Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance

Bruce, if the alarmist are able to enact even 50% of their proposed actions (agenda) – We will all be millionaires. The problem is that a million dollars will be required to buy a loaf of bread. This will be an opportunity to invest in wheel barrows, to replace wallets. GK

“When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”
Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.

izen says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
“I think you are missing the point of consilience. It is not a case of a few specific bits of research, its the overwhelming majority of all or it pointing in one direction, AND the consistency of that research with the established knowledge in all other fields of scientific study that convinces.
Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.”
Izen, all the thousands of computer users in the warmist institutes (granted, they are thousands; whether we shall call them scientists or whatever – pour a few billion a year into ANYTHING and you get some job creation, it’s hard to avoid) – use the same computer models to prognosticate the future, and they ALL suffer from the same principal problems (can’t simulate chaotic systems with finite precision models, should better start with a correct starting state, have never been validated, are fudged with invented aerosol histories to reproduce 20th century, can’t simulate the QBO, can’t simulate local processes like cloud formations,, don’t get latittudinal distribution of clouds right (ever), …)
So by multiplying these research jobs you just achieve to squander the potential productivity of more young people. Scream loud enough and it becomes true?
Must… try … even … harder… does it become twice as true when you double the amount of young people forced to use the same climate models again?
You could try by giving twice as many Nobel peace prices for a start. That’s pretty cheap.

Poptech says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
“`Dan in Nevada says: For example, I had no problem believing Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but thought it completely unlikely that he was either behind 9/11 or possessed WMDs.’
You can still be against the war and not be intellectually dishonest about the irrefutable fact that Saddam did have WMDs”
Thanks for the response, Poptech. I was aware of this “amazing find”. From your link, “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended…”, so I don’t think I was being dishonest. The international weapons inspectors were completely correct that there was no ongoing research or development in WMDs and certainly nothing that threatened the United States.
My point, of course, was that we were scammed by our rulers over Iraq in exactly the same way that the establishment is attempting to scam us with CAGW. I wasn’t trying to be deliberately provocative using Iraq as an example – I know there are strong feelings on the part of those who have served in the military or have loved ones who have (or are). However, the parallels are just too strong to ignore. Start with a nugget of truth (Saddam’s an a**hole; CO2 is a greenhouse gas), stir in exaggerations and outright lies (Himalayan glaciers; yellowcake uranium), and top it all off with lots of hysteria and pretty soon you’ve got a lot of people convinced that ‘something needs to be done, dammit’.
A trillion dollars, ~4500 US military deaths, and ~120,000 civilian deaths later, all we’ve got is a place where al quaeda has free reign, where they didn’t before, and a region with an intense hatred of all things American. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and others made out just fine, thank you very much. Following the warmists’ agenda will cost a heck of a lot more in both lives and treasure for average people while at the same time a select few, many of whom will be the same folks that profited from Iraq, will accumulate much more power and wealth.
Getting back on topic, you labeled me as intellectually dishonest, which could be paraphrased as someone who denies the evidence, and this was the subject of Dr. Ball’s post. I don’t think I was dishonest at all – others can follow your link and decide for themselves. The point is that societies can be, and are, hoodwinked into spending vast sums by establishing an “everybody knows” meme based on willful lies and distortions. When those untruths start becoming evident, ad hominem attacks (unpatriotic, denier, etc.) replace real argument.
Just so we’re clear, I voted for G.W. in 2000, back when he purported to be against “nation-building” and for free markets. Also, you were polite and not hostile to me – I hope my tone is the same.
Mods – sorry if this is a double post. First attempt appeared to have failed miserably.

Say it izen so, That you are unable to perceive the Emperors beautiful new clothes…They are so magnificent, airy and bright……
Izen please keep up the fine work. I have been ignoring your posts but now I read them for the humour. Are you sure you are not working for the Big Oil Demons?

FAO richardscourtney
‘It confirms that you are not able to provide any evidence that AGW exists at a discernible degree’ well watch this.
Global warming and co2

Andy Wehrle says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am
I understand your point, but believe that labeling isn’t inherently wrong as long as it doesn’t mischaracterize your opponents’ position or attempt to associate them with disagreeable ideas they don’t necessarily hold. “Denier” does both; it explicitly identifies skeptics as denying obvious truth or facts and implicitly (and deliberately) associates them with Holocaust deniers.
I kind of like “warmist” as an easy to grasp label that only characterizes, er, warmists as people that believe the planet will inevitably warm due to CAGW. It’s not insulting and serves as an easy shorthand that is readily understood. “Alarmist”, well, that depends on who you’re talking about. Al Gore, for example, certainly is attempting to raise the alarm about global warming. To skeptics, who doubt Al’s sincerity and grasp of science, “alarmist” is more accurate than “scientific spokesman”.
I’m a fairly ardent pacifist, believing force should always be a last resort. If somebody wants to call me a “peacenik”, I’ve got no problem with that even if they mean it pejoratively. “Pinko commie bastard”, on the other hand, is both inaccurate and insulting.
Clearly, “skeptic” is a word that is easy to use and that adequately and fairly describes people who have doubts, rightly or wrongly, about a position such as CAGW. Using denigrating words like “denier” completely demolishes any claim to holding the high ground. Warmists can use terms like “misinformed” or “mistaken” if that’s what they mean.

izen “Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.””
Ahh, the drone army..or is it the clone army……. or maybe the zombie army ………..approaches. 🙂

Dan in Nevada says: “Thanks for the response, Poptech. I was aware of this “amazing find”. From your link, “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended…”, so I don’t think I was being dishonest. The international weapons inspectors were completely correct that there was no ongoing research or development in WMDs and certainly nothing that threatened the United States.”

I am well aware many people are completely ignorant of the irrefutable fact that WMDs were found in Iraq. And you are now changing your argument. Nice cherry picking the article, here is the rest,

…the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.
“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”
Though about 500 chemical weapons – the exact number has not been released publicly – have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

I am sure you will volunteer your children to determine the lethality of such weapons?

Andy Wehrle says: Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.

“Alarmist” is an accurate description of an AGW proponent who insists on action to prevent [insert climate related disaster]. You can recognize an alarmist by their use of the words “consensus” and/or “denier” when trying to make an argument.