Comments on: The Greenpeace Scam http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/02/the-greenpeace-scam/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bob Stapler http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/02/the-greenpeace-scam/comment-page-1/#comment-72410 Bob Stapler Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:06:50 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/02/the-greenpeace-scam/#comment-72410 Why is it the global warming crowd always insists on a higher of proof for a negative than for a positive, and credentials sufficient to be taken seriously even by the environmentally faithful? The AGW faithful will not be persuaded by flaws or revelations it's not the crisis they wish for; they require absolute, uncontrovertible proof AGW is non-threatening and non-existent else they'll keep up the drumbeat. Logic dictates a high level of proof only for proving a case exists, lesser disproofs are all that's required to blow it out of the water. This is like building a house of cards and then complaining it is unfair the guy who knocks it over lacked the same skill it took to build. I say, if the village idiot can blow your theory by finding its hidden (or not so hidden) flaws, it can't have been a very good theory. AGW has been shown to have many such flaws, few of which took a great deal of specialization, credentials or effort to debunk. All it took was a modicum of intelligence and the persistence to sift through the science and arguments. AGW has been mostly discredited using the very arguments, data, models, and alarums its advocates put forward as evidence. Rather than telling us this disqualifies the critic, it condemns the theory because if it was a good theory it would have needed much more to bring it down. As it stands, only some of the disproofs required that level of knowledge and skill. The rest is pure bunk easily seen through. Why is it the global warming crowd always insists on a higher of proof for a negative than for a positive, and credentials sufficient to be taken seriously even by the environmentally faithful? The AGW faithful will not be persuaded by flaws or revelations it’s not the crisis they wish for; they require absolute, uncontrovertible proof AGW is non-threatening and non-existent else they’ll keep up the drumbeat. Logic dictates a high level of proof only for proving a case exists, lesser disproofs are all that’s required to blow it out of the water. This is like building a house of cards and then complaining it is unfair the guy who knocks it over lacked the same skill it took to build. I say, if the village idiot can blow your theory by finding its hidden (or not so hidden) flaws, it can’t have been a very good theory.

AGW has been shown to have many such flaws, few of which took a great deal of specialization, credentials or effort to debunk. All it took was a modicum of intelligence and the persistence to sift through the science and arguments. AGW has been mostly discredited using the very arguments, data, models, and alarums its advocates put forward as evidence. Rather than telling us this disqualifies the critic, it condemns the theory because if it was a good theory it would have needed much more to bring it down. As it stands, only some of the disproofs required that level of knowledge and skill. The rest is pure bunk easily seen through.

]]>