Comments on: Flashback: The rise of the unskeptical scientist

By: Rod McLaughlin

Rod McLaughlin — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:35:17 +0000

Climate skeptics object to the term ‘denier’ being used to smear them, because it should only be used to smear ‘holocaust deniers’. But most holocaust ‘deniers’ aren’t really deniers either – they are guilty of underestimation, not quite the same thing. And the term is used inconsistently within holocausts. Down under, a man was imprisoned for denying one Holocaust, while another, who denies the genocide of the Tasmanian aborigines, is welcome in influential circles. I’ll fill in the details if anyone asks.

One should defend anyone who is smeared by the word ‘denier’, not just people one agrees with politically.

Report this

0 0

By: WeatherMan

WeatherMan — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:38:55 +0000

That’s a good term though strangely orwellian:

Being unskeptical is doubleplusungood

Report this

0 0

By: allen mcmahon

allen mcmahon — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:48:02 +0000

John Brooks, continue to be unreasonably reasonable and people will begin to think that it is unreasonable of you to be unreasonably reasonable and as this has already led to some confusion I suggest that you act unreasonably unreasonable and I hope you will not act unreasonably to this reasonable request of mine.

Report this

0 0

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:25:11 +0000

John Brookes, If you think that being more dangerous is a complement then I have to say you are exhibiting tendencies of a sociopath .

So have you come up with a polar melt answer?

Are you going to continue scaremongering as your method of propaganda?

Report this

0 0

By: MattB

MattB — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:38:02 +0000

Mr Brookes, a fellow Dockers fan, I should have guessed it. I assume you are shouting at McPhee instead this year;) At least early in the season.

Report this

0 0

By: wes george

wes george — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:24:23 +0000

John Brookes, the polite man with little doubt and even less curiosity @ 58:

You may not agree with them (professional climate hacks), but unless you choose to be a professional in the field, you have no right to interact with them personally – you are not part of the game. Sure, go on blogs, tell everyone how you feel, but if civilisation can only be saved by people behaving appallingly, then civilisation is not worth saving.

Tel, the speaker of inconvenient truth @ 59:

I sincerely promise to keep out of the warmist’s lives in return for their sincere promise to keep hands out of my wallet.
Deal?

Touche, Tel! Na’re a twain shall ever meet! I’ll drink to that!

Report this

1 0

By: John Brookes

John Brookes — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:01:59 +0000

MarkD says:

RE: Baa H @ 39,

Baa I respect part of what you say but John is perhaps more dangerous than a “screaming warmist” in that his comments are subtle nicely worded propaganda.

Anyway, thanks for sticking up for me Baa. And MarD, I have little choice but to take your comment as a compliment. Thanks!

Report this

0 0

By: Siliggy

Siliggy — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:30:10 +0000

Wanted to hire 150 unskeptical collaborators. Must not be allergic to whitewash.

Report this

0 0

By: wes george

wes george — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:34:39 +0000

Mia brings up a great point. For a long time now people have seemed to accept that humankind can control the climate. Mia points to one of the early sources of this myth – the fact that both the soviets and americans sought technology to manipulate weather events for advantage on the battlefield during the cold war. You can imagine the level of brute technology (and attitudes) they brought to the project. A lot of urban myths have spun out of those 1960′s experiments, but it was mostly about using nuclear devices in an indirect way to cause ionspheric disruptions to command/control systems and pressure shockwaves on a high value target that then would be occupied by ground forces. The reasoning being that a direct nuclear attack was out of the question since it would flatten and irradiate the target. The most important effect of these studies was to indirectly shape the “Nuclear Winter” myth later in the 1980′s.

Today the idea that weather (or climate) control is possible is an unquestioned assumption of the unskeptical consensus. “Stop Climate Change Now” and the ETS assumes – no questions asked – that we can manage the climate. Yet, the climate isn’t a steam engine where we can simply tweak one tiny component like a governor and the whole system will respond directly and proportionally. The climate is the most complex nonlinear system in the solar system. The climate isn’t just the atmosphere, but the oceans, icecaps, land and life. It extends from the deep geology of Earth right out to the Van Allen Belts and beyond to the sun’s surface. It’s not a “thing” like a machine, but a billion-plus year old entanglement of metasystems of systems made up of more systems, an ever-evolving whole far greater than the sum of its parts… Our understanding of the earth’s geophysiology is about where medicine was in the 1850′s or where biology was before Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. We simply don’t have a model based on first principles that can replicate the activities of the Earth’s climate. As such, to imagine that we can control or even successful manipulate climate in one direction or another is absurd in theory and reckless beyond belief as policy.

Yet, we are told daily we must transform our entire society in order to manipulate the climate towards fine weather! As if repetition makes reason.

Report this

2 0

By: Roy Hogue

Roy Hogue — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:34:32 +0000

Yet another more sensible view of HAARP is here.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4122

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true.

If it sounds to big and bad to be true, it probably isn’t true either.

Report this

0 0