A recent thread led to the following rant from myself. If you happen to debate climate deniers on forums and drop by this blog, please tell me if this is also your experience, as I’ve had a gutfull of this rubbish lately!
From the glaciergate comments… directed at pgillman.
And there you go again, repeating more Denialist rubbish. Even “The Economist” has summed up “Climategate” by saying:
“The inquiries into the “climategate” e-mails and files may find that some of the researchers fell short of the standards of their calling, or that some of the science in question does not stand up as well as its authors would wish. To think that all action on climate change should cease pending such inquiries, though, is foolish, cynical or both.”
But basically climategate shows how powerless these climate scientists really are. They came across as a bunch of scientists honestly discussing some of the parameters of their discipline, and expressing frustration at the stupidity of the Denialist rubbish they have to confront all the time, leading them to actually try and ask for certain rubbish papers not to be published. However, the paper in question was published anyway (boy that’s one POWERFUL conspiracy! 😉 and the open and public peer review process revealed it to be exactly what is was, RUBBISH!
I’ve noticed that climate deniers don’t actually quote the most vital paragraph of source documents, because that would show how weak their arguments are. They repeatedly use the old strategy of… repeating. 😉 It’s like a waltz debating climate deniers!
The rules of their waltz are: “Assert 2 3, Distract 2 3, Accuse 2 3, then Assert 2 3” and repeat. Note there is no EVIDENCE in their assertions, no real response to questions put to them, no peer-reviewed science given as evidence, and if they DO take the highly unusual step of actually putting forth ‘some evidence’ it is only to link to a 115 page PDF (of pure rubbish which couldn’t get peer reviewed anyway) and words to the effect that “This PDF is self-explanatory”. As to which paragraph of the PDF is actually relevant to the discussion at hand? No, actually selecting the most relevant paragraph or concept might too easily be debunked by the real science. This is dishonest argument strategy is exactly what you’ve engaged in. You’ve made a bunch of assertions, then character attacks, then more assertions about climategate, and notice that I’m left guessing what on earth you are actually talking about?
So I will take a guess at the ‘torturing the data’ climategate accusation you made, and with a wild stab in the dark will guess it is one of the 2 most talked about climategate emails in the Denialosphere: The “Hide the decline” email. Give me a break and learn about the difference between post-60’s tree ring data and actual thermometers! Talk about taking one phrase out of context!
But then it is impossible to question “True Believers” because its your religion. “Denier” – no I would prefer the title of AGW infidel or heretic!
I can tell. You’re in denial of the worldwide scientific consensus and basically believe in a worldwide conspiracy as a result. Please, which Dan Brown novel do you live in, Da Vinci Code or Lost Symbol?