|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 3:32:03 GMT
Clarification for you Thermos: Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence. Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next.The climategate documents have these in spades. Whoa! great denialist response, touche. Climategate is so what.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 8, 2011 3:36:47 GMT
Denialism is all about raising objections rather than providing support. Thermostat: One would have to be a fool to provide support for the shoddy science that is the unpine of AGW. I am surprised that someone who claims to hold a PHD was not taught the element of thinking for yourself. One does NOT provide support for junk....that is down right foolish.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 3:38:14 GMT
Climate denialists are quite relentless.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 3:38:20 GMT
My fundamental point was about denialism and how it works. Climate denialism is the issue that relates to this forum. That is crap! You were comparing apples and rhubarb. You were making your little pet evil "denialists" equivalent to people who -- in your mind -- would imprison other 'innocent' people just to feed their insatiable appetite for... whatever. You've gone way off the deep end. You've lost it. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 3:39:38 GMT
My fundamental point was about denialism and how it works. Climate denialism is the issue that relates to this forum. That is crap! You were comparing apples and rhubarb. You were making your little pet evil "denialists" equivalent to people who -- in your mind -- would imprison other 'innocent' people just to feed their insatiable appetite for... whatever. You've gone way off the deep end. You've lost it. Got it. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 3:41:43 GMT
Denialism and how it works. Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence. Sorta like equating those skeptical of the fad du jour with police and justice officials in Italy? "Having the answer befor one has the evidence." Look in the mirror! Denialist!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 8, 2011 3:42:04 GMT
Climate denialists are quite relentless. I agree Thermostat. The AGW folks who refuse to read the literature, who make mountains out of molehills deny that there are holes in the AGW science. I am continuously amazed at how persistent, uneducated, lack of thought process these folks are. They would make Hilter proud.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 3:47:31 GMT
Denialism and how it works, Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next. Sorta like... oh, creating a connection between normal, everyday, thoughtful people who have the audacity to expect extraordinary proof to go along with extraordinary claims --- to those who, in your mind, KNOWING imprisoned a woman because of.... whatever. Fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion?? Oh, you can see the mote in our eyes but you keep missing that 2 by 4 sticking out of your own! You are the one doing the fabricating!
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 3:48:38 GMT
Climate denialists are quite relentless. I agree Thermostat. The AGW folks who refuse to read the literature, who make mountains out of molehills deny that there are holes in the AGW science. I am continuously amazed at how persistent, uneducated, lack of thought process these folks are. They would make Hilter proud. Let me suggest, persistent forum members should have an open minded discussion.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Oct 8, 2011 3:57:29 GMT
Denialism is all about raising objections rather than providing support. The grey matter in your skull is so dense a supermassive black hole would float on it effortlessly!! Remember your PhD-level quote above, "Denialism is all about raising objections rather than providing support" next time you have a grad student up for their thesis. Remember how you told me you responded the way you did because 'that's how it's done in academe'? You would rip people conclusions et al apart to 'get to the truth'? Give me a break! So next time you have a student tell you there are 360 degrees in a triangle, don't become a "denialist" by raising any objections or you'll disappoint me. Rather, "provide support" to show how pure and honest and truthful and 'non-skeptical' you are. Show how much purer you are than all the other denialist schmucks who simply want some freaking proof!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 8, 2011 3:57:57 GMT
I agree Thermostat. The AGW folks who refuse to read the literature, who make mountains out of molehills deny that there are holes in the AGW science. I am continuously amazed at how persistent, uneducated, lack of thought process these folks are. They would make Hilter proud. Let me suggest, persistent forum members should have an open minded discussion. I think in my case forum members know that I have a very open mind. I have been trying, as you are a youngun, to show you how to do the same. I do have to admit tho, it is like throwing a basket ball at a wall, it keeps coming back round as ever.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 4:09:10 GMT
The question is denialism
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2011 4:18:08 GMT
The question is denialism Do you deny the atmosphere is not warming or cooling as AGW "theory" predicted?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 8, 2011 4:28:47 GMT
Clarification for you Thermos: Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence. Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next.The climategate documents have these in spades. The so called 'climategate documents' are a great example of how casual observers have been manipulated. People who believe the climategate story are as naive as Amanda Knox.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2011 4:31:40 GMT
Clarification for you Thermos: Well, it begins by having the answer before one has the evidence. Creating/fabricating evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. That comes next.The climategate documents have these in spades. The so called 'climategate documents' are a great example of how casual observers have been manipulated. People who believe the climagate story are as naive as Amanda Knox. You've certainly perfected the art of applying logical fallacy to its fullest.
|
|