Is there a new tactic being employed by the climate skeptics?
Recently, there seems to be a trend where skeptics are arguing, not over the substantive issues, but over semantics, grammar, and phrasing.
For example, Al P wrote 'Metrology must include physical interaction with the universe'. Sagebrush questioned the meaning of this, but I think it is pretty clear what was meant.
We have had Solarwind whinging about the usage of heat and energy. We have had recent questions from anonymous users about the use of language, four syllable words, and oikoo's grammar in one answer.
The reason I ask, is because this is a tactic I recognise from my own field. It is an attempt to undermine an argument by asking the person to clarify what they mean by parts of it, thereby getting them to try to define things with ever greater clarity, hoping they hit a roadblock. At which point you dismiss their whole argument. I'm wondering if this is the latest trend in skeptical circles.
- DiracLv 41 year agoFavourite answer
It's pretty amusing, considering that in general the grammar, spelling, etc. in this group is so bad. The anonymous poster that posed some of these questions is little more than a troll, and an inconsistent and barely literate one at that. I guess some of the answers quickly sailed over the top of his head, so he alternately complained about poor grammar (for no good reason in the case of oikos) and that the vocabulary was apparently above his normal reading level. One thing he was unable to do was to offer any legitimate criticism of science, so when you're desperate you do what you can.
Similarly, Sagebrush--despite being a "true" scientist--is never able to mount any sort of substantive scientific argument, so he pulls from his list of about 20 quotes that he repeats endlessly (including one from an end-of-days preacher he claims is a meteorologist) and provides childish nicknames for those whose arguments he can't refute.
I'm still waiting in vain for some scientific arguments from them.
- 1 year ago
The world is corupt sonwouldnt be surprises
- vulcan_alexLv 71 year ago
No need for any of that, science requires experiments or at least models that accurately predict. They also require decent measurement systems. Climate change has neither.
- 1 year ago
No. Climate skeptics only have ONE tactic. But it’s extremely effective...
The world is oohing and aahing over the Emporer’s global warming attire. The media is in a thrall reporting on super computers and climate modelling as the Emporer struts around naked. His Johnson standing proud, lapping up all the attention, as his PHD minions fawn and burp devouring all the fat contracts he sends their way.
The rest of us look at each other and shout... Oi, mister. You’re not wearing any clothes...!
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Climate RealistLv 71 year ago
Fifty years ago, there were legitimate reasons to question if carbon dioxide had much effect. But not any more. So, global warming deniers are now resorting to ad homs. They talk about stolen emails, make claims about the data being "manipulated" without evidence that unadjusted data is a more accurate measure of the state of the climate and calling scientists who have conclusions that they don't like, "political."
- CowboyLv 61 year ago
right - they started off just playing the stupid card - that usually works well with republican voters; some tried some other flimsy arguments but mostly they're just stuck on "we're too stupid to understand but don't call me stupid!" - it's the republican rallying cry.
- WyomingLv 71 year ago
You complain about semantics, but then use the term climate skeptic.
The irony is too funny.
- Anonymous1 year ago
Referring to Solar Wind as a skeptic is like referring to a crack addict as a pharmacist
- 1 year ago
I love how they use the word ' skeptic ' as if it's a bad thing and has no role in science lol
- 1 year ago