Re: [asa] Climate Progress

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 12:56:38 EST

On 12/12/09, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think the gratuitous and continued use of the label "denialist" for those
> that don't affirm your conclusions reveals an arrogance and immaturity in
> the AGW dogma.

John:

The label "denialist" has been used by some of those opposed to the IPCC.

It is also an accurate descriptor. "Skeptic" once descibed such
people, and it may well still describe some, but although I read a lot
of anti-IPCC arguments, none of them (with one or two rare exceptions)
evince any more credibility than the rantings of ICR and AIG against
evolution theory.

I began a study of this issue about a year ago -- I describe myself
then as a "skeptic" then, for in my then uneducated view there still
seemed to be about a 5 or 10% probablilty the IPCC had gotten it
wrong. If pressed, I'd probably still hold to a 5% probability.

I have never seen any argument from any denialist that they might --
just might -- be wrong. I conclude that they richly deserve the label.
Among them are the Heritage Foundation, George Will, The Cato
Institute, Rush Limbaugh and -- perhaps the sorriest of them all --
the Heartland Institute. If they win, my great grandchildren,
struggling to survive in a ruined world, will curse their names.

I apologize for being blunt. But I reject the characterization
"gratuitous" in my use of the label, which I intend to continue using.
I do not intentionally use it to describe skeptics.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 12:57:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 12:57:13 EST