Tuesday, September 4th 2012, 3:12 AM EDT
You may have noticed that I have started to take note of the so called "scientific" Journals and Newspapers who have reverted to what is best described as "name calling" when they descibe people who dont agree with "man made" climate change.
This issue has become so rife that even the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, resorts to "name calling" by using the word "denialists" as if it's an OK thing to do. How can you debate with, or have any respect for people who do that, what thay are doing in effect, is making sure they are taking a moral high ground.
The "D" word to throw back at them is "Disempower".
Whenever people are faced with "name calling", as if what you have to say is unworthy.......you should make it clear that they are trying to disempower you, they are trying to take a moral high ground by depriving you of power or influence in order to make their point. In this respect their argument of the science being settled and therefore not open to debate is a "straw man". Science has to stand up to debate and skepticism, and "man made" climate change is no differant, what we ALL need is DEBATE.
The President of the Royal Society can be seen to try and Disempower people with their views on "man made" climate change with the following article in the New York Times with name calling.
Extract from the A Redoubt of Learning Holds Firm by Michael Powell - nytimes.com
.....Some of those battles have started to jump the Atlantic with more vigor than in the past. Not long ago, it was rare to hear a political challenge in Europe to the scientific consensus around global warming. Not anymore.
Dr. Nurse is careful to emphasize that skepticism is the lifeblood of science; the verities of one age can become the superstitions of another. But he can’t hide his impatience with those who deny a strong human hand in global warming. You want to argue that the evidence points to only moderate warming? Brilliant; let’s examine the research. But to deny it altogether? The stakes are too high to play political games, he says.
“They say: ‘Well, no one believed Galileo.’ As if what? That’s an arrogant argument. Galileo prevailed very rapidly, as did Newton, as did Einstein,” he says. “The denialists have completely lost it.”
The leaders of the Royal Society conceive of themselves as a collective Cerberus, the mythical three-headed hound, guarding the doors of British science. “We are protected against creationism and the like by our national curriculum for now,” Dr. Nurse said. “But we should keep a very close eye on education. The American experience tells us that we must respond robustly to challenges.”