The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Global Warming Alarmist Defender Flowchart!

Global Warming Alarmist Defender Flowchart. These are the tactics commonly used by global warming alarmists when they start to lose the argument. Be sure to see the evidence in our Alarmism category.

Via Anthony Watts.

4 Responses to “Global Warming Alarmist Defender Flowchart!”

  1. Exigently Patient said

    @TalkerOne What amazing data you directed me to! How about, or Still you choose to listen to a select few (hacks) & ignore the majority of the data & the experts. Please, give me any argument that contradicts global warming! Someone needs to shut more ideologically charged pricks like you up, so maybe we can do something about this looming crisis together.

    As far as Corbyn is concerned, well, he has no single scientific, peer-reviewed publication (try to find his curriculum vitae; the only one I saw was what he posted to (unsuccessfully) defend himself against critics here:, and the only peer-reviewed publication that uses his work (which was the source of aforementioned criticism) does little to establish his credibility on this matter (article can be found here: The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63, Issue 1, January 2001, p. 29-34). The 85% accuracy you refer to is BS.


    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    Well actually if you bothered to read the British Press Weather Actions predictions were audited independently. One of those articles is on this very web site. So so much for your great research ability. The 85% number is totally legit. You can talk academic theory all you like, but you see we climate realists have something you don’t, a consistent track record of long term climate forecasts that you don’t have.

    You see here is the problem, the British met and those British global warming hoaxers you are so fond of went on the record saying that the last two winters would be unusually mild and warm, so what happened… well last January had record cold and now November/December has record cold across much of Europe, Russia and parts of the United States. Then one of your climate guys like Monbiot said “see we told you global warming would cause this cold winter”… well no they didn’t. Real scientists don’t need to rewrite history. But guess who predicted the cold winters, where the cold would hit hardest and where the snow would hit hardest over 100 days before the event… you guessed it Piers Corbyn did. The Euro press reported this far and wide and so did some American outfits so denying it will only make you look more foolish.

    By the way, Dr. Corbyn doesn’t need to defend himself, he has results that are consistent. It is your guys that need to defend themselves for lecturing us about these “warm winters” and the increasing super hurricane seasons that didn’t happen etc.

    Peer reviewed… that does not impress me one bit. The IPCC wasn’t peer reviewed and you guys ignored the real report and took the politically spun summary as gospel. Also if you bothered to read peer reviewed studies, you would know that a peer reviewed study of other peer reviewed studies shows that 85% of peer reviewed studies are overturned/corrected by other peer reviewed studies. Heck if I started handing out big research grants over the long term for those willing to study the previous existence of unicorns, it would not be long till the unicorn fossil was discovered and the peer reviewed articles came out showing how they evolved and went extinct.

    But if you live in a world of theory and can’t handle reality – This nice gent has lots of peer reviewed studies under his belt and he is only the top climate scientist at MIT –

    As far as hacks, you see you have a problem. I have the emails that your best guys wrote to each other telling how they manipulated the peer review process, manipulated the proxy data and steered some data sets upward while steering others downward. They also said that they had to do something about that dreaded medieval warming period. Funny, because when you look at their published proxy results the medieval warming period magically disappears. You see someone isn’t a hack just because you say so. But they are a hack when they spell it out in black and white just how anti-science they are, and your guys did just that. IN fact, your guys said that they would destroy much of the raw data if they ever got caught, well they did and they carried out their promise and once again the evidence is posted on this very site for you to read for yourself.

    I also have data sets from NOAA and Hadley Center and others published right on this very site that show the global cooling trend (these were published before Obama started overtly politicizing NOAA/NASA/NCDC). I also posted the raw data sets that show how arctic sea ice has been rising and rising fast since late 2007.

    You see the difference between you and me are two things. I have actually debated PhD’s and won, you haven’t (which is rather obvious) and two; you are not nearly as smart as you think you are, and I hope that you stick around, so I can demonstrate that fact for the pleasure of my audience.

    P.S. Why did the Obama administration try to suppress that EPA report saying that the claims of skeptics are largely correct?]

    Oh and I almost are going to find that appeals to authority and other logical fallacies wont impress anyone here…. Oh wait I am talking to global warming religionist about logic.

    Let me explain – THIS is what I mean about an appeal to authority –

    Have a great new year!

  2. Exigently Patient said

    (1) Please alleviate my lacking research skills (which I never bragged about, by the way), and direct me to the purportedly legitimate establishment of the 85% accuracy figure.

    (2) I do not know what you mean when you say “…talk academic theory all you like.” I do not consider the theoretical models, which effectively explain an enormous amount of climate data so far as I can tell, any more “theoretical” than the stance of “realism” you propose. Calling it realism seems to me to be rather disingenuous, since instead of defending the position with arguments you poison the well with a false dilemma.

    (3) I agree I have a problem; I have many problems. The problem you refer to with regard to the “British global warming hoaxers,” as you oppose them to Corbin’s prediction, is not among them. If you include enough detail for me to actually know what you are talking about without being forced to do research to disambiguate your references, perhaps I would be willing to respond to that. Otherwise, this is an instance of name calling as far as I am concerned (since you seem to share an interest in logic, let us designate it accordingly: ad hominem).

    (4) “Dr. Corbyn doesn’t need to defend himself, he has results that are consistent.” Here is a result that is inconsistent: You did not say that all his results are consistent, however, so I suppose such a counter-example does not deny that some results are. Well, that is fine, but does little work in establishing the reliability of his opinions about climate change. In the face of the available counter evidence, the burden of proof is on you or Dr. Corbyn to show that he is right and something like the Nature article I cited above is wrong.

    (5) I have little to say about the matters you bring up regarding the status of peer-reviewed articles, mostly because they amount to a red herring. I will however mention one thing: appeals to authority tend to be fallacious when they do not coincide with expertise. It would be much more inappropriate to consider buying an Olympus camera because Sharapova uses one than it would be for me to consider increasing my vitamin D intake because my physician says so, or to take seriously the opinion of any expert about something relevant to his or her area of expertise.

    (6) If you are referring to Climate Gate, I am sorry, but I will have to politely refuse to take what you say there seriously. If that is not the case, or if you have a specific issue to argue without taking it out of context and caricaturing it, please do.

    (7) I am glad you have all this raw data laying around. For some reason you like to talk up all this data you have while I do not see anything that takes on a specific finding that is contrary to the view that you are trying to uphold. Any view can be supported, but that does not make all views equal. In this case, the odds seem to be against you. Spare me the “all the scientists who show that anthropogenic climate change is happening are corrupt because they need to keep their job, and it is all a conspiracy” appeals. If tI were to take it seriously, all your data sets are subject to the same objection.

    (8) “You see the difference between you and me are two things. I have actually debated PhD’s and won, you haven’t (which is rather obvious) and two; you are not nearly as smart as you think you are, and I hope that you stick around, so I can demonstrate that fact for the pleasure of my audience.” Another red herring made up of ad hominems, but since you brought up logic and you want to make an example of me, I suppose I should say something about it. You see, there are a few things that don’t sit right with me about this little snippet (other than its wholly fallacious constitution). First, I did not say anything about how smart I think I am, so I find your epistemological access to by beliefs about myself to be either supernatural or a straw man that you hastily constructed (since I must be associated with all those damn alarmists). Since it is not the former, it is something much more like the latter. Second, my not being as smart as I think I am would be quite a difficult fact to establish; I do not think that even those scientists with the most funding could do it very well without the most pronounced delusions of grander to measure my intelligence against. Third, the grammar here (as elsewhere) is quite confused (especially the punctuation). Fourth, you are right, I have not debated any PhD’s, and I find it surprising that you have (let alone that you won). I commend you, sir, though it seems to me that your being right about my lacking such credentials has less to do with probability (i.e., not many people have debated someone with a PhD, so it is a pretty safe bet that I haven’t) and more to do with your own sense of how smart you are. This is a (psychoanalytic) stretch, but maybe the reason you are so convinced that you know how smart I am, and that I am not so smart, has more to do with how smart you think you are than it has to do with me.

    (9) I am ignorant of the EPA report you are referring to, so without a reference I withhold any opinion on the matter.

    As for your logic insult, I am afraid your record so far is not so clean (as should be clear by now). For this reason, I doubt that your audience is too logical to be swayed by fallacies. From what I can tell, fallacies and rationalizations play quite the part in constituting your content and keeping it afloat. In any case, maybe you can correct my logic and I will help you with your grammar.


    [IUSB Vision Editor Responds:

    Well young fella, much of the data you are asking for is not just lying around, it is right here on this site. The climate gate emails (which we give examples of and provide links for their entire mail server so you can’t claim the “out of context lie”, the data sets, the EPA report and the emails that they sent to cover it up, are all here in the alarmism category. So all you need to do is click and read.

    As far as the “all scientists are corrupt and do it to keep their jobs conspiracy theory” objection. I see that you did not even take the time to examine Dr. Lindzen’s video I provided you. So either you are lying about the details of our position, or you did not watch the video.

    As far as Dr. Corbyn, you need to keep reading, you can deny his accuracy for the sake of denial all you like, but you realize that I am just going to pop a ton of evidence in your face if you keep up these meaningless denials. The data and/or the links you seek are here. If you are interested in verifiable evidence I have made them available to you.

    In order to have a rational discussion, you have to know the same data I know, so that means you have some reading to do.

    You also need to know this – First, don’t lecture me about adhominem attacks, your youtube channel; your comments are full of them against other people, and so is your video. So if you can’t take it I suggest that you do not dish it out (you understand that takes maturity right?).

    Second, just because someone says the opposite that does not mean that you have refutation, it means that you found someone with an opposite view. So start reading and you are welcome to return when you are ready. If you don’t look at the data seriously I am going to learn that very quickly and you are going to find yourself in a position to be embarrassed.

    Third, since what I have seen from you so far indicates that you are a global warming religionist (but I am open to being incorrect on this), I have no expectation that you will accept any data, fact or arguments that is outside of your the alarmist faith based narrative. Therefore I have no expectation of changing your mind. If you do your part it will serve the benefit and entertainment value of the audience.

    Parting question – In most AGW alarmist computer models, how much yearly increases in man made CO2 do they typically assume?]

  3. Exigently Patient said

    First, I address the superficial matters that seem to me to stand in the way of any relevant discussion (viz., (i) the use of fallacies and (ii) an appraisal of your accusations of my ineptness about what is relevant to the discussion). Second, I attempt to briefly extrapolate some of the more fundamental points of disagreement that further prevent any progress toward an engagement of the topic of anthropogenic climate change (viz., (i) the role of corruption and ideology in science and (ii) the role science in explanation and prediction). Third, I interpret and address what I take to be your central arguments against climate change or AGW. Fourth, I present some arguments in favor of AGW. FInally, I conclude by suggesting (1) that stances both for and against AGW can be supported by a vast amount of literature, (2) that there is reason to think that the literature supporting at least some degree of AGW is generally more reliable than literature that denies AGW altogether and (3) even if AGW is alarmist, changes that issue from perspectives that take AGW to be the case are typically more rational responses than the insistence that AGW is a conspiracy intended to undermine the economy.

    …that would be my abstract, but I have been dissuaded from taking the time to write this response. The most persuasive reason for my dropping this is the abundant availability of evidence against your politically and ideologically charged position, of which you are so certain. If that fails to convince you to even question your stance, it would be foolishly fervent of me to think I could do any better. After all, you clearly think that the burden of proof, despite the overwhelming abundance of its presence, is on me and other “AGW religionists,” and the data you have collaged is the standard of legitimacy on the matter (“In order to have a rational discussion, you have to know the same data I know, so that means you have some reading to do”). And so, have away with your baton, for there is little I should expect to be able to do to detract you from the audience you are conducting with it, and reason and argument have little to do with this powerlessness. May this entertain your audience. This is, after all, what you seem to be after.


    IUSB Vision Editor Responds –

    OH have I been waiting for you to come back. I see you have been given plenty of time to review the sourced facts we have posted and this lame statement is all you could come up with?

    By the way, the last time you were here you stated that you did not believe that academics would engage in conspiracies to violate ethics. So I started an entire new category called “Academic Misconduct” just for YOU!

    In just the last few years groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Alliance Defense Fund and even the American Center for Law and Justice have fought hundreds of cases of exactly that.

    Oh yes, entire departments and administrators who collude to silence an academic who speaks out, other groups of academics and administrators collde to stop research they didn’t approve of. Professors fired at in the IU system for daring to show students an article from a famed academic from the Hoover institution. Hundreds of cases of professosr and administrators trying to drive Christian students out, not recognize their student clubs, false accusing students of threats who simply constitutionally opposed a policy etc.

    Here are just a small sample of the cases where groups of academics did exactly what you said doesn’t happen – Watch and learn –
    With this post we are announcing a new category called Academic Misconduct. While this may seem redundant with our Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship category the new Academic Misconduct category will focus on instances where those in authority actively conspire to violate the rights of, or smear, or suppress a student, faculty member, or citizen.

    This is NOT about conspiracy theories so lets make that clear at the get go. This category is about cases, for example, where multiple members of the faculty and/or administration actively work together to engage in the type of misconduct described above and got caught.

    But whey make an entire category about something that just happens from time to time? That is the problem, it just not just happen from time to time. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has actively fought countless cases of just such behavior at universities both large and small scattered across the country. So has the Alliance Defense Fund, the Student Press Law Center, the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute. Even here at IUSB we have reported multiple cases of just such behavior and as I type this a faculty member is having his academic freedom violated in flagrant violation of the IU Academic Handbook. Which likely we will be reporting on soon.

    Indeed several new cases a week almost very week become known. These are also just a tiny fraction of the violations because so many students either do not know their rights, do not know that thereis help out there, or a faculty member/student is successfully intimidated.

    This new category has been long overdue, but the catalyst to create it came from a challenge from a global warming alarmist when he told me (in spite of the ClimateGate emails that demonstrate just such behavior as large as life) that he does not believe that academics would conspire in such a way. The truth is that not only do they, but it is a regular and common occurrence. There so many fully documented examples of just such behavior that when given such an objection again I will merely need to point them to this category.

    The video’s below are just a few examples. To examine our other categories please scroll down on the left hand bar of the page.

    This case is one that I actively participated in. Part 1 of our investigation is HERE and part 2 is HERE. Commentary on this video is HERE.

    “No responsible public official could possibly have gone overboard as they appeared to do at Voldosta State”

  4. Exigently Patient said

    Who can compete with your extent of competence in affirming your views with appeals marked by irrelevance is beyond me. You just keep on weaving these fallacious tapestries, as I know you will. Clearly my role is not here, for I seek to participate in conversation, which takes some mutual acknowledgement. Even though the anticipation for my response would have one believe that there is a shortage, I am confident that content with which to stuff your straw men abounds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: