Grendel wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:


That's good, beopup. But ... ummm ... what is it?

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 8:05am:


I'd suggest that Paella knows a lot more of the science than you give him credit for, and I don't believe it was gleened (sic) from newspapers and magazines either.  

It's more than a bit rude to assume that your opponents have little grounding in a subject when you really don't have a clue about them. You haven't met me, and I'm pretty sure you haven't met Paella either.

Considering the paucity of your own 'knowledge' on the subject, such an attitude reeks of hypocrisy. It is obvious to everybody else that you haven't so much as glanced at a science textbook, and even the material designed for school age students goes way over your head.

The very fact that you regurgitate your articles of faith so diligently and that you are totally impervious to intelligent discourse on the subject shows how effectively you have been 'shafted' by the blogarazzi.

You have been socially engineered, and the process has been so successful that you even accuse experts of being socially engineered.

This is obviously a non-sceintific argument. Nothing on these blogs is a scientific argument.

As a political argument, it is lousy: you are saying you are right because I am incapable of understanding why you are right and because I do not accept the grounds on which you claim to be right.

Way to go. This is what has seen your stock go down steadily around the world for years now. But do persist.

You are simply unable to grasp that parading your scientific learning is not enough. You want social action which is a totally non-scientific matter and has abolutely nothing to do with sub-atomic physics. If you think that citing authorities about physics will also appear authoritative in the sphere of politics, you are deluded.

With every utterance, boosters continue to overstate their case. There have been so many wild claims by boosters that now everything you say is suspect.

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:43am:


"That is to say, we tend to assume that the public are confused because they have a deficit of scientific knowledge, education and cognitive skills. That is to say that they're scientifically illiterate.
So if the problem is a deficit, then the remedy for it is a surfeit. So it seems to me that the scientific community has succumbed to or fallen into or pursued what I would call a supply side response. You see this all around, including very much so in our society here today, that we try to supply good information with public outreach efforts, K-12 science education and various statements on web pages. That is to say, efforts to supply the necessary information.
…
I think we know empirically that the supply side model has failed. But moreover, and the point I'd really like to make when we think about this as a scientific community, is that I think that the supply side model is itself unscientific because it flies in the face of the evidence of what we know about what we're doing.
So all of the polls clearly show us that whatever it is we've done has not been effective, our message has not gotten through to the American people. In fact a completely different message has gotten through which is that scientists are arguing, that there is still a lot of scientific uncertainty, that more research is needed, and that a lot of what we're seeing can be explained by natural variability."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm



I told you - you are simply unable to grasp that parading your science is not enough.

I know you don't understand...

Whether I am sick or cured, and how, makes absolutely no demands on you or the others on this forum. Not so with AGW. AGW is about what we ALL should do. Your inability to come up with an even remotely relevant analogy shows that you really, really do not even begin to understand where you have gone wrong.


But go ahead, give as more graphs and the usual eyewash.

soren lorenson, I wholeheartedly agree with Naomi Oreskes' remarks above. As to why you quoted her, I've got no idea. If anything, the fact that nothing she has to say helps your argument in any way, shows only that are struggling with understanding Naomi Oreskes, if not struggling to understand your own argument.

I'm still waiting to hear where my 'people who have babies' analogy is inconsistent with denialist reasoning. Will I be waiting long? While you're at it, I'm sure you can let me know where the bush-fire risk relocation analogy is invalid. I look forward to hearing it. But never mind, if you can't actually come up with a logical, coherent reason, just keep repeating that it's 'not even remotely relevant'. That will do the trick.

---

By the way, this might help:

anal·o·gy, noun - a form of logical inference based on the assumption that if two phenomena have some characteristics which are similar, then there may be similarities in respect of other characteristics.

Firstly, you should learn to quote correctly. But never mind, I'm happy to concede I've got no idea about a great many things. I do, however, try to have at least some idea about which things I have no idea about. Suggest you try the same.

Please clear something up for me. Your focus seems to have changed from 'AGW is not happening', to 'the general public do not understand AGW'. Are you claiming that it therefore follows that AGW is not happening? It certainly seems to read that way.

By its very nature, no one understands, for example, quantum entanglement. So does it also therefore follow that quantum entanglement is not happening?

But at least you, if no one else, will be safe in the event of a nuclear war: by your reasoning, as long as you don't understand nuclear fission, it won't hurt you. It simply will not be happening.