Ad hominems require that a term be used against a particular person. There is no doubt that there are deniers of this topic, and to point that out and comment on that is not an ad hominem.. its a statement of fact. I’m not sure that anyone in this comments section is a denier, but that doesn’t mean the concept cannot be discussed.

Lets not commit a continuum fallacy by saying that there is no meaningful differences between extremes. There is intellectual dishonesty along the extremes, and reasonableness somewhere between those extremes. Lets not also create a false balance by saying the truth is in the center.

I said this basically earlier, but its worth saying again that many many many in this country do not even agree there is a spectrum…that is what is so frustrating about this all to me….

At least part of the problem here is that the people who see the dimmest future with the most catastrophic outcomes label anyone who does not share that view as a “denier” when in fact they just sit elsewhere on the spectrum.

This then leads to the kind of (largely fruitless… but entertaining) exchanges we’ve seen in this comments section.

You are taking a fairly balanced and impartial approach, and do so with tact. The only reservation I have is that you giving deniers a bit too much credit by creating a bit of a false balance (although I agree that this is a good strategy for constructive discourse).

Although I do think that climate change/warming deniers are somewhat different than other deniers (I think that they tend to be more intelligent and logical but with a libertarian slant), they are still letting ideology skew their view on a scientific question. That is not to say that there aren’t ideologically driven global warming alarmists, but their ideology pushes their beliefs to a hyperbole of the science rather than a denial of it.

Well, not only is he listening, so are others in this forum, so if there is an evidence based argument to cast doubt on the expert current consensus, then I and perhaps others are all ears…but as you said before, you believe that you do not have to prove that AGW is overblown, it would be the job of the climate scientists to produce compelling data to prove AGW and to what extent is it bad, very bad, etc…but it seems to me that such a consensus already exists based on an evidence based argument….

So I still am confused as to where the data is that would class that significantly challenges the consensus, or I suppose that if such data arrives the climate scientists woul either suppress it or simply deny the impact of such data?

General question, for those AGW skeptics here, do you believe that the climate science community could ever reach an anti-AGW or greatly diminished concern about it – or is it the stance that the well is just poisoned and they are incapable of being impartial?

I am still confused….the back and forth is dizzying….everyone claims straw man based on their accepted reality….who the hell is the straw man police in such a scenario, lol

dadaelus2u is smart and he can follow an argument and he has analytical skills.

Much like you.

I think it is possible the trouble lies in a different area.
I offer this possibility–

You talk about a scientific process.
d2u talks about a hypothesis that must not be tested.

Ships passing in the night?

When we extend beyond science into value judgements, policy implications, etc then the nonexpert opinion becomes more important. As far as the science goes, that will not be determined in the comments section of this blog post.

Actually I have said nor implied any such thing. Intellectual dishonesty is clear as you build your strawman. It is a problem for those who only want to to talk about uncertainty for only certain topics for which they disagree with the implications of the science.

I made one general comment about deniers (I was not even following the comments much, nor read your posts specifically), and you took it personally. Hit too close to home?

Who said “do nothing”?

I call straw man