2011-07-01 04:15:19deniers sure love their Gish Gallops
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

In today's climate links email, a gem from WUWT.  Some systems engineer put together a powerpoint presentation of what he thinks is 'reasonable skepticism'.  It's your usual Gish Gallop, with all kinds of crap like the '800 year lag', political rants, conspiracy theories, etc.  It hurts my brain just to read that crap.  But of course the WUWT commenters absolutely fawn over it.  Just proves once again that deniers absolutely love Gish Gallops.  It's also pretty amazing what they think is 'reasonable skepticism'.  It's really just blatant denial.

I wonder if it's worth a response post.  It might not be worth the effort, but then again it might be nice to highlight that what they think is reasonble is actually outright denial.

2011-07-01 04:24:20Another recent example...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

is embedded in my three-part post, The "Kind & Gentle Denier Drone."  The denier drone, "caracoid" is a master of passive-agressive attack.   

2011-07-01 04:34:00
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.53.195

Can't you answer it by detailing a list of the relevant arguments from our Rebuttals?

2011-07-01 04:41:22nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

If you are addressing your question to me, many, but not all, of the points made by caracoid can be addressed by referencing SkS rebuttals. Doing so, however, does take time and typically percipitates an endless chain of exchanges.

2011-07-01 05:04:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

If neal's question is to me, the answer is basically yes.  We've got rebuttals to all the arguments he made that I saw in skimming the post.  But I like to go into more detail than just providing a link, so it would still take some time to put a response together.

The question is, is it worth the effort?  Are we doing them a favor by drawing more attention to this dumb powerpoint?  Or is it useful to have a rebuttal out there for when 'skeptics' reference it, and to illustrate that what WUWT considers 'reasonable skepticism' is pretty hardcore denial?

I always hesitate at responding to WUWT because frankly I'd rather pretend it doesn't exist :-)  But they've floated up a pretty big softball here, and I'm tempted to take a whack at it.

2011-07-01 07:38:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.53.195

dana,

The whole motivation for developing SkS was to make it easy to generate responses to exactly this kind of attack on the reasoning behind the GHE/AGW. If you insist on re-inventing the wheel everytime, well then, yes, it's going to take extra effort.

Plus, the fact that all one really has to do is to reference existing, fully documented responses is in itself a strong message: "Yes, we've seen that before, and the answer is #83. NEXT!"

 

dana & Badgersouth,

The entire point of creating SkS is to FACILITATE exchange, not to avoid it. We can avoid exchange by sitting at home doing nothing. Remember, we are not playing to convince the unconvinceabe: We are playing to engage the fence-sitter. That doesn't happen by just "being right". You have to be seen to be right.

2011-07-01 07:44:23
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

WUWT already has a large readership, so it's not like we ought to be worrying about giving them traffic, as opposed to some other lonesome crack that can run a website.  I'm of the opinion of Neal - smack it out of the park into the streets.

2011-07-01 08:08:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good point about the traffic, Alex.

Neal - I'm not talking about reinventing the wheel, I'm talking about summarizing how the wheel was made.  I don't think a simple list of links to rebuttals is terribly effective.  I think it's much more effective to provide a brief explanation as to exactly what mistakes the 'skeptic' made.  The links to the rebuttals do most of the work, but I think adding some explanatory text makes the rebuttal much more effective.

Anyway, I'll put this next on my list of planned blog posts.  I'll have to bump back the 'learning from past climate predictions' (Akasofu is next up) a couple of days, but that's not time sensitive.

2011-07-01 12:47:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15

Actually it was much easier than I thought.  Glickstein managed to write a lot of words without saying very much.  His content-to-words ratio was abysmal!  I just can't write like that.  I'm a 'get to the damn point' kind of guy.  Anyway, post is up for review.