Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

All these labels have been lies, not supported at all by your quotes, and you never quoted even a single peer-reviewed paper in contradiction to any particular claim I have made.

I've referred directly to several - including Mann's famous hockey stick graph - that your claims deny (in that case, your claim of legitimate doubt regarding anything beyond the"logarithmic" direct effect of CO2 boosting, and that logarithmic effect trivial). But the fact that you cling to the irrelevancy of particular papers is proof of your denial: such silly chaff cannot persuade anyone honestly considering the matter.

So, as usual, not deny, but simply doubt, a doubt which was, btw, simply justified by the fact that I have not studied this question, and in no way implied that there was really anything wrong with the results.

That's denial, that doubt. Just as doubting Hitler really killed lots of Jews is denial of the Holocaust. Just as doubting anyone flew airplanes full of people into the WTC buildings is denial of 9/11.

So that the likely and possible effects can be computed, and have been computed. And, of course, in any particular example of such a computation one can, also, easily compute the average temperature.

So? Average temperatures exist now and at all times, equilibrium average temperatures will not exist for centuries if ever, equilibrium optimal average temperatures will never exist - it's a meaningless concept.

You think so, I think it is you who has mistaken the pressure.

And you are wrong. I posted evidence the first couple of times, it's a fairly well-discussed topic in the relevant communities, you have no excuse - you simply cannot abandon your ludicrous denial of AGW.

I have given a clear and simple base for my position about this: The optimal average temperature is probably higher than the actual one

There is no such thing.

And that means that some small and not too fast amount of climate warming will have positive consequences.

That is almost certainly true, and completely irrelevant. We are already dealing with a warming too large and too fast, and it's nowhere near over. That's what AGW is - a too large, too rapid warming, cause by a very large and very rapid boost in the greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere, primarily CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

Even if the actual warming would be too fast, so that the costs for the transition would be larger than the positive effects, some positive effects would nonetheless be present. The mass media do not present them at all

There's no "if" - you are in denial. And that's not true, of the mass media - the mass media tend to exaggerate the good news, in the US - like the good side of the spreading of southeastern trees north and west in North America.

This indicates a political pressure in the direction of a climate hysteria

You are wrong about the direction of pressure. That means your assumptions are wrong, or your logic is bad. I leave it to you to figure out which.

 

[Schmelzer]

that your claims deny (in that case, your claim of legitimate doubt regarding anything beyond the"logarithmic" direct effect of CO2 boosting, and that logarithmic effect trivial).

That means, I do not deny them, in the non-Orwellian meaning of "deny".

That's denial, that doubt. Just as doubting Hitler really killed lots of Jews is denial of the Holocaust. Just as doubting anyone flew airplanes full of people into the WTC buildings is denial of 9/11.

Indeed, any refusal to support Party line claims which one simply has not checked, so that one is simply unable to make any reasonable claims about them, is "denial". This is exactly the Orwellian, totalitarian meaning of "denial" accusations.

So? Average temperatures exist now and at all times, equilibrium average temperatures will not exist for centuries if ever, equilibrium optimal average temperatures will never exist - it's a meaningless concept.

No, it is a quite normal approximate concept. The concept does not become meaningless simply because it is not applicable for some time, even if this time is "hundreds of years". And it does not become meaningless because the parameters used to define what is optimal (interests of humanity, human agricultural technology) considered fixed in the definition appear not to be fixed in reality.

And you are wrong. I posted evidence the first couple of times, it's a fairly well-discussed topic in the relevant communities, you have no excuse - you simply cannot abandon your ludicrous denial of AGW. And that's not true, of the mass media - the mass media tend to exaggerate the good news, in the US - like the good side of the spreading of southeastern trees north and west in North America.

What certain "communities" of fanatics discuss is irrelevant. Except you want to redefine opposition to those extremist groups to "denial". That we disagree about the media content is already clarified, and it makes no sense to discuss this.

You are wrong about the direction of pressure. That means your assumptions are wrong, or your logic is bad. I leave it to you to figure out which.

You have forgotten about the third way: That your claim is wrong.

That is almost certainly true, and completely irrelevant. We are already dealing with a warming too large and too fast, and it's nowhere near over. That's what AGW is - a too large, too rapid warming, cause by a very large and very rapid boost in the greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere, primarily CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

To clarify if we have already a too large, too rapid warming would require much more research from my side, given that there are enough "deniers" which even deny that there is a global warming yet. Up to now, I'm quite comfortable with what I see around me, so that direct evidence is insufficient.

 

[iceaura]

That means, I do not deny them, in the non-Orwellian meaning of "deny".

Now you're slandering Orwell. You deny AGW, absurdly, and hiding behind language such as "doubt" does not save you.

Indeed, any refusal to support Party line claims which one simply has not checked

Calling them "Party line" claims is absurd denial.

What certain "communities" of fanatics discuss is irrelevant. Except you want to redefine opposition to those extremist groups to "denial".

Now you are describing the entire body of relevant researchers and standard publications as fanatics and extremists.

You have forgotten about the third way: That your claim is wrong.

Contrary to all evidence - too much and too overwhelming evidence verifying too obvious a situation.

To clarify if we have already a too large, too rapid warming would require much more research from my side

It would simply require that you abandon your absurd denial. Why is that so difficult for you? You know nothing about some situation, you check up on the basics and arrive at a reasonable assessment based in physical reality - what's the big deal?

 

[Schmelzer]

It would simply require that you abandon your absurd denial. Why is that so difficult for you?

I do not support any Party lines in such dubious cases without extensive checks. But supporting the Party line would be obligatory to "abandon" my "denial". They would need a lot of time. How much you pay me per hour?

 

[Kittamaru]

I do not support any Party lines in such dubious cases without extensive checks. But supporting the Party line would be obligatory to "abandon" my "denial". They would need a lot of time. How much you pay me per hour?

Ah, so you finally admit that the only thing you care about when deciding where to place your support is your own monetary gain.

About time...

 

[Schmelzer]

Ah, so you finally admit that the only thing you care about when deciding where to place your support is your own monetary gain.
About time...

No. There was no question where to place my support, I have not placed my support neither in favor of AGW nor against it. I'm not that much interested in the basic questions of AGW to care about them. So, if iceaura wants me to support her Party line, or, alternatively, to become a denier in the usual meaning of the word, she would have to motivate me to take sides, and to spend a lot of time to find out which side is right. Without studying the question I simply refuse to take sides.

 

[iceaura]

I do not support any Party lines in such dubious cases without extensive checks.

You deny AGW: by calling it dubious, by calling it a Party line, by demanding extensive checks on its established reality, and so forth.

This is exactly how Holocaust deniers, Evolutionary theory deniers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 deniers, and so forth, operate. You are one of them.

So the value in your posting here, like Michael's on US white racism and the various fundies on Darwin, is in your display of the thinking involved - where do these bizarre denials come from, how are they maintained in the face of ongoing events and undeniable physical fact?

You, for example, are the victim of a lavishly funded and media dominating US based propaganda campaign that is decades old now (recently intensified), whose purpose is congenial to your worldview: removal of the burden of taxation and regulation from corporate capitalist business and its ownership. That's how you seem to have been suckered - you and the Koch brothers share an overriding basic principle that all the world must be made to fit: the government is best that governs least; maximum freedom is gained at minimum government. So a money-soaked program of continual repetition of lies and deceptions and slanders - the Big Lie gambit - worked in your case apparently because it landed in fertile ground between your ears.

Michael the same, we notice.

So the question becomes: is that a necessary, as well as sufficient, feature of the victims of the Big Lie?

 

[Schmelzer]

You deny AGW: by calling it dubious, by calling it a Party line, by demanding extensive checks on its established reality, and so forth.

Which is the whole point. I have to support it without any checking, because it is Party line. The Party line is, by definition, what to doubt is illegitimate, which does not require any checks, because it is the Party line.

This is exactly how Holocaust deniers, Evolutionary theory deniers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 deniers, and so forth, operate. You are one of them.

Not really. Holocaust deniers really deny some claims of the mainstream WW II history, but there are, of course, also Holocaust "deniers" who simply refuse to support official history. Evolutionary theory deniers believe other theories, moon landing deniers really believe that there was no moon landing, instead of simply saying that they don't know if there was a real moon landing. And, yes, I'm one of those who do not support the Party line, except in those parts where they have made independent checks.

You, for example, are the victim of a lavishly funded and media dominating US based propaganda campaign that is decades old now (recently intensified), whose purpose is congenial to your worldview: removal of the burden of taxation and regulation from corporate capitalist business and its ownership. That's how you seem to have been suckered - you and the Koch brothers share an overriding basic principle that all the world must be made to fit: the government is best that governs least; maximum freedom is gained at minimum government. So a money-soaked program of continual repetition of lies and deceptions and slanders - the Big Lie gambit - worked in your case apparently because it landed in fertile ground between your ears.
Michael the same, we notice.
So the question becomes: is that a necessary, as well as sufficient, feature of the victims of the Big Lie?

Wow, now there appears a Big Lie. We are invited to see Big Iceaura fighting the Big Fight of Big Truth against Big Lie. Let's have fun.

 

[iceaura]

The Party line is, by definition, what to doubt is illegitimate, which does not require any checks, because it is the Party line.

When you refer to established physical reality as a "Party line", your denials have become absurd.

And, yes, I'm one of those who do not support the Party line, except in those parts where they have made independent checks.

You are one of those who doubt established physical fact, and hold it to be a dubious Party line. You ignore completely - and sometimes even willfully reject - all "independent checks", including in this case all of the scientific research that has established AGW.

Wow, now there appears a Big Lie.

Yep. They do exist.
Which you, being gullible and ignorant and - especially - devoted to a poorly thought out political agenda, fell for; swallowed whole. Hence the absurdity of your denials.

And the similar denials here, from others.

Which brings up the question:

So the question becomes: is that a necessary, as well as sufficient, feature of the victims of the Big Lie?

 

[Schmelzer]

When you refer to established physical reality as a "Party line", your denials have become absurd.
You are one of those who doubt established physical fact, and hold it to be a dubious Party line. You ignore completely - and sometimes even willfully reject - all "independent checks", including in this case all of the scientific research that has established AGW.

The whole process of learning physics is a process of doubt of established theory. This is how one learns established theory: One follows the arguments used to establish these theories. But these arguments make sense only if you allow yourself to doubt. Only in this case, one can distinguish these arguments from mantras of a Holy Scripture.
And we see now another aspect of totalitarian life: To ignore the Holy Scriptures of the Party line is evil.

This was part of my uprising - at the university, where I studied pure mathematics, and only some aspects of its applications in physics, completely nothing out of biology, chemistry, and other natural sciences, I was nonetheless forces to learn also some part of communist teachings - history of the Communist Parry, Scientific Communism (LOL), and Marxist Political Economy (which was the only part which had at least something to do with science out of this). Because ignoring these Holy Scriptures was evil. The same here now. Ignoring the Holy Scriptures of AGW is evil. Even if you are not interested in climate science. Else, you are an evil denier.

 

[iceaura]

The whole process of learning physics is a process of doubt of established theory. This is how one learns established theory: One follows the arguments used to establish these theories. But these arguments make sense only if you allow yourself to doubt. Only in this case, one can distinguish these arguments from mantras of a Holy Scripture.

1) That is the process of learning established theory. It applies in the case of someone undertaking to learn it. You are not.
2) AGW is not theory, but discovery - finding. Many theories, much analysis, and a large body of recorded evidence have gone into establishing it.

And we see now another aspect of totalitarian life: To ignore the Holy Scriptures of the Party line is evil.

You are refusing to learn about established physical reality, and then claiming legitimacy for whatever doubts you have dreamed up in your complete and willful ignorance.

Because ignoring these Holy Scriptures was evil. The same here now. Ignoring the Holy Scriptures of AGW is evil. Even if you are not interested in climate science. Else, you are an evil denier.

Doubting established reality is denial of the establishment of that reality.
It doesn't rise to the status of evil. It is absurd.

In your case, it is doubly absurd in being based on propaganda-addled assessments of poorly observed mass media reports, by your own claim.

The interesting question then is how you became so gullible, so vulnerable to being addled by that propaganda. It's interesting and appropriate in the thread because it seems to be a gullibility shared widely by absurd denials of different kinds. It's a feature of absurd denial.

 

[Schmelzer]

You are refusing to learn about established physical reality, and then claiming legitimacy for whatever doubts you have dreamed up in your complete and willful ignorance.

I'm not obliged to learn the Holy Scriptures of AGW "discovery". Not to learn your Holy Scriptures is as legitimate as not to learn Scientific Communism. Live with that. As long as you make no definite statements about the domain in question, but remain in doubt, everything is fine. Nobody is obliged to support any Party line, or to learn the Holy Scriptures supporting that Party line. Free people have a right to ignore these Scriptures, and, moreover, not to support the claims made in these Scriptures. This is not a denial of these scriptures, it is simply ignorance.

The interesting question then is how you became so gullible, so vulnerable to being addled by that propaganda.

Which is complete nonsense, given that most of the AGW opponents have a position quite different from my own. I don't care about most of they argue about (like if there is some climate change, or how much, or if it is human-made) they don't care about what I argue about (that there will be positive consequences too).

But I have to admit that I'm gullible. I have recognizes this already in my communist childhood, at a time when I was, myself, yet a communist. But nonetheless I read whatever anticommunist propaganda was accessible to me, and I had to acknowledge that I was unable to identify the anticommunist lies always immediately. Some of what they wrote looked even quite plausible for me. At this time, I have, really, considered this gullibility as my personal weakness. And, indeed, this weakness has finally caused a horrible result, I became an anti-communist.

 

[iceaura]

I'm not obliged to learn the Holy Scriptures of AGW "discovery".

You are absurd to deny physical reality as established by overwhelming research and sound analysis.
You are doubly absurd to refer to it as Party line, or Scripture, or any such terms of dismissal, based on your view of media handling.

As long as you make no definite statements about the domain in question, but remain in doubt, everything is fine.

No, isn't. You are posting falsehoods and absurdities, making assumptions without basis in fact, defending that pile with bad logic and dissimulation, and refusing good faith correction.

This is not a denial of these scriptures, it is simply ignorance.

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious, the established, the real, is not simple ignorance, but willful blindness.

What is the motive?

 

[Schmelzer]

You are absurd to deny physical reality as established by overwhelming research and sound analysis.
You are doubly absurd to refer to it as Party line, or Scripture, or any such terms of dismissal, based on your view of media handling.
You are posting falsehoods and absurdities, making assumptions without basis in fact, defending that pile with bad logic and dissimulation, and refusing good faith correction.

Emphasized the lies about me.

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious, the established, the real, is not simple ignorance, but willful blindness.
What is the motive?

In a world with easily observable political pressure on science the value of the scientific results are in no way obvious, but require more detailed checks. Are the results claimed by political propagandists and Party soldiers like iceaura really supported by scientific evidence? One cannot exclude this, but simply believing this would be stupid.

This needs time. Time is money. If the question is important enough, one would better spend this time. If not, so be it. In this case a refusal to support above sides is the reasonable rational choice. This is an example of what in economic science is named "rational ignorance".

 

[iceaura]

Emphasized the lies about me.

They all have had multiple quotes for evidence, in past repetitions.

In a world with easily observable political pressure on science the value of the scientific results are in no way obvious

You have not observed political pressure on science. You have assumed it, justifying the assumption via other assumptions similarly ignorant, the entire bs setup provided to you by US propagandists - media professionals engaged in deception of the ignorant in the US.

Your assumption of political pressure was in error - invalidly "deduced" from corrupted observation of irrelevancy, and wrong in both nature and direction.
You mistook invalid deductions from politically corrupted mis-observation of mass media accounts for the physical reality as discovered and reported by researchers and analysts. You then added to this a series of false assumptions about a physical reality unknown to you, refused to correct them or even acknowledge your ignorance, and ended up in absurd denial of the reality familiar to the reasonable and informed.

Your posting of this denial was in the vocabulary, and in repetition of the contents including specific slanders and specific deceptions and specific falsehoods, of well known US propaganda efforts long employed to obscure the reality involved (AGW) for the benefit (power and money) of corporate capitalist rightwing authoritarian interests in the US.

In this case a refusal to support above sides is the reasonable rational choice. This is an example of what in economic science is named "rational ignorance".

1) Your ignorance is not rational, but willful and ideologically corrupted and maintained in the face of information provided to you.
2) You do not merely "refuse to support" based on ignorance, you make false assumptions about the reality involved, and reason badly from them to claims about that reality that directly conflict with AGW.

But they align with your political ideology. So that is the first and most obvious explanatory factor, of what is otherwise inexplicable absurdity in denying AGW.

 

[Schmelzer]

Repetitions of empty claims disposed.

.

 

[iceaura]

Repetitions of empty claims disposed.

But only mine.

Yours, even the denial of AGW you repeat over and over, you refuse to discard - you are still claiming to have observed political pressure on science relevant to AGW, for example, when you clearly have not (you wouldn't get it wrong, if you had observed it).

 

[wellwisher]

Global warming and manmade are two separate issues. One does not necessarily imply the other. The earth has warmed before, without man, showing how the two more often than not, act separately. If you see a bird flying south in the fall, this does not mean this is due to man. Two unrelated things can appear to relate if there is enough conditioning of the mind.

The left seems more vulnerable to this confusion. For example, if there is an investigation into voter tampering in the US by the Russians, this does not mean Trump is under investigation for doing this. These are two separate things. However, many on the left made that erroneous connection, of two unrelated things, due to the impact of constant propaganda. This is an example of manipulating people to satisfy an agenda so two unrelated thing appear to merge. Many on the left still want to believe the lie since they have been trained to be dependent and unable to apply critical thinking skills to clear their heads.

The dead giveaway is the hypocrisy. Many of the leaders on the left warn of CO2 emissions, as they globe trot in private jets which generate more CO2 in one day that a family of four does in a month. They act like there is nothing to be concerned over, while saying the opposite, when they are conditioning their base. If the world was coming to an end, you would see them selling their beach front property and buying mountain side property. This is not happening. The actions of the leftist leadership, tells us all is well.

The leadership on the left is upset, but only because Trump dried up their slush fund. The left seems to think that the gods of global warming can be appeased if their leadership gets to behave like there is nothing happening, while only giving lip service.

 

[Bells]

Global warming and manmade are two separate issues. One does not necessarily imply the other. The earth has warmed before, without man, showing how the two more often than not, act separately.

While missing the glaring point that we are speeding the process up.. Our input on the planet, is accelerating the process.

If you see a bird flying south in the fall, this does not mean this is due to man. Two unrelated things can appear to relate if there is enough conditioning of the mind.

No, but if you see a bird flying south in the middle of winter, because the weather up to that point had been so mild that it was not autumnal enough to trigger a change in temperature, affecting plant growth patterns, for example, then it's a safe bet that we are helping accelerate the issue of global warming. So something that would naturally have happened 1,000 years ago, is now looming as an immediate threat, because our actions have caused the whole process to accelerate. I don't understand how or why people refuse to even acknowledge this very real problem and try to ignore it altogether in denying 'global warming'..

Take for example Isle de Jean Charles in Louisiana. The Federal Government has just had to fork over millions and millions of dollars to relocate the inhabitants on the now very little strip of land, because sea levels are now rising so quickly due to global warming, that the inhabitants are about to be swamped. As it stands, the rise is happening so fast, that they now only have a few years to relocate, after the last few years saw the sea water rise fast enough to swamp their farms and destroy the land (salinity).. The rise in sea levels have caused erosion, causing further devastation.. And they aren't alone.

The left seems more vulnerable to this confusion. For example, if there is an investigation into voter tampering in the US by the Russians, this does not mean Trump is under investigation for doing this. These are two separate things. However, many on the left made that erroneous connection, of two unrelated things, due to the impact of constant propaganda. This is an example of manipulating people to satisfy an agenda so two unrelated thing appear to merge. Many on the left still want to believe the lie since they have been trained to be dependent and unable to apply critical thinking skills to clear their heads.

You are the only one connecting global warming to the Trump campaign collusion with Russia...

 

[Kittamaru]

I simply refuse to take sides.

Then by definition, you are part of the problem - an uneducated consumer who gives the appearance of not caring through their ignorance, consuming like a good little boy without regards for source or impact...