![MalleusLatin2[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/malleuslatin21.jpg?quality=83)
After a 239 post exchange on Facebook, an alarmist gets the last say.
Mark Ruscoe, of Asheville NC writes.
Anthony,
Reading your latest post regarding the lengths to which “tauntology” is used by the alarmist crowd, I wanted to forward something from a long FB thread I’ve been involved in for the last 8 months or so.
I’ll also preface that besides having biological science degrees and enjoying a long career in health care, I’m a climate nobody. So it surprised me how exercised global warming disciples could be out here in the hinterlands when their faith was questioned.
This was occasioned by the Typhoon Haiyan last year, when one of my (many) liberal friends linked it as a sign of our warming planet. It piqued my decidedly non-climatically oriented interest, so I decided to delve in a bit. Lo and behold, thanks to your site and others, I found that events such as that have actually declined in the past several years. I made note of this, and expected not much more.
Little was I prepared for the onslaught to follow. One thing led to another, and I spent much of my winter brushing up on the climate war. I engaged my local FB friends in what I took to be honest skeptical debate.
In particular, one of my antagonists proved unappreciative of my arguments or my sources. Especially, so it seems, yours.
After 239 posts to this particular thread, I felt as if I had made a sufficient skeptical scientific case, and decided that enough was enough. I announced that I was through.
To which my antagonist got the final word:
“…I’ll also give you this: You and your fellow deniers are wrong, and you will be on the wrong side of history. In 50 years you will be scattered with the witch-burners, the white supremacists, the birthers and the creationists who illustrate the limits of the human mind and the danger that come (sic) with them. You’ll be crammed into historical footnotes that students around the world will chuckle at for those five minutes you are mentioned. I wish you could be around to see it, if for no other reason than to hear you bray frantically that Anthony Watts is still right.”
This is one of the reasons I create my lists. If I get into what looks like endless too and fro, I present them with a list of peer reviewed abstract rebuttals. At which point they start to struggle and look for one iota of info to back their argument.
Whenever one of them makes a claim, ask them to present the scientific evidence from the literature. Weird weather evidence makes them struggle.
“In 50 years you will be scattered with the witch-burners….”
The reason people were afraid of witches is because they supposedly could bring curses, hexes, evil events, and misfortune on people through use of inanimate objects which the victim might have touched. Most people do not believe in the ability of a material object such as a coin or a rabbit’s foot to actually attract certain types of people or events to themselves – nor do people believe in the ability of a spiteful woman to use a lock of hair to do harm from a distance.
It is because of our ability to reason away these kinds of superstitions, by using tests and repeatability, that the fear of witches has largely been eliminated, in my view. However, if there is a resurgence of people who claim to have supernatural powers to curse and bring misfortune – or even to promise some success by a magickal shortcut – than the fear of these powers will also return. Old women will frighten the younger ones with omens and all will use the power of suggestion to convince others that they read minds or can foretell events, or bring a desired result with some ritual. Bringing back the superstitions will not be a laughing matter. It is the superstitious, irrationalist mixture of new age hodge podges with science that is very popular among young people right now, and it is very unfortunate. They will be open to all kinds of unnecessary fears.
Steven Mosher says:
June 18, 2014 at 10:22 am
since when is a FB comment news?
News – not so much but the paragraph in question certainly created commentary on one of the puzzling things in life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SunSword says:
June 18, 2014 at 10:53 am
“Actually Y2K would have been a serious problem if nothing was done. But in fact thousands of COBOL programmers worked for several years (95 – 99) to fix problem code. Millions of programs were replaced wholesale by ERP systems to avoid having to do all the mitigation work of fixing them. So by the time the year 2000 rolled around 99%+ of everything was already repaired/replaced. (And of course by 2001 those thousands of COBOL programmers were all permanently laid off but that is another story.)”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m not denying the fact that a lot of work needed to be done to prevent problems. What I was trying to get across in regard to Y2K was that, despite all that work performed, there were quite a few folks who were so cocksure that chaos was going to reign starting on Jan 1, 2000 that it was like a religion to them – right up until Dec 31, 1999. They believed it was going to happen and would argue their point to anyone who’d listen. Prepare or die.
My point is: the faith-based dogma of AGW is eerily familiar to that of the Y2K doomsdayers/preppers. The response, once they’re wrong, will also be similar.
Brad Rich wrote: “I consider it an honor being lumped with creationists. Name calling doesn’t bother me. When they start throwing stones, that bothers me.”
Modern science says that in the beginning there was nothing: no matter, no energy, nor any space. There was not even “emptiness” because there was nothing to be empty. Then all that nothingness exploded. On the other hand, the religious (or spiritual) say that something created or caused our universe and they sometimes name that thing “god”. (I prefer The Tao myself)
But you know that when some twit calls you a “creationist” they are attacking the cartoon version of some ignorant people and their claims of an earth created almost exactly 6,000 years ago. By the same token, when you are called a “denialist” the twit means you don’t believe every word uttered by Saint Al Gore and Mikey Mann. (Mann is the patron saint of Hockey in Roman Catholicism by the way)
As for myself, I have always liked the old saying that “if everybody claims a thing to be true, it is most likely false”. Science is not about voting on “truth”.
——-
Off topic question for the Mods. I composed a really nice comment on another thread a day or two ago (trust me, it was a good one) and I used a profanity advisedly. Well, when I hit submit the screen went to the top of the page and the comment was lost to prosperity (unless the NSA has it still). It has been a while since I read the rules. Is it against the rules to say G** D*** It here?
Who are the witch-burners? Who? Those that are skeptical are the witch-burners? Hmm… seems to me that they got that one backwards. If “deniers” are such a tiny and pathetic bunch, then who cares! Let us piddle away our tiny little lives in denial. What’s the harm? We’re pathetic little nobodies. Why the worry? Why the argument? Just ignore us. We have no bullets, no ammo, no facts, no education, no grants, no adverts, no nothing. If we’re such a worthless bunch, why do these lofty and gifted geniuses even bother? For fun? Hmm… Could it be fear? Really? Little ol’ us? What could they possibly be afraid of…
And, yes, we will indeed see what comes in the next few decades. I will live to see that much at least.
Admad:
Nice work; critical thinking must run in the family 😉
GlynnMhor asked, “What are ‘birthers’?”
Birthers are people who suspect that President Obama might have been telling the truth when he told his publicists that he was born in Kenya:
http://t.co/G2A6YMjoJt
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
The reason it might matter where Obama was born is that if his parents were legally married, then he was only entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth if he was born on U.S. soil. Under U.S. law at the time (1961), and because Obama’s father was a foreigner, if his parents were legally married and he was born outside the USA then he would only have been entitled to U.S. citizenship if his mother had resided in the USA for five full years since her 14th birthday. But his mother was only 18yo, so she could not have met that requirement. So, if Obama’s parents were legally married and he was born outside the USA then he was not legally entitled to U.S. citizenship.
Here’s a chart which explains it:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-a-2014-05_01_final.pdf
However, it has now been pretty well established that Obama’s father was a bigamist. That means his parents were’t legally married when he was born. So he was a bastard, which means that different citizenship rules applied. As the bastard child of an unmarried U.S. citizen mother, he was entitled citizenship by virtue of his mother’s citizenship alone, despite her young age, even if he was born outside the USA.
Here’s a chart which explains it:
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/natz_chart-b-2014-05_1_final.pdf
When it was convenient for his narrative, Barack Obama claimed to be Kenyan-born. Now he claims to be Hawaiian-born.
He will claim whatever is convenient. The truth is irrelevant to him, and he has surrounded himself by people who share his mendacity. I’m appalled by such dishonesty.
However, honesty is not a constitutional requirement for natural-born citizenship. On the weight of the evidence, I’m confident that he can claim citizenship from birth (i.e., “natural-born citizenship”), both by virtue of being probably born in Hawaii (despite what he told his publicists), and also by virtue of being the bastard child of a legally-unmarried American citizen mother.
@Dave Burton – First I beg Anthony’s indulgence as I understand this is off topic.
But Second, David, according to your first link (parents legally married), I come down to the years 52-86, and that only one parent was a citizen (natural). It states that his mother had to have lived in the US for at least 10 years, 5 of which were after age 14. And that alone qualified his citizenship. I think it is clear that she (his mother) did live in the US the requisite time, so would that not make (leaving aside the legally married part for the moment) him a Citizen regardless of where he was born (since there are no qualifications on the location for that line)?
That “Tauntology” has , unfortunately WARPED me some. I now look forward to undesirable climate change- global cooling, which will undoubtedly result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions, as an “in your face” to CAGWers.
When debating alarmists it’s best to use sources that they have faith in such as the IPCC reports Working Group I and scepticalscience.conjob if you can. For instance you can use scepticalscience.conjob trend calculator to show there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 yrs to 23 yrs, and you can use the working group I report to show no increasing trends in extreme weather, etc. Alarmists try to neutralise your argument (regardless of how good it is) by denigrating your source. If you use the sources they have faith in you can hoist them on their own petard and there’s nothing they can do about it except start spluttering like the village idiot choking on a chicken bone. Same thing goes for political debates.
Jimbo says:
June 18, 2014 at 1:18 pm
“This is one of the reasons I create my lists…”
Jimbo, have you ever thought of writing a book with all your lists..?
The ones with actual newspaper clips from 100+ years ago are fascinating.
And the links are great!
You need a good book title and good cover artwork
Regards – JPP
It bears saying it again…
philjourdan says:
June 18, 2014 at 8:13 am
Desperation is never pretty.
I live near Asheville. I almost feel that some of his alarmist relatives have me surrounded.
I would like to second Mr Peterson’s suggestion.
I personally would pay for such a publication. Jimbo, just so you know, when I am slightly pressured for time I will very often just rapidly skim down a long comment thread to pattern-recognition your name and will make a point of only reading your contribution.
Hope that doesn’t embarrass you mate. It’s only a compliment.
Would anyone else reading in like to offer a view?
So funny … so sad.
I will take bets that the alarmists will be the footnote not the skeptics.
Mark Ruscoe, I recommend you invite readers here to engage in a bit of skeptic activism on your Facebook debate. I doubt the Kool-Aid drinking counter-party could endure the vast knowledge that would immediately support your arguments.
“Climate alarmism is a mental illness.
Climate alarmism is not a mental illness, it’s simply human nature. The term for it is cognitive dissonance and it’s prevalent in nearly everything people hold opinions on. And generally the smarter the person is the worse it is.
When a person holds a firm opinion on a topic for a long time and they are intelligent, their minds won’t accept the idea they can be wrong. Evidence to the contrary is ignored with the excuse generally being about the reliability of the source of the evidence or the person presenting the contrary evidence is written off as a right winger, racist, birther, denier, or whatever label the person thinks is appropriate.”
Many know that environmentalism and climate claims are just used as a platform to promote leftist solutions and ideology. They have invested heavily is this since the late 1980s and will never give up on this so close to victory nationally and internationally?
[yeah, lets not go there – mod]
I’ve been wracking my tiny little brain trying to find the hidden gem in your comment above, but the only conclusion I can come to is that you’re a [self-snip].
Warmists feel self assured to put 100% of their faith in the AGW line because they feel mistakenly that there is no downside. They have swallowed the idea that even if they’re wrong about AGW they’ll still be cleaning up the planet and only good things will result from that campaign. Economic hardship, enforced population control, and curtailment of liberty are too arcane to enter into their thinking.
“I’ve been wracking my tiny little brain trying to find the hidden gem in your comment above, but the only conclusion I can come to is that you’re a [self-snip].”
Strawman builder? No-one even claimed it to be “news”, and I don’t recall any laws stating that WUWT posts have to be.
No matter how the real believers react, there is a positive side on this kinds of debates: there are always lurkers looking at the arguments from both sides, but who don’t interfere. If one of the sides start name calling without arguments, they lost and the “silent majority” knows who is right: if you stay calm and simply put the right arguments out, you have convinced them.
That is personal experience in several fierce debates I had in the past (not about climate, but about dioxins and chlorine/PVC).
In these debates the thing which undermines any reasonable discussion is the reductionist idea that you are either a ‘denier’ or a ‘warmest’ In reality there is no such thing either way, it’s a continuum where people sit in a position where the majority of their beliefs tends to push them one way or the other. For example there a probably many things you agree on, the planet is warming, the Arctic is decreasing in size and Co2 is rising. That is a major area of agreement. The questions of how fast, for how long and why are not issues which should be that divisive. It is perfectly possible to take two pieces of fact, draw two differing conclusions which can be both correct, dependant on your stance. In reality there is a substantial body of evidence which links Co2 to climate change, but there are also a substantial amount of questions still to be answered. You chances are that you have more common ground with your adversaries than you realise.
I read somewhere that plants are growing 14% faster due to elevated CO2. Just tell them their marijuana will be cheaper and you all will be best buddies again.
Gareth Phillips:
You provide a nice try but fail to get the coconut when you write in your post at June 19, 2014 at 12:44 am
NO! There is no evidence of any kind “which links Co2 to climate change”; none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research at a cost of over US$5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence.
There are good reasons to suppose that if all other things remaining unchanged then increased atmospheric CO2 concentration would affect climate, but the climate system is never unchanging, and so those reasons cannot be “evidence which links Co2 to climate change”.
But you are right when you say “there are also a substantial amount of questions still to be answered”. Those questions pertain to every aspect of observed and potential climate change.
Richard