(Correction, The more I thought about his words the more he seemed willfully duplicitous,
February 25th I finally deleted my link to SoD )
because it's done an impressive job of getting into the nitty gritty of the physics of greenhouse gases. I'll admit I don't actively keep up on it, since I don't pretend to be able comprehend the deeper physics and higher math any better than 99% of the other commenters on the state of the climate science "debate". That's why we have a community of well trained very smart experts who have devoted their lives to understanding it. You know, recognition of one's limitations is as important as developing one's strengths.
I any event, I was shocked by SoD's recent bizarre departure into social commentary. In it he belittles folks who dare apply the term "denier" to people who lie about what climate scientists have been learning. I think Pekka Pirilä summed it up best in his 2/14/15/ (9:53am) comment:
"I see the real issue in the acceptance of the diversity of people."To me, he underscored SoD's blindspot, which I want to bring to light.
"Words are, however, just the tip of the iceberg, the more general issue of tolerance of diversity is really the core."
First off, serious science isn't about "tolerance of diversity", it's about pinning down the facts as well as possible.
Secondly, making a career out of lying about what climatologist are learning isn't about "tolerance of diversity" - as the Republican/libertarian PR machine want's us to believe - it's about fraud!
A fraud that deserves the label "climate science denial."
So now I have a few questions for you SoD.
SoD writes: “Everyone knows what this (Denier) word means. It means people who are apologists for those evil jackbooted thugs who carried the swastika and cheered as they sent six million people to their execution.”– – –
Who says? By what right? Unidirectional skepticism equals denial – period. Whether it’s about a historical atrocity or lying about the critically important lessons climate scientists have to teach us.
The Holocaust doesn’t own the “D” word, nor does it have a corner on the dreadful sin of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence! What’s repulsive is the Republican/libertarian machine highjacking the Holocaust to fabricate yet another counter-productive distraction.
Why you’ve chosen to play into it is beyond me.
SoD writes: “By comparison, understanding climate means understanding maths, physics and statistics. This is hard, very hard. It’s time consuming, requires some training (although people can be self-taught), actually requires academic access to be able to follow the thread of an argument through papers over a few decades – and lots and lots of dedication.”– – –
NO! That’s simply not true!! Understanding Earth's "climate" and what injecting some 500 gigatons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink, is doing to our global heat distribution is fairly straight forward, all it takes is a good-faith interest in learning about the indisputable basics.
“the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tones.”
“Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011″
Regarding seeing through the "denial machine's" disingenuous games:
Why are you making it sound like politically motivated armchair wannabes and dilettante’s deserve to pretend they are smart enough to second guess actual scientific experts? What’s up with that dude?
SoD writes: “The worst you could say is people who don’t accept ‘consensus climate science’ are likely finding …. a little difficult and might have misunderstood, or missed, a step somewhere. …– – –
How can you write something so naive?
When in the world have ‘we the people’ ever been in a position to sit judge on scientific experts about their esoteric work? – that’s what the community of learned honestly skeptical experts is for. To check and cross check and keep each other honest.
What we do with their information is another matter altogether – but first we need to understand what the “experts” have learned! Oh but they have turned "expert" into a dirty word too, haven't they?
>>> Why not write about what that other new minted dirty word “consensus” of an expert community means? You know: the part about “consensus” being the product of the full spectrum of evidence; as distilled by the community of learned experts.
Or that the consensus evolves in light of new evidence – which is more than can be said of the endless repetition and stonewalling that the ‘unidirectional skeptical’ Republican/libertarian community is guilty of.
Why have you brought this cynical R/l Meme into your blog? I’d have much rather read you explaining why misrepresenting and lying about what experts are explaining is unacceptable.
SoD writes: The best you could say is with such a complex subject straddling so many different disciplines, they might be entitled to have a point.”– – –
That’s downright shameful bro! NO they are not entitled to create fairytales and pretending it’s as valid as what actual experts have established !
Why not a word about the politically driven strategic misrepresentation of scientific facts and the dirty tricks being pulled on honorable dedicated scientific experts ???
Why not a word about the Republican/libertarian disinterest in a rational step by step learning process? Instead tossing up one phony PR ploy after another, as typified by W’s pathetic one dimensional comment – (even though a little bit of good-faith research puts his nonsense talking points into real world perspective – http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php).
What’s up with that?
What I find repulsive, but oh so typical, is this PR machine hijacking something as horrendous as the Holocaust and coupling it with the term “climate science denialist” – It’s political theater for distraction and profit, nothing more.
And you can’t see through that?
SoD you wrote of me: (Feb 12, 5:18) “You (referring to me) say I am a liar, insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical. …”– – –
I notice you didn’t even frame that as a question, it was a statement, though I didn't say any of that about you. So what’s your game? What’s all this about??? Why are you playing into their malicious attack on science?
What about defending the cumulative learning process ?
You know SoD, after my closer consideration of what you’ve done here with your one-sided presentation, I need to revise my previous declaration, because the more I think about it, the more you do seem at worst duplicitous, at best grievously misguided.