Comments on: Testy, testy, 1, 2, 3 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:49:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Shannon http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7361 Shannon Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:12:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7361 Pithy, perhaps, but not testy. Why not venture over to ScienceDaily? They also have a great daily science news digest with a specific category for climate and earth science. Pithy, perhaps, but not testy. Why not venture over to ScienceDaily? They also have a great daily science news digest with a specific category for climate and earth science.

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7359 Dano Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:48:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7359 I don't know that acronym and my topic was your arguing from false premises. Best, D I don’t know that acronym and my topic was your arguing from false premises.

Best,

D

]]> By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7357 Ron Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:35:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7357 Dano, Weren't you calling yourself "IANVS" before? Dano,

Weren’t you calling yourself “IANVS” before?

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7355 Dano Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:18:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7355 Context: False premise 1: AIT is propaganda and lies False premise 2: The "cause" needs propaganda False premise 3: "algore is fat!!" is a compelling argument False premise 4: denialists' arguments matter. The planet is discussing what to do. Get on board. Or not, and continue shouting into the wind. From here, the rest of the planet can no longer hear you, but hey - whatever. Gives the denialists something to do. Best, D Context:

False premise 1: AIT is propaganda and lies
False premise 2: The “cause” needs propaganda
False premise 3: “algore is fat!!” is a compelling argument
False premise 4: denialists’ arguments matter.

The planet is discussing what to do. Get on board. Or not, and continue shouting into the wind. From here, the rest of the planet can no longer hear you, but hey – whatever. Gives the denialists something to do.

Best,

D

]]> By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7352 Ron Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:56:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7352 You don't think the science is as uncertain and tentative as I do - that's fine. I wouldn't expect anything different from you Believers. But it's interesting that you don't have an argument about the propaganda. Just explain to me why the propaganda and lies are necessary to your cause. And why it doesn't embarrass you. You don’t think the science is as uncertain and tentative as I do – that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you Believers. But it’s interesting that you don’t have an argument about the propaganda.

Just explain to me why the propaganda and lies are necessary to your cause. And why it doesn’t embarrass you.

]]> By: Michael http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7349 Michael Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:32:23 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7349 Ron, I'm still trying to figure out where you get the tentativeness of climate scientists...I think you are only looking for hypotheses that confirm your libertarian point of view...never a government action you liked except maybe one that made war on another country. You seem to be trimming the world to YOUR political viewpoint....the climate doesn't care about that though, I'm afraid. In part because of people like you and the influential political pundits in the media who espouse free market religion, scientists have had to yell and scream to have their DATA and conclusions from the DATA heard. Show me the mass of data that contradicts the IPCC and just about every climate scientist and then you might have a leg to stand on. Ron,
I’m still trying to figure out where you get the tentativeness of climate scientists…I think you are only looking for hypotheses that confirm your libertarian point of view…never a government action you liked except maybe one that made war on another country. You seem to be trimming the world to YOUR political viewpoint….the climate doesn’t care about that though, I’m afraid.

In part because of people like you and the influential political pundits in the media who espouse free market religion, scientists have had to yell and scream to have their DATA and conclusions from the DATA heard.

Show me the mass of data that contradicts the IPCC and just about every climate scientist and then you might have a leg to stand on.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7347 Ronald Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:58:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7347 Ron, I don’t want to insult you, but you are as much to science as a butcher is to a heart surgeon or a mechanic to an automobile designer. You’re not qualified to be a judge of science. Being a Climatologist or any kind of science is so much more than just playing science. Don’t claim for things you don’t have. A question. You say that there are real scientists doing real climate work, but the real science is still very uncertain and tentative; could you name them? And you said that if it was just about the science we wouldn’t need the propaganda. Well what would that science look like that’s different from what global warming science is now? Ron,
I don’t want to insult you, but you are as much to science as a butcher is to a heart surgeon or a mechanic to an automobile designer. You’re not qualified to be a judge of science. Being a Climatologist or any kind of science is so much more than just playing science. Don’t claim for things you don’t have.
A question. You say that there are real scientists doing real climate work, but the real science is still very uncertain and tentative; could you name them?
And you said that if it was just about the science we wouldn’t need the propaganda. Well what would that science look like that’s different from what global warming science is now?

]]> By: tidal http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7346 tidal Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:52:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7346 Joe wants his "testy back"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAT5ypTjKOI sorry... :) Joe wants his “testy back”…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAT5ypTjKOI

sorry…

:)

]]> By: Dano http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7345 Dano Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:43:33 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7345 Shorter denialst: There's no global warming because Algore is fat! Best, D Shorter denialst:

There’s no global warming because Algore is fat!

Best,

D

]]> By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7343 Ron Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:24:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/18/testy-testy-1-2-3/#comment-7343 Joe, You and I both know that Gore's movie and speeches are full of disinformation, half truths, and quite a few outright lies. We could pick it apart and argue about it, but that's not really necessary, is it? And his propaganda wouldn't even be a big deal if he didn't get so much press, if he wasn't the defacto leader of the anti-carbon movement and Pope of the Church of Global Warming, and if so many people hadn't bought into it. But he does, and he is, and they have - so he is fair game for criticism. You say above that this isn't a political issue, but I stand by my statement that it IS a political issue. First and foremost a political issue. It was created as a political issue. The hype and propaganda give this fact away. It's always been a political issue. There are real scientists doing real climate work, but the real science is still very uncertain and tentative - a far cry from the way Al Gore, the United Nations and many bloggers portray it. It's not about saving the planet. It's about global governance. And I don't know which Deniers or Delayers you think I've specifically bought into; I've actually done my own thinking on this, not just read the press releases. A weak hypothesis, plus dishonest hype, does not equal strong science. As I said before, if it was just about the science, the propaganda would be unnecessary - and inexusable by otherwise scientifically-minded folks like yourself. And your willingness to say that the end justifies the means also reveals that your own agenda is political and not scientific. Joe,

You and I both know that Gore’s movie and speeches are full of disinformation, half truths, and quite a few outright lies. We could pick it apart and argue about it, but that’s not really necessary, is it?

And his propaganda wouldn’t even be a big deal if he didn’t get so much press, if he wasn’t the defacto leader of the anti-carbon movement and Pope of the Church of Global Warming, and if so many people hadn’t bought into it. But he does, and he is, and they have – so he is fair game for criticism.

You say above that this isn’t a political issue, but I stand by my statement that it IS a political issue. First and foremost a political issue. It was created as a political issue. The hype and propaganda give this fact away. It’s always been a political issue. There are real scientists doing real climate work, but the real science is still very uncertain and tentative – a far cry from the way Al Gore, the United Nations and many bloggers portray it.

It’s not about saving the planet. It’s about global governance.

And I don’t know which Deniers or Delayers you think I’ve specifically bought into; I’ve actually done my own thinking on this, not just read the press releases.

A weak hypothesis, plus dishonest hype, does not equal strong science.

As I said before, if it was just about the science, the propaganda would be unnecessary – and inexusable by otherwise scientifically-minded folks like yourself.

And your willingness to say that the end justifies the means also reveals that your own agenda is political and not scientific.

]]>