ttp – hostilities

guthrie says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:07 pm
I think Tol has a point, but we’re talking about someone who is so intellectually superior they regularly make obtuse points, argue against straw men and always leave you with the feeling that they think they are wonderful, yet actually insecure. Secure people don’t wander the internet picking fights whenever their name is mentioned.

Tom Curtis says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:19 pm
I have two things to say about SoD’s post:

1) Ignorance of the relevant scientific theory and related maths is not sound grounds to reject the theory. It follows that SoD’s argument is wrong headed. If people reject the science out of ignorance, then they are in fact deniers.

2) No matter how erudite SoD is on history (which remains entirely unproven), and how erudite on science (which he certainly is); neither subject has any bearing on etymology, on which subject he is offering his uninformed opinion. The term “denier” has a history in English longer than modern English has existed. It is a word very easily understood by construction by anybody with reasonable knowledge of English. That is why the term “holocaust denier” was coined in the first place – ie, because people would understand what was meant by “denier” without need of explanation. That same ease of construction means that the term can and has been used in similar contexts entirely unrelated to holocaust denial starting with the title of the Apostle Peter, ie, Peter the denier, and will be used long into the future in similar contexts with no reference to holocaust denial implicit in the term.

It is the attempts by deniers, and now SoD to tie the term exclusively to “holocaust denial” to prevent the use of a perfectly appropriate descriptor that use the suffering of the holocaust victims for tawdry rhetorical gain. Not the other way round.

WebHubTelescope says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm
It has been a subtle shift but SoD has been veering towards a more fair-and-balanced schtick, especially in terms of giving free-reign in his comments section to the pseudo-science crowd.

My opinion is akin to what somebody recently tweeted — that allowing both sides on certain scientific topics is like having opposing food critics argue the merits of “dog-doodie yogurt”

Brandon Gates says:
February 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm
Web, the frustrating thing about this is that it’s really not immediately obvious to our denier friends that they’re fans of frozen cat crap on a stick. Couching it in those terms goes right into the conspiracy feedback loop and thence to infinty plus three.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Methinks SoD is just a little wee bit biased.

“I’ve been a student of history for a long time and have read quite a bit about Nazi Germany and WWII. In fact right now, having found audible.com I’m listening to an audio book The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard Evans, while I walk, drive and exercise.”

So in gaming the word “denial” in a word association sort of way:

Psychologist: Denial
SoD: Holocaust
Sample size = 1

Psychologist: Denial
3% Noncensus: Holocaust (97% of the time), miscellaneous other words (3% of the time)
Sample size >> 1E4

Psychologist: Denial
97% Concensus: Climate (97% of the time), Science (~3% of the time) and miscellaneous other words (<> 1E4

So other than that there is a standard word definition for denial and formal psychological/psychiatric descriptions for denial (DSM-V), we can plainly see SoD’s kneejerk reaction given their current reading list. Oh, the ploy of using a complex description of climate science to ‘explain away’ those who might reject the science because it is ‘too complicated’ is a non sequitur, in my book, at least.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 5:41 pm
Well, wordpress messed with part of my comment:

“97% Concensus: Climate (97% of the time), Science (~3% of the time) and miscellaneous other words ( 1E4″

should be …

97% Concensus: Climate (97% of the time), Science (~3% of the time) and miscellaneous other words (less-than-less-than 1% of the time)
Sample size greater-than-greater-than 1E4

verytallguy says:
February 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm
In which SoD demonstrates how to listen and respond to opposing views. Kudos.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/02/04/the-holocaust-climate-science-and-proof/#comment-94437

…and Then There’s Physics says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:04 pm
vtg,
Okay, that is impressive and rare. Kudos. Only wish more would be willing to acknowledge when they get something wrong in their posts.

John Hartz says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Tom Curtis: Bravo!

PS – Would you be willing to embellish your comment and transform it into a guest post on SkS?

John Hartz says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:22 pm
Observation: This comment thread reminds me of an ESPN panel of experts dissecting the Super Bowl football (American) game on Monday morning. Perhaps there’s merit in the “Climateball” construct after all. (:

WebHubTelescope says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:22 pm
I also never figured out why the Science Of Doom blog uses the word “Doom” in the title.

Most environmentally-conscious types are sensitive about the tag Doomer attached to them. In particular, it’s essentially a slur to anyone analyzing oil depletion.

…and Then There’s Physics says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:25 pm
WHT,
I’m not sure, but I think SoD may have started as someone who was highly skeptical and thought the science was too doom laden. He, however, then proceeded through a process of genuine skepticism and clearly understands the science extremely well and writes some very thorough and informative posts.

Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:29 pm
“I’ve criticised both Rose and Ridley in the past, but have never said anything remotely offensive and have neither condoned nor encouraged any such attacks.”

Short memory.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Kind of reminds me of this episode of South Park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apologies_to_Jesse_Jackson

“He explains to Token that, as a white person, he will never understand why Token is so upset by the word, and why it can make black people mad when a white person says it in any context. Token is finally satisfied that Stan gets that he does not get it, thus creating an understanding between them.”

So I can see certain specific demographic groups being insulted by certain specific words.

However, I don’t even remotely think that climate Deniers are either solely Jewish or African American, in the same way that those groups, are, well, those specific demographic groups.

Hardcore climate Deniers are mostly old white males, there’s a certain specific pejorative term for whites used here in the Deep South, I use it a lot, and I’m an old white male. But that word does not have the same impact factor, by any means, as words associated with being owned or persecuted or systematically killed, specifically when applied to very specific demographic groups.

In short, Climate Deniers don’t identify with each other BECAUSE of their race.

…and Then There’s Physics says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:33 pm
Richard,

“I’ve criticised both Rose and Ridley in the past, but have never said anything remotely offensive and have neither condoned nor encouraged any such attacks.”

Short memory.
Back it up, Richard [Mod: Unnecessary]

Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:38 pm
[Mod : I said back it up! You do know what that means, don’t you? Now do so, or go away!]

Steven Mosher says:
February 4, 2015 at 6:58 pm
The term denier is saving the planet.
don’t give it up. the cause depends on it.

Joshua says:
February 4, 2015 at 7:20 pm
Anyone using the term “denier” clearly doesn’t give a damn about the victims of the holocaust….not a single one.

The only people who give a damn about the victims of the holocaust are those, like Judith Curry, who clutch pearls from their fainting couches about the deep, deep harm caused by the use of the term.

Just think of how much further along we’d be in dealing with Climate change if only those AGW Lysenkoist, eugenicist, alarmist, Stalinist, poorchildreninafricastarving cultists would stop using the pejorative term “denier.”

Oh, the humanity!!!1!1!!

Windchasers says:
February 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm
I posted twice on that thread so far, not about the d-word but about the hidden premises and attitudes behind AGW skepticism. Psychology and epistemology are quite a bit more interesting than semantics.

Honestly, I don’t care about the use of the d* word. It’s Climateball: it distracts from the real debate. So I use “skeptic” instead.

If you’re getting into an argument about semantics, you’re letting yourself get sidetracked.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 7:54 pm
So if Richard A. Muller was a Denier and is now no longer a Denier, would one say that Richard A. Muller is in Denierment (rhymes with retirement)?

John Hartz says:
February 4, 2015 at 7:54 pm
One of the things about “Monday Morning Quarterbacking” is that no matter how many analysts are engaged and no matter how much analyis is prodcued, the score of the game never changes once the final whistle blows. In other words, I don’t see a lot of value in what’s being posted on this thread. Having said that, perhaps group venting has some value and is needed from time to time. I just hope it doesn’t become the norm for this website.

eli says:
February 4, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Rejectionist hits all the boxes. People who simply do not deny but actively reject. Also obvious meaning for the terminally dense

Lars Karlsson says:
February 4, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Here is some more Delingpole: “Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis”. Complete with a picture of Himmler, with caption “Himmler: he loved nature, furry animals and organic food”.

pbjamm says:
February 4, 2015 at 8:40 pm
Guthrie right on the mark. No sooner is Tol mentioned than he arrives in a narcissistic attempt to make the conversation about himself (and I am falling for it!) by dropping a random comment with no support for his assertion. How predictable.

WebHubTelescope says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:00 pm
From my experience SoD is not a worthwhile place to comment, IMO. Good comments get mixed in with pseudo-scientific assertions and it is apparently a breech of “etiquette” to call that stuff dog-doodie yogurt. I was shushed there last month for getting baited by the usual suspect.

Willard says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Come on, guys. You play offense. They play defense. They are allowed to hold. You can’t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football

However, you play offense, which means you have the ball. Keep the ball moving forward. Let them do their touch down dances on their line of 20.

Keep calm and play ClimateBall like gentlemen and gentlewomen.

Richard Betts says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:18 pm
Dana

The suggestion that I let stuff on BH, WUWT etc “go unchallenged” is ridiculous.

I often respond to errors, criticisms, misunderstandings & misrepresentations from contrarians, and often in the actual forum where they are made, where they will actually be read by those who need to read them. (As opposed to shouting at a distance from the safety of some other blog).

I realise that you (and possibly ATTP) think I’ve somehow been duped by David Rose into sticking up for him, but I think you’ve missed the point. The reason I highlighted his MoS article as an ‘own goal’ by green bloggers was not to defend him, but to point out that aggressive commentary & accusations of ‘denier’ etc just reflect badly on the side that’s making them (and, by common association, climate scientists, even if we’re not actually signed up to any particular agenda).

Also, and more importantly, the hostile nature of the discussion is hugely distracting from the real work (i.e.: doing the science) and off-putting to many of those who really should be joining the discussion – i.e.: working climate scientists.

Most people who engage in the online climate discourse do so because it’s either a bit of a hobby or because it’s their job as a journalist. The rough-and-tumble is all just a bit of knockabout fun, and you can forget about it whenever you want. However, when the hostility and suspicion lead to scientists’ time and taxpayers’ money being wasted on dealing with things like FOI requests and other stuff then it starts to get a bit more real.

Also I’ve had my fair share of unpleasant incidents, having to get the police involved on one occasion (and they took it seriously enough to track down the offending person) and also having to seek legal advice several times. (Incidentally, at least twice this was because of things coming from the ‘green’ side, so it’s not just contrarians who can cross the line).

I think that climate scientists who get caught up in all this have every right to ask people to calm down the hostilities. It’s all very well having ‘hug a climate scientist’ day and the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund – both of which I’m supportive of, especially the former 😉 – but I can’t help feeling that there would probably be just a bit less need for both of these things if people just made more of an effort to tone things down rather than ramp them up.

I’m certainly not saying that all this would go away if everyone stopped calling people ‘deniers’ or whatever. I’m sure there would still be stuff happening. However, I really don’t think it helps to keep fanning the flames.

Just see the big picture, that’s all I’m asking.

Willard says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:23 pm
Every ClimateBall player should use “contrarian”. Otters will learn, either vicariously, or the hard way.

“Contrarian” just works:

https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com

Style matters.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm
JH,

What, you mean the game is over? So is the science settled? Who won?
Has humanity become so civilized that no one is bullying anyone or calling them names?
So SoD doing a Judith Curry (up is down than down is up, rinse, repeat, …) isn’t fascinating to you?
SkS is only for true believers in the religion of climate science pron? Keith Kloor still does not have a Klue?

You see, it goes something like this …

There are the hardcore climate science deniers (think Fred Singer or Willard Anthony Watts), nothing will change that basic fact, they will go to their graves (of natural causes) being 110% (these go to 11) in full deniersville. They do not play nice, by any stretch of the imagination.

Do we stoop down to level of the hardcore climate science deniers? No. But we do call them out for what they are. Deniers.

If you think the general public really gives a hoot about climate science, then your American football analogy is apt, because they don’t, they all are already watching the next game.

Willard says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:36 pm
Oh, and if you think I agree with Keith or even RichardB, see the comment over there:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2015/02/04/climate-communication-undermined-inflammatory-language/

Keith can’t even get his history correct.

***

More on labeling:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/aboutlabeling

I ought to write my Seven Strictures on Labeling one day. Just found my notes back.

***

Just act like [Chill, W. – W]. See if I care.

John Hartz says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:46 pm
Everett F. Sargent:

You have completely missed my point and analogy. The “game” in this case is what’s been posted on the comment threads on SoD. No matter how much praticipants (ESPN analysts) on this thread slice and dice that game, it will change nothing.

My personal goal is to help in whatever way I can to move the dial of public opinion on the need to take meaningful and timely aciton on mitigating climate change.

My frustration about this thread and others like it is the amount of valuable time and energy that a bunch of very smart people spend discussing the banal. That time and energy could be better spent on more productive acitivites — in my opinion.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 4, 2015 at 9:49 pm
RE: fanning the flames

Truthers
Birthers
Partiers (Tea)
Deniers (climate science)

So Richard (can we get Richard Tol back, I much prefer his brand of humor), how do you think those ‘movements’ got started, perhaps it is, in large part, due to the Internets.

Just, you know, sayin’

[Mod : unnecessarily inflammatory]

…and Then There’s Physics says:
February 4, 2015 at 10:32 pm
Richard B.,

Also, and more importantly, the hostile nature of the discussion is hugely distracting from the real work (i.e.: doing the science) and off-putting to many of those who really should be joining the discussion – i.e.: working climate scientists.
This may be true but I fail to see the relevance. There is, in my opinion, absolutely nothing that I, or Dana, or anyone else who isn’t misrepresenting the science can do to reduce this hostility. I would even argue that what I write is not even particularly hostile. Of course, there may be some examples where I could have done better, but that’s not quite the same as being hostile. In fact, one reason I may find this whole discussion somewhat annoying is that my whole intent was to try and remain civil and non-hostile and it had virtually no effect whatsoever on how I was treated.

Most people who engage in the online climate discourse do so because it’s either a bit of a hobby or because it’s their job as a journalist. The rough-and-tumble is all just a bit of knockabout fun, and you can forget about it whenever you want.
Yes, it’s all just a barrel of laughs for us non-actual-climate scientists.

I’ll make the point that I was trying to make in the post again. I see far more people who object to “denier” associating it with the Holocaust, than I see people who use it doing so. I think it’s offensive to use an horrific event to try and score points against those with whom you disagree. I’m really impressed that SoD rowed back from what he said in his post, as I thought that that part of his post was appalling. If anything, what he did is what we need more of; we need more people to consider what their critics say and to change their position if it is warranted.

I think that Ridley and Rose using extreme examples of verbal attacks to score points against their critics is also appalling. I’m not excusing these attacks, but I think it’s offensive to imply that this somehow reflects on those who have been criticising them. Have Rose or Ridley ever actually engaged with their critics. I’ve never seen them do so.

We could stop the hostility almost overnight if Rose and Ridley thought more about what they were writing in their articles. We could stop it overnight if Montford and Watts actually thought a little about what they promote on their blogs and what they allow their commenters to say.

I’ll say something that I used to say more often. If I’ve ever said anything offensive or objectionable, or allowed anyone to do so in the comments, people can point this out and I’ll correct it. However, I’m not going to suddenly be less blunt in my criticism of some just because they don’t like it, especially given that they seem to be quite comfortable doing so themselves when they decide to criticise others.

Joshua says:
February 4, 2015 at 10:59 pm
FWIW –

==> “There is, in my opinion, absolutely nothing that I, or Dana, or anyone else who isn’t misrepresenting the science can do to reduce this hostility. I would even argue that what I write is not even particularly hostile.”

Anders, I see a distinction between your approach to this discussions and that of Dana.

And I think that this:

==> “We could stop the hostility almost overnight if Rose and Ridley thought more about what they were writing in their articles. We could stop it overnight if Montford and Watts actually thought a little about what they promote on their blogs and what they allow their commenters to say.”

Is quite one-sided.

The hostility in the climate wars is, I think, because folks on both sides are locked into an identity-oriented struggle. The resistance to let got of the label of “denier,” is, IMO, reflective of that struggle, just as are the laughable arguments made my Rose and Ridley and Watts and Montford and Curry, blah,blah, about what is causal for the level of hostility.

…and Then There’s Physics says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:02 pm
Joshua,

Is quite one-sided.
I stand by that in the sense that I think it would reduce significantly if Watts and Montford stopped promoting the nonsense that they do on their site and moderated the comments more strongly. However, I’ll grant you that the denier label could go if that would really help. I don’t actually use it particularly often, so I have no issue with not using it myself. Of course, my gut feeling is if that did happen it would be seen as a success by the Watts and Montfords of this world and they would simply move on to trying to control the next bit of the narrative. Of course, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.

John Hartz says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:31 pm
Folks: It’s time to wake-up and smell the roses!

If everyone who accepts the overwhelming body of scientific evidence about manmade climate change stopped uing the word “denier” tomorrow and started using the word “contrarion” insted, what do you think would happen?

Here’s what I predict would happen.

The folk in Deniersville would immediately find some reason why the word “contraion” is insulting to them. Perhaps they would claim it connotes the onset ofr early dimentia. Who knows what they would come up with.

The folk in Deniersville are waging a propganda war. They will do anything and everything in their power to preserve BAU. There is lttle to be gained in engaging them in a serious discussion of any sort.

Joshua says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:38 pm
==> ” Of course, my gut feeling is if that did happen it would be seen as a success by the Watts and Montfords of this world.”

Personally, I wouldn’t care. They might think it was a “victory,” but as you say they’d just move on to some other bullshit. In the real world, the use of the word or the lack thereof is, IMO, meaningless. I don’t understand why some “realists” seem to think that them thinking they’ve had a “victory” that is actually meaningless, matters in the real world. Just because they would think they had some kind of victory wouldn’t make it so.

I don’t think that letting go of the term would make any real difference, but I also think that resistance to letting go of the term is more reflective of tribalism rather than a rational approach to moving the discussion forward.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:03 am
OK, so I thought that, if only we could come up with one word to ‘label’ or ‘brand’ or ‘stain’ the hardcore climate science D-word, what would that word be, other than the D-word?

Oops, there I go stereotyping others. We need a marketing campaign.

Well anyways, it might have to be a totally new word, it would have to go viral and be an internet meme, kind of like the Santorum neologism. Or it could be an anagram of (an) existing (word) words. Problem is, we would need a new buzzword now.

If not a new word, than an old word, like dissident or refusenik (oops) or insurgent or recusant or heretic or apostate or paynim (oops) or cretin or …

Problem is, that no matter what you call them, they’re bound to complain.

So, I’m back to square one, the D-word.

Unless, of course, you all want to be ‘branded’ an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain.

It’s like this whole D-word thing is one big cons piracy thing devolving into Godwin’s Law.
😦

izen says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:09 am
@-eli
“Rejectionist hits all the boxes. People who simply do not deny but actively reject. Also obvious meaning for the terminally dense”

Agree, I avoid using ‘climate denier’ unless I know the recipient will be very offended, annoyed and provoked, and that is the response I want.
Rejectionists is my prefered term, although ridiculous, moronic idiotic and suffering from self-imposed ignorance would all be accurate adjectival modifiers that can be appropriately applied.

Willard says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:35 am
> What would that word be, other than the D-word?

Contrarian:

http://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com

It just works.

There might even be a correlation, e.g.:

Everett F Sargent says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:36 am
Caller Steve: Whatever side says ‘oh, well, the debate’s settled, we’re not going to debate anymore’, if I was on the side that I felt like I was armed with live ammo and the other side was armed with blanks, I’d want to debate every chance I got just so I could beat ‘em every single time.

WHO radio host Jan Michelsen: Yes! And if they’re ducking discussion, that usually means they’re not up for the task, or they don’t want to acknowledge that anybody disagrees with them, and usually the people who are in authority, the people who have won and captured the flag or the funding streams do not want to risk the ‘buffet’, they don’t want to risk the money trails by even allowing people to question whether they’re proceeding on the basis of sound science.

Willard Anthony Watts: Bill Nye, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Katherine Hayhoe, etc. are the ones armed with blanks and they know it, they flee from debate and they flee from any interview where tough questions might be asked.

Me: WTFUWT?

Vinny Burgoo says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:48 am
I propose that all of the people who are currently called ‘climate change deniers’, whether or not they deny anthropogenic climate change or are in denial about it, should henceforth be called ‘climate change Americans’, whether or not they are American.

Not a perfect solution but fewer people would be miscategorized – and of course not even the most dyed-in-the-wool ‘American’ would be able to complain about Holocaust allusions.

Gator says:
February 5, 2015 at 12:52 am
They were deniers before anyone ever called them that; and they will continue to be deniers even if everyone decided not to call them that anymore. When they stop personally attacking scientists they can start complaining about terms.

ligne says:
February 5, 2015 at 1:01 am
Everett: and Then There’s Duane Gish. i can only echo your “WTFUWT?”, with some “what is this i can’t even” for good measure.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 5, 2015 at 1:05 am
Willard,

I’ve been called the D-word so many times, that I’ve truly lost count long ago.

So, there is a certain orthodoxy in warmunist thinking.

Kind of like water off a duck’s back.

I actually like being called the D-word. Doing the conformist thing is not my style. 🙂

MikeH says:
February 5, 2015 at 1:07 am
http://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-bolt-cuts-ties-climate-science-denying-galileo-movement-over-alleged-anti-jewish-conspiracy-theory

The ones who did not cut ties.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php#G

Climate science “skeptics” are hyprocrites? Who knew?

Steven Mosher says:
February 5, 2015 at 1:28 am
“So, I’m back to square one, the D-word.”

Yup me too. I called them doubters from day one

JCH says:
February 5, 2015 at 1:43 am
Does anybody know when the first claim that “denier” was an intentional reference to Holocaust denial first appeared in the climate debate?

Brandon Gates says:
February 5, 2015 at 2:05 am
John Hartz,

The folk in Deniersville would immediately find some reason why the word “contraion” is insulting to them.
Anecdotal evidence suggests you are correct. I use “contrarian” exclusively at WUWT in lieu of their preferred “skeptic” and for a time dbstealey took exception to it. Observations elsewhere on this thread that the barrel of red herring is bottomless and overflowing are on the money. It doesn’t matter what tone we use, what labels we use, how much butt we kiss or kick — they’re going to find a way to doubt, dodge, distract and deride. They’re holding an all but empty bag which they erroneously think is chock-full of great stuff. What else would we expect?

Willard says:
February 5, 2015 at 2:23 am
> I’ve been called the D-word so many times, that I’ve truly lost count long ago.

I feel ya, Everett. The always nuanced Greg Laden recently added me to his Twitter list of deniers since I dared ask him to own his schtick regarding the Soon petition:

http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/willie-soon-fire-him-soon/

Willard says:
February 5, 2015 at 2:40 am
> they’re going to find a way to doubt, dodge, distract and deride.

Then we might as well call them [insert your favorite redacted word].

Judy’s Denizens have yet to find something against “contrarian” after a few years now.

“Denizens” ain’t bad either.

Everett F Sargent says:
February 5, 2015 at 2:44 am
Willard,

Yes, I saw that one, GL can really appear to be clueless at times. Been there, done that.

John Hartz says:
February 5, 2015 at 4:02 am
Meanwhile, back in the real world…

Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models, Phys.org,, Feb 2, 2015

dhogaza says:
February 5, 2015 at 4:06 am
Stephen “Piltdown Mann” Moshpit:

“Yup me too. I called them doubters from day one”

They are, of course, no different than Holocaust Doubters.

See how easy this game is?

John Hartz says:
February 5, 2015 at 4:30 am
Much to the chagrin of the folk in Deniersville, science is not static…

Study unravels mystery of Antarctic sea ice by Jamie Morton, New Zealand Herald, Feb 4, 2015

Brandon Gates says:
February 5, 2015 at 5:48 am
Willard, pretty much yes. When I’m moved to use a label it’s pretty much about what makes me feel good, just as surely as they obviously relish calling me a “warmunist”, or referring to properly skeptical scientists as “climastrologists”. I’m generally amused by such clever coinages, going so far as to use them to refer to myself. Interesting that Aunt Judy’s Denizens haven’t balked at “contrarian”. I think that’s some pretty good Climateball right there.

OPatrick says:
February 5, 2015 at 6:37 am
Richard Betts:
The suggestion that I let stuff on BH, WUWT etc “go unchallenged” is ridiculous.
No, it’s not ‘ridiculous’. It may be wrong, you might feel you can legitimately argue your case, but it certainly isn’t a ridiculous accusation. Given that the rest of your comment was about the importance of not fanning the flames with incendiary language I thought the use of ‘ridiculous’ here stood out. I wonder how often you describe reasonable, though incorrect, arguments as ‘ridiculous’ at sites like BH?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: