| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament 23:11 - Jul 25 with 42256 views | StokieBlue |
Nice to see them all taking it so seriously, after all it was only 42.6C in Paris today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49092653
SB [Post edited 25 Jul 2019 23:12]
|  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |  |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:55 - Jul 28 with 1514 views | StokieBlue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:49 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
Who are the globalist elites making money from a scientific consensus on man made climate change? How are they making this money? Would it not be more cost effective for them to support denial of man made climate change and carry on deforestation and burning fossil fuels? |
"Would it not be more cost effective for them to support denial of man made climate change and carry on deforestation and burning fossil fuels?"
You are of course correct in that statement.
Interestingly the study she is citing for her evidence is supported by a globalist elite who want to stop governments implementing policies to combat climate change which would be economically damaging.
A point which hasn't yet been refuted.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 9:57]
| |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:00 - Jul 28 with 1501 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:55 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
"Would it not be more cost effective for them to support denial of man made climate change and carry on deforestation and burning fossil fuels?"
You are of course correct in that statement.
Interestingly the study she is citing for her evidence is supported by a globalist elite who want to stop governments implementing policies to combat climate change which would be economically damaging.
A point which hasn't yet been refuted.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 9:57]
|
It's almost like this is about being a contrarian rather than holding a consistent position. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 with 1479 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:45 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
This is simply more distortion.
You don't present your arguments as opinion, you present them as fact when they clearly aren't. An opinion would be that ITFC should play two up top rather than one, not something demonstrably incorrect such as casting doubt on global warming. Nobody ridiculed it - they attempted to show you how it's not supported by the vast majority of evidence but you ignore, belittle and then obfuscate. Look at yourself before taking a pop at others.
You seem to think all views hold equal weighting and this simply isn't the case. Until you understand that then this type of thread will continue even if I am not involved. How many other posters have taken you to task in this thread? Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post.
Stop pushing false equivalencies and everything will be far less fractious. Asking others not to do something without looking at yourself is incredibly self-obsessed.
SB |
The biggest difference between you and I is our culture. I assume you're from a AngloSaxon culture and have lived most of your life in that culture. That is not my culture, though I am familiar with it as one of my parents was from that culture and I lived in the UK for the first few years, though not brought up with that culture thrust upon me.
One of the hallmarks of a western anglo-salon culture like yours is the role of right and wrong in society. (Individualism is another and that also plays a part in how we think differently). You probably don't realise it, but it pervades your life total. Your legal system is based on, your religions are based on, your thoughts are based on it, every discussion you have with your friends and partners are based on it. This board is evidence of it every single minute of every single day. Who is right and who is wrong? And based on determining that, who is respected more, allowed to speak more and conversely who is disrespected and who ideally should be silenced.
You say yourself "Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post." That's the lens through which you see life. It's not the one I use mainly, and it rarely the one I use on this site.
When you understand this, and you probably never will, you will continue to view my comments as intentionally structured attempts to obfuscate.
I mentioned "individualism" earlier. It's connected to right and wrong in many ways. I'm sometimes accused of making everything about "me". That's simply not true either, but it's clear why DK, for example, thinks that way. Your culture looks at everyone as individuals and therefore think that I do too. As you know, Asian cultures look much more at society as a group, not as a number of individuals. The West's view on Human Rights, their political system and even their religions are far more rooted in the individual than Asian cultures.
I see these differences through my cultural lens and accept their existence as part of the nature of the universe. People from an Anglo-Saxon culture look at these differences through their lens and judge them as good/bad or better/worse. This is why I apparently frustrate you so much.
Tolerance is not just a question of accepting that people have differing skin colours, genders and names for their beliefs, it should also extend to accepting the different cultural lens through which we view and interpret the world. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 with 1479 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:45 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
This is simply more distortion.
You don't present your arguments as opinion, you present them as fact when they clearly aren't. An opinion would be that ITFC should play two up top rather than one, not something demonstrably incorrect such as casting doubt on global warming. Nobody ridiculed it - they attempted to show you how it's not supported by the vast majority of evidence but you ignore, belittle and then obfuscate. Look at yourself before taking a pop at others.
You seem to think all views hold equal weighting and this simply isn't the case. Until you understand that then this type of thread will continue even if I am not involved. How many other posters have taken you to task in this thread? Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post.
Stop pushing false equivalencies and everything will be far less fractious. Asking others not to do something without looking at yourself is incredibly self-obsessed.
SB |
I am fairly sure that CIL's first contribution to the thread was to highlight that the 'miracle' of a 16 year old being allowed to have the voice and influence she has wasn't quite the miracle that the storytellers would have us believe.....I for one found that informative, it was never going to be a working class kid from Lowestoft was it.
In her latest post it appears that CIL is acknowledging a tendency to question whatever the current group think is (the Bush point) and this is something I know I have a tendency towards. However there is a difference between presenting points of view, which are NOT necessarily your own, and the accusation of thst view being "gospel." I actually think it is important to challenge 'group think' lest complacency sets in and/or a herd mentality of thought is established to early and/or incorrectly. I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that she thinks all views hold equal weight or that she is right and everyone else is wrong.....there are many on here to whom that charge could be more accurately levelled.(However that we should play 2 up front is clearly fact) |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:22 - Jul 28 with 1476 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:49 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
Who are the globalist elites making money from a scientific consensus on man made climate change? How are they making this money? Would it not be more cost effective for them to support denial of man made climate change and carry on deforestation and burning fossil fuels? |
By being in finance and investing in carbon credits?
Edit.... pushing various techno fix solutions, mirrors in space, carbon capture and storage which will, in the unlikely event of being doable, encourage more business as usual. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 10:24]
| |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:23 - Jul 28 with 1472 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 22:32 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
I think you're a little hard on the report. It's 39 pages long and says from the start that its focus is on data rather than climate projection models. That being the case, I'd expect the report to have significantly more data sources than references. That said, 6 references is a meagre quantity. I'm not swayed too much by the fact that only two of the references are from the last 8 years when the data appears to be up to date.
Contrary to what seems to be the general opinion on this forum, I'm sceptical of everything, even of those behind the positions I agree with. I've never said that I endorse this report, I simply put it up as balance to the flood of publications which report a different interpretation of climate data. In itself, the report may not be balanced. I don't know. I don't have tens of thousands of weather balloons and sea temperature probes of my own as a reference. You've seen that I repeatedly asked two posters in this thread what it was that they objected to in the report. One poster, who tells me that the the authors are widely discredited, read 2 pages of the report, highlighted one piece of data and in my opinion and countered it with a less appropriate alternative data (in my opinion). The other poster refused to comment on the report, preferring instead to ask why I made everything about me. Until that point my focus was on Greta and those who back her. I think the poster wanted to bring the topic of the conversation round to me in order to have a case.
Anyway, of course I am interested in who funds GWPF as I am with the other side of the debate. I don't expect either side to be funded by lovely people. I've never met a person wealthy enough to give vast sums of money away, to give money to mother nature - she certainly won't pay you back as a healthy financial investment might. No, financial backers are nearly always in it for the money that can be made out of the cause.
Finally, I enjoy the debates on TWTD but I simply cannot agree that the "debate is over" with regard to something so multi dimensional as climate change and all I'm doing (with this case at least) is trying to establish my own position on the matter. When GWBush was POTUS, I was 95% sure of my pro manmade global warming position. I've swung the other way since then and don't rule out the possibility of another swing. When groups of scientists interpret data so differently, it's not easy to know who is right and who is wrong. I'm certainly not one for choosing one over another based on majority opinion. Rather my preference will be swayed away from those who use power/influence over the other to close the debate rather than actually debate.
It's not every culture's way of siding with an issue, but it's a result of my upbringing and culture.
I hope I have answered your question. I'm sorry about the long wait. [Post edited 27 Jul 2019 22:52]
|
Are you now acknowledging that the report is not a research paper?
It is merely a collection of observations.
Therefore, you would agree it does not contribute anything to “scientific debate”?
“..as balance..a different interpretation...”
The paper does not propose any conclusion or offer any interpretation.
So why are you claiming it does?
Have you made a mistake, or are you purposefully misrepresenting the paper?
If you are doubtful of everything, can you post the scientific papers or meta analysis of such papers you have considered, applied critical scrutiny, but then dismissed, as not being compelling enough to make the case for global warming/climate change caused by humans? |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:26 - Jul 28 with 1470 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 09:55 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
"Would it not be more cost effective for them to support denial of man made climate change and carry on deforestation and burning fossil fuels?"
You are of course correct in that statement.
Interestingly the study she is citing for her evidence is supported by a globalist elite who want to stop governments implementing policies to combat climate change which would be economically damaging.
A point which hasn't yet been refuted.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 9:57]
|
Heads they win, tails you lose. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:27 - Jul 28 with 1462 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:00 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
It's almost like this is about being a contrarian rather than holding a consistent position. |
It must be fun being you and holding a consistent (and correct ) view on everything all of the time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:29 - Jul 28 with 1458 views | gordon |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 22:32 - Jul 27 by caught-in-limbo |
I think you're a little hard on the report. It's 39 pages long and says from the start that its focus is on data rather than climate projection models. That being the case, I'd expect the report to have significantly more data sources than references. That said, 6 references is a meagre quantity. I'm not swayed too much by the fact that only two of the references are from the last 8 years when the data appears to be up to date.
Contrary to what seems to be the general opinion on this forum, I'm sceptical of everything, even of those behind the positions I agree with. I've never said that I endorse this report, I simply put it up as balance to the flood of publications which report a different interpretation of climate data. In itself, the report may not be balanced. I don't know. I don't have tens of thousands of weather balloons and sea temperature probes of my own as a reference. You've seen that I repeatedly asked two posters in this thread what it was that they objected to in the report. One poster, who tells me that the the authors are widely discredited, read 2 pages of the report, highlighted one piece of data and in my opinion and countered it with a less appropriate alternative data (in my opinion). The other poster refused to comment on the report, preferring instead to ask why I made everything about me. Until that point my focus was on Greta and those who back her. I think the poster wanted to bring the topic of the conversation round to me in order to have a case.
Anyway, of course I am interested in who funds GWPF as I am with the other side of the debate. I don't expect either side to be funded by lovely people. I've never met a person wealthy enough to give vast sums of money away, to give money to mother nature - she certainly won't pay you back as a healthy financial investment might. No, financial backers are nearly always in it for the money that can be made out of the cause.
Finally, I enjoy the debates on TWTD but I simply cannot agree that the "debate is over" with regard to something so multi dimensional as climate change and all I'm doing (with this case at least) is trying to establish my own position on the matter. When GWBush was POTUS, I was 95% sure of my pro manmade global warming position. I've swung the other way since then and don't rule out the possibility of another swing. When groups of scientists interpret data so differently, it's not easy to know who is right and who is wrong. I'm certainly not one for choosing one over another based on majority opinion. Rather my preference will be swayed away from those who use power/influence over the other to close the debate rather than actually debate.
It's not every culture's way of siding with an issue, but it's a result of my upbringing and culture.
I hope I have answered your question. I'm sorry about the long wait. [Post edited 27 Jul 2019 22:52]
|
A good way of assessing a scientific article / report, particularly something which presents findings which are contrary to previous research, is the extent to which recent relevant findings / information are cited. In any piece of scientific writing you should set out clearly the body of work that your research contributes to or contradicts.
This report doesn't do that. It offers conclusions which are quite different from the broad consensus position without referring to the most significant pieces of research in the field and demonstrating why they are wrong. And it avoids mentioning facts / information which are particularly relevant.
This report speculates that the reason 2015 / 16 were the hottest years ever is solely due to el nino effects, and it doesn't mention all the research which measures the strength of the el nino effect relative to the underlying rate of warming. It would be trivial for the author to have referred to any of the studies out there which have tested this, but he doesn't.
This report speculates that 2017 / 18 being cooler than 2015 /16 suggests a return to the 'pause' in climate change, without mentioning that these four years are the hottest four years on record, and without mentioning all the research that discredits the 'pause' in climate change.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with challenging consensus, if no-one ever challenged consensus we'd never get anywhere, and the author might be right about everything in the report. But in this case we literally have no idea about the validity of his conjecture, because he doesn't attempt to demonstrate why all the published research which he is contradicting is wrong, and nor does he empirically test his conjecture.
I think you said 'the debate isn't over' in your post - of course it isn't, there is loads that we don't know about climate change. But, this report isn't part of that debate - it deliberately avoids the scientific debate by not referring to any of the mass of published science which it contradicts.
As such, it's difficult to see how this report isn't designed for the specific purpose of being fodder for people who don't really understand climate science, but want to have something to refer to to justify climate denial. Obviously you're welcome to your judgement, but I would pause for a moment before writing your next lecture on here about your ability to assess the value of information. |  | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:30 - Jul 28 with 1456 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
The biggest difference between you and I is our culture. I assume you're from a AngloSaxon culture and have lived most of your life in that culture. That is not my culture, though I am familiar with it as one of my parents was from that culture and I lived in the UK for the first few years, though not brought up with that culture thrust upon me.
One of the hallmarks of a western anglo-salon culture like yours is the role of right and wrong in society. (Individualism is another and that also plays a part in how we think differently). You probably don't realise it, but it pervades your life total. Your legal system is based on, your religions are based on, your thoughts are based on it, every discussion you have with your friends and partners are based on it. This board is evidence of it every single minute of every single day. Who is right and who is wrong? And based on determining that, who is respected more, allowed to speak more and conversely who is disrespected and who ideally should be silenced.
You say yourself "Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post." That's the lens through which you see life. It's not the one I use mainly, and it rarely the one I use on this site.
When you understand this, and you probably never will, you will continue to view my comments as intentionally structured attempts to obfuscate.
I mentioned "individualism" earlier. It's connected to right and wrong in many ways. I'm sometimes accused of making everything about "me". That's simply not true either, but it's clear why DK, for example, thinks that way. Your culture looks at everyone as individuals and therefore think that I do too. As you know, Asian cultures look much more at society as a group, not as a number of individuals. The West's view on Human Rights, their political system and even their religions are far more rooted in the individual than Asian cultures.
I see these differences through my cultural lens and accept their existence as part of the nature of the universe. People from an Anglo-Saxon culture look at these differences through their lens and judge them as good/bad or better/worse. This is why I apparently frustrate you so much.
Tolerance is not just a question of accepting that people have differing skin colours, genders and names for their beliefs, it should also extend to accepting the different cultural lens through which we view and interpret the world. |
You beat me to it by seconds it seems.....probably best comimg from you in this instance though. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 with 1452 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:23 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
Are you now acknowledging that the report is not a research paper?
It is merely a collection of observations.
Therefore, you would agree it does not contribute anything to “scientific debate”?
“..as balance..a different interpretation...”
The paper does not propose any conclusion or offer any interpretation.
So why are you claiming it does?
Have you made a mistake, or are you purposefully misrepresenting the paper?
If you are doubtful of everything, can you post the scientific papers or meta analysis of such papers you have considered, applied critical scrutiny, but then dismissed, as not being compelling enough to make the case for global warming/climate change caused by humans? |
"The paper does not propose any conclusion or offer any interpretation."
....surprising that so many on here, having fully digested its content I am sure, feel so threatened by it then!  | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 with 1452 views | BackToRussia |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:19 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
The biggest difference between you and I is our culture. I assume you're from a AngloSaxon culture and have lived most of your life in that culture. That is not my culture, though I am familiar with it as one of my parents was from that culture and I lived in the UK for the first few years, though not brought up with that culture thrust upon me.
One of the hallmarks of a western anglo-salon culture like yours is the role of right and wrong in society. (Individualism is another and that also plays a part in how we think differently). You probably don't realise it, but it pervades your life total. Your legal system is based on, your religions are based on, your thoughts are based on it, every discussion you have with your friends and partners are based on it. This board is evidence of it every single minute of every single day. Who is right and who is wrong? And based on determining that, who is respected more, allowed to speak more and conversely who is disrespected and who ideally should be silenced.
You say yourself "Everyone else is wrong, CIL is right. That is the paradigm to which you post." That's the lens through which you see life. It's not the one I use mainly, and it rarely the one I use on this site.
When you understand this, and you probably never will, you will continue to view my comments as intentionally structured attempts to obfuscate.
I mentioned "individualism" earlier. It's connected to right and wrong in many ways. I'm sometimes accused of making everything about "me". That's simply not true either, but it's clear why DK, for example, thinks that way. Your culture looks at everyone as individuals and therefore think that I do too. As you know, Asian cultures look much more at society as a group, not as a number of individuals. The West's view on Human Rights, their political system and even their religions are far more rooted in the individual than Asian cultures.
I see these differences through my cultural lens and accept their existence as part of the nature of the universe. People from an Anglo-Saxon culture look at these differences through their lens and judge them as good/bad or better/worse. This is why I apparently frustrate you so much.
Tolerance is not just a question of accepting that people have differing skin colours, genders and names for their beliefs, it should also extend to accepting the different cultural lens through which we view and interpret the world. |
Relativist claptrap. |  |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 with 1449 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:27 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
It must be fun being you and holding a consistent (and correct ) view on everything all of the time. |
Actually it's pretty frustrating having to correct people all the time. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:41 - Jul 28 with 1439 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:23 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
Are you now acknowledging that the report is not a research paper?
It is merely a collection of observations.
Therefore, you would agree it does not contribute anything to “scientific debate”?
“..as balance..a different interpretation...”
The paper does not propose any conclusion or offer any interpretation.
So why are you claiming it does?
Have you made a mistake, or are you purposefully misrepresenting the paper?
If you are doubtful of everything, can you post the scientific papers or meta analysis of such papers you have considered, applied critical scrutiny, but then dismissed, as not being compelling enough to make the case for global warming/climate change caused by humans? |
Are you now acknowledging that the report is not a research paper? - yes
It is merely a collection of observations. -yes
Therefore, you would agree it does not contribute anything to “scientific debate”? - it contributes to debate.
The paper does not propose any conclusion - true
or offer any interpretation. - that's for the reader to do
So why are you claiming it does? - see the two points above
Have you made a mistake, or are you purposefully misrepresenting the paper? - neither
If you are doubtful of everything - I'm not, I approach everything with open-minded scepticism
can you post the scientific papers or meta analysis of such papers you have considered, applied critical scrutiny, but then dismissed, as not being compelling enough to make the case for global warming/climate change caused by humans? - I have dismissed nothing, so no, I won't.
I think you need to look at my previous post about culture to know where I'm coming from. In that light, what appears illogical to you might make more sense. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:43 - Jul 28 with 1437 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:29 - Jul 28 by gordon |
A good way of assessing a scientific article / report, particularly something which presents findings which are contrary to previous research, is the extent to which recent relevant findings / information are cited. In any piece of scientific writing you should set out clearly the body of work that your research contributes to or contradicts.
This report doesn't do that. It offers conclusions which are quite different from the broad consensus position without referring to the most significant pieces of research in the field and demonstrating why they are wrong. And it avoids mentioning facts / information which are particularly relevant.
This report speculates that the reason 2015 / 16 were the hottest years ever is solely due to el nino effects, and it doesn't mention all the research which measures the strength of the el nino effect relative to the underlying rate of warming. It would be trivial for the author to have referred to any of the studies out there which have tested this, but he doesn't.
This report speculates that 2017 / 18 being cooler than 2015 /16 suggests a return to the 'pause' in climate change, without mentioning that these four years are the hottest four years on record, and without mentioning all the research that discredits the 'pause' in climate change.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with challenging consensus, if no-one ever challenged consensus we'd never get anywhere, and the author might be right about everything in the report. But in this case we literally have no idea about the validity of his conjecture, because he doesn't attempt to demonstrate why all the published research which he is contradicting is wrong, and nor does he empirically test his conjecture.
I think you said 'the debate isn't over' in your post - of course it isn't, there is loads that we don't know about climate change. But, this report isn't part of that debate - it deliberately avoids the scientific debate by not referring to any of the mass of published science which it contradicts.
As such, it's difficult to see how this report isn't designed for the specific purpose of being fodder for people who don't really understand climate science, but want to have something to refer to to justify climate denial. Obviously you're welcome to your judgement, but I would pause for a moment before writing your next lecture on here about your ability to assess the value of information. |
That's the way to do it!
 | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:45 - Jul 28 with 1431 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 by Herbivore |
Actually it's pretty frustrating having to correct people all the time. |
Fair enough but either way we agree it is hard being you!  | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:46 - Jul 28 with 1428 views | gordon |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
"The paper does not propose any conclusion or offer any interpretation."
....surprising that so many on here, having fully digested its content I am sure, feel so threatened by it then! |
This kind of document is dangerous. All it takes is something like this every now and then for those people with vested interests to argue that there isn't a clear scientific consensus on climate change to justify inaction. The fact that we're now probably faced with runaway climate change is probably (to some extent) due to this kind of document being used as a justification for inaction for many years.
That's the sole point of this sort of document. This is far removed from any scientific debate - it doesn't refute or challenge anything. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:00 - Jul 28 with 1403 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:41 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
Are you now acknowledging that the report is not a research paper? - yes
It is merely a collection of observations. -yes
Therefore, you would agree it does not contribute anything to “scientific debate”? - it contributes to debate.
The paper does not propose any conclusion - true
or offer any interpretation. - that's for the reader to do
So why are you claiming it does? - see the two points above
Have you made a mistake, or are you purposefully misrepresenting the paper? - neither
If you are doubtful of everything - I'm not, I approach everything with open-minded scepticism
can you post the scientific papers or meta analysis of such papers you have considered, applied critical scrutiny, but then dismissed, as not being compelling enough to make the case for global warming/climate change caused by humans? - I have dismissed nothing, so no, I won't.
I think you need to look at my previous post about culture to know where I'm coming from. In that light, what appears illogical to you might make more sense. |
What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same.
You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias.
Maybe you shake that bias out, and then approach my posting again, and you will see the logic.
Skepticism is not simply approaching things with an open mind.
It is applying, rigorously, intellectual and critical thinking to a position, to evaluate what is possible to know about a topic. And in doing so possibly take a course of action.
I think your position is not that at all.
You have not proven that you have applied a level of intellectual and critical thinking to a paper you posted, as being meaningful.
Your approach, of keeping an open mind is not scepticism, it seems given the evidence, just laziness.
It is interesting that you don’t post scientific papers that add to the debate, that suggest that human caused climate change is a thing.
If you don’t have a position either way, then to summarise your position on climate change caused by humans is simply “I don’t know”. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:02 - Jul 28 with 1401 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:22 - Jul 28 by BanksterDebtSlave |
By being in finance and investing in carbon credits?
Edit.... pushing various techno fix solutions, mirrors in space, carbon capture and storage which will, in the unlikely event of being doable, encourage more business as usual. [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 10:24]
|
Which major global elite players are making serious coin from green tech currently? And do you think they have more money and influence than industries that have traditionally relied on fossil fuels? | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:02 - Jul 28 with 1400 views | StokieBlue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:46 - Jul 28 by gordon |
This kind of document is dangerous. All it takes is something like this every now and then for those people with vested interests to argue that there isn't a clear scientific consensus on climate change to justify inaction. The fact that we're now probably faced with runaway climate change is probably (to some extent) due to this kind of document being used as a justification for inaction for many years.
That's the sole point of this sort of document. This is far removed from any scientific debate - it doesn't refute or challenge anything. |
Exactly, that's a good summary and eloquently put.
Yet even after 9 pages of stating this the point has not been conceded and the source has been constantly ignored. Even now people are still jumping to the defence of her points which is why I highlight this type of information as dangerous.
Herb is right, this isn't about the subject, it's about being contrarian.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 11:03]
| |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:03 - Jul 28 with 1399 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 10:33 - Jul 28 by BackToRussia |
Relativist claptrap. |
You demonstrate my point perfectly.
Your comment is an example of narrow-minded, cultural intolerance. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:08 - Jul 28 with 1388 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:00 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same.
You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias.
Maybe you shake that bias out, and then approach my posting again, and you will see the logic.
Skepticism is not simply approaching things with an open mind.
It is applying, rigorously, intellectual and critical thinking to a position, to evaluate what is possible to know about a topic. And in doing so possibly take a course of action.
I think your position is not that at all.
You have not proven that you have applied a level of intellectual and critical thinking to a paper you posted, as being meaningful.
Your approach, of keeping an open mind is not scepticism, it seems given the evidence, just laziness.
It is interesting that you don’t post scientific papers that add to the debate, that suggest that human caused climate change is a thing.
If you don’t have a position either way, then to summarise your position on climate change caused by humans is simply “I don’t know”. |
"What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same. You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias. "
I read that far and gave up. Though I skim read some of the rest.
You're looking through your lens of absolutes. Of course there's shades and grades of everything.
Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way. | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:13 - Jul 28 with 1380 views | eireblue |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:08 - Jul 28 by caught-in-limbo |
"What you said in your previous post was, all Anglo-Saxons are the same. You have made an assumption, and therefore have a bias. "
I read that far and gave up. Though I skim read some of the rest.
You're looking through your lens of absolutes. Of course there's shades and grades of everything.
Your judgemental attitude is a result of the culture I was describing earlier. I understand why you see things that way. |
No I am not.
In the past on other topics, I have written about my position being informed by a Skeptical positions.
The skeptics were some of my favourite Greek philosophers.
Unfortunately, you have a black and white position, based on your assumption about my culture.
Very poor, from someone with a supposed open mind. | | | |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:14 - Jul 28 with 1378 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:02 - Jul 28 by StokieBlue |
Exactly, that's a good summary and eloquently put.
Yet even after 9 pages of stating this the point has not been conceded and the source has been constantly ignored. Even now people are still jumping to the defence of her points which is why I highlight this type of information as dangerous.
Herb is right, this isn't about the subject, it's about being contrarian.
SB [Post edited 28 Jul 2019 11:03]
|
You should note that CIL has uppied my "that's the way to do it" response to Gordon's considered reply in which he acknowledges that debate is not over and does not resort to personal attack!
Taking in the views of the opposite side of an argument does not make one 'contrarian' that charge is often levelled by those that only want their view to be the settled one! | |
| |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:15 - Jul 28 with 1376 views | Herbivore |
| Pathetic stuff from some members of the French parliament on 11:13 - Jul 28 by eireblue |
No I am not.
In the past on other topics, I have written about my position being informed by a Skeptical positions.
The skeptics were some of my favourite Greek philosophers.
Unfortunately, you have a black and white position, based on your assumption about my culture.
Very poor, from someone with a supposed open mind. |
Despite her protestations, CIL is one of the most blinkered posters on TWTD. She is dogmatic in her contrarian ways. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
