Climate Change Deniers and Apologists sinking together.

[_EAllusion]

Part of Water Dog's trolling schtick is to claim relevant expertise in any area under discussion or claim to have a close associate do the same for him by proxy. Do people forget so quickly?

[_Chap]

Part of Water Dog's trolling schtick is to claim relevant expertise in any area under discussion or claim to have a close associate do the same for him by proxy. Do people forget so quickly?

I've seen that done by a number of posters in the past. I just wanted to be sure that if Water Dog pulls that trick people take note of the contrast between what he produces and what DrW has given us.

[_Zadok]

The original point of my post was not to argue afresh, the merits of global warming. My goal was to lump climate change deniers and apologists into a similar, losing battle. Saying that the evidence against their respective positions continues to pile up against them.

In the case of climate change deniers, I would think there would come a time, even if this time is yet in the future, when the most strident opponent would admit the evidence is overwhelming and they would be required to admit they were wrong, and start to work for a productive solution.

In the case of apologists, does the same thing happen? Does there come a time when the evidence is so overwhelming that they admit they were wrong?

Because one is science, and the other is faith, does that alone excuse the apologist from recognizing and admitting their errors?

[_Amore]

The original point of my post was not to argue afresh, the merits of global warming. My goal was to lump climate change deniers and apologists into a similar, losing battle. Saying that the evidence against their respective positions continues to pile up against them.

Define "climate change deniers." What evidence, and for which version of "climate change?" The problem is that this is a subject which has many factions and positions.

Yep...
Let's count the cognitive distortions in the OP and posse.
-Global labeling
-Jumping to conclusions
-polarized thinking
-Overgeneralization
-Blaming
-Always being right

by the way, Waterdog, I respect how reasonable you are approaching this topic. It's never black or white and there's often more going on than how pervasive media focuses.

[_DrW]

Define "climate change deniers." What evidence, and for which version of "climate change?" The problem is that this is a subject which has many factions and positions.

Yep...
Let's count the cognitive distortions in the OP and posse.
-Global labeling
-Jumping to conclusions
-polarized thinking
-Overgeneralization
-Blaming
-Always being right

by the way, Waterdog, I respect how reasonable you are approaching this topic. It's never black or white and there's often more going on than how pervasive media focuses.

Water Dog and Amore,

You realize, of course, that your calls here for a more nuanced approach to a complex problem, subjectively labeling the responses of others, and abject failure to provide facts or evidence to support your position (whatever it is), mirrors the approach favored by Mormon apologists when they feel obliged to defend the indefensible.

[_cognitiveharmony]

The original point of my post was not to argue afresh, the merits of global warming. My goal was to lump climate change deniers and apologists into a similar, losing battle. Saying that the evidence against their respective positions continues to pile up against them.

Define "climate change deniers." What evidence, and for which version of "climate change?" The problem is that this is a subject which has many factions and positions.

Exactly. There was a time when climate change deniers weren't fractured with so many factions and positions but mounting evidence against a position will tend to do this. So this is yet another justification of the OP as LDS apologetics has taken this same route. Thanks for the nice illustration.

[_DrW]

I think that if Water Dog does decide to reply, it is appropriate to ask him for an equally detailed and substantive level of disclosure.

Perfectly fair.

From your initial response, it appears that you have not read the 'Anthropocene' climate change thread, on which I pretty much laid out my position on this issue in response to other climate change deniers. In deciding what level of response to bring, you might want to read through that thread and check out some of the literature cited there...Who knows - after reading that thread and Canpake's comments above, you might even decide that no further response is necessary.

I have not but shall review, and you might be right. I think we might be speaking past each other a bit. At a glance I'm not sure that our positions are substantially different. People are responding as though I'm a "climate change denier," but have said no such thing. I am not here making the argument that humans do not influence the weather. All I've said is that in my opinion the political changes being called for (by people like Al Gore) are unreasonable. Ultimately what I'm responding to is the parallel being drawn by Zadok between "deniers" and apologists, which I find unimpressive. Even just by the definition of what an apologist is, one who defends a position, the "alarmists" are the obvious parallel. Deniers, by definition, would be "critics," would they not?

I think "denier" is ill defined and from my vantage point this parallel just doesn't fit very well. It is a liberal "shtick" that conservatives are "climate change deniers," and one which I flatly reject. It's no different than when liberals toss around the word "racist." Labeling one a "denier" is to dismissively put them off in a corner where people with tinfoil hats belong, and without addressing the subject at hand. It's both dishonest and unfair. The IPCC report, for instance, is a POLITICAL document. And responses to the IPCC report, which disagree with it, are quite sophisticated. Feel free to disagree with the "critics" of course, but it's inappropriate to color them with such biased language as "deniers," or even worse.

You realize, of course, that your calls here for a more nuanced approach to a complex problem, subjectively labeling the responses of others, and abject failure to provide facts or evidence to support your position (whatever it is), mirrors the approach favored by Mormon apologists when they feel obliged to defend the indefensible.

No, I don't.

Show of hands, who here would stand up and defend the antics of someone like say Mike Tidwell? Or what about Bill McKibben, or Ross Gelbspan? Or the smear tactics used by DeSmogBlog, who creates dossiers on "deniers" and goes after them personally attack-dog style? There are quite a lot of nuts which hail from the alarmist wing of "climate change." I don't see any of the global warming skeptics acting like this. Back to our parallel world though, who do we see acting like this? Hmm... kind of resembles the smear campaigns coming from apologists like Gregory Smith, etc., does it not?

Personal attacks seem to be the general modus operadi that results when a certain group feels that they are in a position of inferiority... it gets physical.

Related to the OP here's a fun link. I link this because one of the comments amused me and I found it relating to this. Commenter observes, "The IPCC makes carefully crafted statements." Hmm, does that sound familiar? Kind of sounds like "carefully worded denials," does it not?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/l ... ssessment/

What other parallels might we draw? The IPCC report is a nonscholarly work which draws from scholarly research, like, say, Mormon's Codex? Is that not the very argument used against Mormon's Codex? Huh, yet another parallel.

Part of Water Dog's trolling schtick is to claim relevant expertise in any area under discussion or claim to have a close associate do the same for him by proxy. Do people forget so quickly?

Well, actually... :)

I have stated several times that I am an engineer and alluded to the fact that I'm also a current graduate student. All of which is true, and I make no claim beyond that. I'm certainly not a climatologist, but apparently neither is anybody else here. I am however qualified to read publications and interpret them, and happy to do so. And while I'm not a climate scientist, my particular field within engineering (electrical) has given me great exposure to the energy industry. My graduate research pertains to energy and I actually received a small grant from DOE recently, though my research is very different than climate studies, but there is a little bit of crossover. As it happens, I do have many friends/acquaintances/colleagues in this area, which include current PhD students researching in areas which are very specific to climatology and energy policy, as well as faculty at various universities in atmospheric science and oceanographic departments. All of these people at universities like MIT, Stanford, UT-Austin. Again, I'm not a climatologist, but my opinions with respect to energy policy are very much informed by those who are. I'll take a look at this other thread and get back.

Despite how fun it is, I promise not to troll this thread. A little tongue in cheek maybe, I just can't help that, but I'll keep it serious and on topic. And just so we're all clear, the topic isn't whether climate change is a real thing or not, or whether humans are a part of that or not. I do not dispute either. So, going forward, perhaps we could establish a consensus on what constitutes a "denier," so that we may determine whether I actually fall in that category or not. If on a spectrum of opinion your definition of "denier" only applies to one extreme pole then this is a rather unimpressive parallel to begin with and I would tend to reject it based solely on those grounds. As I've shown, it can easily be applied to the opposite extreme as well. I think apologist as "spiritual alarmist" is a better fit :)

Water Dog,

Good responses all around.

Seriously. Well done.

In the continued spirit of improved mutual understanding, I trust that you will now go ahead and read over the other CC thread.

[_canpakes]

Let's count the cognitive distortions in the OP and posse.
-Global labeling
-Jumping to conclusions
-polarized thinking
-Overgeneralization
-Blaming
-Always being right

by the way, Waterdog, I respect how reasonable you are approaching this topic. It's never black or white and there's often more going on than how pervasive media focuses.

As for my part in this - I've asked you only to back up your '4 billion dollars' figure at this point.

Do you have anything for us?

[_Brackite]

According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, 2014 was the Warmest Year on record.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reco ... year-18502


According to Satellite Temperature measurements, 2014 was the Third Warmest Year on record.

2014 was Third Warmest Year Since 1979, but Just Barely:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2014-0-32-deg-c/



It will likely be about a couple of more weeks when NASA and NOAA comes out with their analysis of 2014.

[_Zadok]

I'll try one more time, then I'll leave you to your verbal ping-pong.

Q. Does there come a time, in the climate change debate when every one is on the same page, and unified in moving toward a solution? (At one point I had hoped the answer was yes, but now I think I see it is no, we will argue subtleties and nuance until we die).

Q. In religious apologetics, does there come a time when the debate is over and the facts are agreed? (Here I didn't have a preconceived answer, but was willing to consider that 'faith' as a factor in the discussion would work to exempt the apologist from ever accepting scientific facts).

The problem is that this thread seems to be destined to devolve into re-arguing the theories revolving around climate change. Probably I should have selected a more stabled and settled branch of science....