Do you think that lying makes your argument stronger if you don't get caught?

Question

I recently noticed a question in which a global warming doubter chose the answer of a global warming denier as 'best answer'. The answer said:

"Global warming believers like the Reverend Dr. Hansen have admitted to exaggerating global warming claims to "make people more aware" of the "problems" of "global warming"."

Now, this answer is a flat-out lie. Of course, Dr. Hansen is not a reverend, nor has he ever admitted to exaggerating global warming claims (because he has never done so). However, the question asker thought that this was an amazing revalation - one of the foremost climate scientists had admitted to exaggerating claims!

Not to name names, but at least one global warming denier often resorts to outright lies such as this one. My question is, why would you lie so aggregiously? Are you taking the chance that nobody will fact check your claims, as basically happened in this situation? Do you simply have no regard for factual information? What's the motivation?

Almost as bad as lying is choosing a lie as best answer just because it's something you want to believe. If somebody doesn't support their claims, then at least fact-check them before choosing their answer as best!

Thank you for providing a quote which proves my point, Jello.

punker - for starters, last time I checked, Stephen Schneider is not James Hansen.

Secondly, emphasizing the worst case scenarios is not the same as exaggerating or lying. Especially since all indications are that the current warming is exceeding the worst case scenarios.

Thirdly, I find it ironic that you quote liar Bob Carter in your response.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWwA7u27SODHeZEr2j6ctTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071120160537AARFOeb

Answer 1

We've seen this time and time again on here where skeptics simply invent the 'evidence' to support their opinion. It not only shows contempt and disrespect for the other users of this forum but highlights their own lack or morality and increasing desperation.

The problem with lying is that people generally get caught out in the end. For a time they may get away with it and feel self-satisfied in their deceipt but ultimately it's a very poor reflection of their character.

Unfortunately, there is no system for moderating answers and consequently the system is open to abuse. Answers serves as something of a 'meeting point' for skeptics, it's one of the few places where they can spread lies, disinformation, distortions etc and get away with it. A sizeable proportion of the content posted by skeptics would be immediately deleted if it were posted elsewhere, including on reputable forums set up by skeptics.

What I often find surprising is that a lot of the eroneous material is coming from otherwise intelligent people who can, when they set their mind to it, present an informed and rational argument.

I'd just like to qualify by stating that I'm not referring to all skeptics, nor am I including people who make genuine errors, express opinions or are otherwise acting reasonably.

To the point you made about not getting caught. There are people on here that know about global warming, climate change, the causes and so on; including yourself, Bob, Keith, Parrot, Nickel, Observer, Mike, myself and others. Knowing the facts means it's immediately apparent when skeptics are lying and as such they're easily caught out.

Interestingly, every one of the people I mentioned is qualified to degree level in an environmental science apart from Parrot who I believe hopes to be one day. Another intersting point I noticed, pretty much all the beleivers have open profiles and networks whereas the opposite is true for the skeptics. What does this tell you about the differences between many of the believers and many of the skeptics?

- - - - - - - - - - -

TO MR JELLO: You're confirming the point Dana is making. By quoting from the source of Jim Hansen's comments you've highlighted that what he said and what you claimed he said are two different things. "Emphasis on extreme scenarios" and "admitted to exaggerating global warming claims" do not in any way, shape or form mean the same thing.

You've already demonstrated that your knowledge of linguistics is about as shaky as your knowledge of climate when you claimed that "whilst" wasn't a word - search for it on Google, there's 75 million results for you to go at.

As is the want of many skeptics, not only have you rewritten what Hansen said but you've conveneintly taken it out of context. To avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding here's what Hansen actually said (in context)...

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming."

Revealed in it's entirety it takes on a whole new meaning. If you need to resort to distortion and selectivity it suggests to me that you're incapable of forming a robust and objective defence against the theory of global warming.

To your final comment I would add, that if you think smoking Dana is like shooting fish in a barrel then smoking you is like dropping a nuke on it.

Answer 2

No need to pussyfoot around it. Emphasis on a bona fide scenario is not exaggeration. Exaggeration is a fabrication, a lie. Emphasis on one facet or another is a tactic.

Of course, as soon as it is absolutely unequivocally proven to the skeptics that Global Warming is a problem, they will change their tactic to “well, it won’t be so bad”. Just as they have changed tactics from “it doesn’t exist” to “it isn’t caused by man”.

And as it turns out, it looks like the extreme scenarios from that time are going to be the low end.

edit:
Wow Trevor, I really enjoy reading your answers. Thanks.

Answer 3

OK, so if you think that the skeptics are liars, then what do you make of this?

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."- Stephen Schneider (a known climate alarmist), Discover Magazine, October 1989

Here is an ALARMIST flat-out saying that being honest doesn't really matter if you get across to the public, and (in your words) "admitt[ing] to exaggerating global warming claims to 'make people more aware' of the 'problems' of 'global warming.'"

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It's simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."- Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University

I ask YOU how any alarmist can afford to lie so obviously as to say that, for example, there is no debate on the subject? "Do [they] simply have no regard for factual information?" All of your arguments against the skeptics can be used against you.

Answer 4

Yes it does. If people believe what you say it seems to be a good arguement. People can be great at speaking and convince the public on somthing that is not ture. Not that I am saying that global warming is not ture but people can convince people of many things that are lies and not get caught.

Answer 5

Don't gloat yet Dr. Jello, "Emphasis" and "Exaggeration" are two different words with 2 different meanings. FYI shooting fish in a barrel is not that easy either.

Answer 6

sounds like a straw-man fallacy. This is when a person exaggerates and creates a false impression of the person they are trying to tear down- to win the minds of others.

Answer 7

March 2004 issue of Scientific American

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue,"

Dr. James Hansen

Maybe you can pussyfoot around the definition of 'Emphasis on extreme scenarios', but the meaning is clear.

It is exaggerating the claims of global warming.

I win again.

Man - I smoke you all the time. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Answer 8

Well, Al Gore obviously does, but unfortunately, he got caught.