« 77th Skeptics’ Circle | Main | Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence »

January 08, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is that AGW or just GW denialists? Hmm? It's an imporatnt distinction I think.
Otherwise you are totally on the money!

ps It might be a case of 'crank vs crank' however

To continue, YOU of all people would know that science, practiced 'correctly', embraces skepticism.
I would like to suggest that the debate re-Anthropogenic GW is NOT over. NO, I do NOT get paid by 'Big-Oil'!
Surely you have read in depth the often skeptical & damning analysis to be found in
http://www.climateaudit.org/ ?

There are actually people who deny AIDS?

There are people that deny that HIV causes AIDS. And the reasons are political or financial.

And what do they think causes AIDS?

... it gets sketchy after that. Conspiracy theories, demons, voodoo curses. When you step on the evidence-based path, all bets are off. :)

Google for "hiv does not cause aids" for all the crazy you can handle. It's a huge problem in Africa right now, failing to accept the advice is actually killing people. :(

Google fluoridation in drinking water for some more crazy. Nutrasweet searches leads to further nuttiness.

Bob, its funny that you seem to be pretty clear on many topics and then fail to follow through with GW phenomena enough to see that anthropogenic causes are in fact the most likely reason for it.

This is not the right post to talk about it, and I rarely pump my own blog, but perhaps you wanna talk about it here?

I don't deny AGW, I was merely responding to the guy asking about HIV-AIDS deniers. Don't put words in my mouth ;)


YOU of all people would know that science, practiced 'correctly', embraces skepticism.I would like to suggest that the debate re-Anthropogenic GW is NOT over. NO, I do NOT get paid by 'Big-Oil'!

When you say things in this manner, it comes off as AGW denial. I apologize if I misinterpreted you. Skepticism is great, and should be endorsed fully. Howerver, quoting the Idsos (much like quoting the Greiers in autism) and rehashing 20 year old data as if nothing new has happened like most anti-AGW sites do, is exactly the same thing as these anti-evolution and pro-mercury dorks do. (I have not been able to go through that entire site, but I have soaked up many many other ones that were linked to there, including the laughable CO2Science.org)

LOL apologies again.... Perhaps I have the wrong person...

When I looked at the Recent Comments list a few days ago, I could swear that it attributed those first two comments to 'Bob'. But now that I look up at the first two comments there is no name at all.

My comments were supposed to be towards whoever wrote those first two.

Hi Techskeptic, hope your confusion is temporary. I made the comments re- skepticisn & AGW. Personally I have absolutely ZERO qualifications when it comes to the science of climate (& associated disciplines)I do, however have a very high respect for scientific process & discovery since I was a child. It is tragic, & worrying that in this day & age both AIDS & Evolution have their delnialists. The latter being of a particularly mind-frozen variety.
BUT!!!! can you tell me if you have spent ANY thorough time reading 'Climate Audit'?
It appears to me that Steve Mcintyre has a genuine desire to analyse honestly what passes for data amongst the climate science community. On many occasions he has discovered/questioned/challenged both data/conclusions/motives of certain people & groups with success.
He appears to be a skeptic with a solid scientific understanding of the processes involved. If you have any proven issues with this site I would be very happy to hear them- one's mind has to remain pliable!
Personally, I suspect that the 'science' of GW or AGW is infected with politics- the results tainted. Cheers

I forgot to add, as for 20 year old data, 'Climate Audit' has had many issues with obtaining un-tainted/modified/truncated data from the proper scientific sources, some of whom are reluctant to assist in proper scientific process. Mcintyre is always attempting to obtain the latest data to analyse it would seem to me.
Also, I have never seen nor read Idsos-I had to Google it to find out what/whom it was!

Mark (sorry Bob),

again, lets move the conversation to the link I provided. Its not on topic here. Yes I did peruse the climate audit, but as I said not fully, I just noticed a lot of the reference material.

[blockquote]I don't deny AGW, I was merely responding to the guy asking about HIV-AIDS deniers. Don't put words in my mouth ;)[/blockquote]
I would be that guy.

By the way, thank you for the Google suggetions, but it’s like make me angry.

Damn! I screwed something up!

LOL tom... yeah 2 things

1) you didnt use preview
2) you used [] instead of <>

Good stuff Skeptico. Funnily enough, I've noticed a certain amount of crossover between the HIV-AIDS denialists and the MMR-causes-autism cranks. Heh, maybe they're creationists as well.

Google Thabo Mbeki and the ANC in South Africa. Issues about understanding the causes of AIDS could lead to the depopulation of a continent.

Don't get me going on climate...

Martin Rundkvist has a good set of posts here on Skepticism.">http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/01/what_giraffe_taught_me_about_s.php">Skepticism.

I don’t need no preview, just use [] like everybody else!!!

Mark, many of McIntyre's claims have been discredited by peer-reviewed American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford, S. et al in "Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain" (2005). I'm sorry, I don't know how to link it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site