Monday, January 9, 2012

Jo Nova: nonsense headline of the day

From Jo Nova's spiteful-stupid slanderous slurry come this gem:

. . .
. . .


11 comments:

  1. Branding those who don't share you're particular opinion of the facts as spiteful, stupid, ect. doesn't exactly open up the avenues of dialogue and engagement now does it?

    This is the problem with you folks on the way progressive left nowadays. You hate the other side so much, that you have become what you've always hated. Haters.

    Climate deniers, as well as climate activists have reasons for their particular interpretations of the facts available to them. Have you ever wondered that there may be more to why they hold these interpretations rather then they they are stupid, ignorant, ect?

    The same however can be said climate deniers. Political and ideological dialogue in this country is a joke. I only regret that you seem to be doing your fair share to unintentionally discourage discourse.

    Best of wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Branding those who don't share you're particular opinion of the facts as spiteful, stupid"

    Jo Nova is self-branding, Lucus.

    I'm not going to pretend she's better than she is.

    "This is the problem with you folks on the way progressive left nowadays."

    . . . and the (hypocritical) branding of me has begun.

    "
    Climate deniers, as well as climate activists have reasons for their particular interpretations of the facts available to them. Have you ever wondered that there may be more to why they hold these interpretations rather then they they are stupid, ignorant, ect?"

    Of course climate deniers are not merely stupid, ignorant, "ect." They are also dishonest, manipulative, and arrogant.

    But let's be clear: my post was on a single particular person, of whom I have direct knowledge, with the ability to back up every adjective used. You are the one seeking to paint all deniers with the Jo Nova brush . . . which is terribly insulting to most of them, I should think.

    "I only regret that you seem to be doing your fair share to unintentionally discourage discourse."

    I don't think treating malignant fanatical liars with kid gloves furthers discourse. You'll have to sell Rodney King somewhere else; we're all fill up here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Climate deniers, as well as climate activists have reasons for their particular interpretations of the facts available to them."

    You are giving most deniers more credit than they deserve, if you think their interpretations are based on facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK then. Give us your 'facts' on AGW please

      Delete
  4. Keeping the discussion civil isn't a bad idea.

    However the context of all this, is that the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that we must act immediately on climate change.
    Over 100 professional science organizations of national and international standing have made statements saying that the science is valid, the danger is real and we must act immediately.

    We have an election coming up in the U.S.
    And we have an entire major poltical party that denies the science.
    The only party in the world that does.

    It's important that denialism be shown for what it is.
    99+% of so called skepticism about climate change doesn't involve real skepticism.


    GOP science time

    GOP congressman Rohrbacher suggests trees cause global warming

    Speaker of the House Boehner says CO2 emissions nothing to worry about because humans
    breathe CO2 in and out. Brilliant.

    Michelle Bachman says there have been no scientific studies showing CO2 is harmful.

    I guess she missed the 10,000 (up to about 2006) published research papers that show that CO2 causes global warming. There are thousands more research papers since then.

    Rick Perry likens himself and other deniers to Galileo.
    Sorry Rick, but Galileo was correct and had the evidence.
    You are wrong and have no evidence, while ignoring the mountain of evidence for AGW.
    Perry and the rest are more like the religious authorities who persecued Galileo.


    GOP Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming
    because God won't allow it to happen.

    And of course wacko Sen Inhofe says its all a big hoax.
    Sure Senator, the entire world scientific community is just trying to get more grant money.

    Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) describes Christopher Monckton "as being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side."

    Monckton, who the GOP loves to call as an expert witness on climate change, is not a scientist. His only higher education is in journalism. Monckton is a complete charlatan, who has been completely and devastatingly debunked on several occasions by real scientists. The GOP has twice had this lunatic as an expert witness on climate change.

    Monckton had been told twice by the British House of Lords, to stop claiming he is a member. Yet he greets the U.S. congress with greetings from Parliament. He claims to have discovered cures for HIV, the flu, the cold, Graves disease. He claims to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He never was.

    He is looney beyond belief. And he is well paid by the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel interests, to be goofy.

    Barton and Inhofe get more oil money than any other legislators, in the House and Senate, respectively.

    Minnestota GOP state senator, Michael Jungbauer, claims to have studied all 13 fields of science related to climate change. Just so you know, no climate scientist would make such a claim. Jungbauer is the leading global warming denier in the Minnesota state senate. Turns out he doen't even have a bachlor degree in ANY field of science.

    We don't have time for this foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could take the same tack and argue that global-warming isn't a problem because the Earth has warmed less than the difference between average daytime maximum and overnight minimum temperatures. But that would be stupid and delusional (like your typical denier argument, come to think of it...)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would like to ask Lucas if he would share his methodology for establishing facts and how having an "opinion of the facts" is valid in its own right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...and discourse is not the way to figure out facts... the word Lucas is looking for is 'study'

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Branding those who don't share you're particular opinion of the facts as spiteful, stupid, ect. doesn't exactly open up the avenues of dialogue and engagement now does it?"

    You are a fool if you think the deniers want dialogue and engagement. They might speak of "dialogue and engagement" but it's merely an act to spread their misinformation and make themselves appear more reasonable at the same time.

    Their actions speak for themselves. They downplay any science that doesn't conform to their partisan political ideology and substitute it for any nonsense that does.

    "This is the problem with you folks on the way progressive left nowadays. You hate the other side so much, that you have become what you've always hated. Haters."

    Well I am on the progressive right, so bad luck. The "tea-party" right are a load of foaming idiots. This blog has a good name.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You are a fool if you think the deniers want dialogue and engagement. They might speak of "dialogue and engagement" but it's merely an act to spread their misinformation and make themselves appear more reasonable at the same time."

    +1

    Scientists are doing their science. Some of them help communicate and advocate for action as citizens and I'm grateful for that. What follows does not apply to scientific work, but what we do with the fruits of that labor.

    For the rest of us (non-climate-scientists working for actions compatible with the science and common sense) this is primarily a rhetorical and political struggle within our democracy over what to do.

    In such a contest, the focus is not on opening up a dialogue and persuading the people in the campaign office of Denial, Inc. It's persuading the large, uncommitted middle ground. There are a number of ways to go about that, and we should always strive to be honest and fair. I hope I always am. We do not, however, always have to be polite and solicitous. Too much of that leads to the Dukakis effect: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/09/dukakis-effect.html.

    ReplyDelete