AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Dissent Freedom Global Warming History Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Plait, Plait, Tu Quoque Plait…

(in reply to the Bad Astronomer’s “You can’t resolve away climate change“)

Phil’s and all the warmists’ stance would be greatly helped if you people would stop calling “deniers” everybody and anybody that questions even the slightest AGW claim, instead of trying to push together creationists alongside those simply asking for evidence that catastrophes be upon us.

In fact, to anybody not ready to denounce all the attempts to hide data, avoid compliance to FOI legislation, and try to shut perfectly legitimate scientific papers off peer-reviewed publication, I just ask: what makes you any better than the chiropractors that have tried to ruin Simon Singh??

There’s so much we could all do if we would work together but no, the mere mention of the slightest doubt is nowadays sufficient to be labeled a rabid right-wing creationist conspiracy-monger on the pay of Exxon. And that can’t be a serious way to deal with climate risks.

0 replies on “Plait, Plait, Tu Quoque Plait…”

Maurizio, you have a bee in your bonet about Phil Plait. Take your medication and stop concern trolling his blog. You need therapy and to admit that you’re a denier. Go on maurizio, admit it “I’m a denier”. Thats the first step to realizing how much out of reality you’ve gone.

‘Bad Astronomy’ was fine for debunking the Apollo hoax (i.e. that some people think this was a hoax or a conspiracy) because the Apollo moon landings were objectively true. But scientists and legislators who disagree with climate alarmism are quite different. We’re not talking about objective historical truth.

Phil falls into the same silly type of illogical rhetoric as those who think Apollo was a hoax. For example, he says in response to the ‘whereas’ clause’ [WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth. Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as “the gas of life”]

“Wow. I mean, wow. Let’s lock these guys in a room filled with CO2 for an hour or two and see how much life is left in them…Wow.”

Firstly, he cannot disagree that carbon dioxide is “a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth” – that’s an objective fact. The reference to locking people in a room filled with CO2 is absurd: water is also essential to life, but death ensues if one is submerged in it. Does that make water a pollutant? No. Does that mean it’s not vital to life? No. Would CO2 be hazardous at 2x or 3x or 4x current concentrations? No. So what point is Phil making? A completely unscientific and illegitimate one. It is just a crude piece of rhetoric overlaying the principle of ‘point weak: shout loud’.

I hit his comment section using my street name (it helps sometimes).
Trashed his for Mars to warm up Earth would have to turn into a toast argument, with a peer reviewed JPL paper no less (that’s rare for me).

Haven’t had the strength to give it a second look.

have fixed the tag

I have also asked over at the BA blog for somebody to respond to your comment #71. Let’s see

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.