Tom calls for a "change in tenor of the debate."
The climate controversy is one of the world’s most important discussions. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs, and, if U.N. representatives now meeting in Peru are right, the fate of the global environment itself. We need leaders in science, engineering, economics and public policy to contribute to the debate without fear of retribution.
Billions raining down on the hoax.Sadly, the opposite is happening. Because the issue is poisoned with personal attacks, censorship, illogic and even death threats, many of the world’s leading experts are too frightened to comment publicly. They don’t want to be falsely accused.
Unfortunately, this voice of reason is ignore by the other side of the debate.For example, when advocates are criticized as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers should explain, “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.” It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests.And calling someone an eco-nut or a denier is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy, “against the man,” instead of the idea, a tactic that has no place in rational discourse.
Recently the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry posted an open letter declaring that "Deniers are not Skeptics."
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.OK, as far as it goes. They blow it when they continue:
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong.Uh-oh. Now these "Skeptical Inquirers" are trying to claim the high ground and intimating that those of us on the realist side of the debate -
- deny reality
- do not engage in scientific research
- do not consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong
Who is denying reality?
Who does not engage in Scientific Research?
Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Jennifer Marohasy,Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.Consider the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC )
Who does not consider the evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong?
Did they consider that, this century, atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30% whilst global temperatures have fallen? Obviously not.
This Flawed Post led to ars technica to respond
The letter called for the news media to stop allowing doubters of climate change to use the label "skeptic" and instead label them deniers, based on the root "denial," which was defined as "the a priorirejection of ideas without objective consideration."Get up of your ARS, "friends" and do some checking of your own.
Name just ONE from our side of the debate who doubts climate change?
"Denialist" is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change. And frankly, there are a fair number of people in that camp who don't accept any of the evidence that's been generated.We accept the "evidence of climate change." Do the "friends?"
Consider the fraudulent Mann "Hockey Stick Graph." Did you "Friends" accept this attempt to deny that climate had changed from the MWP to the LIA to the 20th Century Warming?
IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David (Deming) was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails. (link)