Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Water Dog]

Always remember: deniers accuse others of what they do themselves.

Yes, a point that I originally made which you are now trying to appropriate as yours. In this case, who is the actual denier? I would argue it is you - denying reality. Who is the denier, the one who stays, or the one who leaves, the church?

Think about what Dog is saying when he says: " Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz." "A'll the paperz" is where the science is! Not in Dog's cartoons, blogs and youtubes. Dog simultaneous says that he doesn't see any evidence at the same time he closes his \eyes and refuses to read it. Dog is seriously comparing looking at all the evidence to praying! That's how desperate a denier gets when his lies and dishonesty are laid bare for all to see.

This is the TBM equivalent of drawing attention to someone's appearance. My posting a political cartoon doesn't mean anything. I can post cartoons and joke and socialize like anyone else, this says nothing about whether I have been honest or competent in my consideration of the facts. Look, she has one too many earrings! Look, I think that was a coffee mug he was carrying! Pure ad hominem, the casting of aspersions. RI is just doubling down and reasserting the illegitimate authority of his game. When people won't play the game, shame them, rally the social mob.

Here we are, again, another damned thread. Right now RI could be presenting the evidence for CAGW. He could, as Doc suggested, present a concise explanation and the accompanying evidence. Instead he wants to talk about me. What the heck, seriously, good lord, are we talking about right now? LOL

RI, start from the beginning, bro. Show me the warming. Define the problem, show me the data.

[_DarkHelmet]

Here goes RI in his TBM mode. This is how the TBM does. They try to control the conversation by getting you to play their game. If you do not accept their truth, it's obviously due to some ulterior motive, the "denier" just wants to sin or something. If only they were honest of heart. That's the problem, they aren't honest. They don't want to cooperate and be a part of Zion. Satan has got them. Nope, it couldn't possibly be their inability to produce any evidence of Nephites. Nothing whatsoever to do with that. Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz. And then pray about it. Feel how hot this summer is, you can "feel" the truth!

Gawd.

Always remember: deniers accuse others of what they do themselves.

Think about what Dog is saying when he says: " Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz." "A'll the paperz" is where the science is! Not in Dog's cartoons, blogs and youtubes. Dog simultaneous says that he doesn't see any evidence at the same time he closes his \eyes and refuses to read it. Dog is seriously comparing looking at all the evidence to praying! That's how desperate a denier gets when his lies and dishonesty are laid bare for all to see.

That's funny. A Trump apologist accusing you of acting like a Mormon apologist. It wasn't too long ago that Water Dog was a TBM throwing out Mormon apologetic arguments on this site. He apparently figured out he was being duped, so maybe there is hope he'll figure out Trump as well.

[_canpakes]

That's funny. A Trump apologist accusing you of acting like a Mormon apologist. It wasn't too long ago that Water Dog was a TBM throwing out Mormon apologetic arguments on this site. He apparently figured out he was being duped, so maybe there is hope he'll figure out Trump as well.

Well, he’s currently a member of the school of thought that relies on being pompous enough to believe that mankind ‘cannot’ affect climate by any means. Because, you know, God will just not let that happen.

And he prattles on about how other folks are following a ‘religion’. ; )

[_Chap]

RI, start from the beginning, bro. Show me the warming. Define the problem, show me the data.

Nope.

I suggest you read the IPCC report - headlines as posted by me, and then go on to the summary for policy makers.

[_Water Dog]

Well, he’s currently a member of the school of thought that relies on being pompous enough to believe that mankind ‘cannot’ affect climate by any means. Because, you know, God will just not let that happen.

And he prattles on about how other folks are following a ‘religion’. ; )

First, is it pompous to think that a human can't or can affect the climate? Which of those two is the "pompous" position? The position of claiming to possess profound power over nature, this is the humble position, in your view? Second, can you show me were I have ever expressed such a view, that humans cannot affect the climate?

[_Res Ipsa]

Always remember: deniers accuse others of what they do themselves.

Yes, a point that I originally made which you are now trying to appropriate as yours. In this case, who is the actual denier? I would argue it is you - denying reality. Who is the denier, the one who stays, or the one who leaves, the church?

Think about what Dog is saying when he says: " Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz." "A'll the paperz" is where the science is! Not in Dog's cartoons, blogs and youtubes. Dog simultaneous says that he doesn't see any evidence at the same time he closes his \eyes and refuses to read it. Dog is seriously comparing looking at all the evidence to praying! That's how desperate a denier gets when his lies and dishonesty are laid bare for all to see.

This is the TBM equivalent of drawing attention to someone's appearance. My posting a political cartoon doesn't mean anything. I can post cartoons and joke and socialize like anyone else, this says nothing about whether I have been honest or competent in my consideration of the facts. Look, she has one too many earrings! Look, I think that was a coffee mug he was carrying! Pure ad hominem, the casting of aspersions. RI is just doubling down and reasserting the illegitimate authority of his game. When people won't play the game, shame them, rally the social mob.

Here we are, again, another ____ thread. Right now RI could be presenting the evidence for CAGW. He could, as Doc suggested, present a concise explanation and the accompanying evidence. Instead he wants to talk about me. What the heck, seriously, good lord, are we talking about right now? LOL

RI, start from the beginning, bro. Show me the warming. Define the problem, show me the data.

LOL. I don't need to copy anything from Dog. The fact that deniers accuse others of what they do themselves isn't exactly a recent discovery.

Ironically, too, deniers accuse scientists (including me) of politicizing science, but neither I nor any scientist has politicized it. The attacks on global warming science originated clearly and obviously from the far right, and it was those attacks that politicized the science. What scientists have done since then is a reaction to those partisan and political attacks. As usual, deniers accuse scientists of precisely the sort of tactics they themselves are using. It’s 1984 come alive.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... 8dZhy_Mx24

It's easy to tell who the science denier is: he's the guy who refuses to look at the evidence as presented in the scientific literature. Dog knows how to find it. It's in the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC AR 5. That's what the AR does: summarizes the literature. It's a guide to "all the paperz" that Dog disdains. I already posted a link to what I think is the best guide to how climate science arrived at it's conclusions from a historical perspective. Has Dog read it?

Dog is an anti-science political extremist. I'm happy to use his past posts to illustrate the tactics of climate deniers. But I'm not gonna waste one second trying to educate a guy who closes his eyes to the relevant body of evidence. I don't "debate" anti-vaxxers either. I point them to the scientific evidence.

[_Chap]

Dog is an anti-science political extremist. I'm happy to use his past posts to illustrate the tactics of climate deniers. But I'm not gonna waste one second trying to educate a guy who closes his eyes to the relevant body of evidence.

So ... maybe it might be better just to stop replying to him?

Dialog with WD seems to be an investment with a very low rate of return ... and it may lend hm a credibility that he really does not deserve.

[_Res Ipsa]

Dog is an anti-science political extremist. I'm happy to use his past posts to illustrate the tactics of climate deniers. But I'm not gonna waste one second trying to educate a guy who closes his eyes to the relevant body of evidence.

So ... maybe it might be better just to stop replying to him?

Dialog with Water Dog seems to be an investment with a very low rate of return ... and it may lend hm a credibility that he really does not deserve.

Chap, I don't think either of us knows the rate of return. What I think is fair to say is that one of the main reasons why the effort to reduce carbon emissions by the US has stalled is that millions of US citizens have latched onto the crap that Dog is shoveling. I think you could make a good argument that having a debate on climate science would lend science deniers undue credibility. But I'm not persuaded that demonstrating, over and over again, the tactics that deniers use doesn't have a positive affect on folks who aren't as extremely politicized as the Dog.

At any rate, the Dog talk has been moved off of the IPCC thread, so how about you do you and I'll do me?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The latter part of what you are asking for is the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC AR 5 report. As for the former, do you think it's reasonable for scientists to drop what they're doing and draft a response every time a contrarian makes a youtube? There have been lots of responses to Lindzen's schtick over the years. You can find them using the Google if you're interested.

That's not what I asked for in response to Chap's comment. Telling someone to "go read a report" is smug, doesn't serve the conversation, and is dissimulating in an effort to not actually participate.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

That would be helpful in deciding whether they have any real capacity for forming independent judgements on the questions being discussed, as opposed to just reposting stuff from their favourite websites and shouting loudly about it.

You can just say you lack the ability and desire to communicate with plebians.

- Doc