(In response to this article)
Here was my answer.
Ouch. Can’t say it isn’t deserving though.
Geez, I was going to say something about how the unibomber believes in gravity and we all know he’s a nutter so therefore gravity must be nutty, too, but then you go and do that and mine seems so flacid in comparison.
And here is mine.
So one has to be a mass murderer, terrorist, serial killer, or at the very least, borderline homicidal to believe in or be concerned about global warming?
Seems the Heartland Institute is packing some serious nuclear grade stupidity. Everyone knows beards are the real connection, Kaczynski, Bin Laden, Manson; BEARDS!
BEWARE, THE BEARDS OF TERROR!
Another beard. SEE! I was right!
Shameless hacks! Little more to be said of the denialist crowd.
Please let’s not lower the level of discussion on this blog by bringing Global Warming into the picture. As an atheist and skeptic, I respectfully disagree that the hypothesis on man-made global warming is a successful one. On the other hand, I dislike this ad campaign, and welcome disagreement.
But in the first seven comments, AGW skeptics have been called deniers (implying they are completely irrational and comparing them to Holocaust deniers). In the past there have also been calls from prominent public figures to ban AGW skepticism and to jail “deniers”. This is an ugly, ugly topic that’s hard to discuss with the friendly skepticism and open-mindedness and mutual respect that should be normal when dealing with a scientific hypothesis.
So it is perhaps better avoided if possible.
How skeptical can you really be if you prefer to avoid difficult topics?
It is important to remember that science denialism is closely linked to theism, and is contrary to the skepticism practiced by most atheists. Many of the worlds problems are also tied to science denialism, which wouldn’t be the case if more people were skeptical and rational. So subjects like this are very appropriate to this forum.
Excellent. Please tell me you emailed it to them.
In the past there have also been calls from prominent public figures to ban AGW skepticism and to jail “deniers”.
Jail? No. Ridicule? Certainly.
Climatologist aren’t neccesarily doing science or math very well. One can be quite in line with science and still be skeptical of the quite unjustified and often falsified claims of the climate alarmists.
Bad interpretation of his comment, which was quite reasonable. He’s found that climate alarmists aren’t rational and wishes to avoid being called names.
Jail yes. You aren’t paying attention. Some less promenent figures have called for “allowing” the houses of “denialists” to be burnt to the ground. There has also been talk of reeducation camps. Not unusual for the left actually.
James Hanson (the Nasa head who in the past was an alarmist about a new ice age) went in front of congress and called for jailing CEOs who are climate skeptics. Not exactly in the spirit of science.
I think the ads are stupid but with a little better taste than the 10:10 campaign ads. The term denialist is similarly stupid in that it tries to associate skeptical scientists with nazis (holocaust deniers).
They might have gotten the idea for this from the ThinkProgress article that pointed out that Norweigian mass murderer Ander Breivik is a “Global Warming Denier”. That was run nearly a year earlier than the Heartland ad. The Heartland ad was pulled in 24 hours after outcrys from both sides. Took ThinkProgress a year.
Here’s mine: Norway terrorist is a global warming denier Oops, no that was ThinkProgress, and oh look at all the web sites that thought it was a valid argument a year ago.
They’re doing both very well, which is why- as is always the case with science- our knowledge continues to grow.
Our understanding of climate is certainly good enough now that we know with near absolute certainty that the amount of heat stored in the atmosphere, land, and oceans is increasing significantly, and that increase is largely due to human activities. We know with a high degree of certainty that this increased heat will lead to conditions that are physically and economically unpleasant for the majority of humans.
These matters are not in dispute in scientific circles. They are certain enough (a greater than 95% consensus among climate scientists) that nobody except a working climate scientist really has any reason to believe otherwise. That is the rational position to take.
My point was that global warming deniers should be ridiculed.
That was a statement of opinion, not a public advertisement. And as an observation, it is meaningful: to point out irrational beliefs in a terrorist helps us understand them. How does pointing out individual rational beliefs in such a person really help, though?
Science denialism is intellectually equivalent to historical denialism. The term is useful and properly used. Denialism is also associated with conspiracy theorists. You’ll find a lot of overlap between holocaust deniers, global warming deniers, 9/11 crackpots, and the like.