—-

Cattle, sorry fools …
You need to expand your vocabulary.

I refer you to Mike’s response to your last post, since nothing appears to have changed since then.

S2

Where’s the incrementality in that juvenile farce?

Next you’ll claim that the CRU/Hadley/Jones scandal is Ok, and it really changes nothing . . . and because the very same type of charlatans have changed roles/sides it makes them believable . . .

Cattle like you are dangerous to all.
—-

So you have no rational response to the facts presented and are reduced to this juvenile misrepresentation of the article?

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to make that obvious.

I am not a scientist, and have only been interested in this issue for a few years. I’m fine to point people in the right direction for broad concepts. But I don’t even know any calculus yet.

I have a commenter who knows a heck of a lot about Steve McIntyre and the Hockey Stick controversy. He’s got a complicated chain of logic and citations which supposedly show that every 1000-year temperature graph ever used by the IPCC is flawed, when the flaws are taken out (specifically bristlecone pine data) the conclusion falls apart, and this has been suppressed by the IPCC which proves they have an agenda.

I’ve been holding up okay until now. But now I really need someone who knows their climate science well – either to help me out or to (preferrably) take over. I’m not the right person to be taking part in this debate. I’m not a scientist.

The thread starts here – http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-547 – and really gets into the specifics around here – http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-634.

Any takers?
—-

climatesight
I see Tamino, Hank and frankbi have gotten in on it, so I’ll leave it to them. A couple of quick notes though. Glen starts with the false middle fallacy ie the claim that truth is between the extremes, easily shown to be a fallacy:
A says 2+2 = 2
B says 2+2 = 4
False middle says therefore 2+2 = 3

as for the hockey stick … never forget the realclimatewiki as a helping hand

The economic interests are the same, along with the political and social beliefs, and the parallel tactics that confuse, prevent and delay action on the issue (‘it’s only a theory’).

It’s disgusting and transparent.

I recommend Marshall’s book, Carbon Detox, too.

“Whenever a neocon stops fantasizing long enough to admit there is a problem, he turns Hegelian and excuses every horror as a stone along the difficult road of progress.”
Mariam Lau
—-

Good one. Haven’t read Carbon Detox yet, but but looks like I may have to.
Mike

which of these two is actual tobacco industry denial, and which is climate change denial with “tobacco” and related terms substituted

Maybe, just maybe, that’s exactly their modus operandi.

– bi