And I meant to say 'homophones', not 'homonyms' -- just goes to show...
I think the use of 'homonym' as a synonym for 'homophone' in a non-technical setting is now so well established that it would be beyond pedantic to complain. Surely the point is whether meaning was communicated. It was. After all, you would hardly be complaining about a spelling mistake/misuse, were you using 'homonym' in the strictest sense.
That being said, it's amusing how often errors creep into the text of those who choose to correct others. The Greeks had a word for that. And it's probably not the best form to make a post containing no substantive content beyond a complaint about some typo/spelling mistake/misuse/unusual grammatical structure, unless, on a service where correction is possible, you are providing a free proof reading service --or if someone writes 'definately' or 'existance' --in which case they deserve everything that's coming.;)
How embarrassment!
Now you're just having me on, aren't you?
No, I'm merely showing my age, or you are not Australian.
On the contrary, there is no such thing as a legal loophole, except in the minds of those who don't grok Law. There are perhaps surprising results.
the one you're missing is contained in the words in private
That's a merely question of enforceability, not of what is TECHNICALLY illegal.
ie: They would have to break the very same law to confirm you are breaking the law.
What if you fail to vote privately and then confess your dereliction at a later time? When one considers questions of law in theory it is assumed that all relevant facts are known. And even from a lay person's perspective, murder is still murder whether or not the killer is discovered.
Now whether it is illegal deliberately to spoil your vote I can't say for sure. There may be some curial authority on this point, but I'm too lazy to do the research. Arguably it is, since you are required "to mark [your] vote" one would assume that 'vote' implies a valid vote. It would be very surprising, for instance, if in drawing a cock'n'balls on the back of your ballot, you were discharging your lawful duty to the Australian people.
peruse != pursue. They are not even homonyms, for Bob's sake!
Nor even anagrams! And worst of all they mean completely different things, damn! I meant to write 'pursue' of course, I hope you were able to make that out from context.
Still it's not as bad as the mistake I made in my most recent post in switching from the second person in my own text to the third in the inline quote. Should be "a voter is required to..." How embarrassment!
Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.
Where you people get this stuff from?! IAAL, so since we are talking matters of electoral law, 'technically' to me means you show me an Act of parliament of a curial decision rather than just making this stuff up. Allow me to demonstrate.
OR thus: Once you get your ballot paper you are required "without delay" to "retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper" (s233) [my emphasis]
So technically you must enrol, attend, collect your ballot, be marked off, and vote. Turning up and having your name marked off without collecting a ballot, spoiling your ballot, and all these other suggestions are technically illegal.
I just put them in my 'filing cabinet' (i.e. rubbish bin.)
Which is what I did with the fine I got for failing to vote in a local council election long ago (I don't think they'd even bother to fine you for that now, that is if you still have a local council that hasn't been replaced by Frank Sartor with an "independent" administration). It's what most people who get fined do, end of the matter.
Crime or not they don't seem to care about it
Exactly. Australia has "compulsory" voting, dontcha know.
You have to become a politician to earn the right to be negligent in fulfilling your public duty!
Oh come on now. Everyone realises that you don't have to become a politician to do that! Becoming head of a bushfire authority works just as well... especially if you're feeling a bit peckish.
I have refused to even take the ballot papers on more than one occasion. When the ballot papers are offered, I simply inform the scutineers that I have fulfilled my obligation merely by having my name crossed off the electoral roll - and walk out. They don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.
Sure there something they could do about it. They could put you on trial for a criminal breach of s245 of the C'th Electoral Act, or (more likely) they could fine you for the same. In reality they can't be bothered to do anything about it.
It's an open secret that, s245(6) notwithstanding, they rarely bother perusing anyone who simply ignores the fine.
Still, compulsory voting does compound the deficiencies in our system. Most people go with the easy way out because they see voting as a chore, most evident in the high proportion of donkey votes
One or two percent is a "high" proportion? "Most voters" are taking the easy way out? Our system has "deficiencies" which are "compounded" by people actually voting?
One is reminded of that Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government...
Any simple fool can see from my research data gathered with extensive study over the Edge in my bathysphere, the disc is supported on the backs of FOUR elephants.
Look whether it is 3 or 4 elephants I think we can all agree that the earth is a disc not a globe and as such global warming is palpable nonsense.
Slashdot has gotten to the point where you can't even refer to the people that devote their lives to the study of climatology across the world without being called a Troll. And the real awesome thing is that I see people who haven't even read the report in question being moderated up up up up.
You are being far too negative about slashdot. In fact slashdot has a readership/moderatorship with a far higher level of science and technical education than most online fora. No really!
So here's a little experiment for you. Wait for 24 hrs while the moderation does a global timezone sweep, then come back and browse at a threshold of 4. You may be pleasantly surprised. The Dunning-Kruger filter works pretty well actually. Even the posts opposing scientific orthodoxy tend to be of the more considered sceptical variety as opposed to the outright denialist ones. And when considering truly sceptical arguments, let's not forget this isn't "settled science". Well OK some if it is. [in which AGW "sceptic" and intelligent designer Roy Spencer's intellectual chickens come home to roost.]
I'm suggesting equating standpoints you don't like with holocaust denialism trivializes the holocaust and its unsavoury denialists.
Sure, and personally I wouldn't use the term to describe people who merely have a standpoint I don't like. I would restrict it's use to people who practise denialism, of whatever flavour. Nor is calling a climate science denialist a 'denialist' equating them with a holocaust denialist, though obviously for some people a connotation is raised. Climate denialists clearly do not necessarily deny that the holocaust happened. OTOH, some similarities in their MO, --eg. the quack-chemistry which proves the Zyklon-B could not possibly have been used to gas victims and the quack-climatology which proves that human activity could not possibly play a role in observed climate change, --cannot be ignored.
In any case, what's the hangup with holocaust deniers anyway? They're a harmless enough bunch of nutters. Sure they cause offence, but how many people have been killed as a result of David Irving's writings? Constrast this to the effect of Thabo Mbeki's endorsement of AIDS denialism in facilitating the spread of HIV, at a time when it was perhaps the most critical to take action. And though it is too early to tell, to the best of our current knowledge the human misery to which climate denialists are contributing will be orders of magnitude greater still. Really for a genocidal;) climate science denialist to complain about comparison to an unsavory holocaust denier seems like a murderer complaining of being compared to a pick-pocket.
Trying to tar your opponents with that particular brush is an unworthy tactic...
OK, let's recap what's happened in this thread. Someone made a joke which used the word 'denialist,' someone else tried the reverse Godwin "you're calling us holocaust deniers," and I pointed out that denialism is a term which covers much more than merely holocaust denialism. Personally if I hear the unmarked case 'denialist' I assume we are talking climate nowadays. Some people would have us believe they think of holocaust deniers and that they are unable to separate the terms even when the case is marked with "climate science," or "AIDS" or whatever. Twenty years from now when some new species of denialist is properly called a denialist they might well retort "oh you are calling me a climate denialist." Can't be helped.
... which alienates rather than convinces your opponents.
Again personally I'll leave it to the denialists to "convince" with whatever persuasion techniques they choose to employ. Well no I won't leave them, I'll just call a spade a spade. You are free to be offended by that.
Now, 'uncritical skepticism' I might buy as a term. Think about it.
For some odd reason it makes me think of the line from Scott, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive." You would prefer so palpable a contradiction in terms to a clear word which accurately denotes the activity the perpertor is engaged in?!
You see, as a sceptic, it's my time to be offended at the idea that propagandists who spread lies and undermine science should be honoured with this term. Note also that I distinguish climate sceptics from climate denialists.
It seems that there are people out there who simply want to prohibit the use of a particular term with a very clearly defined meaning from ever being employed because of their particular political sensitivities. That's just like Hitler!
Dear PopeRatzo, let me introduce you to a set of new words that you've obviously never heard before. "Denotation" and "connotation."
Well, I've certainly heard of these before so let me rephrase the pope's question.
Are you saying that we are prohibited from using a word with a clear denotation for an object denoted by that word, because of the connotation it raises it the minds of some people?
The two things I'm talking about is basing science on theory, evidence and calculation and basing science on gut feelings and a sense of moral outrage. They certainly are mutually exclusive, just look here!
you're forgetting the possibility that the earth is going through massive climate change but that little if any of that is due to the actions of humans
I'm not forgetting that, I'm not even addressing it. I'm saying the argument, "it's arrogant to believe X" has no place in science. Since you raise it, however, this possibility is a logical, but no longer an empirical one.
that would support the statistical analysis...
It wouldn't though, nor could it account for the fingerprinting of anthropogenic carbon. What the analysis shows is that this is not merely a natural phenomenon, and that human contributions play some part. It hasn't been forgotten, it's been disproved.
... and the viewpoint that it's arrogant to believe we are the root cause.
Look it's possible that air is lighter than water AND that I'm wearing red underpants. This is the whole point, the "arrogance" simply doesn't come into the picture. Either the consensus position is sound, or it isn't. But that soundness is based on an analysis of theory, data and maths, not on perceptions of arrogance.
I'm curious now, what exactly do you consider to be the denialist agenda? As far as I can tell, there are several different types of denialists
You are correct of course, though I don't think the last two categories, especially the penultimate, you list can properly be labelled 'denialist.' To satisfy your curiosity, it was perhaps a poor choice of words.
My point was nothing more than that one cannot take, for (an extreme) example, Pielke's position that fossil fuel combustion is not the major contributor to observed change, as supporting the position I once saw put that the C02 forcing is thermodynamically impossible.
In fact, to me it seems denialist is a rhetorical smear term...
Well it's certainly no compliment! But are we forbidden from using negative terms for people who do negative things?
... used by those with an agenda to push
You can use it even without having an agenda to push, surely?
Dividing the world into 'deniers' and 'believers' is a technique I utterly despise.
I'm clearly not making that division. Rather, as ought to be clear from the post you are responding to, I'm dividing those who disagree with the consensus position on climate change into sceptics (based both on expertise and the scientific nature of their opposition) and denialists (based on their denial of empirically verifiable "facts" and their FUD techniques). It's my opinion that the latter stymie scientific progress while the former foster it.
It's a division I need to make because calling people who uncritically accept any quackery which supports their preconceived ideas "sceptics," sticks in my craw.
Damn you for drawing me into one of the most pointless scientific debates that one could possibly devise..
This is not a scientific debate.
Pot, meet Kettle. Except you're doing the opposite.
Once the "debate" escapes the realm of science and enters that of rhetoric how is this avoidable? A rhetorical move requires a rhetorical response.
So...
.. you are reduced to misquoting me.
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists.
Now it is conceivable that some people might want to create an impression of certainty where none exists, but they would not be denialists.
You've stated that because the Earth has climate, which produces data, which can be analyzed by statistics, that the entirety of every conclusion drawn upon this data is beyond doubt.
Where? When? If you want to make so outrageous an accusation please provide a quote to back it up.
Look at the facts:
1)...
The idea that past climatic changes argue against the influence of human activities on the current change is a logical fallacy.
2)...
Lies (what "raft of statisticians from the 70s") and fairly typical FUD.
3) The Earth has proven notoriously difficult to model.
Indeed. And we need to treat with a degree of scepticism the predictions made by any such models. As all good modellers will acknowledge.
So while the models exist, they are far from 'good' as of yet.
Good enough for what? The problem with this is that all our models of anything at all are far from 'good' as yet, but they are the best we have. We can only act on the best possible information available to us, not on better information unavailable to us. Sucks to be human.
So you're expecting a leap of faith
Quite the opposite.
A. This climate change is different
This has now been established beyond reasonable doubt. Our models are certainly good enough for that. Stop being so unreasonable.
and we know this is true with enough certainty to up-end western civilization.
Moving from coal to Uranium is up-ending western civilisation? Please.
B. This data is better...
Sorry, not following you here. Which data is better than what?
... these scientists are smarter...
Don't know about smarter, but they certainly understand their discipline better than you do.
... and their stats are correct....
Given the inordinate amount of effort exercise to disprove them we can work on that presumption. But look, it's all in the published literature. If you can rebut that presumption, feel free.
C.
It would take a fool to make that claim and an even greater one to ascribe that claim to their interlocutor. No I don't want you to believe that. The only people who believe that are made of straw, surely?
Don't look now, but this is precisely what your post advocates.
Do look now. Look at the post you are responding to. It advocates the opposite. It's saying "show me the fucking maths dude, don't just beat your chest about what you find arrogant."
Just because you happen to agree with the conclusion...
What conclusion? I asked the poster to "consider the actual volume of the troposphere, the concentration of various gases it contains, their change over time, the volume of CO2 release by fossil fuel use" and draw their own conclusion. Based not on gut feeling, or moral outrage, but on the numbers.
Perhaps the biggest group is the non-existence-of-God-denialists.
Where is the empirical proof of the non-existence of God (or gods generally)? There would seem to be as little reason to believe that gods do not exist as there would to believe that gods do exist.
Speaking of rhetorical strategies, is Godwin's law an empirically verifiable reality?
Godwin's law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
That would seem eminently verifiable.
But what's your point? Are you saying that any time one of the various non-holocaust denialisms is discussed, raising the issue of the holocaust constitutes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler? I disagree.
My initial response was based on a reflexive reaction to the word "denialist". Like most people, whenever I see the word I think of "Holocaust denialism"
Really? Most people? I think of climate denialists and evolution denialists. They are just so much more prevalent than holocaust deniers or AIDS denialists etc. these days.
I'm saddened and disappointed whenever supporters of the environment attempt to use the word to attack reasonable people that question whether, or to what degree, man effects the environment and the climate in general.
I agree completely and I would add the corollary that unreasonable people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, deny that humans affect the environment and the climate in general are the only ones who are properly called 'climate denialists.'
Now I'm not adverse to dispensing the term 'denialist' to those I feel fit to wear it, but to do so to Lindzen seems to me very unfair. Lindzen, notwithstanding some of his questionable contributions to the popular media, has generally engaged with the science on a scientific basis and where over time a point as been fairly well established, has conceded (or at least not persisted) and moved on. That's the very opposite behaviour from that which characterises a denialist.
However we have to be careful to be specific about what sceptical climatologists such as Lindzen, Christy or Pielke actually take issue with and when they did and not merely assume their position endorses the entire denialist agenda. And further we need to take into account the response of orthodox climatologists make to the sceptical critique, bearing in mind that Lindzen's expertise as a "respectable climatologist" puts him in a privileged position relative to say a pharmacologist (my original training) when it comes to disputing the orthodox position in climate science.
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Yes. Certainly the atmosphere and hyrdosphere thereof.
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to?
Maybe. It depends on the nature of positive feedbacks, the science of which is still being explored. It's certainly possible that we have given rise to a runaway effect which we will no longer be able to contain. It is far from certain that we have reached the "tipping point" though. Perhaps the greater impediment to action is political rather than geo-physical. We would have been advised to take action around 1990. Twenty years of (mostly) inaction doesn't reflect well on the collective intelligence of your species.
Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating,
True, it always has. It's clear though that the magnitude of recent climatic changes are in measure attributable to human activity.
we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can
I agree completely and I would add that the human contribution to climate change is among the things we potentially can change.
i.e. the misery of mankind.
Slowly (from the human PoV) degrading the habitability of the planet, by "tak[ing] our minds off" the issue of our contribution to climate change seems a poor way to achieve this.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but there are only 1-2% of them, compared to the 50%-or-so of citizens who are similarly negligent in countries where voting is not compulsory.
Exactly. And wasn't that the point I was trying to make in my original post? Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
And I meant to say 'homophones', not 'homonyms' -- just goes to show...
I think the use of 'homonym' as a synonym for 'homophone' in a non-technical setting is now so well established that it would be beyond pedantic to complain. Surely the point is whether meaning was communicated. It was. After all, you would hardly be complaining about a spelling mistake/misuse, were you using 'homonym' in the strictest sense.
That being said, it's amusing how often errors creep into the text of those who choose to correct others. The Greeks had a word for that. And it's probably not the best form to make a post containing no substantive content beyond a complaint about some typo/spelling mistake/misuse/unusual grammatical structure, unless, on a service where correction is possible, you are providing a free proof reading service --or if someone writes 'definately' or 'existance' --in which case they deserve everything that's coming. ;)
How embarrassment!
Now you're just having me on, aren't you?
No, I'm merely showing my age, or you are not Australian.
Every law has a loophole
On the contrary, there is no such thing as a legal loophole, except in the minds of those who don't grok Law. There are perhaps surprising results.
the one you're missing is contained in the words in private
That's a merely question of enforceability, not of what is TECHNICALLY illegal.
ie: They would have to break the very same law to confirm you are breaking the law.
What if you fail to vote privately and then confess your dereliction at a later time? When one considers questions of law in theory it is assumed that all relevant facts are known. And even from a lay person's perspective, murder is still murder whether or not the killer is discovered.
Now whether it is illegal deliberately to spoil your vote I can't say for sure. There may be some curial authority on this point, but I'm too lazy to do the research. Arguably it is, since you are required "to mark [your] vote" one would assume that 'vote' implies a valid vote. It would be very surprising, for instance, if in drawing a cock'n'balls on the back of your ballot, you were discharging your lawful duty to the Australian people.
OT, but I wanted to thank you for creating this site. Much kudos.
peruse != pursue. They are not even homonyms, for Bob's sake!
Nor even anagrams! And worst of all they mean completely different things, damn! I meant to write 'pursue' of course, I hope you were able to make that out from context.
Still it's not as bad as the mistake I made in my most recent post in switching from the second person in my own text to the third in the inline quote. Should be "a voter is required to ..." How embarrassment!
Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations.
Where you people get this stuff from?! IAAL, so since we are talking matters of electoral law, 'technically' to me means you show me an Act of parliament of a curial decision rather than just making this stuff up. Allow me to demonstrate.
Technically, you can't be marked off the electoral role until after you receive your ballot. (C'th Electoral Act 1918, s232(1)).
OR thus: Once you get your ballot paper you are required "without delay" to "retire alone to some unoccupied compartment of the booth, and there, in private, mark his or her vote on the ballot paper" (s233) [my emphasis]
So technically you must enrol, attend, collect your ballot, be marked off, and vote. Turning up and having your name marked off without collecting a ballot, spoiling your ballot, and all these other suggestions are technically illegal.
I just put them in my 'filing cabinet' (i.e. rubbish bin.)
Which is what I did with the fine I got for failing to vote in a local council election long ago (I don't think they'd even bother to fine you for that now, that is if you still have a local council that hasn't been replaced by Frank Sartor with an "independent" administration). It's what most people who get fined do, end of the matter.
Crime or not they don't seem to care about it
Exactly. Australia has "compulsory" voting, dontcha know.
You'd probably enjoy the Spike Milligan quote, which (from memory so excuse any inaccuracy) runs something like:
In a democracy people get the government they deserve. And so do I.
You have to become a politician to earn the right to be negligent in fulfilling your public duty!
Oh come on now. Everyone realises that you don't have to become a politician to do that! Becoming head of a bushfire authority works just as well ... especially if you're feeling a bit peckish.
You don't even have to cast a ballot at all.
You do in fact!
I have refused to even take the ballot papers on more than one occasion. When the ballot papers are offered, I simply inform the scutineers that I have fulfilled my obligation merely by having my name crossed off the electoral roll - and walk out. They don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.
Sure there something they could do about it. They could put you on trial for a criminal breach of s245 of the C'th Electoral Act, or (more likely) they could fine you for the same. In reality they can't be bothered to do anything about it.
It's an open secret that, s245(6) notwithstanding, they rarely bother perusing anyone who simply ignores the fine.
If you don't like having to vote then you shouldn't enroll.
Nice try, but every person who is entitled to have his or her name placed on the Roll ... and whose name is not on the Roll upon the expiration of 21 days from the date upon which the person became so entitled ... shall be guilty of an offence ... .
I never enrolled, didn't vote in the last 3 or 4 elections
You're probably safe here, but in general I would advise you not to brag too much about your criminal activities on public internet fora. ;)
The problem with "donkey votes" is that politicians waste time arguing about who gets the top slot
They don't. The position on the ballot paper is drawn by lot.
The real problem with donkey votes is that the people casting them are negligent in fulfilling their public duty to vote.
Still, compulsory voting does compound the deficiencies in our system. Most people go with the easy way out because they see voting as a chore, most evident in the high proportion of donkey votes
One or two percent is a "high" proportion? "Most voters" are taking the easy way out? Our system has "deficiencies" which are "compounded" by people actually voting?
One is reminded of that Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government ...
Any simple fool can see from my research data gathered with extensive study over the Edge in my bathysphere, the disc is supported on the backs of FOUR elephants.
Look whether it is 3 or 4 elephants I think we can all agree that the earth is a disc not a globe and as such global warming is palpable nonsense.
Slashdot has gotten to the point where you can't even refer to the people that devote their lives to the study of climatology across the world without being called a Troll. And the real awesome thing is that I see people who haven't even read the report in question being moderated up up up up.
You are being far too negative about slashdot. In fact slashdot has a readership/moderatorship with a far higher level of science and technical education than most online fora. No really!
So here's a little experiment for you. Wait for 24 hrs while the moderation does a global timezone sweep, then come back and browse at a threshold of 4. You may be pleasantly surprised. The Dunning-Kruger filter works pretty well actually. Even the posts opposing scientific orthodoxy tend to be of the more considered sceptical variety as opposed to the outright denialist ones. And when considering truly sceptical arguments, let's not forget this isn't "settled science". Well OK some if it is. [in which AGW "sceptic" and intelligent designer Roy Spencer's intellectual chickens come home to roost.]
You are not wasting your time.
I'm suggesting equating standpoints you don't like with holocaust denialism trivializes the holocaust and its unsavoury denialists.
Sure, and personally I wouldn't use the term to describe people who merely have a standpoint I don't like. I would restrict it's use to people who practise denialism, of whatever flavour. Nor is calling a climate science denialist a 'denialist' equating them with a holocaust denialist, though obviously for some people a connotation is raised. Climate denialists clearly do not necessarily deny that the holocaust happened. OTOH, some similarities in their MO, --eg. the quack-chemistry which proves the Zyklon-B could not possibly have been used to gas victims and the quack-climatology which proves that human activity could not possibly play a role in observed climate change, --cannot be ignored.
In any case, what's the hangup with holocaust deniers anyway? They're a harmless enough bunch of nutters. Sure they cause offence, but how many people have been killed as a result of David Irving's writings? Constrast this to the effect of Thabo Mbeki's endorsement of AIDS denialism in facilitating the spread of HIV, at a time when it was perhaps the most critical to take action. And though it is too early to tell, to the best of our current knowledge the human misery to which climate denialists are contributing will be orders of magnitude greater still. Really for a genocidal ;) climate science denialist to complain about comparison to an unsavory holocaust denier seems like a murderer complaining of being compared to a pick-pocket.
Trying to tar your opponents with that particular brush is an unworthy tactic ...
OK, let's recap what's happened in this thread. Someone made a joke which used the word 'denialist,' someone else tried the reverse Godwin "you're calling us holocaust deniers," and I pointed out that denialism is a term which covers much more than merely holocaust denialism. Personally if I hear the unmarked case 'denialist' I assume we are talking climate nowadays. Some people would have us believe they think of holocaust deniers and that they are unable to separate the terms even when the case is marked with "climate science," or "AIDS" or whatever. Twenty years from now when some new species of denialist is properly called a denialist they might well retort "oh you are calling me a climate denialist." Can't be helped.
Again personally I'll leave it to the denialists to "convince" with whatever persuasion techniques they choose to employ. Well no I won't leave them, I'll just call a spade a spade. You are free to be offended by that.
Now, 'uncritical skepticism' I might buy as a term. Think about it.
For some odd reason it makes me think of the line from Scott, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive." You would prefer so palpable a contradiction in terms to a clear word which accurately denotes the activity the perpertor is engaged in?!
You see, as a sceptic, it's my time to be offended at the idea that propagandists who spread lies and undermine science should be honoured with this term. Note also that I distinguish climate sceptics from climate denialists.
It seems that there are people out there who simply want to prohibit the use of a particular term with a very clearly defined meaning from ever being employed because of their particular political sensitivities. That's just like Hitler!
Dear PopeRatzo, let me introduce you to a set of new words that you've obviously never heard before. "Denotation" and "connotation."
Well, I've certainly heard of these before so let me rephrase the pope's question.
Are you saying that we are prohibited from using a word with a clear denotation for an object denoted by that word, because of the connotation it raises it the minds of some people?
No
Are you the OP as an AC?
the two things are not mutually exclusive
The two things I'm talking about is basing science on theory, evidence and calculation and basing science on gut feelings and a sense of moral outrage. They certainly are mutually exclusive, just look here!
you're forgetting the possibility that the earth is going through massive climate change but that little if any of that is due to the actions of humans
I'm not forgetting that, I'm not even addressing it. I'm saying the argument, "it's arrogant to believe X" has no place in science. Since you raise it, however, this possibility is a logical, but no longer an empirical one.
that would support the statistical analysis ...
It wouldn't though, nor could it account for the fingerprinting of anthropogenic carbon. What the analysis shows is that this is not merely a natural phenomenon, and that human contributions play some part. It hasn't been forgotten, it's been disproved.
Look it's possible that air is lighter than water AND that I'm wearing red underpants. This is the whole point, the "arrogance" simply doesn't come into the picture. Either the consensus position is sound, or it isn't. But that soundness is based on an analysis of theory, data and maths, not on perceptions of arrogance.
I'm curious now, what exactly do you consider to be the denialist agenda? As far as I can tell, there are several different types of denialists
You are correct of course, though I don't think the last two categories, especially the penultimate, you list can properly be labelled 'denialist.' To satisfy your curiosity, it was perhaps a poor choice of words. My point was nothing more than that one cannot take, for (an extreme) example, Pielke's position that fossil fuel combustion is not the major contributor to observed change, as supporting the position I once saw put that the C02 forcing is thermodynamically impossible.
In fact, to me it seems denialist is a rhetorical smear term ...
Well it's certainly no compliment! But are we forbidden from using negative terms for people who do negative things?
You can use it even without having an agenda to push, surely?
Dividing the world into 'deniers' and 'believers' is a technique I utterly despise.
I'm clearly not making that division. Rather, as ought to be clear from the post you are responding to, I'm dividing those who disagree with the consensus position on climate change into sceptics (based both on expertise and the scientific nature of their opposition) and denialists (based on their denial of empirically verifiable "facts" and their FUD techniques). It's my opinion that the latter stymie scientific progress while the former foster it.
It's a division I need to make because calling people who uncritically accept any quackery which supports their preconceived ideas "sceptics," sticks in my craw.
Damn you for drawing me into one of the most pointless scientific debates that one could possibly devise..
This is not a scientific debate.
Pot, meet Kettle. Except you're doing the opposite.
Once the "debate" escapes the realm of science and enters that of rhetoric how is this avoidable? A rhetorical move requires a rhetorical response.
So...
.. you are reduced to misquoting me.
Denialism also refers to a set of rhetorical strategies used to create the impression of uncertainty where none exists.
Now it is conceivable that some people might want to create an impression of certainty where none exists, but they would not be denialists.
You've stated that because the Earth has climate, which produces data, which can be analyzed by statistics, that the entirety of every conclusion drawn upon this data is beyond doubt.
Where? When? If you want to make so outrageous an accusation please provide a quote to back it up.
Look at the facts: ...
1)
The idea that past climatic changes argue against the influence of human activities on the current change is a logical fallacy.
2) ...
Lies (what "raft of statisticians from the 70s") and fairly typical FUD.
3) The Earth has proven notoriously difficult to model.
Indeed. And we need to treat with a degree of scepticism the predictions made by any such models. As all good modellers will acknowledge.
So while the models exist, they are far from 'good' as of yet.
Good enough for what? The problem with this is that all our models of anything at all are far from 'good' as yet, but they are the best we have. We can only act on the best possible information available to us, not on better information unavailable to us. Sucks to be human.
So you're expecting a leap of faith
Quite the opposite.
A. This climate change is different
This has now been established beyond reasonable doubt. Our models are certainly good enough for that. Stop being so unreasonable.
and we know this is true with enough certainty to up-end western civilization.
Moving from coal to Uranium is up-ending western civilisation? Please.
B. This data is better ...
Sorry, not following you here. Which data is better than what?
Don't know about smarter, but they certainly understand their discipline better than you do.
Given the inordinate amount of effort exercise to disprove them we can work on that presumption. But look, it's all in the published literature. If you can rebut that presumption, feel free.
C.
It would take a fool to make that claim and an even greater one to ascribe that claim to their interlocutor. No I don't want you to believe that. The only people who believe that are made of straw, surely?
Don't look now, but this is precisely what your post advocates.
Do look now. Look at the post you are responding to. It advocates the opposite. It's saying "show me the fucking maths dude, don't just beat your chest about what you find arrogant."
Just because you happen to agree with the conclusion ...
What conclusion? I asked the poster to "consider the actual volume of the troposphere, the concentration of various gases it contains, their change over time, the volume of CO2 release by fossil fuel use" and draw their own conclusion. Based not on gut feeling, or moral outrage, but on the numbers.
Perhaps the biggest group is the non-existence-of-God-denialists.
Where is the empirical proof of the non-existence of God (or gods generally)? There would seem to be as little reason to believe that gods do not exist as there would to believe that gods do exist.
Speaking of rhetorical strategies, is Godwin's law an empirically verifiable reality?
Godwin's law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
That would seem eminently verifiable.
But what's your point? Are you saying that any time one of the various non-holocaust denialisms is discussed, raising the issue of the holocaust constitutes a comparison to Nazis or Hitler? I disagree.
My initial response was based on a reflexive reaction to the word "denialist". Like most people, whenever I see the word I think of "Holocaust denialism"
Really? Most people? I think of climate denialists and evolution denialists. They are just so much more prevalent than holocaust deniers or AIDS denialists etc. these days.
I'm saddened and disappointed whenever supporters of the environment attempt to use the word to attack reasonable people that question whether, or to what degree, man effects the environment and the climate in general.
I agree completely and I would add the corollary that unreasonable people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, deny that humans affect the environment and the climate in general are the only ones who are properly called 'climate denialists.'
Richard Lindzen is often called a denier.
Now I'm not adverse to dispensing the term 'denialist' to those I feel fit to wear it, but to do so to Lindzen seems to me very unfair. Lindzen, notwithstanding some of his questionable contributions to the popular media, has generally engaged with the science on a scientific basis and where over time a point as been fairly well established, has conceded (or at least not persisted) and moved on. That's the very opposite behaviour from that which characterises a denialist.
However we have to be careful to be specific about what sceptical climatologists such as Lindzen, Christy or Pielke actually take issue with and when they did and not merely assume their position endorses the entire denialist agenda. And further we need to take into account the response of orthodox climatologists make to the sceptical critique, bearing in mind that Lindzen's expertise as a "respectable climatologist" puts him in a privileged position relative to say a pharmacologist (my original training) when it comes to disputing the orthodox position in climate science.
Conspiracy theories and scientific hypes aside, is man actually capable of changing the properties of something as huge as planet Earth?
Yes. Certainly the atmosphere and hyrdosphere thereof.
Or, in other words, can we stop this even if we want to?
Maybe. It depends on the nature of positive feedbacks, the science of which is still being explored. It's certainly possible that we have given rise to a runaway effect which we will no longer be able to contain. It is far from certain that we have reached the "tipping point" though. Perhaps the greater impediment to action is political rather than geo-physical. We would have been advised to take action around 1990. Twenty years of (mostly) inaction doesn't reflect well on the collective intelligence of your species.
Earth will continue changing as it will continue rotating,
True, it always has. It's clear though that the magnitude of recent climatic changes are in measure attributable to human activity.
we might as well take our minds off what we cannot change and work a little bit more on what we can
I agree completely and I would add that the human contribution to climate change is among the things we potentially can change.
i.e. the misery of mankind.
Slowly (from the human PoV) degrading the habitability of the planet, by "tak[ing] our minds off" the issue of our contribution to climate change seems a poor way to achieve this.