2011-04-29 15:56:01Most hypocritical statement ever made?
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
78.143.201.95

When I hear something as outrageous as this it beggars belief.  What is the point of debating or posting scientific articles to someone who posts this:

"For years the warIistas" (meaning those who accept the scientific consensus) "have persistently cited local weather conditions as corroboration of their global climate hypothesis"

It as if for the sake of maximising hostility they try to think up of their own blatant abuses of reason and shamelessly accuse scientists of doing just the same.  I challenge anyone to find one of their statements which is more hypocritical and unscientific in equal measure.

2011-04-29 16:26:20Hypocritical accusations
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Hmm, that "warmists" are politically motivated?

That warmists are motivated by money? (like fossil fuel companies who fund disinformation campaigns aren't).

That the consensus position is based on junk science

All the ad hom attacks are very ironic and quite Orwellian.

2011-04-29 23:21:57
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.80

perseus,

Ask for an example.

In my readings, the good ole warmistas are very careful NOT to promote local weather conditions as examples of AGW - particularly when they're "hot" events.

2011-04-30 01:42:06
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
78.143.201.95

Any tentative questions, even by the press, qualifies as 'corroboration' in their eyes, such as the Moscow highs or Australian floods for example. In contrast every time we enter a cold spell such as December 2010 in NW Europe they will be out in droves predicting an 'ice age', but they have hidden away during the recent warm spell in the same region. I remind them that even by the standards of their own 'logic' it would nullify their original claim in this case.

Although scientifically meaningless, more waverers will be convinced by genuine scientific arguments during a local warm spell.  The problem is that long term warming is so gradual they are unlikely to notice any local difference in climate patterns, but they will notice sudden changes due to 'noise' otherwise known as the weather .

2011-04-30 02:10:25projection
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

It's psychological projection - very common.  A person who is guilty of something accuses others of the same.  For example, Republicans accusing Democrats of fear mongering.  It serves to deflect criticism from one's own faults.  Now suddenly the discussion is about whether the other side is guilty of this behavior. 

It also serves to justify the behavior, becausde 'they do it too'.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen deniers defend their comments about cold weather in the winter by saying alarmists do the same with hot weather in the summer.  I ask them to provide examples (as neal suggests), and they never can.

2011-04-30 02:51:54
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
78.143.201.95

It isn't that climate scientists dismiss isolated events entirely, it is really more complex.  For example Trenberth, says “it’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

It would be easy for them to spin this bit out

“If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA in New York. “If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet.”

2011-04-30 18:53:50
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.147.180.253

dana: it isn't so much psychological projection as psyops projection.

 

1st rule of propaganda:

knowing that your opponents will accuse you of fabrication and propaganda, accuse them of it first, in your opening salvo.

 

perseus: my current favorite example of bare-faced hypocricy is a newletter from Koch Industries:

in 'Discovery' October 2010 the following statement is given as a lead-in to two quotes from Jefferson:

"... as New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, one is entitled to one's own opinions, but not to one's own facts."

The two Jefferson quotes which follow that statement are entirely bogus!

http://www.kochind.com/files/DiscoveryOctober2010.pdf

 

What Jefferson said:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres17.html

What Jefferson didn't say:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/misquoting-jefferson/