Why are climate-extremists so obsessed with conspiracy theory?

Any sceptic knows the non-sense about conspiracy ideation from the links of Lewandowsky and other climate extremists. As someone who is actually qualified in this area through my MBA I am very sure this shows a lack of understanding of how real organisations behave, both in theory and practice. In contrast, sceptics seem to intuitively understand the complexity of organisations and have little problem separating the behaviour of the whole group from that of individuals. But climate extremists appear to be incapable of seeing the individuals within an organisation as separate identities to the whole organisations, which I think makes them extremely gullible as to how organisations actually function.

But I wasn’t sure where this gullibility stems from until recently when I was having a discussion regarding evidence from a Roman Latin texts with some other academics. The text is a statement about British identity supposedly made by a Briton and recorded in a Latin text. That much everyone agrees with. But then the academic argument ran thus: “we know the Romans are untrustworthy, therefore because this statement is contrary to our belief it is clearly just made up and false. Therefore the statement about British identity is false”.

In contrast, what I argued was this: “even if it was made up, the Roman writer would not have made up a speech with something so easily known to be false as the identity of the Britons” (In every major Roman city there would be people who had been to Britain and who knew the Britons considered themselves to be distinct from those in Gaul). Therefore even if made up, because even fiction has to be logically consistent, then they would not have had the British speaker saying things that were knowingly untrue”.

However, they just didn’t seem to understand this argument. I was saying that those statements that were common knowledge (so easily verified) would be true, irrespective of whether a Briton had said them or a Roman had made them up. Their view of “truth” was utterly simplistic: they would decide whether or not they trusted the writer. Then having decided whether to trust the writer – they would then declare everything they said as “true” or “false” respectively. And usually this is stated with a lot of references to others in their belief group: “prof so and so says and this prof says and they all agree that this writer made it all up – so …”. But in essence, it was a very black and white view stemming from their group without any nuance at all.

In contrast, every sceptic knows that even the best intentioned people sometimes say things that are untrue and even the most disreputable liar tells the truth. And a big organisation like NASA will be full of real people who have their own political views and who like every else are sometimes lazy and cut corners, sometimes biased, sometimes just stupid or even purposefully play tricks.

Not everything coming out of NASA is false, nor even is everything said by the likes of Hansen, Mann nor even dare I say it Lewandowsky is a complete tissue of lies. It is just that they are far more likely to say untruths than for example Anthony Watts who sets himself a very high standard. But even Watts can come up with utter bollocks!

But to the global warming believers, there seem to be only two kinds of organisations: those that are utterly completely trustworthy – and those which are not. Their world is utterly black and white with no nuances. And so anyone who suggests that their “utterly trustworthy” organisations might behave like real organisations and not always be “utterly trustworthy” are deemed by them to be mad “conspiracy theorists”.

So, it seems that many sceptics have a far better understanding of organisational behaviour. And at times it appears that climate extremists (and some other academics) lack the mental capability to understand the complexity & nuances of real organisations and instead see the world only in two colours.

Is this why climate extremists need the concept of “conspiracy ideation”. They don’t understand group behaviour, so when groups in their black and white “we trust” category are criticised, they need a very simplistic explanation. On that gives them a nice simple to understand label which provides them with a simple barrier or smokescreen to hide behind. This them allows them to avoid the detailed nuanced discussion which they lack the mental capability to engage in and which is necessary to have a meaningful conversation about those organisations.

Perhaps this is why they have to be part of a “consensus”. They don’t themselves have the mental capability of understanding groups themselves; so they seek protection within a group where they do not need to understand how other groups behave, and as a result much of what they do and say is merely mimicing the behaviour of others in their group?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

192 Responses to Why are climate-extremists so obsessed with conspiracy theory?

  1. Ron Clutz says:

    Climate activists see conspiracy theorists everywhere elsewhere. Their best defence is to go on offence.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      I’ve noticed that before – everything they accuse sceptics of is something they are guilty of.

      – conspiracy (they think we’re all employed by “dark forces” and funded by big oil)
      – anti-science (not one of them will accept the scientific evidence of the pause)
      – funded by oil (I think it was Shell who gave some £500million to green causes – and with most oil companies with their snouts in the wind trough, it’s they who are funding the wind lobbyists).

      Maybe the real character flaw they have is that they just don’t understand irony.

      • You are creating strawmen.

        – conspiracy (they think we’re all employed by “dark forces” and funded by big oil)

        No.
        There is, of course, funding going on but by no means is it everybody.
        You don’t need to have everybody on the payroll.
        A few key players and a couple of astroturfed “thinktanks” can be had for a very modest price indeed. The rest is just media.
        Big Tobacco certainly didn’t have to buy everybody.
        If you need a link that will give you a concise history of how this works, let me know.
        It’s well documented.

        – anti-science (not one of them will accept the scientific evidence of the pause)

        Who’s this mystery “them”?
        Do you mean NASA?
        NASA accepts scientific evidence. Can’t very well create a scientific consensus without one. There no other alternative.

        – funded by oil (I think it was Shell who gave some £500million to green causes –

        Who? Are you talking about NASA…or maybe not.

        …I think it was Shell who gave some £500million to….

        You “think” or do you know? Fact checking, right? Companies regularly donate money to various causes. Cigarette companies spent vast sums sponsoring….sporting events like cricket matches. Now there’s irony for you.
        An oil company might spend money on a “Save the whale” campaign or something.
        It’s called “greenwashing”. How can you not be aware of this?
        This is what companies do. It’s a time-honoured tradition.

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          I know because:

          1. I was chairman of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum and the only “dark forces” were some idiots from the wind lobby who tried to join.
          2. Our survey shows that sceptics are probably the most scientifically well qualified group I know and that includes academics who might have a lot of knowledge about one small subject, but are largely ignorant in their general knowledge.
          3. I was part of the wind sector for a while and so I know how much oil money they got. And I’ve been a sceptic long enough to know who is and who is not getting money. And I even once approached all the oil companies asking for a donation to the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum and only one replied.

          THAT IS HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO FUND SCEPTICS.

          Oil companies are up to their backsides with their snouts in the trough of wind money and STUPID IDIOTIC GULLIBLE climate extremists with a conspiracy complex think we’ve the ones getting money and we’re the conspiracy theorists.

          • Oil companies are up to their backsides with their snouts in the trough of wind money and STUPID IDIOTIC GULLIBLE climate extremists….

            Think how much more powerful your assurances would be if they were not so completely self-referential and just a bit more concrete.
            A bit of fact checking and objectivity would be appropriate here.
            Something that doesn’t just amount to you saying “’cause I says so!”

    • Drewski says:

      When you have two of the most prominent skeptic websites, WUWT and Real Science (not to mention Scottish Sceptic), repeatedly claim that all the world’s earth, space and atmospheric science organizations are “fudging” the data, it is quite easy to understand why climate realists see climate conspiracy idiots everywhere.

      • Ron Clutz says:

        Have you analyzed the temperature adjustments? I have.

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

        For the record consensus climate science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.

        • Drewski says:

          A monopoloy?!?
          Well that is the strangest monopoly I have ever heard of.

          You have all (as in every single one) of the world’s earth, space and atmospheric science organizations in support of AGW theory.

          You have all (as in every single one) of the world’s peak scientific science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences support AGW theory.

          You have all (as in every single one) of the American government’s military and intelligence organizations with position papers in support of AGW theory.

          You have scores of international corporations such as Rio Tinto and Exxon/Mobile or Australia’s coal giant, AGL, in support of AGW theory.

          Don’t you mean the OPPOSITE of monopoly?

          • Plus the insurance industry.
            Don’t forget them.

            I don’t put them in the same league as scientific communities, of course, but the big league insurance companies do crunch the numbers for themselves and Scottish Sceptic himself did favourably mention them before.

            Insurance Industry Warns of Climate Change and Extreme Weather

      • Have you analyzed the temperature adjustments? I have.

        Any antivaxxer or creationist can say the exact same thing.
        The idea is to not do what they do.

        “Oh some guy on the internet analyzed the temperature adjustments so well..um it looked good to me so um….y’know, he had a very nice blog so um…..now I reject NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.”

        Do you see how dumb that sounds?
        You analyzing stuff doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
        The idea is to test your ideas.
        Step outside the bubble.

        For the record consensus climate science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.

        How? How does it work?
        What’s the mechanism?
        You shy away from the word “conspiracy” because it would make you sound like a complete crackpot.
        You know that and I know that.
        So you instinctively try to come up with some sort of a more sane sounding term.
        Only it doesn’t work.

        “Monopoly and socio-political movement”?
        What on earth is that word salad supposed to mean?

        How is NASA secretly part of a “monopoly” and “socio-political movement” and yet no other scientific community on the planet notices?
        Total rubbish.

        “For the record consensus evolution science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.”

        “For the record consensus water fluoridation science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.”

        “For the record consensus vaccine science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.”

        “For the record consensus tobacco science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.”

        You don’t know what you are talking about.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        Drewski, there’s no controversy about the data being fudged, Nearly all of it gets some kind of adjustment from raw. The question is – is the fudging right.

        • The question is – is the fudging right.

          “Fudge

          verb \ˈfəj\
          : to fail to deal with (something) in an open and direct way
          : to speak or act in a way that is meant to avoid dealing with a problem directly
          : to change (something) in order to trick people.”

          If NASA was tricking people or failing to deal with something in an open or direct way or whatever, then some other scientific community would find out.
          There is no spooky-wooky, global scientific community.

          There’s no possible mechanism and nobody is ever going to be able to come up with one.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            In engineering a fudge is just an adjustment to make something work right. It doesn’t have to be secret or incorrect. I’d be surprised if you can find a list of adjustments done to raw temperature data including why they were done. Does that constitute a secret?

            Like it or not, the raw data isn’t used as it was recorded. Therefore it has been fudged.

          • In engineering a fudge is just an adjustment to make something work right.

            Let me make sure I understand you correctly.

            You are not using the work “fudge” as a pejorative, right?
            Rather…you are using the word in the same way that any scientist might use the word “trick” in professional jargon when juggling statistics (for example) without any nefarious meaning at all, correct?

          • Drewski says:

            What conspiracy idiots call “fudging”, scientists call “calibration”.

          • What conspiracy idiots call “fudging”, scientists call “calibration”.

            To be fair, if Tiny wants to claim that the term “fudging” in this particular case is just a colloquialism then I can accept that.
            I’m sure that kind of thing does happen.
            English is a living fluid language, after all.

            But…if that’s the case, then surely he would allow for other colloquialisms too from other professions. Jargon specific to the professional field that might sound suspicious to the uninformed outsider but is actually perfectly harmless.
            Right?
            Say, for example, (and this is just a wild, off-the-cuff suggestion I’m throwing out there)…the word “trick”.
            Right?

          • TinyCO2 says:

            I did point out the adjustment has to be right and not secret. If nobody is interested in the result, you can be as innacurate or as secretive as you like. If you’re hoping to convince everyone to give up fossil fuels you have to be as accurate and as open as possible.

            Splicing two different types of data together to hide the dubious quality of one half of the data isn’t a fudge or a trick, it’s lying. You might do it as a way of getting a quick picture for discussion but you’d never present it to the entire world as fact.

            eg Investment in a company is often a reflection of how well that company is performing. However they are not the same thing. Bernie Madoff used new investment money to fool investors that the company was making a profit. We know how that ended.

            Still waiting for either of you to link to where NASA or NOAA explain why and how they adjust each temperature station back to 1850. That’s a link I would follow.

          • Splicing two different types of data together to hide the dubious quality of one half of the data isn’t a fudge or a trick, it’s lying.

            Imagine how much more powerful this assertion would be if you could step outside the bubble.
            Again, you set yourself up as an authority.
            It’s all entirely self-referential.

  2. In contrast, every sceptic knows that even the best intentioned people sometimes say things that are untrue and even the most disreputable liar tells the truth. And a big organisation like NASA will be full of real people who have their own political views and who like every else are sometimes lazy and cut corners, sometimes biased, sometimes just stupid or even purposefully play tricks.

    They can even hire Nazis.
    (shrug)

    It’s not going to work.
    You can allude and suggest and hint and surmise and suspect and muse and doubt and concoct all you like…working from any premise that you desire.
    But a viable mechanism is not going to pop up.
    Nobody can do it.
    You can’t create a viable scenario of NASA and Co. creating a scientific consensus through hanky-panky no matter how much in the way of possibilities and speculation you throw into the mix.
    It’s not going to work.

    Every science denial group out there falls flat at the same first hurdle.
    They can never do it when pressed.
    There’s no mechanism-ever.
    You can try it with a really big group of bad people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky or you can try it with a really small group of people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky.
    Neither option will work.
    It’s a problem of scale.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Cedric, this article clearly flies well over your head. Perhaps if you told me what areas you did understand, I could give you something where you’ve got a fighting chance of holding your own and coming out with some self-respect.

      • Cedric, this article clearly flies well over your head.

        No doubt. No doubt.

        Perhaps if you told me what areas you did understand,…

        Perhaps but I really doubt it.
        Nobody seems to be able to do it.

        Mechanism.
        The basic logistics of it all.
        If an anti-vaxxer (for example) is going to reject the scientific consensus and all the work that underpins it then they automatically reach for a conspiracy theory of one form or another.
        Hence the Big Pharma thingy.

        Only there’s no mechanism.
        It doesn’t work.
        It’s not physically possible for all the medical science communities to be corrupt/controlled by Nazis/in on it/ being bad or whatever.

        Same diff with you.
        No mechanism.

        Can you sketch out on the back of a napkin a viable scenario of what’s “really happening” behind the curtain?
        How does anybody fake a scientific consensus….on anything?
        Lead us through it.
        You’d be the first.
        You can try it with a really big group of bad people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky or you can try it with a really small group of people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky.
        Neither option will work.

        The instant you try and muse on the simplest of practical details, the whole thing collapses under it’s own weight.
        Every science denier community has this same problem.

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          You have no idea what you are talking about.

          Because sceptics are a scientific community.

          • Skepticism is a process; not a position.
            In your methodology, actual skepticism is conspicuous by it’s absence.
            Actual scientific communities do the work that science demands.
            They enter the scientific arena and…they are successful.
            Only the work counts.

            The rest chase their own tails in blogs forever and ever and ever and ever.

            9. Climate Change – Meet the Scientists

      • Ron Clutz says:

        Scottish-Sceptic, I don’t think Cedric is interested in dialogue. He is linked to a website with posts saying how Bill Nye and MIchael Mann are “inspiring.”

  3. mpcraig says:

    After reading this post, two words come to mind: tribalism and groupthink. And one person who experienced that first hand and has written about it is Judith Curry. Oh, and also Lennart Bengtsson.

  4. TinyCO2 says:

    Cedric and his buddies just can’t grasp humanity full stop. He certainly doesn’t understand free will. He demands we accept the authority of NASA, the CDC, etc. Did he not notice all those decades of free society we’ve all been enjoying lately? So when he demands we submit to a higher authority he can’t see ‘no’ when he reads it. We no longer trust politicians, royals, celebs, lawyers, doctors, teachers, bankers, journalists, business people, etc. Why on Earth would we treat scentists any different? The follow up ‘and what are you going to do about it?’ throws him into a spin. We no longer hand over our thinking and decisions to higher power. The rot started when the Bible was translated into English. Ever since then, pesky peasants have been asking questions and when they feel brave enough or alarmed enough they say ‘no’.

    Whether Cedric likes it or not, blind faith is over. Science has held onto it longer than most institutions but it’s fading fast. So if those organisations still want compliance they have to earn it. They have to demonstrate that the science is good, not say ‘well it’s really complicated but trust me I’m a scientist’. People didn’t stop having faith in the MMR vaccine because some small town doctor said it was dangerous, they lost faith because the machinery of science journalism allowed him to publish those ideas in the most important medical journal of the world. Science let the public down. Medical science then redeemed itself by demonstrating that Wakefield was wrong with better science. They could have saved themselves a lot of time if they had demanded his data. No institution is perfect, that’s why society installs layers of protection to try and protect us. Despite that, a week doesn’t seem to go by without somebody somewhere bypassing the rules and doing wrong.

    Industries and sciences are complicated, you can’t hope the public will understand what is good or bad about it easily. Society however has decided that the public have a right to know what clever people are up to. Being an expert is not a guarantee that you’re honest, unbiased, dilligent or methodical. I’ve worked in places that might have alarmed the public if they’d known what went on, and only experts could see that the systems were safe. At the other extreme things have been done that the public would have thought ok, but experts knew were dangerous. Industries are safer because we DON’T trust them.

    The public, and in growing numbers politicians, are saying ‘no’ to climate science. The Cedrics of this world can weep and wail or rewrite what people type but the ‘no’ stays ‘NO!’ I’m sure he is trying to embarass us into following the consensus but the last time I fell for that technique I was six. I’m sure as hell not going to be embarassed into throwing thousands and thousands of cash at someone else’s pet concern.

    To resolve this there needs to be better science and better regulation of how that science is conducted. When that happens Cedric would actually understand climate science rather than just point at organisations that claim they understand it for him.

    • “Cedric and his buddies just can’t grasp humanity full stop. He certainly doesn’t understand free will. He demands we accept the authority of NASA, the CDC, etc. Did he not notice all those decades of free society we’ve all been enjoying lately? So when he demands we submit to a higher authority he can’t see ‘no’ when he reads it. We no longer trust politicians, royals, celebs, lawyers, doctors, teachers, bankers, journalists, business people, etc. Why on Earth would we treat scentists any different? The follow up ‘and what are you going to do about it?’ throws him into a spin. We no longer hand over our thinking and decisions to higher power. The rot started when the Bible was translated into English. Ever since then, pesky peasants have been asking questions and when they feel brave enough or alarmed enough they say ‘no’.

      Whether Cedric likes it or not, blind faith is over. Science has held onto it longer than most institutions but it’s fading fast. So if those organisations still want compliance they have to earn it. They have to demonstrate that the science is good, not say ‘well it’s really complicated but trust me I’m a scientist’. People didn’t stop having faith in the MMR vaccine because some small town doctor said it was dangerous, they lost faith because the machinery of science journalism allowed him to publish those ideas in the most important medical journal of the world. Science let the public down. Medical science then redeemed itself by demonstrating that Wakefield was wrong with better science. They could have saved themselves a lot of time if they had demanded his data. No institution is perfect, that’s why society installs layers of protection to try and protect us. Despite that, a week doesn’t seem to go by without somebody somewhere bypassing the rules and doing wrong.

      Industries and sciences are complicated, you can’t hope the public will understand what is good or bad about it easily. Society however has decided that the public have a right to know what clever people are up to. Being an expert is not a guarantee that you’re honest, unbiased, dilligent or methodical. I’ve worked in places that might have alarmed the public if they’d known what went on, and only experts could see that the systems were safe. At the other extreme things have been done that the public would have thought ok, but experts knew were dangerous. Industries are safer because we DON’T trust them.

      The public, and in growing numbers politicians, are saying ‘no’ to evolution. The Cedrics of this world can weep and wail or rewrite what people type but the ‘no’ stays ‘NO!’ I’m sure he is trying to embarass us into following the consensus but the last time I fell for that technique I was six. I’m sure as hell not going to be embarassed into throwing thousands and thousands of cash at someone else’s pet concern.

      To resolve this there needs to be better science and better regulation of how that science is conducted. When that happens Cedric would actually understand evolution rather than just point at organisations that claim they understand it for him.
      God Bless.”

  5. TinyCO2 says:

    So you agree with me. Good.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Reply to Cedric.

      • Perhaps another example would help:

        ” {insert everything else here as is}
        To resolve this there needs to be better science and better regulation of how that science is conducted. When that happens Cedric would actually understand the moon landings rather than just point at organisations that claim they understand it for him.”

        • TinyCO2 says:

          So what you’re saying is that no matter how good the science was, nobody would believe it. So give up and go find another obsession you might have a hope of suceeding in. Me, I think if it mattered, it wouldn’t be that hard to convince nearly all the public about the moon landings because the science is fine. It just gets almost no dissemination. The same cannot be said of AGW.

          You don’t need everyone to believe in CAGW, you just need enough to support the authorities. However at the moment, you haven’t got anywhere near. You even have governments reversing previous decisions. Each thing like Climategate may not be important but they add up. Ignore them and you credibility just melts away.

          • So what you’re saying is that no matter how good the science was, nobody would believe it.

            The science is good on vaccines.
            It’s always been good.
            Doesn’t stop the anti-vaxxers.

            That’s why they do the conspiracy theorizing. It rationalizes their rejection of the scientific consensus.

            Me, I think if it mattered, it wouldn’t be that hard to convince nearly all the public about the moon landings because the science is fine.

            Doesn’t seem to work.
            You yourself could probably name at least a handful of science denial communities out there that have all the science in the world at their fingertips but are very busy rejecting it.
            Give them a quick once over.
            See how they operate.
            Contrast and compare.
            Honestly, give it a whirl. Fact check it to your heart’s content.

            Very quickly, you will see patterns of behavior.
            One group can objectively be compared to another in multiple different ways.
            Skeptical communities (real ones) do this all the time.
            It’s well recorded stuff.
            Science denial is actually a thing. There’s never anything new.

            Your lot follow the same patterns.

            Just switch the labels around. You are following a familiar pattern.

            The same cannot be said of AGW.

            According to you. You are being self-referential.
            If you do that then….they can do that.
            If you don’t want them to do that then….you shouldn’t be using that style of argument.
            Once you use an argument, you endorse it.

            Conspiracy theories that try to explain away the scientific consensus on….anything at all…can never come up with a viable mechanism.
            It’s never happened.
            Even when you are restricted only by your own imagination.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            So you think that climate science, moon landings, 9/11, vaccination, smoking/cancer etc are all similar issues. Just as important as each other. Each has the same level of information distributed. All have and need the same level of public support or rejection. All need the same money spent on them. All are rejected by minorities for the same reasons? There are no variations at all.

          • So you think that climate science, moon landings, 9/11, vaccination, smoking/cancer etc are all similar issues.

            Focus on what I am saying. It will make communication go much faster and it’s a more honest form of arguing. There is no need to try and slyly build a strawman.
            I don’t do it to you and I’d appreciate the same courtesy.

            There are science denial communities out there.
            There really are.
            They follow patterns. The same basic patterns.
            It’s only ever variations on a theme.

            It’s nothing new.
            You can verify all of this completely independently of me.
            I have repeatedly asked you to fact-check this kind of thing. That’s not some kind of weird trick.
            Really.
            Do it already. There’s no reason to take my word for it.
            Be a real skeptic.
            Fact check.

            Your methodology is the same as theirs.

            Just switch the labels around. You are following a familiar pattern.
            That is not ok for all sorts of reasons.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            “Focus on what I am saying Cedric. It will make communication go much faster and it’s a more honest form of arguing. There is no need to try and slyly build a strawman.
            I don’t do it to you and I’d appreciate the same courtesy.

            There are reality denial communities out there.
            There really are.
            They follow patterns. The same basic patterns.
            It’s only ever variations on a theme.

            It’s nothing new.
            You can verify all of this completely independently of me.
            I have repeatedly asked you to fact-check this kind of thing. That’s not some kind of weird trick.
            Really.
            Do it already. There’s no reason to take my word for it.
            Be a real skeptic.
            Fact check.”

            Your methodology is the same as theirs.

            Just switch the labels around. You are following a familiar pattern.
            That is not ok for all sorts of reasons.”

            Tee, hee. You should read yourself from my point of view.

          • “Focus on what I am saying Cedric.”

            I do. Hence the quoting.
            I don’t need to put words in your mouth.
            You however have done so.
            You don’t quote me the way I quote you because…you can’t.

            So what you’re saying is that no matter…

            I can back up what I am saying.
            You cannot.

            You can verify all of this completely independently of me.

            Verify what? You have made no claim about “reality denial communities”. You’ve never even mentioned this term before. Go ahead.
            Try.
            If you think you can do it, do it.

            I, however, have frequently given specific science denial communities for comparison.

            Tee, hee. You should read yourself from my point of view.

            Tee, hee.
            You are not doing it right.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          What you write also points to how fruitless it is to say ‘NASA’ all the time. People clearly do not trust NASA. They see it as an extension of the US government. Which DOES lie. It doesn’t matter that some of those lies are necessary or that they are made by different administrations. Once trust is lost, it’s hard to regain. How are the public to know when they are hearing the truth or a lie? The evidence needs to speak for itself, irrespective of who delivers it. Sure, some people will still distrust it but many won’t.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            And the science of CAGW is so poor that YOU don’t know what it is.

          • And the science of CAGW is so poor that YOU don’t know what it is.

            Nonsense. I don’t understand any science. Not really. No matter how good or poor.
            You are building a strawman.

            I’ve already explained this.
            I’m a total duffer at science.
            Don’t know the first thing about it.
            I freely and cheerfully admit it.
            Don’t let my rejection of you setting yourself up as an authority on these matters somehow translate into me setting myself up as an authority in contrast.
            No thank you very much.
            Terrible idea.
            Such a burden.
            There enough Dunning-Kruger Effect going on as it is.

            Using me as a gauge on how good or bad the science is on any topic would be a terrible mistake.
            I really don’t recommend it.

            Even I don’t use me as a judge on these kinds of things.
            Imagine if I was arguing with creationists on some creationist blog or other and they accused me of not knowing enough about evolution and so something something the science of evolution was poor.

            Dear me.
            Heavens no.
            That wouldn’t do at all, now would it?

            That would be a very, very bad argument.
            But…they do try.

          • What you write also points to how fruitless it is to say ‘NASA’ all the time. People clearly do not trust NASA.

            It’s not just NASA. It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. There’s no way to organize something like that.

            They see it as an extension of the US government. Which DOES lie.

            I can see that but we both know that NASA isn’t really an extention of the US government. It’s more complicated than that.
            Yes, it’s American. Yes, it’s government supported.
            But there’s no mechanism to turn them all into mindless automatons.
            Even if there was, that mechanism would have to re-used for every administration.
            Can you really see…Bush….insisting that NASA support climate change by doing some hanky-panky?
            Bush Senior?
            Reagan?
            Really?

            Even if they wanted to, how?

            Even if there was a will and a way, how do you get all the other American scientific communities to meekly play along……..all at the same time?

            How?

            Even if you do that…..somehow….then how do you get all the other nation’s scientific communities to play ball?
            All at the same time.

            And all the science journals.
            And the Pentagon.
            And the insurance companies.

            How?

            (Yes, of course the insurance companies and the Pentagon are not scientific communities but they have special logistical problems all on their own that need to be dealt with.)

            How are the public to know when they are hearing the truth or a lie?

            Well, a simple way is to look at the problem of scale.
            If we assume the darkest fears of the public are really and terribly and awfully true (purely for the sake of argument) then….what on Earth could be the basic mechanics of the operation?

            Nobody seems to be able to do that.
            Not even a little bit.
            That should be a big clue.
            It’s a problem of scale.

            Here’s a prime example of applying simple logistical problems in the most fair way possible to implode a vast global conspiracy….on any topic.

            Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not! | Video

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Seriously Cedric, you need to pick an issue and learn the facts about it. That way your arguments might be more than the rablings of a conspiracy conspiracist nut. If I had concerns about any of the other issues but not AGW, I’d be annoyed by you trying to equate me to climate deniers.

          • Seriously Cedric, you need to pick an issue and learn the facts about it. That way your arguments might be more than the rablings of a conspiracy conspiracist nut.

            Imagine how much more impressive your assertions would be if you could back them up.
            You are evading.

            If I had concerns about any of the other issues…

            It’s a pity you don’t.
            That’s how children get measles.

            Once you use an argument, you endorse it.

            Conspiracy theories that try to explain away the scientific consensus on….anything at all…can never come up with a viable mechanism.
            It’s never happened.
            Even when you are restricted only by your own imagination.

            You can’t create a viable scenario of NASA and Co. creating a scientific consensus through hanky-panky no matter how much in the way of possibilities and speculation you throw into the mix.
            It’s not going to work.

  6. TinyCO2 says:

    “It’s not just NASA. It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. There’s no way to organize something like that.”

    And if I was a conspiracy nut, I’d see that unification as proof that they’ve been bought. As it is, I just think that most of those institutions are blindly supporting science, rather than properly examining what was right or wrong about climate science. Most of those involved in signing support documents are about as knowledgeable about AGW as you are. Which is not at all. Why would anyone accept that as a reason to spend trillions? Would I accept a letter from all the banks as proof the banks were honest as the day is long? I’m sure that there would have been many who would have said Bernie Madoff was a fine fellow, and meant it.

    Do you think any of those scientific institutions would say they weren’t sure about vaccination or the moon landings? Why did they feel the need to say ‘me too’ to AGW? The very act of blind support is damning. It says the climate science needs propping up by borrowing credibility from other sciences. Would vaccination have benefitted if NASA had written a letter of support? No, people would have thought ‘WTF has vaccination got to do with NASA?’

    I fully support vaccination but I’d never sign a letter to say it was without fault. It’s not 100% safe. It might be great for society but it’s terrible for the few people who react badly to one. It can and does go horribly wrong. Governments think hard before they support them. Blind support of climate science is pointless. It just makes an idiot of the supporter.

    • And if I was a conspiracy nut, I’d see that unification as proof that they’ve been bought.

      Sure, any rationalization will do. The problem of scale remains, however.

      As it is, I just think that most of those institutions are blindly supporting science, rather than properly examining what was right or wrong about climate science.

      Doesn’t work. How do you blind all of them? It can’t happen by magic.

      “As it is, I just think that most of those institutions are blindly supporting science, rather than properly examining what was right or wrong about climate science.”

      “As it is, I just think that most of those institutions are blindly supporting science, rather than properly examining what was right or wrong about vaccines.”

      “As it is, I just think that most of those institutions are blindly supporting science, rather than properly examining what was right or wrong about the moon landings.”

      No need to change a thing.
      The objection remains: How?
      The problem of scale is still there.
      There are no exceptions.

      Most of those involved in signing support documents are about as knowledgeable about AGW as you are.

      If you think you can create a scientific consensus with just signing documents then I’d love to hear it.
      Nobody is stopping you.

      Would I accept a letter from all the banks as proof the banks were honest as the day is long?

      How is this an appropriate analogy?
      NASA, remember? They are not run like a bank or anything like it.

      Do you think any of those scientific institutions would say they weren’t sure about vaccination or the moon landings?

      I don’t know anything about what they “would” say.
      I can only read what they themselves say in the here and now.

      The very act of blind support is damning.

      No mechanism for blind support. You have yet to provide one,

      I fully support vaccination but I’d never sign a letter to say it was without fault. It’s not 100% safe. It might be great for society but it’s terrible for the few people who react badly to one. It can and does go horribly wrong.

      Now you are just having fun.
      This is exactly what the anti-vaxxers say.
      I don’t have to change a thing this time. Not even the labelling.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        Do you think that NASA is subject to the same levels of regulation and policing that banks experience?

        Do you think vaccination is without risk?

        Nothing in life is perfect. Mistakes and deliberate acts occur. Society recognises that and puts safegueards in place. You seem to argue that climate science is beyond reproach. That doesn’t improve your credibility score.

        • Do you think that NASA is subject to the same levels of regulation and policing that banks experience?

          I think you are stalling. You don’t have a mechanism.
          Nobody does.
          Not any of the groups do.

          Do you think vaccination is without risk?
          Nothing in life is perfect. Mistakes and deliberate acts occur. Society recognises that and puts safegueards in place.

          Yes. And…? Where are you going with this?

          You seem to argue that climate science is beyond reproach. That doesn’t improve your credibility score.

          No. You are just creating a strawman.
          Feel free to correct me however.
          Quote the part that made it seem that I was arguing that climate science was beyond reproach.
          Please do.
          You seem to be putting a lot of focus on stuff that I didn’t really say at all and absolutely none on the stuff that I clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms.
          Shame on you.

  7. TinyCO2 says:

    Cedric you haven’t proven any of your points, you just link to videos that I don’t watch because they have nothing to do with climate. I know you don’t have a firm grasp on the difference between proof and waffle but you’re watering your points down trying to defend too many issues at once.

    • Cedric you haven’t proven any of your points, you just link to videos that I don’t watch because they have nothing to do with climate.

      Science denial.
      If you don’t understand science denial then you are not going to understand what you are doing. If you don’t contrast and compare then you….won’t see the contrasts and comparisons.
      I can only ask you to fact check. Nobody can force you.

      I know you don’t have a…

      According to you. You are being self-referential.
      If you do that then….they can do that.
      If you don’t want them to do that then….you shouldn’t be using that style of argument.
      Once you use an argument, you endorse it.

      Conspiracy theories that try to explain away the scientific consensus on….anything at all…can never come up with a viable mechanism.
      It’s never happened.
      Even when you are restricted only by your own imagination.

      • But few people if anyone but you is interesting in science denial as an issue.

        Scientists certainly are. It makes it difficult to do their work and have it inform the public. Really pisses of the health authorities too.
        That’s how children get the measles.

        You argue that science shouldn’t be questioned.

        No.
        If I said that then I’d say “Hey, I think science shouldn’t be questioned”. (I’m really blunt that way.)

        But I didn’t.
        It’s just more strawmannery from you.

        You are repeating terms that all science deniers use.
        There really are patterns and they are all fact checkable.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      But few people if anyone but you is interesting in science denial as an issue. Science exists. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. Science is furthered through adversity, not fawning support. You argue that science shouldn’t be questioned. I argue that it isn’t good enough if it can’t stand up to questioning. One of us is right.

  8. TinyCO2 says:

    You have a warped view of your own clarity.

    As we are not anti vaccination or moon landing, etc, by bringing those issues in you are “putting a lot of focus on stuff that [we] didn’t really say at all”.

    “Quote the part that made it seem that I was arguing that climate science was beyond reproach.” You are harassing a site that criticises SOME but not all of climate science and its solutions. Instead of rebutting specific points where we reject a specific part of the climate band waggon you are trying to stop us debating the issues at all. You are intent of stiffling debate. What conclusion did you think we’d make?

    • TinyCO2 says:

      I wrote “I fully support vaccination but I’d never sign a letter to say it was without fault. It’s not 100% safe. It might be great for society but it’s terrible for the few people who react badly to one. It can and does go horribly wrong.”

      To which you replied “Now you are just having fun. This is exactly what the anti-vaxxers say.”

      And what wasn’t accurate about what I wrote? These naughty anti vaxxers, using facts. Cunning little bastards. Sorry mate but truth is truth, no matter what the intentions of the people who use it. Good defence admits or even pre-empts inconvenient truths, not gets cross when people use them.

      • catweazle666 says:

        TinyCO2: “And what wasn’t accurate about what I wrote?”

        NOTHING wasn’t accurate about what you wrote.

        You appear to insist on believing you are dealing with someone who debates rationally, and is prepared to concede if you make a valid point.

        YOU AREN’T.

        You are dealing with a troll that is just playing silly buggers, it has no intention of conceding that it may be wrong, because debate isn’t its purpose. All it is here for is to amuse itself at the expense of anyone who will engage with it, and go round and round in a sad, silly little clown dance.

        And that is it, all of it. Even if it knows you are right – and it probably does much of the time – it will never admit it, because all it is doing is trolling.

        Once again, here is a much better description of Cedric and his methods and philosophy than anything I can achieve, read, mark and inwardly digest!

        http://libertygibbert.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/

        AND LET’S ALL STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

        • TinyCO2 says:

          catweazle666, Cedric is indeed a troll but what is there to say when we all agree with each other? While he clearly has nothing useful to dispute about AGW, he does introduce the idea that the public should agree with the CONSENSUS just because it’s the consensus. It’s a valid argument, albeit a poor one and one of the few that the climate community has left.

          The consensus is an old argument and has less relevance today in a free society. People can and do go against the mainstream. Sometimes it’s a reaction against government or authority. Sometimes it’s deeper.

          Who can argue that governments have clean records? They have lied and they will lie if it suits their purpose. That’s why they and Cedric emphasise the scientists involved. Is that relevant? Partly. It does add to climate science’s credibility if clever people support it but it’s the lowest order of proof possible.

          As WE know. The consensus support of the scientific institutions is the work of a tiny number of governing body members. Almost certainly people who volunteer for the job, if not drive the idea from the start. In other words they are motivated. Society members are not polled in most cases. Usually the consensus support document is so insipid that even most sceptics could sign them too. In other cases the society goes further than climate scientists in their claims for AGW.

          I would be far more impressed if those societies discussed what was good AND bad about the science. If they had condemned Climategate and demanded climate science clean up its act, the science would be far healthier for it.

          • The consensus support of the scientific institutions is the work of a tiny number of governing body members.

            You can’t create a scientific consensus that way.
            There’s no mechanism.
            It’s a rationalization, nothing more.

            Every science denial group out there falls flat at the same first hurdle.
            They can never do it when pressed.
            There’s no mechanism-ever.

            You can try it with a really big group of bad people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky or you can try it with a really small group of people in on the scam/hoax/conspiracy/hanky-panky.
            Neither option will work.

      • And what wasn’t accurate about what I wrote?

        It’s a justification for not vaccinating children.
        You are using No. 4.

        It can be recycled for almost anything.

        This science thing. You are doing it wrong.

        • catweazle666 says:

          Cedric Katesby: “It’s a justification for not vaccinating children.”

          Total, utter, unmitigated bollocks.

          Stop making stuff up.

          • Imagine how much more powerful your assertions would be if you could back them up rather that just asking people to take your word on things.

            Anybody can recycle the statement.
            Try it for yourself.

          • catweazle666 says:

            YAWN…

            Go away and find someone else to participate in your sad little clown dance you boring little twerp.

            You are all wind and p!ss, all pathetic VIth form adolescent debating society rhetorical devices and absolutely zero content, intellectual or otherwise, and that’s all there is to it.

          • You couldn’t do it.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Zzzzzz.

          • catweazle666 says:

            “You couldn’t do it.”

            What, play silly buggers with a load of other jumped-up adolescents who thought they were the only people who had ever thought a thought?

            Oh, I could once.

            But I grew out of it around half a century ago.

          • “Ah, so you’re a sockpuppet – that explains a lot. I’ll say one thing for Cedric, you’ve got a very vivid imagination, you little kidder you! You know what, Cedric? I really don’t think you know what you’re wittering about. But I’ll tell you what, you don’t half use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.Do you by chance live under a bridge?Because it certainly looks very much like it.Oh, and by the way, argumentum ad verecundiam cuts no ice on a science blog – and that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?.So many words Cedric. So little meaning. Surely a shining wit such as yoursef can do better?Yawn…You don’t half spout some drivel, Cedric. Ah, so you’re a sockpuppet – that explains a lot. I’ll say one thing for Cedric, you’ve got a very vivid imagination, you little kidder you! Oh dear. What a fool you are. Cedric old chap, I’m afraid you wouldn’t know a fact if it scuttled under your noisome, slimy bridge, leapt up, and fastened its teeth in your snout.You have nothing but exceptionally long-winded argumentum ad verecundiam, and you raise pomposity, pretentiousness and patronising twaddle almost to an art form.You are just another boring little scientifically illiterate troll who who has latched onto a target for your unpleasant stalking propensities.So, SHOO! Dear me Cedric, you take a tremendous number of words to repeatedly demonstrate that you haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about.You just don’t understand this science stuff at all, do you?Oh, and by the way, are you aware that the NASA engineers – you know, those real experts on thermodynamics, the behaviour of gases and all the very complex science involved in rocketry and spaceflight who put the men on the moon, and the astronauts who flew in their creations – don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, and have publicly stated that they don’t? Dear me, you really haven’t a clue, have you?Just a whole heap of Alinskyite rhetorical codswallop that any VIth form debating society adolescent would be ashamed of.Waffle…waffle…waffle…waffle…and – er – that’s it. Still wittering about vaxxers, you boring litle troll?You know Cedric, if you set fire to a straw man as big as that, you probably could cause the climate to warm!As to science denial, as you know zero science, you are not in a position to make any comments on that either way.Oh, and for what it’s worth, my training in and application of science has served me conspicuously well throughout my career, ensuring that in my retirement – although not massively endowed with money to AlGore levels – I am very comfortably provided for. Considerably more so than you ever will be, I suspect.So take your “science denial” BS and stick it where the sun don’t shine, you sad, pathetic, utterly misguided creep. This is a perfect summary of Cedric. Total, utter, unmitigated bollocks.Stop making stuff up. YAWN…Go away and find someone else to participate in your sad little clown dance you boring little twerp.You are all wind and p!ss, all pathetic VIth form adolescent debating society rhetorical devices and absolutely zero content, intellectual or otherwise, and that’s all there is to it. What, play silly buggers with a load of other jumped-up adolescents who thought they were the only people who had ever thought a thought?Oh, I could once.But I grew out of it around half a century ago.”

            Someone has a very large bee in a very small bonnet.

            This is you. This is what you do. This is what you always do. This is your level of interaction. You don’t seem to be capable of anything better.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz?????

        • You are intent of stiffling debate.

          No, I’m not. I leave that to others.

    • As we are not anti vaccination or moon landing, etc, by bringing those issues in you are “putting a lot of focus on stuff that [we] didn’t really say at all”.

      I’m not suggesting you did say that stuff. Stop trying to build a strawman. Read what I actually wrote.

      If you do “X” then….they can do that.
      If you don’t want them to do that then….you shouldn’t be using that style of argument.
      Once you use an argument, you endorse it.

      You are doing what they are doing. Only the labels are different.

      I can give you sources of information on this kind of thing or you can find them easily for yourself. I’ve made multiple comparisons from your own statements.

      You are harassing a site that criticises SOME but not all of climate science and its solutions.

      Oh nonsense.
      I’ve been very fair. I’m arguing with you. That’s not the same as harassing you. I’ve encouraged you to fact check certain basic things (which you refuse to do).
      I even checked in with the host of this blog and told him that if he doesn’t want me around, I’ll just go.
      Now I can’t do fairer that that now can I?

      I’m not the one bringing personalities into it.
      I’m not the one making personal attacks.
      I’m not the one trying to puff myself up into an authority.

      You are intent of stiffling debate.

      By….debating you? How does that work? The mind boggles.

  9. Mark Hodgson says:

    Well done Tiny, I relish your giving Cedric a hard time, as he’s a fruitcake, who really needs to go away now. You get him every time, but he’s too stupid to see it.

    As for Cedric’s”There is no need to try and slyly build a strawman.
    I don’t do it to you and I’d appreciate the same courtesy.” – Hilarious!

    I’m starting to wonder if he’s just an obsessive nut, or if Cedric Katesby is a pseudonym for a troll factory paid to harrass decent sceptics and to try and close down particular sites that upset them. I’ve noticed that he/they seem(s) over a period of time to pester one site obsessively before moving onto another one.. Either way, he is/they are a pest. The sooner he/they realise(s) he/they aren’t going to change our minds the better.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      “As for Cedric’s”There is no need to try and slyly build a strawman.
      I don’t do it to you and I’d appreciate the same courtesy.” – Hilarious!”

      If you’re going to lie, make it a big one. Or maybe he doen’t know he’s telling porkies. A lack of self awareness seems to typify warmists.

      • If you’re going to lie, make it a big one.

        If you are going to accuse someone of lying, back it up.

        “Quote the part that made it seem that I was arguing that climate science was beyond reproach.”

        You didn’t. Nor did anyone else.

    • I’m starting to wonder if he’s just an obsessive nut, or if Cedric Katesby is a pseudonym for a troll factory paid to harrass decent sceptics and to try and close down particular sites that upset them.

      The Shill Gambit. Shame on you.
      The idea is to not sound like them.

    • The sooner he/they realise(s) he/they aren’t going to change our minds the better.

      A genuine skeptic would never say this.
      This science thing? You are doing it wrong.

      • For some people even a small amount of evidence contrary to their views is enough to change their mind. These people are sceptics who put evidence first. But for others, it takes huge amounts of contrary evidence before they are willing to accept their views are wrong. And unfortunately Cedric, you are in this class of people.

        And the main symptom of people in that class, is that they have very little idea of the science and all they do is spend their time like you attacking people who do know about the science.

        • For some people even a small amount of evidence contrary to their views is enough to change their mind. These people are sceptics who put evidence first. But for others, it takes huge amounts of contrary evidence before they are willing to accept their views are wrong. And unfortunately Cedric, you are in this class of people.

          Nonsense.
          If you can back this up then do so.
          Talk is cheap.
          What am I doing that doesn’t make me a skeptic?

          My methodology is sound. It’s certainly nothing that I came up with all by myself. It’s bog standard. It’s all out there in the open.

          Somebody gives me a blog. Well, I don’t get my science from a blog.
          Is that what I’m doing wrong?
          Because…no. That sounds like a reasonable thing to do.
          Anti-vaxxers get their science info from blogs all the time.
          I’m not like them.
          They do the blog thing. I don’t. It’s a very clear difference in methodology. You and your readers cannot say the same.
          Blogs pop up with disturbing frequency.

          Is it me going to NASA? It’s that a symptom of me not being skeptical? Really?
          Or me going to any and all other scientific communities on the planet? Is that where the fault lies?

          If you have a better methodology, then spell it out.
          If you can.

          Put your own methodology on display for comparison’s sake.
          I don’t mind.
          Happy to compare notes.
          I’m pretty sure that in terms of skepticism, my way is the better approach and yours is full of holes.

          • Scottish-Sceptic says:

            I have read Michael Mann’s paper it is a load of shite and thoroughly demolished by McIntyre.

            I have read the climagegate emails and the conspiracy to break the law both over FOI and over changing the temperature record. And there is no doubt that they broke the law as even the information commission agreed with us that they broke the law.

            I know sceptics, I know they are decent people, yet evil nasty people like you constantly attack us.

            I understand the science, I know what it can and cannot support, and it does not support the insane temperature predictions which are either insane or fraudulent, and either way those involved should be booted out and replaced by some sensible people.

            As for NASA, I’ve read their own history in which they explained how they intentionally nurtured environmental activists. I saw how they encouraged an environmental activist to bias the temperature.

            Because of the proven bias of the climate academics both in climategate, on the picket line as per Hansen, and in the way they totally failed to get rid of trash like Mann, there is no doubt that the whole subject is totally corrupt.

            The only temperature record with any credibility are the satellites. And they have shown no warming for 18 years.

          • I have read Michael Mann’s paper it is a load of shite and thoroughly demolished by McIntyre.

            That’s not a skeptical methodology.
            That’s you confirming to yourself that something is wrong. You are being self-referential.
            If you want to be skeptical, the idea is to step outside the bubble.

            If, for example, I change my mind because of what you just said then…I’d have to say

            “There was this guy with a blog and he assured me that he’d read this paper of some guy and that paper was demolished by some other guy anyway so it doesn’t really count…and that’s why I reject NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.”

            It doesn’t really work.
            Whatever that is supposed to be…it’s certainly not skepticism.

            I have read the climagegate emails and…

            No.
            You are not getting this self-referential thing.
            It’s not skepticism.
            I can’t use that.
            I am sure that you have read a great deal of things and you are perfectly convinced that you have discovered something absolutely terrible….but I can’t just believe you. You wouldn’t just expect that from anybody, right?
            For any topic, right?
            If you argue this way then….they…can argue the same way.
            Step outside the bubble.

            I understand the science, I know what…

            I’m sure you feel that way.
            That’s what they say too.
            Think about it.
            Science deniers don’t have any problem making claims that they understand the science at all.
            So…maybe you are correct…or maybe you are not.
            I can’t just take your word it though.

            As for NASA, I’ve read….

            I’m sure you have.

            …there is no doubt that the whole subject is totally corrupt….

            “It” is always corrupt. They all say that.
            Your typical science denier is hardly going to say that the science on “X” is rock-solid, now are they?
            Of course not.
            Your methodology is not skeptical.

            The only temperature record with any credibility are the satellites. And they have shown no warming for 18 years.

            Well, not according to NASA.

            And unfortunately Cedric, you are in this class of people.

            If you can back this up then do so.
            Talk is cheap.
            What am I doing that doesn’t make me a skeptic?

  10. X Robinson says:

    Nice thoughts. A little black and white, but that’s just ironic

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Yes, at times both sides are guilty of this. The difference – is this is an internet grumble. Dr Lew, Cook et al would have submitted a paper.

  11. Mark Hodgson says:

    For all his lengthy and repetitive ramblings, I’ve noticed that Cedric is often quite careful about what he chooses to fight, what he chooses to ignore, what he chooses to deny, and what he doesn’t deny (but merely ignores). On that basis it’s interesting to analyse his latest responses, and to consider what he doesn’t say or deny as much as what he does.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      What I find most annoying about Cedric, is that he’s almost the last alarmist on line. In the past, when I got bored of the repetitive tripe being spewed out by one alarmist, I could find dozens of other discussions with 100s of other alarmists.

      But when I looked today, the only decent article was in the Independent which after around 5 years of the “persistent technical fault” still means I can’t comment.

      However, not surprisingly, when they remove all the sceptics, there are only around 4 others posting … I suppose I could make a note of their name and try to find if they comment anywhere that doesn’t ban sceptics …

      But it really feels these days as if alarmists are an endangered species who only live in special reserves and mostly can only be viewed from behind bars that keep us out.

    • What I find most annoying about Cedric, is that he’s almost the last alarmist on line.

      There will always be NASA.
      NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
      Counting the number of postings is a poor substitute.

  12. Mark Hodgson says:

    And as for this from Cedric:

    “The sooner he/they realise(s) he/they aren’t going to change our minds the better.

    A genuine skeptic would never say this.
    This science thing? You are doing it wrong.”

    My mind is ready to be changed, as soon as someone produces compelling evidence. To date they haven’t, and Cedric is incapable of doing so. Do the science thing right, Cedric, stop arm waving, and show me some science that proves your point, instead of just constantly referring to NASA and “every single scientific community on the planet,”

    Cedric’s mind is made up, on a subject he admits he doesn’t understand.

    This science thing? You’re doing it wrong.

    • My mind is ready to be changed, as soon as someone produces compelling evidence. To date they haven’t….

      No.
      Anybody can say this. It doesn’t mean anything.
      They do it all the time. They all do.

      To date they haven’t, and Cedric is incapable of doing so. Do the science thing right, Cedric…

      I never made this claim.
      How many times do I have to spell it out?
      I’m a total duffer at science.
      Don’t know the first thing about it.
      I freely and cheerfully admit it.
      That goes for any topic.

      “Do the science thing right, Cedric, stop arm waving, and show me some science on the moon landings that proves your point, instead of just constantly referring to NASA and “every single scientific community on the planet,”

      “Do the science thing right, Cedric, stop arm waving, and show me some science on HIV that proves your point, instead of just constantly referring to the CDC and “every single medical community on the planet,”

      “Do the science thing right, Cedric, stop arm waving, and show me some cancer science that proves your point, instead of just constantly referring to the Surgeon General and “every single oncology community on the planet,”

      This science thing? You’re doing it wrong.

      I’m not claiming to do science, remember?

      I’m not the one who’s puffing themselves up and reading this paper or that paper and claiming that it’s just not good enough for me.
      I’m not the one claiming conspiracy/ corruption/criminal actions/scam and/or other assorted hanky-panky on a global scale.

      I’m not the one that’s mimicking the science deniers from other communities unrelated to climate change.

      • Mark Hodgson says:

        Cedric’s response is very interesting, demonstrating as it does both the paucity of his arguments, and the fact that he is either a complete imbecile or he wilfully misinterprets what I say.

        First of all his response amounts to calling me a liar. I am not. I AM willing to change my mind if someone produces compelling evidence. To date they have not. That’s all. I didn’t say that Cedric was trying to produce compelling evidence – my point was that nobody else has done so and that Cedric couldn’t change our minds, with his weak appeals to authority and complete failure – indeed point-blank refusal – to discuss the science. If he can’t change our minds because he doesn’t understand the science (and therefore, by definition, doesn’t understand the issues we are debating) then why is he here? If he wants to change our minds, then he is admitting that he lacks the intellectual ability or scientific knowledge or experience to do so. If he isn’t interested in changing our minds, then what is the point of all his arm waving? Presumably just to be as annoying as possible,and to try to derail the debate. It certainly serves no purpose at all other than to gratify his ego.

        He’s very careful to avoid any scientific discussion at all times, either because he understands full well the weakness of the scientific ground on which those of his ilk stand, or because he truly knows precious little about it, and understands that any one of us could destroy him if he ever once tried to discuss it, and if we all ganged up at once we’d rip him to shreds.

        I then asked him to stop arm waving (one of his favourite phrases about us) and his response was…more arm waving.

        “I’m not the one that’s mimicking the science deniers from other communities unrelated to climate change.” Does he really believe that? Because it’s EXACTLY what he’s doing. His responses are riddled with hypocrisy and self-contradictions, but he can’t see any of it.

        “I’m not claiming to do science, remember?” THEN GO AWAY YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TROLL and allow people who have some understanding of the issues to debate them in peace.

      • First of all his response amounts to calling me a liar. I am not.

        No, it doesn’t. Stop creating a strawman.
        Be honest about it and quote me. It won’t kill you to make the effort.

        “Anybody can say this. It doesn’t mean anything.
        They do it all the time. They all do.”

        That’s not me calling you a liar. That’s me pointing out that….anybody can say that. You can honestly believe it or not. It doesn’t matter.
        There’s evidence.
        Evidence for every scientific consensus out there.
        That’s just the way it works. There’s no other option.

        Yet there are science denial communities out there.
        They all do what you do.
        Maybe they even believe it. The result’s the same though.
        Somehow they all find a way to say “Nu uh”.
        Rationalization is insidious that way.

        (I can even find you some examples if you want if you can’t discover them yourself.)

        Does he really believe that? Because it’s EXACTLY what he’s doing.

        Imagine how much more powerful your assertion would be if you could back it up with examples.
        Go ahead.
        Quote me.
        Quote me in the same way that I’ve quoted you and everybody else multiple times and try switching the labels around. That would be fair enough.
        Demonstrate your point.
        Or not.

        Take a whopping great chunk of my text arguing something (preferably all of it) and switch the labels around.
        Do it.

        • Mark Hodgson says:

          Which bit of “THEN GO AWAY YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TROLL and allow people who have some understanding of the issues to debate them in peace” does Cedric not understand?

          • “Demonstrate your point.
            Or not.”

            Which bit of “THEN GO….

            Hmm.
            How very odd.

            You are intent of stiffling debate.

            Nope. I leave that to others.

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            Cedric says: “If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
            Job done.”

            Sadly it appears he didn’t mean it…But then in Cedric World one of the rules is that words mean what he wants them to mean.

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            Which bit of “THEN GO AWAY YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TROLL and allow people who have some understanding of the issues to debate them in peace” does Cedric not understand?

            All of it, apparently…

          • Sadly it appears he didn’t mean it…

            Sadly, it appears you cannot distinguish yourself from Scottish Sceptic.
            Behold.
            The full text makes it very clear.

            “Then you are just being arbitrary.
            Nobody can conform to rules that are unknown.
            If you want a post to be “X” length then you really should let people know.
            Anything else is just Kafka.

            You don’t have to play games like that.
            If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
            Job done.
            I check my email on a regular basis.
            That will make my comments very short indeed.”

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            “If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
            Job done.
            I check my email on a regular basis.
            That will make my comments very short indeed.”

            He’s said it again, so I’ll say it again.

            Go!

            I don’t suppose he will, though. Goodness only knows why not. He’s now in meltdown levels of denial.

            The only way for Cedric to prove that he means what he says and that he isn’t just a mischievous troll is to act on his own words and do what he said he would, which is to go when asked to go.

            Two of us have now asked him to go. But he’s still here.

          • Ah the wonder of it all.

            Mark Hodgson says:
            13th August 2015 at 7:52 pm
            I see Cedric still won’t go away, even crawling all over a conversation between two other people.

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            Oh dear, how desperately weak.

            That;s it then, Cedric the liar. “If you want me to go then just tell me to go” means “If you want me to go, then just tell me to go, and I’ll still hang around and annoy you all. I didn’t really mean it, I’m having far too much fun to do what I promised to do.”

            Well, at least we all now know that while we might have previously thought he was well-meaning and sincere but misguided, he is in fact just a troll.

          • Oh dear, how desperately weak.

            Well, it’s your comment.
            You should know.

  13. TinyCO2 says:

    “It’s a justification for not vaccinating children. You are using No. 4. It can be recycled for almost anything. This science thing. You are doing it wrong.” Cedric

    No, science has to acknowledge truth, even if it’s counter productive. Every time. OR IT’S NOT SCIENCE! As a supporter of vacination I can’t ignore its flaws. Those involved in vaccination do not ignore the flaws. That strengthens their credibility, not weakens it. There are good arguments to counter those inconvenient facts, I’d use those instead of whining that using them is from some kind of play book. Trying to bluster away genuine issues is the act of a society that lies to its people. That’s the sort of thing that destroys trust in the first place. Only when a significant majority accept the governmental position can those who deviate be forced to comply (eg the US insists kids be vaccinated before school). It’s a last resort and used sparingly. Which is why only a few warmist crackpots mutter about making everone do as they’re told over CAGW. The smarter ones know that they’re in no position to force anything significant.

    You clearly have a list of techniques that you think typify those who argue against mainstream science. List them and demonstrate in YOUR OWN words how they are exclusive to us and not the same techniques anyone, especially a minority group without funding, would use to argue anything. Don’t litter it with links. If you can’t use well known examples that need no looking up to illustrate your points, you will prove you are a time waster.

      • “[long pointless post]”

        Once you use an argument or a methodology, you endorse it.
        Shame on you.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          So you don’t agree that “science has to acknowledge truth, even if it’s counter productive”?

          • Well, I did try to reply to you. Unfortunately, it no longer exists.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Just answer that question. ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

          • Your question is malformed.
            Science is the study of reality.
            It’s not a “truth” thing.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            That’s from the school kid play book of ‘pretend not to undestand the question as a stalling tactic and never admit when you’re wrong’.

            Should science admit ‘reality’ even if that ‘reality’ doesn’t further a wider goal.

          • That’s from the school kid play book of ‘pretend…

            No, it isn’t. You could google “science” and “truth” for yourself and see how malformed your question was.

            I could give links that have nothing to do with blogs to prove the point but….well, you wouldn’t read them.

          • Should science admit ‘reality’ even if that ‘reality’ doesn’t further a wider goal.

            I have no idea what you mean by “wider goal” or whatever.
            Science is the study of reality.
            That’s it.
            So science hardly in a position to “not admit” (??) reality.
            The reality bit is central to it all.

            Do you have a point to make?

          • TinyCO2 says:

            But you still didn’t answer the question. That’s from the school kid playbook ‘la,la,la, not listening’ defence.

        • I have no idea what it said as I didn’t read it.

          It was what I said – too long.

          • What is the correct length?

          • Scottish-Sceptic says:

            I’ve no idea – it was just too long and given the number of posts and the length and the failure to build on what others said, I didn’t think it was not appropriate.

          • Further, how did you know it was “pointless” if you didn’t even read it?
            Shame on you.

            You are intent of stiffling debate.

            No, I’m not. I leave that to others.

          • I’ve no idea – it was just too long.

            Then you are just being arbitrary.
            Nobody can conform to rules that are unknown.
            If you want a post to be “X” length then you really should let people know.
            Anything else is just Kafka.

            You don’t have to play games like that.
            If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
            Job done.
            I check my email on a regular basis.
            That will make my comments very short indeed.

        • Your question is malformed. I’ve answered it as well as I can and tried to correct your mistake at the same time.
          Do you have a point to make?

  14. TinyCO2 says:

    As an answer to why I don’t follow any of your links or automatically accept all of the consensus – Because I can. It’s a free world… or at least my bit is. If I don’t like the science, I can ignore it until the government makes me. The same applies to the other issues. If I want to, I can support political leaders who think the same as me. Let the ballots decide.

    I don’t have a problem with the consensus. The consensus has a problem with getting people to believe it/them. Not least when few people can actually say what the consensus is. Climate science and what we do about it are immense subjects. To suggest there is a clear objective we should agree with is laughable. You are laughable.

    Your sole reason for being here is to argue we are like other science deniers. Well ok but by the same argument you are just like any other internet troll. Does anybody listen to trolls?

    • As an answer to why I don’t follow any of your links or automatically accept all of the consensus – Because I can. It’s a free world… or at least my bit is. If I don’t like the science, I can ignore it until the government makes me.

      Indeed you can.
      That’s how children needlessly get measles.
      If you can…then the others can too.

      The consensus has a problem with getting people to believe it/them.

      Not consensus. Scientific consensus. Two different things. Only the work counts.

      Not least when few people can actually say what the consensus is.

      NASA can. The way you figure out if there is a scientific consensus or not…on anything…is always the same. There’s no great mystery to it.

      Your sole reason for being here is to argue we are like other science deniers. Well ok but by the same argument you are just like any other internet troll. Does anybody listen to trolls?

      Nothing to do with me.
      NASA, remember?

      There is not a spec of difference between you and any other science denial group out there.
      Once you use an argument or a methodology, you endorse it.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        Cedric, I do argue for the right for people to question any consensus, and yes, children will needlessly get measles. It’s up to society as a whole to decide if they want to interfere with people’s right to ignore the consensus and put their kids at risk. A wise society uses that tool sparingly.

        As for NASA, they can come here and argue their position. You are only succeeding in persuading us that ‘there is not a spec of difference between you and any other troll out there.’ ‘Not NASA remember, you’.

        • “Cedric, I do argue for the right for people to question any consensus, and yes, people will needlessly get cancer. It’s up to society as a whole to decide if they want to interfere with people’s right to ignore the consensus on smoking and put their lungs and my lungs and their kids and my kids at risk. A wise society uses that tool sparingly.

          As for the Surgeon General and every medical community on the planet, they can come here and argue their position. You are only succeeding in persuading us that ‘there is not a spec of difference between you and any other troll out there.’ ‘Not the Surgeon General remember, you’.”

          • TinyCO2 says:

            The ‘I know you are but what are you’ argument is straight out of the school kid play book. You also seem to be using the ‘teacher/my Dad says’ argument too.

          • Nonsense.
            It’s your argument. I’m just switching the labels around.

            You also seem to be using the ‘teacher/my Dad says’ argument too.

            If that’s the way it seems to you then you should be able to back it up.
            The scientific consensus is not some tricky way of saying “My Dad says”.
            There’s a world of difference.

            Scientific consensus and arguments from authority

          • TinyCO2 says:

            An appeal to authority is an appeal to authority – straight out of the school kid’s play book. Hmmm I think’s it’s number 5.

            There’s no practical difference between the scientific consensus or your Dad if neither can make me do as I’m told.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Cedric “I’m just switching the labels around.”

            Which is exactly what a kid does when they bounce a comment back at the other kid, by just switching labels.
            ‘You’re a pig’
            ‘I know you are but what am I?’ (yes, I typed it wrong before)

        • An appeal to authority is an appeal to authority – straight out of the school kid’s play book.

          No, it’s not.
          This is the kind of thing that’s possible to look up and fact check.
          Nobody has to just believe you.

          “I know that I have cancer because my Aunt Mabel says so.”

          …is not the same as….

          ” I know I have cancer because my oncologist says so”

          There a difference.
          Anybody can see that.

          There’s no practical difference between the scientific consensus or your Dad if neither can make me do as I’m told.

          It’s not a question of “making you”.
          Ironically, that actually is Number 5.
          Look it up for yourself.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Nope. Can’t make me.

            You see, your list of rules are pointless. They’re identical to those used at every level of argument from the play ground to the Senate. Sure, the authority might change in credibility or ability but it’s exactly the same tactic.

            You know nothing about the sciences you defend, and even your pet theory has no merit because it all just boils down to an appeal to authority. To which I and billions like me are saying ‘Nope, can’t make me’.

            Somebody might persuade me but it won’t be you with your ‘just like all the other smelly kids’ style insult.

          • Nope. Can’t make me.

            Neither can an oncologist.

            They’re identical to those….

            Imagine how much more powerful your opinions would be if you could support them.
            There’s no reason for anyone to just trust you.

            You know nothing about the sciences you defend…

            We’ve done this, remember?

            How many times do I have to spell it out?
            I’m a total duffer at science.
            Don’t know the first thing about it.
            I freely and cheerfully admit it.
            That goes for any topic.

            To which I and billions like me are saying ‘Nope, can’t make me’.

            Well, yes. Nobody can make the creationists accept evolution either.

        • Which is exactly what a kid does when they bounce a comment back at the other kid, by just switching labels.

          Well, imagine someone was using a bad argument and you wanted to neatly illustrate the flaw in the argument.
          You could switch the labels around, right?

          Look for yourself. It’s a thing. Really.

          If you want to do the same to me in the same manner as I do it to you then by all means do so.
          Can’t be fairer than that.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            No. I agree it’s a legitimate technique, but it’s a childish one I haven’t used for years.

          • I agree it’s a legitimate technique, but it’s a childish one….

            Well, opinions vary.
            There are many fine resources that explain and illustrate fallacious arguments and reasoning by substituting labels.
            It’s a standard.
            Nothing childish about those resources.

            You could find plenty of them yourself if you made an effort.

            (Not that anybody wants to make you or anything.)

  15. Mark Hodgson says:

    Cedric says: “If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
    Job done.”

    GO!

    Job done.

  16. My unscientific conclusion some weeks ago is that C is a funded troll = pretty much a waste of time.

    • My unscientific conclusion some weeks ago is that C is a funded troll.

      The Shill Gambit. Shame on you.

      • Mark Hodgson says:

        Fair enough to refer to the Shill Gambit, by way of response, but it’s not the whole story is it? It sounds smart – yet another link to yet another website – but it would have been so much easier simply to deny it if it weren’t true.

        My earlier comment on this thread – “I’m starting to wonder if he’s just an obsessive nut, or if Cedric Katesby is a pseudonym for a troll factory paid to harrass decent sceptics and to try and close down particular sites that upset them” – drew exactly the same knee jerk reaction – a reference to the Shill Gambit, the same tedious link to another website – but also no denial.

        If Cedric denies it, then I will (in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary) take his word for it. Then at least we’d have established something and could move on.

        Why doesn’t he just deny it?

        • What’s the point? You are determined to think the worst of me.
          My protestations one way or the other are worthless.
          Maybe I’m Hitler?
          Who knows?
          (shrug)

          How’s this for an idea?
          Take personalities completely out of the equation….and focus on the arguments.

          If you know perfectly well that the Shill Gambit is just a form of Ad Hominem, then act accordingly.

          Surely that’s reasonable enough?
          When was the last time I accused you of being a shill for something?
          When was the last time I made any kind of ad hominem against anybody at all?

          I could do it. You don’t like me and I’m not your biggest fan.
          But despite that, you don’t catch me using the Shill Gambit against you, do you?
          Isn’t that good enough for you?
          Are you big enough to raise the bar just that little bit?
          Surprise me.
          Restore my faith in humanity.

          If you use an argument, you endorse it.
          If one of your lot uses an argument that you know perfectly well is not the way it’s done…and you say nothing….then you create a culture where that sort of thing becomes the norm.

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            I’m not going to fall for Cedric’s MO and get drawn into a meaningless debate around a lot of words. I repeat – if it isn’t true, why doesn’t Cedric simply deny it?

            Cedric asks what’s the point? The point of a denial would be to deny it if isn’t true.

            Surprise me. Give a straight answer to a straight question, for once.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            By Cedric’s rule of similarity, if you look like something to another person, you are that thing. Therefore he must be a troll because he acts like one.

            I can’t tell if he’s paid or not but all the links suggest he is.

          • Have it your way.
            I’m Hitler.
            You have found me out.
            I confess all.

            Now what?

          • TinyCO2 says:

            No just a common troll. You go away back to your bridge.

          • By Cedric’s rule of similarity,…

            Nope.
            You are making an untruthy statement.
            I said no such thing.
            Shame on you.
            You are creating a strawman.

            The way your group acts is the same as they do.
            All science denial communities on the internet behave according to standard, traditional methodologies.
            Same tactics. Same rationalizations.
            Same grasping at vague scientific conspiracies.
            This is something that is well documented and easy to verify.

            Once you use an argument or a methodology, you endorse it. You create a culture where antivaxxers thrive…even though you personally are not an antivaxxer…or a moon landing denier…or an HIV denier etc.

            If you put words in my mouth, then I don’t really have any other option but to repeat myself to set the record straight.

            I can’t tell if he’s paid or not but all the links suggest he is.

            How would you know?
            You didn’t read them remember?

            Which links struck you as being dead giveaways for me being a shill?
            Do tell.

            Was it the link to NASA and their climate change section?
            Was it the link to the American Society for Cell Biology on their article on “Science Denial and the Science Classroom.”
            Was it maybe PLOS Medicine and their article on “HIV denial in the Internet Era”?
            Or perhaps it was the link to the National Center for Science Education and Project Steve?

            Name these terrible, terrible links.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Cedric “The way your group acts is the same as they do.”

            So because we behave the same, we are the same? You behave like a troll therefore you are a troll. Every other post you accuse us of using one of your rules and then go and use it yourself. Troll. You post masses of links, that have nothing to do with this site. Troll.

          • So because we behave the same, we are the same?

            If you use an argument, you endorse it.
            If your group behaves like another group then….you invite comparison.
            The 32,000 scientists thingy and the Dissenters from Darwinism thingy, remember?
            I’ve given you heaps of examples.
            I’ve even taken entire chunks of you and everybody else’s ways of arguing and changed the labels around.
            It was effortless.
            There’s no practical difference.

            You behave like a troll therefore…

            The idea isn’t just to assert. You have to back up your claim with real examples. Something you and everybody else consistently fails to do.

            It’s really easy.
            You quote me.
            You point out the part where I supposedly did…whatever.
            You give me a chance to defend myself.
            You present the body of evidence as opposed to just making pronouncements from on high and expect people to meekly believe you.
            Skepticism, remember?

            You post masses of links…

            Oh that reminds me.

            I can’t tell if he’s paid or not but all the links suggest he is.

            How would you know?
            You didn’t read them remember?

            Which links struck you as being dead giveaways for me being a shill?
            Do tell.

            Was it the link to NASA and their climate change section?
            Was it the link to the American Society for Cell Biology on their article on “Science Denial and the Science Classroom.”
            Was it maybe PLOS Medicine and their article on “HIV denial in the Internet Era”?
            Or perhaps it was the link to the National Center for Science Education and Project Steve?

            Name these terrible, terrible links.

            What’s the hold up at your end?
            Don’t be shy now.

  17. Mark Hodgson recently said to me:

    I am angry about lots of things in this whole farce, but I hope I manage to keep it polite and civilised. Please remember that people disagree with you as passionately and sincerely as you disagree with them. it doesn’t make them worse people than you, nor does it entitle you to behave badly on their website.

    and…

    It would have been so much nicer if you’d treated this website as the home of its proprietor. We’ll all get along much better and make much better progress if you play nicely.

    I wonder, then, why Mark has not felt the need to criticise the “sceptics” on here who have, in this thread alone, used the following terms (mostly in reference to Cedric):

    idiot
    idiots
    idiotic
    stupid x 2
    gullible
    crackpot
    conspiracy nut x 2
    troll x 15
    annoying little troll x 3
    mischievous troll
    fruitcake
    obsessive nut x 2
    pest
    complete imbecile
    liar
    laughable

    Many of these were actually typed by Mark, who criticised me for not behaving appropriately on Mike’s forum. Perhaps a tad hypocritical if Mark can’t adhere to his own philosophy of playing nicely and not behaving badly?

    • So….people read these threads and take note?
      I’ve long suspected that to be the case.

      Do as you would be done by.
      Not really a hard rule to follow.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      There you go Cedric a fellow for you to go play with. His site isn’t very busy so you can keep each other company bitching about us deniers.

      • His site isn’t very busy

        You know, I’ve had only one “sceptic” comment on my blog, despite many hits from “sceptic” sites. Clearly no one disagrees with what I’m saying, or they’d speak up to defend themselves in the comments.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Kit Carruthers, the difference is you want something. You and your buddies want to reduce CO2. Now no matter how nutty this end of the pick-n-mix bag of climate denial might be, we’re not dumb enough to think we could bully our way to the kinds of co-operation reducing CO2 would require. So you and Cedric can bluster and sneer and waffle to your hearts’ content but CO2 will continue to rise while people don’t embrace it.

      The kinds of silly game playing that Cedric engages in is likely to push people away from believing in science, Seriously, I wouldn’t want him on my side in a pro science debate on any topic, he’d just piss off the audience. But that doesn’t bother you does it? You’d rather lose than listen to a word we say. No problem. We’ll see who burns first.

      • “….we’re not dumb enough to think we could bully our way to the kinds of co-operation reducing CO2 would require.”

        Two things here:
        1) Nobody’s “bullying” you. That’s just you and your persecution complex.

        and

        2) Appeal to Consequences.

        Not that some other science denial group couldn’t do the same thing.
        Hmm.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        “Nobody’s “bullying” you”

        Not everything is about you Cedric and your persecution complex.

        • Imagine how much more powerful your assertions would be if you could support them with real life examples like I routinely do.
          I appreciate you trying to mimic me but so far you are failing badly.

          The idea is to do it with the same attention to detail as I do.
          Otherwise it rather defeats the purpose of the exercise.

      • But that doesn’t bother you does it? You’d rather lose than listen to a word we say.

        Firstly, I have stated no opinion on Cedric (that I can remember, happy to be corrected) and so whether I agree with him or not is entirely your judgement at the moment and not based on any fact. Secondly, I read “sceptic” blogs far more than any other because I’m interested in what they have to say. I don’t agree with it, but that’s not the same as not listening. And finally, I’d rather lose with my integrity as intact as possible, than win at all costs.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          When you go to the trouble of counting insults against someone who has earned them, as an admonishment, you are expressing an opinion, whether you intend to or not. I followed the link to your site and the first post confirmed that you probably deserve each other.

          “And finally, I’d rather lose with my integrity as intact as possible, than win at all costs.”

          Yes, I believe that. Too many treat AGW as an academic curiosity and not the most important issue of all time. If you really thought CO2 needed to be urgently tackled you’d want to win (and by win I mean get people willingly cutting CO2). To do that would require vast amounts of humilty and understanding not pride and Cedric style games.

          • To do that would require vast amounts of humilty and understanding…

            NASA’s good about understanding. So is every single scientific community on the planet. Reality is not your friend.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Ha, ha, ha. Reality doesn’t listen to NASA

            http://www.rtcc.org/files/2015/05/mlo_full_record.jpg

          • Not according to NASA…and every single scientific community on the planet.
            They know about graphs.
            Really.
            They collect the data to make them.
            It’s what they do.

            You just grabbing a graph that you possibly don’t even understand and then posting the link is hugely unimpressive.

            It’s not me you have to worry about.
            It’s NASA.
            You are trying to rationalize away a scientific consensus. A graph will not magically make it all better somehow.

            The idea is to not do what they do all the time.
            Otherwise you get put in the same basket as them.

            Science denial is science denial no matter who does it.
            You are not some special snowflake.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Well I would have posted NASA’s version but it was out of date (as per usual). But the graph isn’t hard to understand. It says that CO2 continues to rise unabated. If I was team CO2 I’d say we were winning the debate. No Logical Fallacies or the Art of Debate needed. Go CO2!

            In other words, people are voting with their feet.. or foot prints. We offer the best argument of all – do what you want. What rule is that Cedric? I think it’s the cheat code that wins the game. The reality hack.

          • “Well I would have posted the Surgeon Generals’s version but it was out of date (as per usual). But the graph isn’t hard to understand. It says that smoking rates continue to rise unabated. If I was team Marlboro Country I’d say we were winning the debate. No Logical Fallacies or the Art of Debate needed. Go Tobacco!

            In other words, people are voting with their feet.. or lungs. We offer the best argument of all – do what you want. What rule is that Cedric? I think it’s the cheat code that wins the game. The reality hack.”

            “Well I would have posted the CDC’s version but it was out of date (as per usual). But the graph isn’t hard to understand. It says that vaccine rates continues to decline unabated. If I was team I Love Polio I’d say we were winning the debate. No Logical Fallacies or the Art of Debate needed. Go Polio! Go Whooping Cough! Go measles!

            In other words, people are voting with their feet..and arms and spines and what other permanent physical handicaps may happen. We offer the best argument of all – do what you want. What rule is that Cedric? I think it’s the cheat code that wins the game. The reality hack.”

          • TinyCO2 says:

            The % of smokers globally is falling. In the UK the number has halved since the 70s. No similarity with CO2. Clearly the science of smoke is better than the smoke and mirrors climate scientists engage in.

            Now your similarity with a troll is remarkable, ergo you are a troll.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Incidentally I think that you’re making a great case against argumentum ad verecundiam. Clearly arguing from authority has always been a poor tool. No matter how much argumentum ad nauseam you apply. If it was a winner, there would be a lot less sex, no homosexuality, a lot less murder and you’d think that telling the truth was essential.

          • The % of smokers globally is falling.

            You are making an Argumentum ad Populam
            You are being very silly.

            Now your similarity with a troll is remarkable, ergo you are a troll.

            Imagine how much more powerful your assertions would be if you could support them with real life examples like I routinely do.
            Talk is cheap.

        • Incidentally I think that you’re making a great case against argumentum ad verecundiam.

          Well…I don’t.
          So that’s that.

          Unlike you, I can look this kind of thing up and avail myself of resources that clearly explain these kinds of things.
          It helps.
          It’s a big advantage.
          Before I accuse someone of making an Ad Hominem, I look it up.
          I do the same thing with any fallacious appeal or fallacious argument.
          I never do what you do and just assert stuff willy-nilly.
          It’s poor form.
          I back up my statements.

          You can see for yourself.
          Only you never bother.

          Scientific consensus and arguments from authority

    • Mark Hodgson says:

      Kit

      Good to have you back. You and I disagree about quite a lot, but you, unlike Cedric, actually believe in something, and (with some exceptions when your behaviour was far worse than mine on this site) are someone with whom it is possible to have a rational debate.

      Cedric is not. We have just about established that he is a paid troll. He has had numerous instances on this thread to deny it but hasn’t done so, always choosing instead to evade the issue, as he evades every issue that is put before him, often with a bad grace. He specialises in disingenuousness as a means of avoiding the issue, and has generally been quite unpleasant to a lot of people on this site with his forthright and patronising remarks.

      I am not a saint, and I may have been a little less than polite to Cedric on occasion (and it is fair enough for you to point that out, and I am happy to say sorry if I have overstepped the mark), but looking at his behaviour, I think I can honestly say that I never overstepped the mark. I have offered olive branches to Cedric, and they have been brusquely thrown back in my face. I have tried to engage him in debate and he has been downright offensive – so much so that I had occasion once (well, more than once, but I only asked once) to request an apology, which he churlishly refused to give.

      Troll is not a word I like to use. I always prefer to avoid its use if possible. I avoided its use with Cedric for quite a long time, before resorting to it. However, there are numerous online definitions of a troll, and Cedric’s behaviour pretty much fits them all. If any of us on this site have used language about Cedric which is less than complimentary, it is has all been justified, and has been used only after weeks of his provocative behaviour. He’s had a good run. He’s been exposed for what he is. Please don’t descend to his level.

      • It’s ok as long as you do it.
        Hypocrisy much?

        • Mark Hodgson says:

          I’m not a troll. You are.

          • I’m not the one doing all the name calling.
            I can safely leave that to you and others.
            Nor the fallacious appeals.
            Nor the refusal to read links.
            (Though I did refuse to read blog links. Minimal standards and all that.)
            Nor the repeated examples of airy assertions without the slightest effort to quote or support with actual evidence.
            Nor the refusal to answer questions.

            Do you remember my example of the doctor telling you that you have cancer?
            I do.
            Nobody went near it.

            When it was put back at me…what did I do?
            I answered it. Pretty easy really.
            Did I get anything in return?
            Stuff all.

            Remember the whole conspiracy mechanism thing?
            You ran like rabbits.
            Not really a trick question “How?”
            It’s kinda simple and straightforward, really.

            I not trolling. I’m arguing and being really, really fair about it. You could try and match my standards….only you don’t.

            I can appreciate that you don’t like being whipped in public but that does not equal me being a troll.
            A troll does not have private correspondence with the host of the blog bringing up the topic of him leaving when the welcome is done.
            A troll does not bring up the topic voluntarily twice more for the benefit of all concerned.
            Defending your thread when it’s your article at the top of the page (put there by the host without prior agreement) is not trolling.
            It’s really not.

            If people don’t come to this blog and argue with you, then what you end up with is an incestuous echo chamber.
            A mutual appreciation society busily dittoing each other.
            That’s what happened to the ID crew.
            Have you ever seen Uncommon Descent and their commenting policy and the community it produced?
            Ew.

            That’s how you get articles of volcanoes posted that get seen but not really read and then just slide on by even when they are flat out wrong.

            (You did remember to fact check that thing, right.)

  18. Mark Hodgson says:

    Cedric says:

    “Have it your way.
    I’m Hitler.
    You have found me out.
    I confess all.

    Now what?”

    Sarcastic, patronising and disingenuous as always. Still no straight answer to a straight question, but no denial either that he is (or is it they are?) a paid troll, so presumably he is/they are just that. Now what, he/they ask(s). So far as I can see, the answer to that is:

    1. Nothing he/they say(s) can be taken seriously.
    2. We shouldn’t feed the troll by engaging in debate with him any further.
    3. It’s entirely a matter for Scottis Sceptic of course, but if I were him, I would ban Cedric from this site. His/their interest in it seems to be entirely malign and aimed at stultifying it.
    4. If he/they ever turn(s) up on any other sites we frequent, we should draw his/their behaviour to the attention of that site owner and other users of the site.

    That’s about it, I think.

    • It’s entirely a matter for Scottis Sceptic of course….

      Not according to you.

      GO!
      Job done.

      (…)
      Which bit of “THEN GO AWAY YOU ANNOYING LITTLE TROLL and allow people blah, blah, blah..
      etc
      etc
      etc

      ” If you want me to go then just tell me to go.
      Job done.
      I check my email on a regular basis.
      That will make my comments very short indeed.”

      That was addressed to Scottish Sceptic.
      He’s the one with my email address.
      This is his blog, right?
      We clear now?

      You don’t want to ” crawl all over a conversation between two other people” and you now belatedly admit that it’s a matter for Scottish Sceptic.
      Good for you.

      Better late than never.

      • Mark Hodgson says:

        Agreed – my apologies, both to you and to Scottish Sceptic. I got carried away, I was doing something else at the same time as posting comments, and I wasn’t paying enough attention. That’s the explanation, though it’s not a justification.

        • (??)
          I don’t get it. If you can be all of a sudden civil about this issue and let it rest, then why do you persist with the Ad Hominem?
          Why can’t you be civil about that too?
          Is that really a bridge too far?

          • Mark Hodgson says:

            I got it wrong, I went too far, I got carried away. I regret it. I’m truly sorry, I apologise sincerely. And I mean it. I hate being shown to be wrong, and I hate it if I go too far. But I acknowledge it when I go too far, and I acknowledge it when I get it wrong. And I apologise when I go too far and when I get it wrong.

            That’s all.

            I’m not persisting in an ad hominem attack. I’m just asking you to give a straight answer to a straight question, and you persistently and obstinately refuse to do so.

            You could solve it immediately by giving that straight answer. If the straight answer is that you’re a paid troll, then the game’s up. If you won’t answer, then the game’s also up, as the inference to be drawn is obvious. If the straight answer is an outright unambiguous denial, then I’ve already told you that I’ll take your word for it, and we can move on.

            It’s in your hands.

          • And I apologise when I go too far and when I get it wrong.
            That’s all.

            That’s very big of you. Thank you. Happens all too rarely.
            For my part, I really do check my email on a regular basis. I do actually mean it about disappearing if the host wants me gone.

            I’m not persisting in an ad hominem attack. I’m just asking you to give a straight answer to a straight question, and you persistently and obstinately refuse to do so.

            The question was the Ad Hominem. You should be rushing to my defense on this rather than perpetuating it.
            I am not my arguments.
            Attack my arguments as much as you like.
            It’s open season.
            Who I am…is supremely unimportant.
            Can’t you see that?

            You don’t catch me poking you in the ribs and asking you to confirm or deny personal stuff about you, do you?
            Extent me the same courtesy.
            The Golden Rule and all that.
            That’s all I’m asking.

    • Still no straight answer to a straight question, but no denial either that he is (or is it they are?) a paid troll, so presumably he is/they are just that.

      Yes of course. What other possible reason could there possibly be?
      Shill Gambit, remember?
      You are doing this rational argument thing wrong.

      • Mark Hodgson says:

        Still no straight answer to a straight question. Troll.

        • I’m Hitler. If it makes you feel better, just go with Hitler.

          It won’t help you though.
          Even being Hitler has no bearing on the quality of an argument.
          If you have to reach for an Ad Hominem, then that shows the woeful quality of your arguments- not mine.
          Shame on you.

  19. Mark Hodgson says:

    Cedric says:

    “I’m not the one doing all the name calling….Nor the refusal to answer questions.”

    But still no answer to a simple question.

    Unbelievable. Troll.

  20. Mark Hodgson says:

    I’m glad to have made my peace with Cedric (and I hope with Kit) regarding the occasion on this thread where I went too far.

    The big point remains. Cedric has now had, by my reckoning, more than a dozen opportunities on this thread to give a straight answer to a straight question, and has failed to take any of them. The inference, sadly, is obvious.

    One of the consequences, I suggested earlier on this thread, is that we therefore shouldn’t engage in further discussion with him. I keep breaking this resolution (another of my failures, which I acknowledge), but I think the time has now arrived when I no longer respond to Cedric’s words, otherwise I’ll be guilty of hypocrisy again.

    Unless Cedric comes up with an outright and completely unambiguous denial of the suggestions made about him earlier, then I won’t be responding to his comments further. If he does offer that outright and unambiguous denial, then as I’ve already stated, I’ll take his word for it (unless compelling evidence to the contrary turns up) and will then re-engage if and when he says something which strikes me as worth engaging with.

    Over and out (on this subject at least).

    • A: “My unscientific conclusion some weeks ago is that C is a Jew = pretty much a waste of time.”

      C: “The Shill Gambit. Shame on you.”

      M: “Fair enough to refer to the Shill Gambit, by way of response, but it’s not the whole story is it? It sounds smart – yet another link to yet another website – but it would have been so much easier simply to deny if he weren’t a Jew.
      My earlier comment on this thread – “I’m starting to wonder if he’s just an obsessive nut, or if Cedric Katesby is a pseudonym for a non-Aryan paid to harrass decent sceptics and to try and close down particular sites that upset them” – drew exactly the same knee jerk reaction – a reference to the Shill Gambit, the same tedious link to another website – but also no denial.
      If Cedric denies he is a Jew, then I will (in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary) take his word for it. Then at least we’d have established something and could move on.
      Why doesn’t he just deny he’s a Jew?”
      (…)
      “I’m not going to fall for Cedric’s MO and get drawn into a meaningless debate around a lot of words. I repeat – if it isn’t true, why doesn’t Cedric simply deny he’s a Jew?
      Cedric asks what’s the point? The point of a denial would be to deny he’s a Jew if isn’t true.
      Surprise me. Give a straight answer to a straight question, for once.”
      (…)
      “Sarcastic, patronising and disingenuous as always. Still no straight answer to a straight question on him being a Jew, but no denial either that he is (or is it they are?) a Jew, so presumably he is/they are just that. A Jew!”
      (…)
      “I’m not persisting in an ad hominem attack. I’m just asking you to give a straight answer to a straight question about you being a Jew, and you persistently and obstinately refuse to do so. You could solve it immediately by giving that straight answer. If the straight answer is that you’re a Jew, then the game’s up. If you won’t answer about you being a Jew, then the game’s also up, as the inference to be drawn is obvious. If the straight answer is an outright unambiguous denial, then I’ve already told you that I’ll take your word for it, and we can move on.
      It’s in your hands.”
      (…)
      “The big point remains. Cedric has now had, by my reckoning, more than a dozen opportunities on this thread to give a straight answer to a straight question on him being a Jew, and has failed to take any of them. The inference, sadly, is obvious.
      (…)
      Unless Cedric comes up with an outright and completely unambiguous denial of him being Jew, then I won’t be responding to his comments further. If he does offer that outright and unambiguous denial of his Jewishness, then as I’ve already stated, I’ll take his word for it (unless compelling evidence to the contrary turns up) and will then re-engage if and when he says something which strikes me as worth engaging with.
      Over and out (on this subject at least).”

      When you use an argument, you endorse it.
      If you can do it then….they can do it.

      (And no, to head you off at the pass, I’m not claiming you are in any way an anti-Semite. That’s not it at all. If that was somehow the conclusion you automatically came to, then you really need to think harder about this whole label switching exercise.)

      Ad Hominem

  21. Ron Clutz says:

    Despite protestations by others above, I stand by my assertion: Consensus climate science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement. As others have said, all the tax dollars (trillions) are spent promoting climate alarm. And the private sector goes along following their own interests. Big oil profits from renewables as well as attacks on coal. Insurance companies justify rate increases. Only in warmist imaginations do corporations fund research contesting consensus climate science.

    • Despite protestations by others above, I stand by my assertion: Consensus climate science is not a conspiracy; it is a monopoly and a socio-political movement.

      You aren’t really standing by it though.
      You are just repeating it.
      Anybody can just assert. That’s the easy part. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can do that.
      The important part is the supporting evidence.

      Imagine how much more powerful your assertions would be if you could support them.
      Hmm.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      I’ve never been sure how a conspiracy is defined. At any one time somebody is plottng something. Quite often they think they’re doing it for good reasons. Governments announce their plans on the news. No secrecy involved. Underneath however it’s 99% politics. That’s their thing. Public servants are almost obliged to be running a different set of policies under the surface of political appointments. Lawyers consider it fair game to try and misinterpret laws and regulations. Is it all a plot? No, it’s just the way the world works.

      Is AGW a hoax/plot/etc? No, while there are small incidents of corrupt behaviour and self interest, I’m fairly sure that the scientists think there is a problem. For me the issue is that everyone is trying to use the same old techniques that have failed mankind time and time again. The voice of imperious authority, the threat of doom and painful sacrifice for a promise of unlikely reprieve.

      Well newsflash warmists – unquestionably doing what we’re told by a bunch of priests is only still popular with ISIS.

      • “Governments announce their plans on the news. No secrecy involved. Underneath however it’s 99% politics. That’s their thing. Public servants are almost obliged to be running a different set of policies under the surface of political appointments. Lawyers consider it fair game to try and misinterpret laws and regulations. Is it all a plot? No, it’s just the way the world works.

        Governments, politics, public servants, lawyers, laws, regulations etc.

        No mention of NASA.
        Nor every single scientific community on the planet.

        You are framing it this way to sound more reasonable.
        It’s a rationalization.
        You are doing an end-run around the scientific consensus and the work it represents.
        Such a tactic can be washed and recycled for any other science denial topic.

        Is AGW a hoax/plot/etc? No…

        Such a thing is physically impossible. The basic logistics do not work.
        Nobody can come up with a mechanism.
        Nobody ever will.

        Is my biopsy result a hoax/plot/etc? No, while there are small incidents of corrupt behaviour and self interest at the hospital, I’m fairly sure that the oncology department think there is a problem. For me the issue is that all the cancer specialists I’ve gone to for a second opinion are trying to use the same old techniques that have failed mankind time and time again. The voice of imperious authority, the threat of cancerous doom and painful chemotherapy for a promise of unlikely remission.
        Well newsflash doctors – unquestionably doing what we’re told by a bunch of priests is only still popular with ISIS.

        • TinyCO2 says:

          Yawn.

          • “I’ve never been sure how a conspiracy is defined. At any one time somebody is plottng something. Quite often they think they’re doing it for good reasons. Governments announce their plans on the news. No secrecy involved. Underneath however it’s 99% politics. That’s their thing. Public servants are almost obliged to be running a different set of policies under the surface of political appointments. Lawyers consider it fair game to try and misinterpret laws and regulations. Is the public ban on smoking all a plot? No, it’s just the way the world works.

            Is the Surgeon General’s warning on smoking causing cancer a hoax/plot/etc? No, while there are small incidents of corrupt behaviour and self interest, I’m fairly sure that the scientists think there is a problem. For me the issue is that everyone is trying to use the same old techniques that have failed mankind time and time again. The voice of imperious authority, the threat of doom and painful sacrifice for a promise of unlikely reprieve.

            Well newsflash, medical community – unquestionably doing what we’re told by a bunch of priests is only still popular with ISIS.”

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Zzzzzzz

          • “I’ve never been sure how a conspiracy is defined. At any one time somebody is plottng something. Quite often they think they’re doing it for good reasons. Governments announce their plans on the news. No secrecy involved. Underneath however it’s 99% politics. That’s their thing. Public servants are almost obliged to be running a different set of policies under the surface of political appointments. Lawyers consider it fair game to try and misinterpret laws and regulations. Is the public ban on smoking all a plot? No, it’s just the way the world works.

            Is the CDC’s view on vaccines being safe a hoax/plot/etc? No, while there are small incidents of corrupt behaviour and self interest, I’m fairly sure that the scientists think there is a problem with not getting children vaccinated. For me the issue is that everyone is trying to use the same old techniques that have failed mankind time and time again. The voice of imperious authority, the threat of doom and painful sacrifice for a promise of unlikely reprieve.

            Well newsflash, epidemiologists – unquestionably doing what we’re told by a bunch of priests is only still popular with ISIS.”

        • TinyCO2 says:

          Zzzzzz

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>