Scott Adams is a Tosser

Stoat argues that the fundamental question Scott Adams poses, How the heck can you – a non-expert – judge who is right? – remains a good one; but that Adams’ answer is worthless. As usual the Stoat wanders a bit, but the key is this:

It won’t take you much reading to notice that all the “official” side information leads you back to the IPCC; and it won’t take you much reading to notice that the IPCC reports are nicely written though a careful process and link back to a wide variety of good scientific sources. It won’t take you much reading to notice that the “denialist” side is largely a self-linking echo chamber that very rarely publishes anything in the scientific literature.

Comments:

  1. I note that the word "denialist" is used to describe people who have an alternative view to that of man made climate change and the "Comment Policy" forbids the use of other words which offend those who believe in man made global warming. The use of the word "denialist" has the connotations of those who do not believe in the Holocaust and is intended to denigrate those who disagree with the belief that man is responsible for the earth warming.

    So I request that before you speak, ask yourself is it kind, is it necessary, is it true, does it improve on silence

  2. It's hard to extract William's meaning with a quote, and this was the best one. And he took the trouble to put "denialist" in quotes.

    That said, I do somewhat regret the choice of words.

    On the other hand, this site is not intended for that tired and sterile debate about "global warming: true or false". We are not here to engage with those who refuse to take the evidence seriously. Rather, we intend to offer elucidation and community for those who do. Please take your confusion elsewhere. There are plenty of other sites where half-informed people fling mud at each other, if you enjoy that sort of thing.

  3. As per Connelley's comment, I believe you'll find Lukewarmers making use of IPCC reports as much or more as those on your side of the fence. Given that many of those most exercised about climate change say the IPCC is too conservative, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

  4. Arguments that use "side of the fence" are a giveaway that politics rather than interest in reality and honesty are in charge.

    Common usage and normal definitions of denial and denier require only that polite people use the qualifier "science" of "climate science" to make it clear that the assumption it applies to "holocaust" is wholly invalid.

    Now that climate science deniers have all but won the political argument, perhaps they need to remember that they are human and have families, so they might like to take a reality check. If it were your health, your computer, your home, your plumbing, your roads and transport, you'd prefer the best experts.

    Why do you prefer the least qualified and best financed?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.