How to test and destroy a denier’s argument.

Rule of thumb : they USUALLY have an agenda. USUALLY they don’t argue something for its own merits, they usually have an ulterior motive which their denial extends, and depends on their denial of a premise they dislike.

SOME will insist they are only interested in “free speech and open exchange”, usually those who resort to such a defense admit they are not interested in serious academic inquiry, which is neither open to laymen, nor subject to opinions.

For creationists and intelligent designers, their agenda is to not have evolution forced down their throats because they’re insecure about their faith. They may have more on their list of reasons, but that’s the common thread for almost all.

For 9/11 truthers, and Holocaust deniers, it’s anti-war, anti-occupation. They believe that exposing the truth about 9/11 or Holocaust, will take away the justification for Iraq war, Afghanistan, police state, and occupation of Palestine. Some of course, will admit they’re more interested in vindicating Hitler’s regime because short of Holocaust death camps, Nazi Germany somehow doesn’t look so bad.

Climate change deniers, really only care about tax dollars. They will deny whatever it takes, as long as they can, to avoid having to pay more for energy and oil consumption (this is not entirely their fault, liberals hate gas prices too).

So, to simplify this instruction manual, I’ll start with my favorite. You guessed it : climate change deniers. If a denier is genuinely a skeptic and has no agenda, he can pass this test without a problem.

Ask your denier buddy :

If you are guaranteed that there would be no new taxes and regulations based on carbon emissions, fossil fuel consumption, industrial growth,…would you care which way the globe’s temperature is changing?

and/or :
If you are guaranteed that there would be taxes on the above mentioned, regardless of temperature change, would you care what scientists are saying about climate?

If they answer yes to both. They might be closer to a person honestly interested in debating climate, otherwise it’s admission they’re only motivated by taxes.

Now ask them this! If global cooling was used as a criteria for taxing carbon, while warming was presented as both a good thing and a justification for subsidizing, cheapening energy costs, would you help us find arguments FOR global warming AND man caused global warming? Would you help us deny global cooling?

If they say YES, then they lied!

A person who is sincerely only motivated by tax prevention is not a thought criminal, nobody likes taxes, and there’s also no guarantee that taxing carbon will help the climate. But a person who just doesn’t want to pay more taxes or have his lifestyle changed, DOES NOT NEED TO ARGUE WITH FACTS OR LIE ABOUT IT.

You don’t need to start with “global warming isn’t happening” to “it’s not us” then “it’s not bad” then “ok, it’s bad, and it’s us, but it’s still not worth taxing”. A good honest debater would concede all the small points to get the big point.

Just because you don’t want to pay carbon taxes, doesn’t mean you MUST accept that global warming is happening, but it does mean you don’t need to deny it. Now, what if you don’t want carbon taxes AND you’re not sure if global warming is happening? ANSWER : ADMIT IT!

What then? Once you’ve admitted that you DON’T KNOW if global warming is happening, but you’re open to it, we can actually talk about it. And IF we can establish that it’s true, it DOESN’T force you to change your position on taxes, we already know you don’t want taxes.

The PROBLEM with people who are dishonest about their agenda is this : if they start out with “global warming is a scam, it’s just trying to tax us” then you’re admitting, that IF global warming were true, you’d have a hard time refusing the carbon tax! This is like saying, if you admit slavery and gas chambers are wrong, then if they were true, you MUST admit the people who did them were wrong!

I have no problem with people who don’t want carbon taxes, I am one myself. I am not a global warming denier. But people who are lumped with deniers deserve to be, because they don’t know how to be honest.

This is why 9/11 truthers and Holocaust deniers get no support, it’s bad enough they are wrong, but even if they are right, people who agree with them on policy (that Israel and Iraq war need to be stopped) know that facts don’t matter. This is why policy debaters NEVER let the facts of this scale get in their argument. When do you EVER hear about Israel foreign policy advocates say that if it wasn’t for the Holocaust, Palestine can be free? When do you EVER hear Iraq war advocates say that if 9/11 didn’t happen, or if oil wasn’t in Iraq, we’d come up in a heartbeat?

IPKA your trusted source for exposing liars, scammers and just plain assholes, Righthaven, Populartechnology, PowerBalance

Whether you’re curious of both sides, or just want to hear the version that makes you happy. This blog has you covered. Nobody annoys these people more than we do. Fully legally, without consequences. We know for a fact they are all calling their lawyers and inside men hoping to dig up information on us, and shut us down. But it ain’t happening.

They can’t harass our sponsors, because we have none. We have nothing to lose, so they can’t threaten us.

Is there a scientific consensus on climate change? (good news, most don’t care)

Depending on who you talk to, the answer varies.

Some creationists or conspiracy theorists will say “Yes, there is, but science can still be wrong and consensus doesn’t mean anything”.
While other deniers will say “there is no consensus, because I can name a dozen scientists who DISAGREE”.
Clearly, somebody is wrong, and somebody disagrees on what counts as “consensus”.

But either there is, or there is not. It cannot be both. If you hear somebody saying “No, there is not consensus, but even if there is, it’s still not true” you can bet, the next breath is “even if it’s true, it’s still wrong to trample on my freedoms and tax me for breathing”. And thus reveals the desperation of using every possible weapon he can get his hand on.

A good argument needs only ONE point.

To really cut to the chase. Here’s what to do.

Don’t ask them what is scientific consensus.
Don’t even ask them whether global warming is true.
That means, don’t ask them whether humans have ANYTHING to do with climate change.
Ask them the real question : DO YOU care whether science supports global warming? Or are you more concerned about paying carbon taxes?

They have no reason to lie about it. Most will readily admit they do NOT care whether science supports global warming, or evolution, they just want their freedoms. Very few will say “I am willing to pay whatever the liberals, UN, Marxists, hippies demand, just prove to me it’s true!” If they do, the fun has just begun. Make them tell you what it would take to convince them it’s worth it. If they DO tell you, ask them why they do not apply the same rules to every other fee they pay, freedom they lost, or lifestyle choice.

One thing is for certain, you will spot a hypocrite. You will spot a person who either is an extremist or cherry picks what he likes to complain about.

Poptech doesn’t know subjective from objective

If you asked him whether his list is subjective, what would he say?

“Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity. The metric is widely abused and disputed,

Wrong. Impact factor is objective. But whether popularity is scientific validity is another question. And that can be said to be objectively irrelevant.
There is a mathematical formula to measure impact, whether it is a good measure or not is another question. Poptech claims to know math, so it is likely that he is knowingly lying.

He is intentionally confusing the fact that impact factor is not the best measure of popularity or scientific validity, with “therefore it is subjective”.

Just because a person being female is no proof she is a good nurse, it is as least an objectively verifiable fact, which can indicate whether this nurse is “typical” (as it’s a statistical FACT that most nurses are female). Just because you cannot use a person’s sex or gender to determine whether he/she is a good nurse, does not mean his/her sex is “subjective”.

Christian fails to understand that citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Looks like somebody doesn’t know how scientific writing works. Scientists don’t cite papers because the author looks cool or sings a nice tune. Scientists cite papers when and if they are reliable. While the frequency of citation is not guarantee a paper is accurate, it is an indication that is better than none at all. One does not and should not use citation as a SOLE measure of validity, but lack of any, is usually an indication that the study is either not widely read, or widely accepted.

Scientific acceptance is NOT a measure of truth, but it’s a lot better than none at all.

PS, these anti-popularity arguments only appear in creationist, Holocaust denier, and conspiracy websites. Somehow climate is the only place where science happens to be wrong or unsettled. Unless you’re a creationist, and then science is wrong about half the time. While it is true that popularity does not equal scientific fact, nor does scientific consensus equal truth, those who wish to argue against it have a burden of proof to present something better. One cannot simply say “because you don’t know everything perfectly, therefore you might be wrong about everything, perfectly”.

Just because a woman’s breast size isn’t the objective measure of whether she can be a good mother, is in no way saying, that her breast size can’t be objectively measured.

Christian distorts Christiansen (har har)

3. Christian attempts to distort the meaning of a quote by editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen,

So it’s perfectly OK for a climate change denier to take a quote out of context (such as when asked whether 95-09 has seen significant warming, or “hide the decline”)


But when somebody does it to one of his idols, it’s a lie, it’s a crime and he wants them lynched (Andrew, if you don’t want them dead, please let me know, I hate to put words in your mouth)

14%+ is not “almost 15%”

That’s right, if you’re not 100% accurate on your math, for better or worse, Poptech will call you a LIAR.

You don’t get to say that 14.1% is “almost 15%” something is only 15% or it is NOT 15%, there is no such thing as a bad round off or poor estimation.

2. Christian lies that Energy and Environment is almost 15% of the total.

Failing to properly count the list is proving fatal for those trying to desperately attack it. When you actually count the full number of papers on the list (900+ not 900) you get 14.1% which is not “almost 15%”. Even still 131 is only 14.5% of 900. That is over 769 papers from 256 other journals besides Energy & Environment on the list.

Andrew Poptech fails to “rebut” or refute the “spammed lies”

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4081

Justifying something doesn’t make it a lie. You have not even tried to disagree with the FACTS presented about your list. You just tried to explain why it is (as if we care).

My favorite:
Claim : The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, political views are ok.
Response :
This is another strawman argument.

What? Is it true or not true? What is it a STRAWMAN OF?
Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report, social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list
I see, but when did you ever hear IPCC report refer to itself as “peer reviewed only”? Looks like this is YOUR strawman, nobody claims IPCC is a purely scientific organization, nor its report as a purely scientific resource. So why do you have a problem when it’s pointed out your list is what it is (as if we said there’s anything wrong with it).

The list is not my thesis of a theory on climate change.
Because you don’t have one. You’re a denier.

No paper is listed were the author admits their entire paper or science was flawed.
So some paper may have been where the author admits it’s PARTIALLY flawed?

The list is not a single unified theory but a resource.
We heard you the first time. So nobody lied about your list, you just don’t like it worded that way.