|Baghdad Bob even agrees, "the argument is settled".|
I have always wondered why the AGW hysterical crowd always wallowed in name calling rather than stating actual facts, specific to the argument. One wonders why anyone would call someone a denier, denier, when in actual fact they had nothing else to offer in relation to the argument at hand. It demonstrates a childish and immature response, where one would scream "liar,liar,liar" when someone told the truth and one wanted to at least challenge that truth with something besides a shame faced response or a stance of guilty, like looking at the floor while trying to hide one's obvious guilt.
Shameless editors of magazines and warmist scientists alike, suffer from this same reactive response. Instead of proffering a verifiable response or arguing their stance, they resort to name calling, Mann and others of his ilk are masters of it. They have inturn bought science into ill repute, destroyed it's once great reputation and dosed it with kerosene and applied a match. For the sheer purpose of pushing their own religious doctrine while making a considerable amount of money in the process. Lying about AGW is very profitable as they can clearly demonstrate.
But they continue on their childish path and would do endlessly if there were not some people who wander on a higher moral ground, who rise above the name calling and finally call them to account. About time they did as well.
An introduction here by Anthony Watts, wondering the same thing as I - (follow the link for more of the article).
my query about why he allowed the term “deniers” in scientific literature (Bain et al), and neither has Bishop Hill to my knowledge. Lord Leach however, has weighed in, and has sent me his letter for publication here with permission. – Anthony
Dear Dr Howlett,
The use of the term “denier” does your journal a disservice, both for its vagueness and for its insulting overtone.
What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?
A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.
I wish the same could be said of “consensus” writers – or that they showed the same restraint and courtesy towards different opinions shown by sceptics such as Watts Up With That
Lord Leach of Fairford