Bye, Felicia. You stuck the flounce this time.
Once again, WD relies on his last line of defense, the dishonest accusation that somebody else lied. Let's roll the videotape:
My first post on the subject of the Lindzen quote was this:
Exactly, Canpakes. You see the slight of hand? Dog took a snippet from a 12 year old Lindzen opening post Ed that doesn’t apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes! That’s how global warming denial ____ gets spread around the internet. These guys generate tons of false and misleading factoids, graphs, memes, and cartoons, and people like Water Dog, who don’t care enough to inform themselves, lap it up and repeat it.
Now, that post is 100% true. Dog took a statement from Lindzen that doesn't apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes. I also specifically said that Dog had lapped up and repeated someone else's falsehood. Both of those sentences are true.
How did Dog respond? Did he fess up that he copied BS and posted it as if it were true? Nope. Here's what he did:
Res Ipsa wrote:
You see the slight of hand? Dog took a snippet from a 12 year old Lindzen opening post Ed that doesn’t apply to hurricanes and acted like it applies to hurricanes!
Am I Tom Nelson?
Note what Dog does here? He drops my second sentence, where I make it clear that his role in this case is reposting someone else's misleading BS. And in my response, I say that for the second time:
No, you’re the guy who doesn’t care, remember? You don’t care enough to check the false and misleading ____ off of denialist websites before you post it.
And, true to form, Dog again repeats only part of my post, in order to falsely accuse me of lying:
Water Dog wrote:Am I Tom Nelson?
Res Ipsa wrote:No...
Water Dog wrote:You just admitted to lying.
So, where's the lie? No wonder WD flounced.
But it's worse than that. WD, as usual, tries to deflect responsibility from himself to someone else, in this case, the guy who wrote the tweet that WD reposted. But Tom Nelson quoted Lindzen absolutely correctly:
When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more.
But here's how Dog himself described the Lindzen quote:
It plays into the point of politicization. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Confirmation bias. That's a lefty passionately talking about hurricane michael as proof of global warming. It's not. As Lindzen points out, the same models which predict global warming, they also predict a decrease in tropical storms. These storms form as a consequence of temperature differentials between poles and the equator. If global warming is true, a consequence of that is a decrease, not an increase, in those temperature differentials. Which means less tropical storms, and weaker tropical storms.
It was Dog, not Tom Nelson, who actually changed Lindzen's statement from "extratropical" to "tropical."
One feature of deniers: everything they accuse their opponents of, they are actually doing themselves. It's a strategy. Note Dog's accusation of politicization. The only person who injected politics into this issue is him, with his characterization of the original tweeter as a "lefty." To him, everything looks like a nail to the point that he changes Lindzen's words to fit his preconception. Confirmation bias, thy name is Water Dog. It leads him to write a whole paragraph on how tropical storms form that is 100% complete BS.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
