Cedric's NASA comments

I have a poster named Cedric who keeps going on about NASA. As his comments were off topic, I removed them from another subject but as he put in the effort to write them, I will reproduce them here:


 
NASA, for example.
What will NASA be doing or saying that is so very different from now?
That goes for every other scientific community on the planet.
So victory is yours, let’s say.
Take that as a given. But what will that actually look like?
When exactly will the demise of climate change be apparent to the rest of us…and NASA?
The problem is that you have made it all so very vague and unfalsifiable.
(Prophecies are often like that.)
Once you give a concrete timeline or some sort of objective measure then you risk being proved wrong. So the idea is to keep it all subjective and wispy and hermetically sealed from falsifiability.
Look closely at what you have written and the carefully amorphous phrasing you use.
A blogger from 20 years ago or 10 years ago could have written exactly the same thing. Or indeed a blogger 30 years in the future.
Indeed, a blogger….completely unrelated to the topic of climate change….could write the same thing. A simple switching of the labels is all that’s required.
It’s how a wide variety of science deniers operate.
The imminent demise of the link between tobacco and smoking or the safety of vaccines or the HIV/AIDS link or government claims of 9/11 or evolution is always just around the corner.
If you look, if you really look and squint really hard, you can see it happening.
Any minute now. Just you wait. You’ll see.
It’s an old song.
You are following a familiar pattern. Other bloggers out there, just before they retire from blogging, have made the claim that climate change (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. These claim has come in many forms and could continue to go on for many years. An enterprising researcher could compile them. We all know blogs come and go. Isolated contrarians get older and greyer without a new and fresher generation taking up the cause. Claims just like yours will probably go on being made for a long, long time with only minor variations on a theme. Entire careers have already passed without seeing any of this movement away from the science of climate change. Bloggers are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for decades can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn’t stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.
====
Almost exactly like the warmist promises then?
Even if it’s true, you are making an Argument from Hypocrisy.
Besides, what’s a “warmist”?
Do you mean NASA?
As long as you keep your terms vague etc, etc, etc.
Do you know what creationists call biologists?
“Evolutionists”.
Clever, eh?
Warmists will have to take a new tack if significant warming doesn’t…
If?
Surely not. The results are in, remember? There isn’t going to be any more warming.
It was all a dream or something and now people are waking up something, something, scam exposed.
Besides, you don’t really mean it.
If you did, you’d explain what you mean by “significant warming”.
Without that, it’s all just posturing on a position that you can neatly abandon at the slightest inconvenience to insulate yourself from falsifiability.
(Keep the goal posts on wheels. Makes it easier to shift them.)
Again, what do you really mean when you say “warmist”?
Do you mean NASA? Do you mean every single scientific community on the planet?
Whatever the truth of AGW…
“Whatever the truth”? Goodness me.
Scottish Sceptic has told you what the truth is.
It’s over, right? There’s victory parades and everything. He’s even got a cartoon. What more do you need? Pat yourself on the back. Don’t be shy now.
…the pot has most clearly gone off the boil.
That’s the spirit. Keep it vague. Pots and their boiling and them going off or whatever that’s supposed to mean. Fat lady singing and curtains being drawn and tides going out and chickens coming home to roost and it all being darkest before the dawn or something like that.
Do you mean NASA? Do you mean the work? The scientific work?
Hmm.
Even Al Gore and his band…
Ah, Al Gore.
Well, what would a goodbye on a climate denier blog be without an Al Gore invocation?
It’s like a creationist invoking Darwin.
I understand you. If you are rejecting Al Gore then that sounds perfectly reasonable.
You must have your reasons. Besides, if he’s got some nameless band or other, well, it doesn’t sound very positive. What kind of a person hangs out with a “band”?
Sounds suspicious.
So by all means, stand bravely up to Al Gore. More power to you. Nobody is going to look at you oddly when you do that. It’s just you versus a former American politician from yesteryear.
Of course, if you changed the wording, then it would look worse.
“Even NASA and every scientific community on the planet etc….”
See? That’s probably not the way you want to phrase it.
Who would? It just sounds wrong.
Accurate? Sure but…well, it’s not a good soundbyte once you spell it out unambiguously like that.
Standing up to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is…either someone accepting a brand new Nobel Prize or someone who is very, very confused.
Only the work counts.
NASA’s Earth Minute: Earth Has a Fever

===
It’s not just NASA. It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
To not listen to them is….not ok.
To justify that you have to have an amazingly good reason. The kind of reason where they are shoving a Nobel Prize in your hand and making statues in your honour.
Otherwise….it’s cranksville.
Anti-vaxxers do no listen to the medical community.
Creationists do not listen to the biology community.
9/11 Troofers do not listen to the Engineering/Chemical/Physics etc. community.
There’s a whole swag of these types of science denier communities.
And they all operate and perpetuate themselves the same way.
The same playbook.
Science is the study of reality. That requires work. Lots and lots and lots and lots of work. You can’t create a scientific consensus any other way.
There’s no short cut.
By rejecting that work, you embrace an alternate reality and an alternate methodology where you rush into the cloying embrace of vague, ill-defined conspiracy theories, oddball blogs, isolated contrarians and endless hunt for anomalies.
That’s how people die.
Denial has consequences. Reality can be unforgiving that way.
====
And if you want me to list some more of your lazy celeb friends:-…
Two things:
1) These people have nothing to do with me. Really.
2) It’s NASA you should be listing. Getting your science info from celebs (lazy or not) isn’t a very smart move.
All you are doing is just repeating yourself.
Instead of Al Gore, now it’s celebs.
(shrug)
Arguments from Hypocrisy are no substitute.
…if the biggest supporters for the idea…
Not really sure what your lifestyle has to do with anything.
On the other hand, if you want to say that NASA is a big supporter of the science of climate change then….yep, that would be right on the money.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.