More ammo in the fight against Anti-Science Syndrome (ASS)

[Viking12]

Here's a series of insightful videos addressing standard climate denial talking points. The series has evolved from addressing the "Crock of the Month" to (nearly) weekly videos, "Climate Denial Crock of the Week"


http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

[RoccoR5955]

1. What about Anti-Science Syndrome With Insufficent Personal Effort?

or ASSWIPE?!?!
(it's probably bad, but I made up that acronym off the top of my head!)

[stuntcat]

4. !!

I LOL'ed! I'll remember this :headbang:

[guardian]

2. Obviously you can't believe a word of this

The video is produced by Peter Sinclair, an award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator. I've been told countless times by fellow DUers in this very forum that you can't believe anything said about global warming or climate change unless it comes from

1. a peer reviewed scientific paper meeting rigorous academic standard, AND
2. the author has a degree and extensive experience in climatology as degrees in other scientific disciplines are insufficient to allow comment.

This bozo isn't even a scientist. He's an artist. Plus, who is paying the freight? He is making a living somehow. How do we know his viewpoint isn't skewed by personal financial motives? According to his website he charges money for speaker fees and sells books on the subject.

So which is it? Are you a hypocrite with double standards, or you can't believe anything this guy says.

[Viking12]

3. The videos are based on sound science.

Unlike the bullshit that you spam these threads with.

[guardian]

5. That's one vote for hypocrite

That's NOT the argument others have been making. The argument is if it's not peer reviewed and written by someone with the "proper" background the content cannot be trusted.

[Viking12]

6. The basic science discussed in the videos has been peer-reviewed.

Again, unlike the bullshit you spam these threads with.

[guardian]

7. So what is YOUR background

that enables you to assess the correctness of the assertions and interpretations made by this artist?

[Viking12]

8. I am very familiar with the scientific lit (occupational hazard)

Unlike you, I do not suffer from Anti-Science Syndrome (ASS).

[RoccoR5955]

9. That's where the "WIPE" part of my ASSWIPE acronym comes in.

WIPE = With Insufficient Personal Effort.

As long as someone takes sufficient PERSONAL effort, that is not being coaxed by the corporatists, (s)he's okay by me.

I'll stick with MY acronym. Now I think it's better than the ASS acronym!

[kristopher]

10. There are two distinct information streams

One originates in the bowels of think tanks that were specifically created to present a political message serving the interests of moneyed entities that stand to lose by addressing climate change. This information goes through no vetting process for accuracy or logical validity. To people operating in this data stream, there is no incentive to adhere to ethically based standards of truth.

The other information stream originates at the academic and professional science level and goes through a process designed to root out logical errors, mistaken or falsified data, and invalid analysis of data. To people operating in this sphere, their primary commodity is the ability to deliver information that accurately reflects the results of unbiased research. No particular analytic outcome is worth sacrificing intellectual integrity; although people can develop personal attachments to certain theories.


There is no comparison and anyone that doesn't understand and appreciate the difference is obtuse.

[Nihil]

11. ... and that was a very polite yet clear way of putting it ...

> ... and anyone that doesn't understand and appreciate the difference
> is obtuse.

Might not be the word (or words) I'd choose but it is accurate and precise.

:thumbsup:

[Barrett808]

12. Word. n/t

[NNadir]

13. For a guy who worships the stuff that comes out RMI, you have a way of being unintentionally

hilarious.

You still haven't been able to assimilate a <em>very</em> simple piece of data:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

IIRC you come here all the time stating that solar PV electricity is a <em>serious</em> way to address climate change, even though to even address dangerous natural gas, about which neither you nor the "think tank" morons at RMI give a shit - as RMI is paid outright and openly by dangerous natural gas companies - by a factor of 277 within 5 years.

Moreover, you come here to announce that humanity should bet its continued existence on your parochial "optimism" as you might call it, "delusion" as I might call it.

You oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy.

Given that RMI "think tank" bullshit artists have been offering this dubious claim in the face of 30 years of contradiction by the evidence, I think you should look in the mirror at some point, not that I'd expect that.

[kristopher]

14. Poor little feller....

Struggling so hard to keep up with the adults must be a terrible strainn after all these years, eh?

Nnormally I ignnore this onne, but sinnce my post dealt with two data streams - onne self policing, onne nnot - your claim nneeds a responnse.

Your sinngle argument is that sinnce rennewable ennergy hasnn't become a signnificannt source over the past 30 years, it cann't address the currennt problem no matter anny decisionns we might make to employ rennewables.

Ann enndless stream of folks have poinnted out the self evidennt idiocy of this "if man had been meannt to fly he'd have beenn bornn with winngs" argument so I'm not going to do it againn; I'm just goinng to ask you to documennt your argumennt as valid.

As I nnoted above, part of the peer review process weeds out crackpot logical disasters like you are now making, so please, show me it isnn't crackpot idiocy. Share with us onne - just onne - of those peer reviewed journnal articles that claims prior nnet growth in gennerating capacity for rennewables is a valid predictor of their ability to meet our nneeds inn the climate crisis.

[kristopher]

16. Listen to those crickets....

"Your sinngle argument is that sinnce rennewable ennergy hasnn't become a signnificannt source over the past 30 years, it cann't address the currennt problem no matter anny decisionns we might make to employ rennewables.

Ann enndless stream of folks have poinnted out the self evidennt idiocy of this "if man had been meannt to fly he'd have beenn bornn with winngs" argument so I'm not going to do it againn; I'm just goinng to ask you to documennt your argumennt as valid.

As I nnoted above, part of the peer review process weeds out crackpot logical disasters like you are now making, so please, show me it isnn't crackpot idiocy. Share with us onne - just onne - of those peer reviewed journnal articles that claims prior nnet growth in gennerating capacity for rennewables is a valid predictor of their ability to meet our nneeds inn the climate crisis."

[RoccoR5955]

15. WRONG, one is coming from the bowels of corporate STINK tanks, the other is from scientists! n/t

[Shoelace]

17. what a guy this greenman3610

and he's totally unapologetic about calling the deniers what they are and how they do what they do and why they do it. Thanks!

[Shoelace]

18. he's got a new one this week, worth a watch

this guy needs our help. New video just out this week, he's being bugged by a couple of deniers. Greenman does a great job of busting the denial machine. 4+ minutes of truth!

[Viking12]

19. Thanks for the update!

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Yes, I am kicking THIS!

And there's no better week to do it in -- the Darwin Bicentennial.

--d!