from applicability in this debate. As far as I can tell bascule's not suggesting we hang people who deny global warming (in fact he's as pro-free speech as anybody I've ever met). But if you are rude to a fellow SFN member, regardless of cause, you're going to have to deal with the consequences (but only within SFN). So let's drop the jryan discussion, please.

 

 

I think a more proper course of action would for everyone to stop being offended by labels. I understand labels can be bad, like pedophile, or whatever. I am talking about when people label you "whatever", if it's not true just laugh it off.

 

If someone calls me a socialist because I believe in free health care, then they are the ones makes the general assumption.

 

Makes sense to me. Well said.

 

 

Do you think that a rational, evidence-based discussion with the individual he punched would eventually bring him around to the realization that the Apollo landings are in fact real?

 

Why is it necessary to bring him around to the realization that the Apollo landings are in fact real?

[JohnB]

John - Would you at least be willing to stipulate that some folks are out just sharing blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations as pertains to climate science, and perhaps it would (in fact) be accurate to brand them as liars, or people who have no idea what they are talking about?

Yes I would. Would you agree that it occurs on both sides of the argument?

 

I think it's ironic for people to complain about a tactic to score debating points, when that's the very behavior that earned the label in the first place. If the discussion hadn't spilled over into rhetoric and attempting to convince the lay audience with lies and appeals to emotion and other fallacious tactics, we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

But, but, the Glaciers are melting and our children will drown! And disease is going to spread! And, and, what about the Polar Bears???? And what about the hordes of refugees displaced by rising water??? And there will be a Katrina every week!!! And wars over water!!!

 

swansont, these didn't come from my side. Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason that some AGW proponents are called "alarmist"?

 

I'll add that "alarmist" is probably the most insulting term used by the "anti" side, would you like a more complete list of epithets used by the AGW side, or will reading this thread suffice?

 

It's nice to know that we are viewed as so mentally deficient as to be incapable of evidence-based thinking.

 

(bascule, I know the comment wasn't aimed at me and I too no offense. I also share your frustration with people like that idiot in the youtube vid. I'm just trying to illustrate a point.)

 

BTW, "evolution deniers" garners > 50k Google hits, while "global warming deniers" gets just under 100k. It's out there, but "creationists" is a more convenient label and gets more press.

Then I was wrong as to the exclusivity of the use of the term. I just googled "denier" and except for a rather interesting article on ladies hosiery:D I only found references to GW or holocaust deniers.

 

bascule.

 

Firstly, how did you do that link on the graph? That's a handy thing to see.

 

This is a perfect example of what I consider to be misleading graphs. It's often put forward as "independent" proof of the correctness of the original Mann article. As I said in a previous post, it's only "independent" if you rewrite the dictionary.

 

Anyhoo, Mann and Jones agrees with Jones and Mann? Who agree with Mann, Briffa and Hughes, who agree with Jones, Briffa and Barnett? Who agree with Briffa, Osbourne and Sweingruber? This was in part what Wegman spoke of in his report.

 

Another point is that as you said, many shared data with the original Mann study. Specifically the Bristlecone Pines and Briffas Polar Ural series. It was recommended that BCP not be used because they aren't valid temp proxies due to sensitivity to CO2 fertilization, (Amoung other things) so why keep using them?

 

Further, since the original MBH98 has been repudiated in peer reviewed literature and it's statistical methodology found incorrect by two separate panels convened to look at the issue would you describe the RC support for the paper as flying in the face of the presented evidence? Who is "denying" in this case?

 

The graph does show a general downwards trend from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age.

Except that if you look at Jones and Mann 2004 on page 16 we see their 2,000 year reconstruction where both the MWP and LIA disappear.

 

On the general topic of reconstructions I point you to Burger et al 2005 in GRL.

Any robust, regression-based method of deriving past climatic variations from proxies is therefore inherently trapped by variations seen at the training stage, that is, in the instrumental period. The more one leaves that scale and the farther the estimated regression laws are extrapolated the less robust the method is. The described error growth is particularly critical for parameter-intensive, multi-proxy climate field reconstructions of the MBH98 type. Here, for example, colinearity and overfitting induce considerable error already in the estimation phase.

 

I also quote from the Wegman Report.

We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

 

Would it not be reasonable that given the highly statistical nature of paleoclimate reconstructions that persons with statistical training actually be involved? Would it also not be reasonable that "new" or "novel" statistical relationships be published and peer reviewed in statistical literature rather than climate? Is a climatologist qualified to review "new" statistical relationships?

 

I still don't understand why there is so much controversy surrounding the "hockey stick",

Given it's prominence in the TAR and the fact of it's continued use to promote the idea of unusual temp change during the 20th C, of course there's controversy. The more temps changed in previous centuries, there less reason to say that current changes are "unprecedented".

 

Nor do I find the result of (for example) Esper, Cook and Schweingruber (light green) with it's variations of .4⁰ in 50 years to be "similar" to Manns maybe .2 degrees over hundreds of years.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with going to an advertising company.

Don't you perhaps find it odd though to go to one that has a history of anti-science scare campaigns?

Environmental Media Services.

 

Addendum: Concerning graphs. I really wish that there was some sort of "standard" for scale. By expanding either the X or Y scale virtually anything can be shown to be either significant or normal depending on intention.

Edited July 22, 2009 by JohnB

[Pangloss]

I just googled "denier" and except for a rather interesting article on ladies hosiery:D

 

I'd call you a total denier, but I'd have to spin quite a yarn to to do it, sew I won't.

[swansont]

But, but, the Glaciers are melting and our children will drown! And disease is going to spread! And, and, what about the Polar Bears???? And what about the hordes of refugees displaced by rising water??? And there will be a Katrina every week!!! And wars over water!!!

 

swansont, these didn't come from my side. Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason that some AGW proponents are called "alarmist"?

 

Yeah, that's a problem. Does this show up in the scientific literature? I think the answer to that is "no;" it shows up in the MSM. It shows up when journalists sensationalize stories (e.g. changing "what could happen" to "what will happen"), when detractors twist statements and yes, when speaker over-reach. Again, though, it is disingenuous to complain that one side is using emotional-appeal arguments in the political arena when the other side is already using them.

 

To say that it didn't/doesn't come from "your side" is incorrect. AGW "skeptics" take a "this is a possible outcome" statement by a scientist and portray it as a strawman prediction, in order to attempt to discredit the science — we've seen that here at SFN, on more than one occasion. At best you can say it doesn't come exclusively from "your side." (BTW, I don't break things down that way. You raise legitimate scientific questions without resorting to the fallacies)

[iNow]

Yes I would. Would you agree that it occurs on both sides of the argument?

Certainly, of course I would. It would be silly of me not to. However, it would also be silly of me not to acknowledge that the phenomenon occurs at several orders of magnitude higher frequency among the self-professed "skeptics" than it does with the supporters. When this issue is put on the scales, the weight of occurrence overwhelmingly tilts toward "deniers lie more."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Firstly, how did you do that link on the graph? That's a handy thing to see.

John,

 

You make an image a clickable link in the exact same way you would make text into a clickable link.

 

Here's the syntax:

 

 

[GutZ]

I don't think it really matter who lies more. It's all about the argument for or against a specific position being factual.

 

Due to the uncertainty (in terms of not being 100% certain) both positions by default has the potential to be correct. GW is an issue that has the potential to affect us (as a group) one way or another. A decision has to be made (Do something, nothing, or somewhere in between).

 

Maybe as a forum we could instead of arguing point back and forth set back and objectively as a group place ideas surrounding GW and other issue which fact are true and lay them out for all to see. No "buts". I see a lot of issues debating around defeating a specific point to gain grounds, to deflame a specific idea of the opponents in pursuit to win.

 

What if we took away the "win/losing" "right/wrong" of individuals and objectively take point from both sides that have merit.

 

Start off withe basics. CO2 catorgorize it's affects. other contributing elements as well. What we know a to how climate works, all the hard facts that are not debatable. Then we propose interpretations. Take every single graph and break down what it proposes. where is estimates, where is the filtering, where is hypothetical aspects, where are the assumptions. We continue this way not to see who is right or who is wrong but that what is being represented is.

 

That's where all arguements will lead. It would be a lot of work. but with that method we stop taking what is uncertian and use our own interpretations that can be wrong or right.

 

Like for the example of sampling, range of data. Does ploting infromation from a short term of time give anything to us. What does it show, what doesn't it show, then move one to the next.

 

I think if we do that this whole debate becomes less us vs them. I think it would be helpful for people like me as well because then I am not getting bacules interpretations in it, or john B's or jryans, or waitinfo's, or inow's, etc.

 

just a suggestion, make a fact thread that comes with the debate. When something is accepted (say by a panel of experts) it get written down and stickified. Then those topics becomes pointless to discuss. I think it help move the discussion away from what the proposed problem is. I guess first you would need a thread asking for all the relevant issues surrounding it. someone could take the time to sort it all out.

 

We can do that for evolution as well. or any other issue that are similar. I keep adding to this but I could go on forever so I hope I got my idea across properly. I think that would bring much to this board as to what it promotes as well. Objective science at it's best. We could set the trend.

 

This way too we insure flexability and open mindedness. I know for fact that most biologist cringe at the idea that people are point out little holes like the lack of transitional fossil (or whatever), instead of going "that;s irrelevant" lets make note of it. It concerns someone out there so lets not downplay it, lets show we accept that it exists and that's it. move on.

Edited July 22, 2009 by GutZ

[Pangloss]

Certainly, of course I would. It would be silly of me not to. However, it would also be silly of me not to acknowledge that the phenomenon occurs at several orders of magnitude higher frequency among the self-professed "skeptics" than it does with the supporters. When this issue is put on the scales, the weight of occurrence overwhelmingly tilts toward "deniers lie more."

 

Does it? Or does it just seem that way? Is there any statistical evidence for this?

 

Also, I'm curious whether folks thing it acceptable if the pro-GW noise is along the lines of "do the right thing and don't worry about the reasons why"? Should we be okay with telling people to fix global warming because George Clooney says it's the right thing to do?

[iNow]

Does it? Or does it just seem that way? Is there any statistical evidence for this?

Yes. Absolutely. Want evidence? Try the search feature at this site alone.

[Pangloss]

Yes. Absolutely. Want evidence? Try the search feature at this site alone.

 

So you feel that a large number of posts indicating a specific position on a Web message forum stands as conclusive evidence that the anti-GW message is more prevalent than the pro-GW message? (Did I read that right?) Interesting.

 

Which of those two positions gets more weighted treatment in the mainstream media? If we were to, say, review the last 52 issues of Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report, I wonder whether we would find more anti-GW articles or more of those in support of the concept. (Actually, aside from the odd guest op/ed piece, I'd be surprised if there were a single article amongst those 156 issues questioning the overall science of global warming.)

 

I realize there's a difference in that the latter are scientifically accurate and the ones you're complaining about are not. But that's not the point -- your complaint is that people are getting more inundated by the wrong message than the right one, yes?

 

The reason I'm pressing this point in the context of this thread is because I feel that such reasoning is sometimes used to justify ostracizing attacks for the "greater good". In my opinion the danger inherent in this approach is clear. The ends do not justify the means.

[bascule]

Also, I'm curious whether folks thing it acceptable if the pro-GW noise is along the lines of "do the right thing and don't worry about the reasons why"? Should we be okay with telling people to fix global warming because George Clooney says it's the right thing to do?

 

If you know my history on this matter you know I don't make policy recommendations regarding climate change. I just want uninformed laymen to stop baselessly disputing the science. I don't know if there are actually people out there making policy recommendations on these boards who say "don't worry about the reasons why" but those are not the actions of your typical SFN member. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Pangloss]

If you know my history on this matter you know I don't make policy recommendations regarding climate change. I just want uninformed laymen to stop baselessly disputing the science. I don't know if there are actually people out there making policy recommendations on these boards who say "don't worry about the reasons why" but those are not the actions of your typical SFN member. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Exactly -- because it's illogical, counter-productive, and a poor way to convince anybody of anything.

 

Just like ostracizing them.

[swansont]

So you feel that a large number of posts indicating a specific position on a Web message forum stands as conclusive evidence that the anti-GW message is more prevalent than the pro-GW message? (Did I read that right?) Interesting.

 

No, I'd say you didn't. That's not what iNow said. That's not even close to what iNow said.

 

Which of those two positions gets more weighted treatment in the mainstream media? If we were to, say, review the last 52 issues of Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report, I wonder whether we would find more anti-GW articles or more of those in support of the concept. (Actually, aside from the odd guest op/ed piece, I'd be surprised if there were a single article amongst those 156 issues questioning the overall science of global warming.)

 

I realize there's a difference in that the latter are scientifically accurate and the ones you're complaining about are not. But that's not the point -- your complaint is that people are getting more inundated by the wrong message than the right one, yes?

 

No, the discussion is

 

some folks are out just sharing blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations as pertains to climate science

 

Which is very different than the prevalence of pro vs anti posts or articles. What fraction of pro posts contain falsehoods and/or fallacious arguments? What fraction of anti posts contain them?

[iNow]

No, I'd say you didn't. That's not what iNow said. That's not even close to what iNow said.

Thank you.

 

 

What fraction of pro posts contain falsehoods and/or fallacious arguments? What fraction of anti posts contain them?

Indeed, but to be clear, I am also suggesting this phenomenon extends far beyond just posts on discussion fora such as SFN.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But that's not the point -- your complaint is that people are getting more inundated by the wrong message than the right one, yes?

 

The reason I'm pressing this point in the context of this thread is because I feel that such reasoning is sometimes used to justify ostracizing attacks for the "greater good".

No, that's not my point. To summarize again for our readers... the misinformation, falsehoods, and inaccuracies tend to come much more frequently from those who deny global warming than from those who accept it as valid.

Edited July 23, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.