Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[DinoDoc]

I assume that it hasn't anything to do with this : http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

[BlackCat]

Well, who cares if the facts are wrong if the conclusions are right

[Straybow]

[Q=Oerdin;5745194]All of those have been debunked several times yet here they are being trotted out again. It's like dealing with creationists.[/Q] You mean "All those things have been denied by the people with a vested interest in not having their methods and motivations subjected to honest scrutiny, yet here they are being inquisitive about the facts again."

The glaciologist from India who was grossly misquoted and misattributed as a source for completely fictitious assertions would disagree that criticisms have been "debunked" by the AGW hacks.

[HalfLotus]

Actually I was referring to Pachauri's business related conflicts of interest.

And did you know he takes a car (with driver) for his 1 mile commute to work? You peons better get on that bus though, or we're all doooooomed!

[Caligastia]

it aint climate change denial, Mike, its AGW skepticism

Exactly, Berz. As if anyone actually denies that the climate is changing - which is what the label makes it sound like.

[MikeH]

I'm happy to go with the term AGW denialism then, if you find it more accurate.

[Caligastia]

The sad part is that you truly believe there is no legitimate reason to question the AGW theory, and that therefore anyone who does is morally inferior.

[DinoDoc]

I'm happy to go with the term AGW denialism then, if you find it more accurate.

Is it denialism or skepticism to raise eyebrows at the some of the IPCC's conclusion's when it is seen what they base them on?

[MikeH]

Not morally inferior, just less well informed or mislead. Which, considering the amount of disinformation out there is not really surprising.

[MikeH]

Is it denialism or skepticism to raise eyebrows at the some of the IPCC's conclusion's when it is seen what they base them on?

Science should always be rigorously tested and challenged. It's certainly a very good thing to unearth and expose bad science.

Are recent revelations enough to topple AGW theory? No.

Considering the attention that's put into trying to debunk AGW research it's surprising how little meat anti-AGWers find out of the thousands of scientists working on this stuff. But of course, stories of the nature of the ones that came out recently are highly damaging to something that's become as much of a PR war as it is about any genuine science.

[Caligastia]

Not morally inferior, just less well informed or mislead. Which, considering the amount of disinformation out there is not really surprising.

This doesn't seem to square with your earlier comments about your desire to convey the "wrongness" of AGW skeptics by using the "denier" term.

[MikeH]

That's because I haven't attached any moral weight to the term, you lot have.

[DanS]

The term is chosen generally precisely because of the meaning that is not in the dictionary.

You are being way too cute on this. I never took you as somebody that is easy with propaganda.

[Guynemer]

Gotta disagree, Dan. I've never read "Holocaust" into this or any other use of the word "denial". Denial means denial. Mike isn't being too cute; you're being too paranoid.

[MikeH]

Thanks Guy.