|Denying Skepticism exists to Shut down debate
- Ah I understand now, There maybe genuine deniers people who call black white, but what CAGW people have done is try to shut down any discussion by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as "deniers". So if someone says "I think sea level will rise 100m in the next 50 years", is no one allowed to be skeptical about that ?
|Neutral lanuage : Believers & deniers
- I sometimes use leading words in a blog post, but I don't think that news stories or the BBC should.
- "Well they don't believe in science" ... Straw man argument
- So what is the debate ?
- The debate is much bigger than whether CO2 effects climate so that shouldn't be the definition.
- When activists say we have do something right now. They are showing that they believe catastrophe is almost certain if we don't.
- They wouldn't call the IPCC believers so why call people against the IPCC deniers.
- On my list of Science radio programmes although many science programmes try to be objective I mark 50% of them as "Activism Science" as they do not filter out these Green PR techniques
- I list, Robyn Williams as activism science
- Such word games remind me of the phrase : "when did you stop beating your wife, Mr Smith ?"
|Use of the pejorative D-word
- I think maybe Skeptics are the new black people ..ie this bloggers feelings about skeptics is the same as my grandmother's feelings about black people. "You can't trust them, they are all evil, it's all big company propaganda"
Note how the D-word is used like the old N-word was
- As I said the name calling which dehumanises the "enemy"
- Fellow skeptics will you be made a big D on your armband & suite at the back of the bus ?
- Denier is not the common word for someone who doesn't believe in unproven scientific orthodoxy. When someone doesn't believe in the orthodoxy that stress causes ulcers what do you call them ?
- The word "denier" has traditionally been used as a pejorative in other languages usually meaning "evil unbeliever in our religion". It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives. So the use of it on websites like the NCSE's really destroys that sites credibility.
- used very loosely ..it makes a false dichotomy ..framing the debate. (1. divide the argument into 2 sides, 2. Smear the other side as evil..tadarh ! win the debate)
- Yes this guy gets it right "It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives"...
see rest of text ...
another similar text , good article fro Singer
- This trick is "monstering" ..just like when you need to sell a product, but have a weak case you focus on an evil opposition e.g. bleach & germs more on monstering
- QUOTE : Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks
This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.
Guilt by Association
Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)
- If you have the ability to get people to come over to your side ..would you start by insulting them ?... the use os the the word denier by greens show they have no desire to explain and win people over.
- I sometimes use the pejorative words Eco-fascists or eco-bullies where I think they are appropriate I think they are fine for opinion pieces, but I don't expect journalists to ever use them. I see when I do use them in an opinion comment the green forums just delete the entire comment.
|Debate trick : When guilty accuse others first.
- I have recently noticed a phenomenon whereby some of the people who protest most strongly against a behaviour, seem to do it to cover up that they themselves are the worst perpetrators of that behaviour. e.g. People shouting "racist ", actually behave in a racist way themselves. e.g. People who say "you can't trust them they are all liars", are actually liars "people who would presume to lecture others about ethics, are often NOT the most ethical people" etc.
- Maybe this is actually a very clever trick : It puts your possible accusers on the back foot. First they have to prove themselves innocent, before they can move on to accusing you. To avoid being penalised for some unreasonable behaviour you have made you should first accuse the other side of doing it so disarming them of the ability of accusing you. In this case the warmists are :
1.Complexity Deniers (ie when there is a complex issue, someone in a bar will tell you "it's all very simple, all you need to do is this". Unfortunately he is deluded & his solution won't work out cos the issue is very complex)
2. Debate Deniers "The science is settled, there is a cosensus, all feedbacks willaccelerate no decellerate")
- Warmists are double deniers yet apply the label "denier" to other people.
- May I point out that skepticism is part of the scientific process, so by shouting skeptics down, the warmists are actually beiong "Anti-science" yet they neutralise this by rushing to apply this label to other people first.
|Sorry, Who are the Anti-Science Deniers ? The Greens
- What is about the greens saying people who oppose their dogma are deniers & antiscience, cos in so many respects the greens have been denying scientiic evidence and been anti-science for years.
- Nuclear : Denying the scientific evidence that says it is much safer than people think, such as no people were killed by Fukushima radiation & later the cancer rate will rise marginally, the same for chernobyl.
- GMO : Denying the scientific evidence that says they are much safer than people think, there have been no problems in countries where GMOs are legal, no one has won multi-million dollar court cases etc.
- Solar & wind power: Denying the scientific evidence that says that the maths doesn't stack up & that they are much more expensive than other power & don't really save CO2.
- Organic food : Denying the scientific evidence that says organic food is NOT safer than industrial produced food.
- Denying the scientific evidence that conventional agriculture is much more productive than organic, so that non-organic uses way less than half the land.
- Anti-nuclear is antiscience - no they don't want MRI machines in hospitals ..nuclear is horrifically dangerous ..except of course it isn't in practice it's been very safe ..the procedures work and the official science reports show almost zero deaths except 50 people from the Chernobyl shutdown operation.
- Anti-GMO is antiscience yet they have fought against it for years... denying people the benefit of special GMO medicines etc.
- Pushing fantasy green solutions (windpower, solar) when proper science & maths says they are not that good is anti-science.
- Hang on a mo I accused them of being Anti-Science first ! Actually maybe one the first mentions is in something I wrote myself 3 years ago "4. knows that sign of an anti-science argument is strong emotion, name calling and the "there is a conspiracy" phrase
- 5. knows that you don't let anti-science control the agenda" I of course was in the middle of listing the way the green movement behaves. And I talked of how people who are guitly of someting say racism often shout the same accusation against other people first.
- The level of debate on the warmist forums is summed up by this sample post "Climate Skeptics: Reasons to hate them...and not to listen!" ..how scientific does that sound.
- When the IPCC reports make outlandish claims like by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers will have melted do they deny the IPCC is almost certainly wrong ?
|Using "denier" to frame the Agenda ready for spin
- The vast resources of the green movement make them masters of spin .. by using these weasel words they are able to set the agenda in a news story before people absorb the content.
- Let me make it clear the word denier is used as a pejorative & should not be acceptable in any credible news source . The use of it on a website really destroys that sites credibility. NCSE have written on their website
NCSE — "in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial” (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection). The terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature."
- Their front page is ful of loaded misleading headlines aswell using the language tricks - "leak" if it's them, "stolen" if it's skeptics etc.
- With overwhelming evidence that the Heartland strategy document is fake the green blogs say "no it must be real" ..that's denial isn't it ?
|Articles about name calling, misleading headline, playing down etc.
- Good quote : The difference between a “Denier” and a “Skeptic” is that a Denier will refuse to look at the data while a Skeptic will insist on looking at the data.
And once the sceptic finds the data doesn’t match the hypothesis/theory being proposed they get denounced as “deniers”.
But then bigotry and irrationality never did show any reason.
- Interesting that the activists are trying to smear with this term "Anti-Science", but you might aswell label them as Acti-Science Activism Science
- List of media regularly using acti-science terms like Denier
about 80% e.g.
"NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial"
- It would be easier to list all the warmist sites that don't use the word denier
- And that's what discredits the Green blogs & websites they are so angry & name calling. It shows they really will not allow questionng of material which seems to support their dogma ..so there are bogus news reportas slipping through all the time... I'm sick of debunking them.
|Why "denier" is a triple trick for activist PR
- These days news is dominated by cut & paste from press releases prepared by PR agencies without critical analysis. The vast resources of the green activist movement make them masters of spin &manipulation. They do this by not just reporting facts, but rather creating a narrative. By claiming ownership of words so they become weasel words they are able to set the agenda in a news story before people absorb the content.
An excerpt from their toolkit
"Tricks to Frame the debate :
- emotion, photos of smokestacks & nice polar bears.
- Neat trick 1. : Create a false dichotomy. Debates have a Wide spectrum of views, so they are too complex to attack we first need to convince people it's a 2 sided argument. And secondly convince people that our side is "The Good" & the oppositeevil.
e.g. "Denier" is a perfect weasel word for this, providing the dichotomy & also it's a negative so no other person would want to join (We don't want them calling themselves the more honourable word "skeptic")
- 2. With current temperature trends we are having difficulty in proving our positive so we need something to shift the agenda. By attacking the skeptics with a negative word we get them on the backfoot, cos you simply cannot disprove a negative. !
- 3. And since everyone disagrees with some part of any debate "denier" can be applied to anyone "
.....Green activists are managing to "own" other words :
- "Nuclear" was turned into a dirty word - "NMRI was simply renamed MRI dropping the "Nuclear"
Now They are attempting to claim the word "Science" itself for themselves. They've come up with the word "anti-science" as a smear as part of their false dichotomy game : But surely in reality the world is a spectrum not a black/white - Science does not mean only 1 lifestyle solution.
|Heresy Essay Prize
Acclaimed science writer Matt Ridley has just announced a new literary prize. £8,500 (approximately $13,500 USD) will be awarded annually to the author of an essay that demonstrates rational environmental analysis. Magical thinking and uncritical reporting won’t win you this prize. Hard-nosed realism – the kind that’s so rare these days it seems heretical – is what he’s looking for.
This year’s deadline is June 30th. Entries should be 1,000 – 2,000 words in length and sent to ridleyprize AT spectator.co.uk
- Oi don't get there before me, I need to monetarise all this time I'm wasting writing all this stuff
|2 Interesting Things
Wow BBC SCI-In Action : they were talking about records showing in Bagdad the river used to freeze then after 990 then it didn't any more then Richard Black came on and said it seems the MWP stretched as fas as Iraq ..I thought he was a MWP denier ?
- Interesting that NPR have rewritten their code of conduct .. to allow all opinions on science including skeptics
- interesting article prof-freeman-dyson
|Irrationality in Greece
- "oh this bailout money is going to the banks, not to the Greek people .... It's no help"
Listen the Greek people spend 160% of what they earn so if the EU gives then 20% of course the Greeks have to pay it to the banks to pay off old loans cos otherwise the banks won't give them new loans"
... Leaving the Euro isn't a magic solution, if Greece leaves how are they going to buy oil next year ? Without cutting their expenditure down to 100% of what they earn
|Taliban often burns korans : when it bombs
- Someone tell Afghanistan Koran burning demonstrators that the Taliban often burns korans
By bombing houses/markets etc.
US government get your soldiers to carry korans then the Taleban won't bomb them