Reply With Quote
So you are trying to be like Darrin? You did well. Enjoy the thread.
On a daily basis?YOU yourself trust climate scientists on a daily basis so maybe you should reevaluate your question.
Actually, I very seldom consult the weather forecast.
Is there some other way I am <trusting climate scientists daily> I am not aware of?
So you are trying to be like Darrin? You did well. Enjoy the thread.
Sorry I made fun. I was interested in your take. I still am, FWIW.
And to be fair, Manny, it's not like your replies to me were all kind and respectful. Take umbrage all you want, but you do it too.
Parts changer, right?
Oh I've had plenty of snark in this thread and in pretty much any thread I post in but when there is a serious discussion that one wants to have I tend to leave it snark free or at least not direct any comments of a snarky nature at a person. As an example I think I have yet to ever make such a post to El Nono or Teysha Blue even though I disagree with both on many topics. They are two of the most open minded posters on here who display an earnest desire to discuss things and I treat them with the respect they deserve. There are others but those two jump to the forefront of my mind. On the other side you have Darrin and WC who also get what they deserve as you pointed out with the parts changer comment.
In truth, it was obvious above that you didn't want to discuss this seriously and the only reason I replied again was because your comment happens to be the type of comment that annoys me the most when discussing this subject but that is my issue and not yours.
The outright dismissal of climate scientists in that manner is especially irritating considering that our daily lives could not function in the manner they do if not for the scientists in the exact same fields. When a chemist designs a rubber that gives your car tires better traction that chemist knows what he's doing. When another chemist looks at the spectrography of trace gases in the atmosphere to ascertain the amount of heat being radiated back to earth he's taking part in a baby science. When an oceanographer helps in developing new oil drilling techniques to get you that fuel for your car he's trusted. When he tells you that the CO2 content in the ocean is increasing he's taking part in a baby science. When a meteorologist issues a hurricane warning that ends the evacuation of millions of people from a dangerous area people listen and move but when that meteorologist tells you that an increase in oceanic heat content will (and maybe already has) lead to stronger tropical cyclones then he's a weatherman not to be trusted.
Its ridiculous how quickly experts lose their credibility to some people when it comes to AGW. There is no logical reason for this but its clear that those who seek to muddy the waters have succeeded. The fact that almost every single argument used against AGW theory is easily rebuffed doesn't even matter.
Why should it be acceptable for you to tease WC for his occupation but not for us to tease you for yours?
I don't mind being teased at all. Thats not what this is about. I didn't feel offended by your teasing me, I felt annoyed at your attempt to remove credibility from what climate scientists do. Its not about me at all.
Poor things. At least they have their their tenured professorships and their endowed chairs to console them.
It does matter, but not in the way you like. Repeated refutation only strengthens prejudice.
I don't think I ever painted them as victims so why are you erecting yet another straw man Darrin would be proud of?
In any event, its not them that suffers - its the state of intellectual honesty that suffers.
I'm not sure what you mean.It does matter, but not in the way you like. Repeated refutation only strengthens prejudice.
Props to science. It made our lives better. That doesn't mean it's right about everything.
Just because I happen to disagree with one theory, doesn't mean I reject the whole sleigh-load.
Can you get by for even a second without exaggerating, Manny?
The only problem is that you have no idea why you dismiss the theory. I know that you don't reject all of science. In fact that was my point. It's about how you illogically dismiss this theory.
What exactly did I exaggerate, WH?
Victims of ignorant ridicule.I don't think I ever painted them as victims so why are you erecting yet another straw man Darrin would be proud of?
This should be a fort for you, but instead you run away from it.
I'm not so sure it's illogical to surmise that things may occasionally turn out otherwise than respectable science would surmise.
Are you so sure it is illogical?
Again, they aren't the victims. Its intellectual honesty and informed decision making that are the victims.
I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence.
How is intellectual honesty victimized?
You're not saying they might be wrong. You're not saying there is a chance they are wrong. You are saying they are wrong and you're not giving a reason why they are wrong.
I full admit and have acknowledged in this thread that there is a chance they are wrong. Thats undeniable.
The outright dismissal of expert analysis with no logical reason is a picture perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.
You follow your wits, I'll follow mine.
I don't call you dishonest just because you disagree with me, Manny.
I'm not calling you dishonest because you disagree with me, WH. I said the outright dismissal of a theory with no logical reasoning to dismiss it is intellectually dishonest.
Eh, maybe. If by some miracle I should turn out to be right it won't look so dumb, though.
A broken clock being right twice a day doesn't make it any less broken.
Conformity with the wise and benevolent diktats of respectable science is more your bailiwick for sure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
