Is there a shred of honesty or morals left in the global warming denial movement?
The behavior of global warming deniers, to be blunt, is appalling. Several deface the President of the United States by putting a Hitler mustache or joker paint on his portrait. Others condone and defend these actions. None have criticized it. Meanwhile others whine about being called 'deniers', pretending it has something to do with Hitler, while their comrade puts a Hilter mustache on President Obama's picture.
Deniers constantly mischaracterize and lie about climate science studies. They constantly engage in ad hominem attacks against climate scientists and AGW realists, and constantly harass climate scientists. They condone and even applaud dishonesty among their comrades while claiming that honest minor mistakes made by AGW realists disprove the entire scientific theory.
Is there a shred of honesty or morals left in the global warming denial movement? At the very least can deniers admit that it's disrespectful and unpatriotic to put a Hilter mustache on the portrait of the President of the United States? Can we at least get a glimmer of honesty and morals from one denier, if only for a brief moment?
Anonymous2010-02-06T10:19:49Z
Favorite Answer
Not a lot... There are a few that still have some credibility, but they still refuse to call down their "peers" such as Dr. Jello and James E for spewing raw sewage all over the place. I think that this feeds on itself in that it causes a lack of self respect along with the lack of respect they must eventually feel for those that hurt their own well thought out opinions so that eventually, they just join in on the gang/bully/mob mentality. It would explain the repetitious nature of many of their replies including the ad hominems.
Speaking of... Noah, this isn't an ad hominem because the character of the AGW deniers is the question.
"Meanwhile others whine about being called 'deniers', pretending it has something to do with Hitler, while their comrade puts a Hilter mustache on President Obama's picture."
If I were to say in public that a certain person is a crook, I can be sued for slander. If I say the same thing about a politician most constitutions in the world would defend me. There is a reason. Look it up.
Denier was started as a term to compare skeptics with holocaust deniers. If a denier has nothing to do with the holocaust, it would be used more often. But there are only two instances that I know where this term is used. The first time was in reference to the holocaust and now with global warming. But if anyone should be offended with this term, it should be the Jews. You have lowered the seriousness of someone who denies the holocaust to that of a global warming skeptic.
"They constantly engage in ad hominem attacks against climate scientists and AGW realists, and constantly harass climate scientists."
Are you saying that claim the by many global warming cheerleaders that skeptic scientists are in the pockets of big oil, is not an ad hominem attack? WOW! But the climategate emails clearly show scientists who believe that they are owners of the truth and behaved unethically in an attempt to silence their critics. I do not consider anything wrong will calling them on that. I am also amazed that you feel outrage at ad hominem attacks by skeptics, but see nothing wrong with calling skeptics trolls. Again. WOW! Your double standard never ceases to amaze me.
"At the very least can deniers admit that it's disrespectful and unpatriotic to put a Hilter mustache on the portrait of the President of the United States?"
If you believe that your elected leader is behaving undemocratically, it is your patriotic duty to call him on that. If someone feels that Obama will bypass congress and use the EPA to pass carbon emission restrictions, he is, in my opinion, behaving undemocratically. He may also feel telling a person what kind of car he should drive, what lightbulb he should use is undemocratic. Finally, he may feel that exploiting an issue to promote a political agenda that has nothing to do with global warming is also undemocratic. That is why we have freedom of speech. Putting a mustache on Obama is his way of expressing his outrage.
I just think the evidence could mean other things. Correlation does not imply casuation -- just because the rise in CO2 has a positive correlation with global mean temperature doesn't mean it caused it. Solar activity also follows global mean temperature.
And certainly to say that this is the doing of human technology is a little egotistical. A volcano can put out more emissions than the US
What's to make us think this isn't a normal spike? Why assume that it will rise ad infinitum until we're living on Venus? And it's not like the environment over humanity crowd is a bunch of saints. Polar bears aren't even an endangered species -- their numbers have tripled since the 70s thanks to hunting regulation. They can swim 60 miles. What's with the commercials of them in the water with sad music? They live in the water So for now, I abstain.
Sorry but based on Obama's steller performance clown would be more fitting but the Joker look will do.
Now the Hitler thing is a little over the top, however, we don't live in AGW land where people told what they can and cannot do for the good of all mankind and saving the planet, the US is still a free country.
You do seem to have a reverence for authority figures that is not shared by most people. Obama does have some similarities to Hitler, and the parody is fair. (I just defended it!) http://fredshelm.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/barack-the-black-hitler/ I would have said the same thing about someone doing the Hitler comparison to D Cheney. You identify with the warmers/Democrats, and seem to take offense when others do not share the trust and admiration you seem to have for them. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113290.shtml
As for the mistakes, I hope that mistakes are mostly what they are, but at least two of your heroes have admitted that they were not mistakes on at least one occasion. Jones admitted it was not an oversight to not submit his data for review as required by the Freedom of Information Act, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and Pachauri knew that the disappearing glacier claim was bogus before Copenhagen, but failed to correct it before the summit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7107873/Climate-change-leader-knew-about-false-glacier-claims-before-Copenhagen.html
As for there not being a "shred of honesty or morals left in the global warming denial movement", you could say the same about the warmer movement, or any other political movement. http://www.911truth.org/ The closer you get to the top, the more it stinks. That's politics, but hopefully, some of us can behave as scientists instead. http://user.it.uu.se/~pugwash/Etik/uppsalakodex.html