To explain why I call some of you "deniars," I'll use the *best*, most substantive deniar explanation of *why* it denies the climate science consensus.
RUKidding0: "My objection is purely political, because supporting world changing legislation requires conclusive proof under the rationale that the greater the change impoased (sic) upon people's lives, the greater the proof required."
I find RU's comments full of equivocations, dissembling and logical fallacies, yet more responsive than most. Decide for yourself, if you have the patience.
http://www
In summary, the reasoning is:
(1) Assume a political conspiracy by climate scientists and environmentalists, and increasingly, claim it's masterminded by Wall Street.
(2) Use the assumption in (1) as the basis to dismiss science.
(3) Use the assumption in (1) as the basis to presume climate scientists are guilty of anything that any anonymous thief accuses them of, and as the basis to deny factual findings of scientists' innocence.
(4) Use assumptions 1 - 3 as excuse to evade all substantive discussion of the science.
Especially disingenuous is your universal refusal to stipulate what part of the Theory you know is correct and to rigorously define, in scientific terms, exactly what you dispute. The straw men "Al Gore" and "carbon trading schemes" are not intellectually honest rationales to dispute *science*. To object to *science* based on *policies* that you imagine will *result* is just irrational at best and it looks dishonest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment