Unlike AGW believers who are loathe to view presentations by skeptics, I have no fear of viewing any kind of pro-AGW material. Yep, the 4 minute segment was funny. Problem was, as ever with so many AGW-related assertions, the deal with Bill Nye being insinuated to be a 'great debater' was offered with no context. All we got from the host was a list of AGW talking points which I myself could have written since they are so predictable, and then assertions that skeptics are wrong, but then rather then Nye debating a real skeptic right on the spot, we all had to see a fake one. The downfall of all of this is when the otherwise disinterested folks stop to check out the situation for themselves, and discover in short order that Nye meets his match with Marc Morano ( http://www.mrctv.org/videos/climate-depots-marc-morano-debates-bill-nye-climate-change ) and doesn't end up doing so hot. Nye actually gets criticized by people who are on his own side who say his blunders don't help the situation: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/17/bill-nye-fact-checking-mtp/Context is everything. AGW believers give every appearance of wanting ordinary citizens to trust what they say about AGW, while skeptics invite people to deeply examine the assertions - made by anyone - and see for themselves if there's hard evidence to back them up. Take the "denial" label itself, for example. Folks can either choose to believe it without question, or they can go read skeptic science material in depth and know for themselves whether or not skeptic scientists flat out deny 'climate change' / 'global warming' or whatever label you put on it. Same thing applies to that "97% consensus" figure.I submit to you, it is that 'in-depth' look that is what's constantly eroding the idea of AGW, and it is why AGW believers are putting so much effort into character assassination of skeptics - a tactic which looks like sheer end-of-the-line desperation, further undermining AGW.
I love your comment about 'skeptics' inviting people to 'deeply examine the assertions.' Actually they are deniers. Deniers are professional paid to deceive the public. Skeptics are the innocent victims that have fallen for those deceptions. And, the last thing deniers want is for the public to look at the facts for themselves. As soon as anyone bothers to examine the truth of the matter the denier claims all fall apart. I am putting my money where my mouth is. If you want to claim that science supports you claims, prove it. You can submit a proof to the $10,000 challenge. But, you can also submit ANY PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that support your claim to the $1000 challenge and I'll give you $1000 out of my own pocket. If your case is so overwhelmingly true, why have you not taken me up? Why not get one of your buddies at the Heartland Institute to provide you with a proof? I don't even need to debate you. Your silence is all the evidence that is needed. By the way, the tide is definitely turning in our favor. More and more of the public is rejecting your claims and realizing the scientists are correct. Truth conquers all.
I would also like to comment about your claim that scientists are loathe to view denier presentations. If you talk to climate scientists you will find that most of them are very well versed in denier claims, which demonstrates they have, in fact, looked at your claims. The reason most of us don't bother viewing all of your material is because it is all the same and we have learned that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to convince you of anything other than your warped worldview.Deniers fall into the same category as people who claim there is a face on Mars, the Moon landings were faked, that astrology is real, that psychics are real, that alien abductions are real, that lizard people are real, that smoking is harmless, on and on. You are all people that have adopted some bizarre, unsupported worldview that fits your emotional needs and ignores reality.All rationale people reach a point where they realize that any further discussion with people like you is fruitless. I, on the other hand, find it is an opportunity to practice dealing with you. I know there is no amount of science that can ever change your mind. You could be standing in boiling water with your hair on fire and you would still be claiming global warming isn't real. Nothing I can ever say or do will ever change your mind. But, there are people out there that haven't fallen for your deception and I want to give them a chance to see the truth for themselves.
All rational people reach a point where they realize that any further discussion with people like you is fruitless. I, on the other hand, find it is an entertaining exercise to see just how many unsupported premises you rely on while sidestepping elemental questions. Sorta like whack-a-mole, I guess.Your first sidestep in today's instance, as well as in your prior blog posts, was predictably to fail to show us any evidence of skeptic scientists - or myself, for that matter - flat out denying 'climate change' / 'global warming' isn't happening, or are professionally paid to deceive the public. Same challenge as in my prior comments: Indulge us, link to or reproduce verbatim proclamations of the denial, prove that any one of us is paid to lie.Your second sidestep, quite an inexplicable one, was to turn my bit about AGW believers are loathe to view skeptic presentations into "scientists are loathe to view denier presentations". People like you are AGW believers, and there are no "denier" presentations because - to repeat ad nauseum - skeptic scientists and places like CFACT, Heartland and others do not deny climate change or global warming, an abundantly obvious fact when anyone actually reads their material. Scientists like Michael Mann and Katherine Hayhoe flee from any public debate with skeptic scientists or skeptic speakers.I'm just a common citizen, pointing to the skeptic assessment reports and the manner in which they contrast with IPCC reports. That is the best I can do, I leave the public debate up to the scientists of each side to hash it out. That is arguably the best AGW believers can do as well, but across the board, they instead declare the science to be settled. Regarding your "$10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge", the reason why James Rust seems to dismiss it is probably because of your rule #5, which borders on the preposterous, having the appearance of a 'rigged outcome' being a certainty. No doubt you'd view such a counter-opposite challenge from Lord Monckton having an identical rule #5 with the same suspicion.AGW believers fall into the same category as people who claim there is a face on Mars, the Moon landings were faked, that astrology is real, that psychics are real, that alien abductions are real, that smoking is harmless, that ChemTrails are real, that the Twin Towers were taken down by missiles, that Creation Science is valid, and that a conspiracy exists between skeptic scientists and 'big coal & oil' to lie to the public about global warming. All conspiracy theory that depends on faith in the absence of proof to back it up, and in truly inexplicable character assassination as a first-resort defense against anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy of any of those.I could do this all day long. Myself, I'll still give you the credit of not altering my comments or deleting them. That's rare, as many of the commenters and blog writers I've encountered end up stomping off in a huff or deleting my comments outright, and I've been 'practicing' - to use your term - on such people ever since 2008.
Just like a denier. You patiently wait until you have 10% of the information before boldly jumping to the wrong conclusion. Of course, since you guys just reach the conclusion you want without doing any kind of science to support it (what I would expect from real estate agents and such pretending to be scientists), I guess you are just being consistent.
No, in your case, just like a person who makes an assertion and then cannot in any form back it up. That is what is consistent across the spectrum for AGW believers. You can neither establish that I deny climate change in any way nor that I jumped to any conclusion about the matter, otherwise you would have done so already. It is that simple. Once again, indulge us, link to or reproduce verbatim proclamations of the denial, prove that any one of us is paid to lie, find writings of mine where it is demonstrably provable that I jumped to a conclusion "that I wanted" without doing any due diligence about the other side of the issue. Where on Earth do you get that 'what I wanted' bit from?And what do "real estate agents" have to do with anything?? Which skeptic scientist is a real estate agent? Is this another assumption of yours pulled out of thin air, just like your other blog where you think I'm threatening a lawsuit even after I rephrase my challenges in two other ways about proving skeptics are paid shills? How well does that lawsuit notion of yours work out when you discover I've posed the same 'courtroom evidentiary hearing' analogy to other article commenters who - in case your Naval Intelligence experience hasn't clued you into it yet - did NOT jump to the conclusion that I was threatening them in any way?
Just for the record, will you be willing to state that the fossil fuel industry does not fund climate change deniers?
There are no "climate change deniers", what part of that talking point wipeout do you not get? Geeze, I've never said skeptic skeptic scientists didn't get money from places like Western Fuels, though. You ought to already know about the words straight out of Dr Pat Michaels mouth at the top of this ThinkProgress page from 2010 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/08/16/206595/pat-michaels-global-warming-denier-cato-big-oil/Just for the record, will you be willing to state that whatever fossil fuel industry funding the skeptics have received cannot in itself be proof that they are operating under a directive to knowingly lie to the public without concrete evidence proving exactly that?Meanwhile, let's recap all of your sidesteps of the challenges I've posed to you: - to explain the meaning of your "real estate agents" bit just above - the problem with endorsing a comedy skit in which a fake skeptic is trotted out to face Bill Nye - how you prove I've reached the conclusion "I want" - how your $10 grand challenge rule #5 avoids looking like a rigged outcome - that I or skeptic scientists deny climate change / global warming - that what I engage in here still looks like a lawsuit threat - that I'm paid or directed what to say by Heartland - the failure to dredge up any instance where I've advocated the shut-down / silencing of the AGW side - your apparent ignorance about threats, intimidation or lawsuits trying to shut down skepticsSomething for you to think about over the weekend. Myself, I'll part for now on something we do agree on, the need to return caregiving favors to elderly parents for all the care they gave us as kids.
I knew you would weasel you way out because that's what deniers do. You are not interested in facts or science. I posted my list of denier funding and receivers of funding. Your group of guys are not what I would call 'model citizens.'http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/05/denier-funding.htmlTom Donalson, one of your buddies, is a real estate agent. That is representative of the deniers. You are mostly a bunch of non-scientists that go around pretending you more science than all of the climate scientists in the world combined.I made a posting about my two challenges and why no denier has taken the challenge. The reason it looks like a lawsuit threat is because that's what it looks like and you are associated with a group of people (Heartland) that specializes in doing just those kinds of things. You are judged by the people you associate with.Again, we may not agree, ore even like each other, but I do express my honest sympathies to you about your parents. My mother passed away just within the last few weeks and I know what its like.