Best denier argument yet

[billvon 2,394]

comes from Kentucky state senator Brandon Smith. There can't be climate change, he says, because Mars and Earth are exactly the same temperature.

"As you sit there in your chair with your 'data,' we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

Coming up next - Sarah Palin argues that it is really daylight savings time that causes climate change, because it's sunny for an extra hour every day.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

comes from Kentucky state senator Brandon Smith. There can't be climate change, he says, because Mars and Earth are exactly the same temperature.

"As you sit there in your chair with your 'data,' we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

Coming up next - Sarah Palin argues that it is really daylight savings time that causes climate change, because it's sunny for an extra hour every day.

Too bad we can't send him on a congressional junket with his campaign financiers to Mars for fact finding purposes. I think they would enjoy the trip...

[kelpdiver 2]

"A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator, but at night the temperature can plummet to about minus 100 degrees F (minus 73 C)."

I guess he only read the first half.

[Southern_Man 0]

kelpdiver

"A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator, but at night the temperature can plummet to about minus 100 degrees F (minus 73 C)."

I guess he only read the first half.

That sounds cold. We just need to outsource our global warming to them.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

The best denier argument I've seen came from Judith Curry, who isn't really a denier, and quoting Dyson:
"Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.

Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding, and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently. Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.

The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations."

Look at how many thinks are put out as "fact" but, meanwhile, aren't really facts at all. Want people to think that it is a fact that hurricanes will increase in strength and numbers and has done so? State, "Human caused climate change may be causing an increase in more damaging hurricanes." Now, to parse the statement:
(1) Human caused climate change - assumed fact, but is this proveable?
(2) May be causing - there's the non-fact (and we find it everywhere with may, might, could)
(3) And increase - by what metric? There's an opinion
(4) In more damaging hurricanes - again, what's the metric?

Now, only a denier would object to the statement "Human caused climate change may be causing an increase in more damaging hurricanes." Which I find to be a travesty because so much in it is opinion and spin.

I can point to our President making asinine claims. I can point to things like this: http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/climate-denial-wealth-rich-republicans

Now, the abstract looks pretty straight forward but the actual journal article is paywalled. But when seeing the conclusions written. Something strikes a chord: they consider only a couple of possibilities based upon their stereotypes. I.e., they don't consider even the possibility that "wealthy republicans" got welathy because they are critical thinkers who challenged orthodoxy. Or that "wealthy Republicans" don't even buy what their accountants tell them - they want to see th underlying numbers and have the work shown, and do the same thing with climate science.

This is where we are politically. Disagree with the alarmists and there is something wrong with you. As the President said, you're a "flat earther." The whole thing is about trying to understand the motivation of people who disagree.

And posts like the initial post here quite readily assist in continuing that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

The best denier argument I've seen came from Judith Curry, who isn't really a denier, and quoting Dyson:
"Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.

Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding, and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently. Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.

The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations."

Look at how many thinks are put out as "fact" but, meanwhile, aren't really facts at all. Want people to think that it is a fact that hurricanes will increase in strength and numbers and has done so? State, "Human caused climate change may be causing an increase in more damaging hurricanes." Now, to parse the statement:
(1) Human caused climate change - assumed fact, but is this proveable?
(2) May be causing - there's the non-fact (and we find it everywhere with may, might, could)
(3) And increase - by what metric? There's an opinion
(4) In more damaging hurricanes - again, what's the metric?

Now, only a denier would object to the statement "Human caused climate change may be causing an increase in more damaging hurricanes." Which I find to be a travesty because so much in it is opinion and spin.

I can point to our President making asinine claims. I can point to things like this: http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/climate-denial-wealth-rich-republicans

Now, the abstract looks pretty straight forward but the actual journal article is paywalled. But when seeing the conclusions written. Something strikes a chord: they consider only a couple of possibilities based upon their stereotypes. I.e., they don't consider even the possibility that "wealthy republicans" got welathy because they are critical thinkers who challenged orthodoxy. Or that "wealthy Republicans" don't even buy what their accountants tell them - they want to see th underlying numbers and have the work shown, and do the same thing with climate science.

This is where we are politically. Disagree with the alarmists and there is something wrong with you. As the President said, you're a "flat earther." The whole thing is about trying to understand the motivation of people who disagree.

And posts like the initial post here quite readily assist in continuing that.

This guy immediately clarified his statement, he meant to say that the earth and mars are experiencing climate change at the same rate. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

How he figures that the science exist to compare the exact climate change on each planet is another story.

[billvon 2,394]

>That sounds cold. We just need to outsource our global warming to them.

I think Amazon will deliver stuff there.

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>That sounds cold. We just need to outsource our global warming to them.

I think Amazon will deliver stuff there.

by quad drones?

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>That sounds cold. We just need to outsource our global warming to them.

I think Amazon will deliver stuff there.

Sorry... I don't do deliveries

[devildog 0]

Church of Climatology still running at a 97% fail rate for predictions? Or did they manage to get to 96% yet?

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[winsor 186]

billvon

comes from Kentucky state senator Brandon Smith. There can't be climate change, he says, because Mars and Earth are exactly the same temperature.

"As you sit there in your chair with your 'data,' we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

Coming up next - Sarah Palin argues that it is really daylight savings time that causes climate change, because it's sunny for an extra hour every day.

Okay, so there are people on the right as terminally stupid as is Al Gore. I get it.

FWIW, the name calling does not enhance the credibility of your cause. If you replaced the 'deni' with 'nigg' it would be no more or less offensive to some.

[billvon 2,394]

>If you replaced the 'deni' with 'nigg' it would be no more or less offensive to some.

I am sure it would be, just as some people find the term "black" or "african-americans" offensive. However, since the characteristic of deniers is to deny climate change, it is both accurate and descriptive.

[quade 3]

winsor

If you replaced the 'deni' with 'nigg' it would be no more or less offensive to some.

If a person is looking to be offended, he'll be offended by anything including the phrase, "have a nice day."

That said, equating denial of climate change with the struggles of a race recovering from slavery is beyond fucked up. Anyone who believes it's on the same level of offense is probably a fairly shallow individual.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>If you replaced the 'deni' with 'nigg' it would be no more or less offensive to some.

I am sure it would be, just as some people find the term "black" or "african-americans" offensive. However, since the characteristic of deniers is to deny climate change, it is both accurate and descriptive.

The climate changes
No one I know denies this

The cause of change is what is being debated

I say it is natural for the most part

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,394]

>The climate changes
>No one I know denies this
>The cause of change is what is being debated

Oh, some people right here regularly deny the climate changes. Look at all the heated denials whenever Kallend posts a new report on shrinking Arctic ice or melting glaciers in Antarctica. Within 5 posts there is someone saying "the data is invalid!" or "sea ice extent increased so he's obviously an alarmist!"

[winsor 186]

quade

***If you replaced the 'deni' with 'nigg' it would be no more or less offensive to some.

If a person is looking to be offended, he'll be offended by anything including the phrase, "have a nice day."

That said, equating denial of climate change with the struggles of a race recovering from slavery is beyond fucked up. Anyone who believes it's on the same level of offense is probably a fairly shallow individual.

Climate Change threatens to Destroy the Planet, sir! The death of over a trillion innocent people takes precedence over the feelings of a few people with an excess of melanin.

I certainly think that the stakes of turning our fair planet into a glowing cinder (or an ice ball, depending upon which Nobel Prize winner you favor) is Much More Important than some people being relocated as unpaid interns for a few generations- before getting 40 acres and a mule.

As people so often remind the families of former CSA citizens, they should simply get over it.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Climate Change threatens to Destroy the Planet, sir! The death of over a trillion innocent people takes precedence over the feelings of a few people with an excess of melanin.

I don't think black people as a whole get pissed off when someone is called a denier. Maybe some specific black people would get pissed off if they were called deniers but I don't think their being black would have anything to do with it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 186]

jakee

Quote

Climate Change threatens to Destroy the Planet, sir! The death of over a trillion innocent people takes precedence over the feelings of a few people with an excess of melanin.

I don't think black people as a whole get pissed off when someone is called a denier. Maybe some specific black people would get pissed off if they were called deniers but I don't think their being black would have anything to do with it.

Any of them that understand the abject horror that is Climate Change would be aghast if called the d word.

[jakee 1,254]

winsor

***

Quote

Climate Change threatens to Destroy the Planet, sir! The death of over a trillion innocent people takes precedence over the feelings of a few people with an excess of melanin.

I don't think black people as a whole get pissed off when someone is called a denier. Maybe some specific black people would get pissed off if they were called deniers but I don't think their being black would have anything to do with it.

Any of them that understand the abject horror that is Climate Change would be aghast if called the d word.

Then if they understood it they wouldn't be called it, eh?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>The climate changes
>No one I know denies this
>The cause of change is what is being debated

Oh, some people right here regularly deny the climate changes. Look at all the heated denials whenever Kallend posts a new report on shrinking Arctic ice or melting glaciers in Antarctica. Within 5 posts there is someone saying "the data is invalid!" or "sea ice extent increased so he's obviously an alarmist!"

I think I may be one of those. Because I have a problem with things like "melting" glaciers in Antarctica because "ablation" is in most cases a better term. And point out that such things as "melting glaciers in Antarctica" is the opposite of what GW theory and the computer models predict.

So someone like me points out that such a finding operates against the theory but is being argued in support of it. So yeah, I will certainly say when I see something fishy like that. And of course, there will be deniers out there claiming that AGW theory never predicted more accretion than ablation.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

>>>>The climate changes . . .No one I know denies this

>>Oh, some people right here regularly deny the climate changes.

>I think I may be one of those.

Fair enough. Rush, I rest my case.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>>>>The climate changes . . .No one I know denies this

>>Oh, some people right here regularly deny the climate changes.

>I think I may be one of those.

Fair enough. Rush, I rest my case.

Okay. I wrote something confusing. I don't doubt climate change so much as I doubt the asserted causes, levels abd implications.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>>>>The climate changes . . .No one I know denies this

>>Oh, some people right here regularly deny the climate changes.

>I think I may be one of those.

Fair enough. Rush, I rest my case.

You knew better
But admitting that and keeping the conversatin on a high level does not suit your narative

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If a person is looking to be offended, he'll be offended by anything including the phrase, "have a nice day."

Maybe I don't want to have a nice day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJZ6ixiVgCs&feature=kp

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young