ClimateDebateDaily.com is that other very popular site that I am criticizing here. This is ClimateDebateDaily.org. And I have some words for them:
Just shut-up.
Your pseudo debate just props up the empty case of skeptical climate denialism.
Just because you present two sides does not mean equivalent stature. Your soapbox for idealogs, fringe whack-jobs and professional denialist campaigns pales next to selected, reputable news and science reports. Are you planning similar "debates" on plate techtonics, evolution, or the theory of gravity?
What does your "graceful argument" have to do with scientific truth? Comparing the styles and layouts of arguments means nothing. Do you think this another OJ trial? "If the glove don’t fit, it must not be global warming?"
I know you have the right to free speech and all that. But the strident denials, delaying tactics and purposeful attempts to confuse the issue go too far.
If it is OK to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do you think the opposite is OK? In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat and smell smoke, we move toward the exits - are you telling me is it OK for the usher to yell "There is no fire!, sit down?" or even "There is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate."
Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts. I think you should just shut-up.
You know you are talking about politcs, not science
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science.
We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades beyond their proper life — all by a professionally unified denial campaign. You kept a toxic drug delivery mechanism out of the FDA and deflected legislation that properly should have banned nicotine. And you cemented the flow of profit. Now the very same PR agency and individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement - this time paid for by the carbon fuel industries.
Gosh, could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually caused climate instability?
Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful denialism is here just to prevent any interference to their business operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science and delay responsible legislation?
It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the courts may find you liable. Eventually you will be shunned and reviled for your words and actions, but until that day comes, then just SHUT-UP.
We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here.
The stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization.
We need lots of science focused on knowing the extent of the problem.
We don’t need paid obstructionists, willful skeptics, and professional denialists distracting the quest for more information.
We need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans. First off, carbon fuel companies should stop these PR campaigns.
And we have contempt for your ignorant toady followers that you trick into academic suicide just to sabotage research and cripple public policy.
Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to inflict potential harm to the innocent. If you don’t see that then try these common analogies:
- Let’s say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes are bad and maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the brakes are fine and we should keep going in fast traffic. The driver is worried and wants to slow down and check the brakes. Any skeptic that denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and let the driver decide.
- Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened highway; the radio reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed. You start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of your passengers insists that you keep driving the speed limit. He claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything is OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would say Shut Up.
- Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa that finds it has poison water that kills people - all the townspeople violently deny the facts, just to keep their commerce going. The difference here is that EVERYONE on the planet will suffer in some way. No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is even suspicion then everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don’t fight these correct acts.
Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was seen on radar. Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen before, someone was skeptical, and doubted what they saw. They said it must have been a flock of birds, or friendly flights. But they certainly did not cling to that skepticism after seeing the smoke and fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not sure how a denialist of today would have been regarded back then.
We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are getting in trouble and people are dying. You are pandering to human denial and cultivating human weakness for self-deception. Then you try to redirect public attention with debates about the shape of the arguments instead of the substance. Stop it.
And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 or even Katrina. Until someone is brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or to haul you into court, or to win a lawsuit - and that may happen soon - until then, just shut-up.
We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad the problem is, and you don’t want to help, you don’t want to do research. You just want to promote delay and engage in ideological squabblings. Well, you can think your own thoughts, but don’t obstruct the important progress of science and government and industry and community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by merely examining the process of a phony debate. There’s important work to do.
Study Science, Seek Solutions, or Shut-up.
Words up top by Richard Pauli Aug 2008
rantman {at} Speakeasy.org
After you give me wads of cash, then you can say I am bought off, until then I am poor, independent and the words at the top are all mine.
just shut up ?
thank god for reasoned scientific argument.
Richard,
A simple question:
What evidence is there that more CO2 forces global temperatures up further?
If you can answer this question with facts instead of attacks, I'll be interested to read what you have to say.
Thanks,
JBH
Certainly, CO2 has forced climate destabilization in the past, up until now, and will do so in the future. The logic is the same as any observed phenomenon. A brick dropped above my foot has always fallen, and from the pain, I learn it will again. But of course I can say it is remotely POSSIBLE that gravity will no longer work. But I am not willing to endure more pain because of that delusion.
You might regard http://www.co2now.org for the latest news on CO2 - monthly tracking since 1957.
Because two things increase over the same time period is not proof of a causal relationship.
I mean, more people are wearing wider neckties since the 1950s too, but does that mean that wider ties -- or smaller families -- or hip-hop music -- or the Internet -- lead to global warming?
Jonny H
There are many scientific explanations for how we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 - see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Or you may want to check this simple graph - http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm - although the data plot is somewhat more complex than neck tie width or skirt length... but you are welcome to try to add that to the plot and see if it fits with your thinking.
I didn't ask about the relationship of human activity and CO2 production. I asked for proof that CO2 increases are causing global warming, not just coinciding. You still have not provided it.
Jonny H,
Most all scientist conclude that past industrial CO2 output has been helping to overload atmospheric levels. Hence the supposition is that future CO2 injections will do the same.
I sense that your use of the word "proof" means you will never be satisfied with an answer. You know, there is no PROOF that tobacco and cigarettes cause cancer - there are only high confident correlations between smoking and cancer. And the confidence is high enough to win court cases and compel warning labels. I don't smoke. And I urge others to believe the science.
Of course a noble experiment would be for humans to radically reduce CO2 output and then observe changes to atmospheric CO2 levels. I prefer that action to continued pollution.
You might want to follow the recent EPA decisions about regulating CO2. And you might like my other blog of http://theboywhodeniedwolf.com