Update: Got a pingback claiming that the original post has disappeared. No. It’s still here, where it’s always been. How flagrantly dishonest.
In my last retort to Iain Hall, I set him a number of questions to answer. Let’s see how he fared (hint – badly):
On my challenge to prove that I don’t understand science:
Iain’s response: “Actually John I invited you to provide your credentials in science first and I took your silence as proof that you have none.”
Response: Actually, no he didn’t, nor did he answer this question. Fail.
On my challenge to prove that he understood complicated scienctific data:
Iain’s response: “Actually yes I do understand a fair bit on the site your referenced, as for Christopher Monckton’s piece it is long and covers a rather broad ranging topic so you will have to be a little more specific.”
Response: I did. The question was asterisked, and a direct question concerning a single equation was asked. Iain did not answer. Fail.
On my challenge to state where exactly I “repeatedly” said that I “know nothing about science”?
Iain’s response: “John I will type this slowly because I know that you have comprehension issues, OK? Every time that you have labelled critics of AGW theory “denialists” you are making the fundamental mistake of assuming that the theory of AGW is proven beyond any doubt and even those who advocate the theory would not make such an outrageous claim. just look at this passage from a PDF cited by Craigy at my main blog and see how the claim is made with clear caveats, despite what the IPCC may say the science is still very much the subject of debate. Thus every time you label sceptics as “deniers” you are actually demonstrating your lack of understanding of the science and of what scientific debate is all about.”
Response: No, the post I wrote was about separating skeptics from denialists. They are two completely different camps. I repeated it in my response to Iain. Again, it was never a post about the science of global warming. Yet again, Iain failed to directly answer my question, because I never said that, and Iain is trying to direct attention away from the fact that he is wrong. Fail.
On my challenge for some names of communists hiding under the cover of “global warming” to bring down capitalism.
Iain’s response: “John many Global warming suporters ARE ex-comunists just look at they way the International socialists are always prominient at the demonstrations , look at the memebership and agendas of the likes of sea shepard , Greenpeace, Peta, et al“
Response: Here Iain falls victim to the kind of desperate conspiracy theories we’ve come to expect from the hardcore denialists. Besides sending me to a weak denialist website (if it advanced my opinions, I would ignore it, because it lacks almost any references, and is very one-eyed and biased), he makes claims about the agendas of Greenpeace, She Shepard, and PETA etc, none of whom are communist. Greenpeace goes as far to state that “Greenpeace is actually not interested in the economics of commerce.”, and PETA and SS also hold similar views. “International socialists” are apparently prominent at the demonstrations. Um. OK. Despite the fact he doesn’t name them (which would be the obvious thing to do), I would go as far as to point out, like in my original post, that this is not a political issue. Those trying to make it a political issue are the denialists, because they can’t argue on scientific grounds. Fail.
On my challenge to prove that scientists are deliberately skewering results to continue funding.
Iain: “What makes you think that scientists are doing it either deliberately or even consciously? I don’t say they were doing it deliberately and it is not even about skewing results rather it is more about how the focus their energies and the topics they pick for research.”
Response: Complete backdown, because he knows he’s wrong. Fail.
On my second challenge to prove where I said “I don’t understand science”:
Iain: “If the piece at Grods is any measure of your ability to “formulate arguments based on the science” then you are rather deluded.”
Response: Because you can’t understand this even though I’ve said it several times, I’ll say it again.
The piece I wrote was not a piece pitting the science of the two views against each other. It was an opinion piece about tactics of the global warming denialists. Again, you won’t actually say where I said “I don’t understand science”. Fail.
On my challenge to prove where I said I didn’t see the TGGWS:
Iain: “You clearly suggest that you have not watched TGGWS in this passage:
The film is riddled with numerous deficiencies, inaccuracies and falsifications (including invented graphs), but that doesn’t matter to the climate change skeptics denialists who continue to cling to it because its central hypothesis agrees with theirs.
I, on the other hand, don’t pay any attention to documentaries that are so flagrantly inaccurate – even the ones which have a central hypothesis that I agree with.”
Response: I did say that. But nowhere in that sentence did I say I hadn’t seen the film. What I did say was I didn’t pay attention to it, which I didn’t. You (stupidly) took that to mean I didn’t see it. Idiot. And you say with that brain you can understand complicated climate science? That’s a perfect example of you twisting the meaning of a sentence to say whatever you want. This is why you are a denialist.
Iain says: Attacking your knowlege? 
you don’t even undertand what rhetoric is 
Response: Last post, Iain claimed I don’t know what science is. Now he says I don’t know what rhetoric is. See what he is doing here? By attacking my knowledge he is trying to keep me on my backfoot, and skew the debate in his favour by taking my attention away from his dishonest tactics. Fail.
Iain: “Strangely I have not ever received a cent from them, you are the one now sprouting conspiracy theories because other sceptics are likewise not getting the cheques, Come on prove that the oil companies are running a campaign against global warming. there is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE isrunning the sceptics or their writing .”
Response: Strangely, I never said you were. How paranoid. I never said they were paying other skeptics off either. Even more paranoid. I already gave you one an example of their paid activities. Here are some more: “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”. Not insignificant. And they wouldn’t give that money away for nothing.
Iain: No, my weapon against your argument is that you work from the assumption that AGW is unquestionably true and that as such you are being profoundly unscientific. Now you can talk about consensus until the cows come home but that does not conclusively make the case for AGW.
Response: Again, my post differentiated between actual skeptics, and denialists for whom no amount of evidence will ever be enough, ever. I made no case for who was right or wrong, and put my opinion and reasons for my opinion at the bottom. Fail. Sadly, you’ve used every one of tactics outlined in my piece, which, as Ant said, proves mah point, baby.
Iain: “The original article does not make any claims about the science beyond suggesting, and i paraphrase “A lot of men in white coats say that AGW is real so we should believe them” put forward a scientific proposition John and I will offer a scientific answer.”
Response: No, Iain, you will Google an answer on why it might be wrong, without even understanding what it is about. You got one thing right – the original post was about the tactics of the denialists, not the science. You came here trying to attack my knowledge of science as some kind of be-all argument, and I showed you up for it. Fail. When I post about the science, come and debate it with me.
Iain: “Now you split hairs, in warminist terms big oil is synonymous with both “big coal” and “big Tobacco””
Response: Denialist claptrap. You were wrong Iain, and you falsely accused me of saying something I didn’t.
Iain: “Can you prove that this was not just a very minor error and that it was presented with the intention to decieve? proof beyond resonable doubt will do.”
Response: From Wikipedia: “[Durkin) accepts that the time axis of one graph was incorrectly labelled when the programme was first transmitted, but says that this does not change his conclusions”
Because Iain is a little slow, I’ll point out again, despite his shrill pleas, he has undertaken every tactic outlined in my article. Observers have also noted likewise.
Iain says: “John I said environmental activists NOT scientists are often drawn from ex-communists or from the far left as an example there is Julia Dehm”
Response: You did. Here is line of debate:
Me: You’ve attempted to discredit scientists … with noxious conspiracy theories you cannot prove.
You: Definitely not just do a little research into the CVs of any number of environmental activists and you will find that this is exactly the case.
Who knows where you pulled that one out of? I wasn’t even talking about activists, I will under no circumstances accept a link from Landeryou as any evidence of anything.
Iain says: please explain how you can have an argument without rhetoric , by definition it is impossible
Response: You are trying to be too clever for your own good here. You know exactly what I mean.
Iain says: Your reference to the holocaust does you no favours here, because by making a comparison between the death of 6 million Jews which can be verified with empirical evidence, and AGW which is only a theory backed up by nothing more than speculation and conjecture ( admittedly a large amount of both) you make very clear what a false analogy it is to suggest that those of us who are unconvinced by the argument for AGW are the same as those who deny Hitler’s crimes and genocide.
Response: It does me many favours, because there are enormous similarities between you two, including wilful misuse and denial of evidence that doesn’t fit a pre-conceived agenda. Naturally, to deniers, tens of thousands of pages of research would constitute “speculation and conjecture” (one space, Iain). Thanks, you’ve just given me an idea for my next post on the matter!*
Iain says: Blah blah blah it’s just a theory.
Response: That sounds identical to what the creationists say. Oh no, there’s that religion tag again! And you did that to yourself.
As for the rest of the claptrap, I did laugh when you gave me a link to a “skeptic with a PHD”. I’m sure many of them have PHD’s. Talk about appealing to authority. “Anybody who speaks German couldn’t possibly be a bad man!”.
Again, it’s this wasn’t a debate about the science. It was a debate about the tactics used by the deniers, all of which you used. Automatic lose. Reply if you wish (I know you will because your ego won’t stop you), but this will be the last thing I have to say on the matter.
