Questioning the Intellectual Integrity of the AGW “Skeptic”
Posted: 26 June 2010 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09

I know, i know, some of you pals think I ought to give it a break, but you know, nature abhors a vacuum and I seem to feel myself being sucked into this one.  Besides, in my current place/time nothing else I’m doing seems as important.  So in my free time (what there is of it) I’m back at it.  Last night I was actually starting in on my next project, reviewing a presentation given by a Colorado retired explosives expert, now turned “AGW myth” expert and pontificator.  But, sometimes the muse just grabs me and before I know it I got another essay in my computer.

submitted and accepted by the Durango Telegraph  smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This winter I encountered yet another vocal global warming “skeptic” who approached me wanting to correct “my illusions” about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yet, when I called him on his (rehashed and repeatedly proven false) arguments - rather than sending me further information and explaining the flaws in my counter explanations… he turned indignant, saying I was too beneath him for further discussion, then slammed the door in my face so to speak.

What does that say about intellectual integrity? Or about one’s personal desire to explore and learn from new information? My sadly recurring experiences with such public-speaking AGW “Skeptics” suggests that most simply do not want to learn anything new. Why is that? Why does it seem like the “skeptics” true concerns lie in protecting political, and ideological, turf? I ask this because I have yet to hear an AGW “skeptical” presentation that doesn’t mix political insulting, with a dose of fear mongering, topped by cherry-picking of the most grotesque order regarding the Earth observation data that is actually coming in!

In stark contrast, when listening to presentations by serious climate scientists about their particular areas of research and how those pieces fit into the greater puzzle. I have a very different experience. I spend the entire presentation focused on the topic at hand, often learning fascinating and valuable new understanding regarding how our planet operates. As simple as that, no polemics, insults or grand economic and political opining. To understand what I’m talking about you could view UCTV’s “Perspectives On Ocean Science” lecture series, or the recent “Abraham v Monckton.” ‘Just the Facts’ ~ it’s a beautiful thing to witness. These speakers allow me, as a spectator, to think it through and build on the store of information I have already accumulated.

Why won’t “skeptics” come up with something like that, rather than their steady stream of infotainment style political theater? It makes me wonder, what has fostered such a self-serving negative attitude toward honestly learning about our Earth?

What are the AGW “skeptics” all about anyways? Substance or dominating some contrived ideological battlefield? Why are honest facts never respected? Why do AGW “skeptical” talking heads come across as though their only goal is to annihilation any opponents?

It might be a cute plot if this was a Hollywood movie, but we are talking real life, real planet, and for honest folk to continue believing the AGW denialist delusions… well that’s going to hurt us all. And the longer we ignore the facts, the worse that hurting is going to get. We are indeed running out of time. Dear citizen global warming skeptic: please, try to check your ideology at the door, allow yourself to be skeptical of your own notions, then start actually looking at and considering the real data coming in.

Very big, long lasting, tough changes actually are unfolding behind your turned backs. But, the truth is out there. You only need to be brave enough to look it straight in the face.

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com

[ Edited: 30 June 2010 09:03 AM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2010 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03

I was in Barnes and Noble this morning buying magazines for the beach safari next week and I noticed that Skeptic magazine has Climate Skeptics for cover issue…  if you guys have looked at it and have comments could you start a separate thread with critiques & accolades (i.e. do you recommend the issue)

Might be helpful to CC for his essay ..main reason to post it here…

Jackson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2010 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Jackson - 26 June 2010 09:49 AM

I was in Barnes and Noble this morning buying magazines for the beach safari next week and I noticed that Skeptic magazine has Climate Skeptics for cover issue…  if you guys have looked at it and have comments could you start a separate thread with critiques & accolades (i.e. do you recommend the issue)

Truth v. Truths
  An Enduring Dilemma for Skeptics
  by William M. Gardner

Interesting, unfortunately the essay would cost ten bucks to unload.  Maybe, I’ll just try to buy a copy of the magazine next time I’m through town - or get real cheap and visit the library.
Thank you for pointing that out

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-06-27

What about those that are not AGW deniers (although they stress out that the total human CO2 input is only 2% of the total) but feel the kind of solutions presented by the Ecos are not going to happen (not even japan followed Kyoto)?
I’m one of those :D. I don’t dispute the science even though everyone knows prediction is a though business mainly because the computer models are too crude. They can’t model water vapor, for example, wich is the most powerfull green house gas. And it seems all models in existence have adjustable parameters. You kow, you can turn the knubs :D

And, on the political side… i find it disturbing the Al gore Likes. When you see money flowing the way money flows to the Al Gore types, you better be skeptic. Not about the science, but the kind of rethoric they throw at you. No one likes to be bossed around… and to much of the rethoric about AGW looks a lot like anti tech stuff. And it’s politically and economically irrealistic (that’s way Kyoto and copenhagen didn’t work). You can almost have the feeling that much of that rethoric is religious. You Know. In the beggining there was a Eden (forget that 85 million years ago there was 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and when the O2 producers came around they caused a mass extintion) them came man and blew it. We should feel guilty, and if we don’t repent… mother Earth will destroy us.

[ Edited: 27 June 2010 05:20 PM by mig ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2010 02:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
mig - 27 June 2010 05:15 PM

What about those that are not AGW deniers (although they stress out that the total human CO2 input is only 2% of the total) but feel the kind of solutions presented by the Ecos are not going to happen (not even japan followed Kyoto)?

You are mixing two topics that actually don’t belong together.

The science of AGW &
How businesses, politicians, society should deal with the implications of AGW science

Where in the world have you gotten the notion “that total human CO2 input being only 2% of the total” is something that is insignificant?  Looked at another, more realistic, way the total CO2 concentration has risen by over 35% - that’s scary!

mig - 27 June 2010 05:15 PM

I’m one of those :D. I don’t dispute the science even though everyone knows prediction is a though business mainly because the computer models are too crude. They can’t model water vapor, for example, which is the most powerful green house gas. And it seems all models in existence have adjustable parameters. You know, you can turn the knubs :D

This statement points out a profound misunderstanding of H2O’s part in the climate picture.  You can visit Skeptical Science and learn a little more detail - also on YouTube Greenman3610 has a wonderful video explaining in layman’s terms the dynamics of water vapor within the climate.

Also, I’ll bet you haven’t actually tried to learn about climate modeling, but instead are repeating something you heard someone else say.  How much do you understand about how climate models work?

mig - 27 June 2010 05:15 PM

And, on the political side… i find it disturbing the Al gore Likes. When you see money flowing the way money flows to the Al Gore types, you better be skeptic. Not about the science, but the kind of rhetoric they throw at you. No one likes to be bossed around… and to much of the rhetoric about AGW looks a lot like anti tech stuff. And it’s politically and economically irrealistic (that’s way Kyoto and Copenhagen didn’t work). You can almost have the feeling that much of that rhetoric is religious. You Know. In the begining there was a Eden (forget that 85 million years ago there was 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and when the O2 producers came around they caused a mass extinction) them came man and blew it. We should feel guilty, and if we don’t repent… mother Earth will destroy us.

Boy, if you worry about the kind of rhetoric Gore sends your way -> Why are you not equally concerned about the vicious misdirection that so typifies the AGW “skeptical” presentations?

Do you really want the world of 85m years ago to return, when sea levels were a hundred meters higher than today?

Have you ever stopped to think how dependent our society is upon very friendly, benign climate patterns?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2010 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
mig - 27 June 2010 05:15 PM

What about those that are not AGW deniers

citizenschallenge - 28 June 2010 02:38 AM

Have you ever stopped to think how dependent our society is upon very friendly, benign climate patterns?

Hello out there Mig . . .
Must be another one of the so called “reasonable skeptics” who love tossing out unsustainable accusations regarding the AGW science then runs and hide, when confronted with the reality that it is a complicated picture - that people really have put a great deal of study into it and that the “skeptical” cartoon arguments are just that, cartoons having nothing to do with the real physical world we inhabit.

God, I wish these people where capable of growing up!

[ Edited: 28 June 2010 06:35 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2010 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  258
Joined  2010-02-28
citizenschallenge - 28 June 2010 06:27 PM
mig - 27 June 2010 05:15 PM

What about those that are not AGW deniers

citizenschallenge - 28 June 2010 02:38 AM

Have you ever stopped to think how dependent our society is upon very friendly, benign climate patterns?

Hello out there Mig . . .
Must be another one of the so called “reasonable skeptics” who love tossing out unsustainable accusations regarding the AGW science then runs and hide, when confronted with the reality that it is a complicated picture - that people really have put a great deal of study into it and that the “skeptical” cartoon arguments are just that, cartoons having nothing to do with the real physical world we inhabit.

God, I wish these people where capable of growing up!

Hit and run denial.

 Signature 

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2010 12:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

One Lord Mockton scares me more than ten Al Gores. Mockton is charismatic, unlike Gore. Gore seems to be pretty on point with the evidence (from what I can tell), but his mantra is also ‘do as I say, not as I do’, and I have problems with that.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile