Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Commenter Highlights Error in Thought by Deniers

Sure, I see the problem now. You're experiencing a credibility drain. This is what happens when you yoke yourself to a political movement in its infancy. The movement makes white hat claims, hucks in a hockey stick graph, pumps a couple hundred thousand data points into a model and blammo, you all save the world. But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways. To us you look like a schill; all over the talking points, ready to pivot when the predictions fail. You have likely never read the "Limits to Growth" its where we first see the hockey stick graph (PS...its used to describe a pending ice age). You likely go cross-eyed when someone asks you about the Hegelian Dialectic. You think up is down, if I'm not with you I'm against you, you love Rachel Maddow. Does that sum it up? You're a parrot. And you don't want to consider positive feedback or that a year of heat cannot be used to determine climate, or that your hero Am Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade. You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn. You want the moral high ground but you haven't earned it; you are derisive and dismissive when you aught to be listening. Here's what you're not understanding, we all believe that climate changes, we all believe carbon dioxide levels are rising starkly, and we all like green things. We know that humanity is driving atmospheric carbon levels to "scary levels". My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees. Your worst fear is that the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and that we're all doomed because nothing will survive the changes we've inflicted on the planet. And if you weren't talking so stupidly about carbon dioxide, and if you didn't insist on the would have me. But you don't have me, because you're a schill. The oceans are not going to boil and we have real pollution issues to deal with. Plus as a guy who's planted two million trees, I'm certainly not going to imagine that you somehow care more than I do about the science of sustainability or conservation. You cherry pick your data, which you like to believe we do. You are actually intollerent to the diametrical and like I said, your challenge is a fraud. Its click bait. Bravo

Let's start with the only thing said here that has any merit, "You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn."

Here is the real meat of this comment, Mr. Genius is stating that, in fact, someone submitted a valid proof that AGW is not real and I reneged on the deal. But, what is missing in Mr. Genius' comment is just how the submission is valid and/or my comments on it were invalid. See how that works? He makes it look as though his claim has validity, but he never provides any kind of proof to support his claim or to invalidate mine. I go through the hard work of showing why the claims are invalid and he does nothing and will pretend his stand is superior.

I have received a few comments like Mr. Genius' and my response is the same: Show me how the submission is valid and my comments are not. I am sure it comes as no surprise to learn that I am still waiting. I am sure Mr. Genius will be no exception. It sounds good to make the claim, but let's see him do the hard work and prove it. The reality is - he wont because he can't.

That is a perfect example of nearly everything said by the denier industry ('Warming has stopped.' 'Warming is good for us.' 'Models don't work.' 'Climate scientists are just alarmists.") They make claims they won't substantiate because they cant' and the expect everyone to simply believe them. Anyone that questions them is somehow an inferior person. Well, if it makes me inferior to demand proof of your statements, then I guess that makes me inferior because I will always demand the proof. It would make it more interesting if any of you guys could ever produce any. This is why I say the only way someone can deny climate change is to deny science. 

Let me complete my comments on these two sentences before moving on.

Yes, I am a scientist (Ph.D. in physics), but that really is irrelevant. I have done the hard work of proving my point in the my book (Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming) so the challenge was never about me. What I did would be equally valid if I was not a scientist. It was all about people like Mr. Genius that make claims and can't back them up. I gave them a chance to do just that and no one was able to come even close.

Another important part of his claim is the one where he claims I never intended to yield a cash prize. Just like all of the other deniers that have made this claim, this is not only false, but they can't produce anything to support that claim. That is how they operate - accusations without any evidence. Of course, if they needed evidence to believe something they wouldn't be deniers. Yes, in fact, I fully intended to award the prize to anyone that could prove manmade global warming isn't real. The problem, Mr. Genius, is that no could do it and I knew that going in. Simply said, not a single person provided anything new and original that had anything even resembling science to it (there were a few original claims that made me think the submitter was on drugs - or should be). Everything submitted has already been examined and found to be invalid. I would have loved for someone to prove AGW is not real. I would love to learn that we are not really heading down this path we are on. And, I would have gladly paid if someone could have removed that concern from my mind. But, no one came anywhere even close and the majority of submissions were so bad that even if AGW wasn't real (and it is), they still would not be valid. Yes, they really were just that bad.

As for Dan Pangburn, he did not, to the best of my knowledge, make a submission. I reviewed all submissions and his name was not on any of them (there are several submitted as 'Anonymous' and he could be one of those). Since he didn't make a submission, I don't owe him anything (is that logic really that hard to follow?). I have seen his name on numerous comments and they are all scientifically invalid, so it would be easy to conclude that he would not win, even if he had submitted.

Another comment by Mr. Genius was, "But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways." This really demonstrates the lack of understanding by deniers. Science is not politics. It is not an opinion. It is not a 'party' issue. It is not something you believe in (do you believe in gravity?) It is the understanding of how the universe works and the universe will do what it does with, or without, any understanding or action taken on our part. Are politics involved? Certainly. Just look at how the Republican party is making a major issue out of denying any science they don't like. But, no amount of politics will change the way the universe works and you should be pretty ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise. As for doing your 'homework,' you clearly have not and your comment shows that. That is why you look at us sideways (and, yes, we know why you do). That sideways look of yours is the look of ignorance and comes from denying science. If you would educate yourself that look would go away.

Most of Mr. Genius' comment is merely a diatribe, such as the comment, "your hero Am (sic) Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade." For the record, I have never met Al Gore, he is not a hero of mine, I have never quoted him in any of my responses and he has never groomed me for anything. I wish I could take part in making billions (or even thousands) of dollars, but I'm afraid I'm not part of any such gambit. And, there we go with another example of the lack of logic that deniers constantly put on display. Where in the world did Mr. Genius come up with any of this?

He (just like the denier crowd everywhere) goes on to embarrassingly display his lack of knowledge, his ability to do homework, or to even think clearly by using $50 dollar words in an attempt to impress. There is a simple rule, the better you understand something the easier it is to explain it to people that don't understand. Mr. Genius displays his lack of understanding by pulling out terms like Hegelian Dialectic and The Limits to Growth. Why is that Mr. Genius? In case you are not familiar with the terms, a dialectic is a method of resolving arguments and is credited to the Greek philosophers Plato and Socrates. The Hegelian Dialectic is one form of a dialectic. Why didn't you just say so? You merely engaged in an attempt to look intelligent so that it would make you claims look intelligent. It didn't work. What is interesting is that I have actually used the dialectic approach with the challenge. And, Limits to Growth is a book from the early 1970s that basically found if we continue the way we were (in the early 70s) our society would eventually have to collapse under its own excess. This is very strange that Mr. Genius would quote it and makes me think he is the one that hasn't read it because the argument on climate change is practically straight out of the pages of that book. It is a perfect example of how bad things will happen if we don't change our ways.

And, I don't know who 'Rachel Maddow' is. I have never heard of her, so I cannot comment on if I 'love' her or not. Nice job of assuming something without having any evidence to support your belief. But that is what you (and other deniers) do, isn't it, Mr. Genius?

The last part of his comment continues to show the failure in logic on display by the denier crowd. He has gone through and found what he wants, and I don't mean just the comments that lead me to believe he thinks global warming is a good thing ("My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees."), but also to his claims about what I think (or anyone else, for that matter). No, I do not believe the oceans will boil and that nothing will survive. I am not aware of anyone that is making any such claim. Once again, his lack of homework is a demonstration of why he is a denier. Things are going to change and they will not be for the good. But, it will not be the end of humanity. But, let me ask you something, Mr. Genius. What if I said 20% of humanity will die because of climate change? That still leaves 80%, so we are not talking about the end of humanity. But, wouldn't that be a calamity? What if you, or your loved ones, were in that 20%? Would you care then? But don't worry if that happens, because the rest of the 80% will continue, no matter how much their standard of living has been decreased. 

And, that, is why the logic of deniers fails. And, Mr. Genius has done a wonderful job of demonstrating just that.

One more comment, apparently I really do care more about the science of sustainability and conservation than you do. You convinced me of that.

No comments:

Post a Comment