You are taking what I am saying it too literally .... why focus on the word shout?
That's one of the things I see over and over again from left leaning people .... they refuse to admonish people who are "on their side." If someone on the right gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar .... so to speak ... most people on the right will condemn their actions.
As with most of what you say, that is complete BS.
I don't think I have agreed with or disagreed with anything he has said. But I do understand that you've been reduced to making stuff up.. a sign of desperation.
ROFLMAO..
Sorry. It's not on purpose. In my defense, it's a literal medium.
It's not their job and IMO unreasonable to ask them to do so. From reports they are already harassed and have received death threats for trying to do their job. They definitely at not just happily going along with their lies. There was even an email exchange a few years back where some scientists discussed what they could do to combat misinformation - which hackers got, released, and it was used against them in the vein of they were trying to suppress other points of view. Pretty funny huh?
I meant the warning about playing nice to everyone, so please don't take that personally. Certainly, when Leo, Murphy, or anyone else is rude they are doing nothing to advance the discussion, in fact, it says the opposite.
I've had the same thought, but it's a public thread and everyone is welcome to their opinions regardless of what we think. I hope they will at least play nicely, cite facts so they can be properly challenged, or at least state why they think something.
Have to agree as what I'm trying to "advance" is an open discussion on a difficult and for some reason emotional topic.
Who is? Even I want to be a better person than I know I am. But to make such a claim without first-hand experience (e.g., your name being Melinda or Satya) it's hard to imagine anyone being capable of such a judgment. Actually, I'm not even sure if my own family can properly judge me. Best to leave character debates out of it I say. ; -)
We've tried being nice for 30+ years.. We tried explaining the science. IT DOES NOT WORK. It has never worked. It didn't work with the ozone hole issue in the 80's, it didn't work with the acid rain issue in the 70's, it didn't work with the tobacco controversies, and it didn't work with the DDT controversy.
I guarantee you I have done much more research into climate change than you have .... The problem is that all you want to do is present your condescending .... I know so much more than these people .... attitude. When the reality is that you know next to nothing about climate science.
Of course you have.. You didn't need to waste your money on going to college, you have the internet! Just think of all the money you saved making yourself so smart and knowledgeable.. Dang.. People in scientific disciplines (like me) wasted thousands of dollars of their hard earned money, and years of their life getting educated.. and we could have just used google like you.. what a bunch of fools we are.
Then it's just a coincidence that YOUR opinions are always aligned with the right wing? That's one hell of a coincidence.
I did go to college .. moron. I just don't go around thinking other people are stupid like you do. For some reason, it is necessary for you to think everyone else is stupid so you can feel better about yourself.
If doubt you ever had an IQ over 250.
I don't think everyone is stupid, just most.. There are some really smart folks in these forums.. But per your statement, it means you're either one of them, or you lack experience if you think people are "generally smart". I assure you, most are not.
Right.. it's just a coincidence that whatever the scientific consensus is, you take the opposite position with the radical right wing, and then throw in the conspiracy garbage for good measure.
If you have been paying any attention at all to current events, you would have seen that most of what you tried have to call conspiracy theories is being proven to be true .... you probably still think that all the people bringing the truth to light should be censored.
250? Who when where? China use to sterilize ppl with iq lower then 100
I have no opinion on the vaccines other than what my own doctor(s) told me and my (near useless) personal experience. If someone asked me for an opinion, I would reference the expert opinions of the highly educated professionals. I have on many occasions directed others to "listen to their own doctor".
I hated college lecture classes where the professor gave us their version of the education vs what was in the expensive purchased required books, come test time you best enter the professor's lecture version vs the expensive book. I asked the professor why we were told to buy the books and got a shoulder shrug. I learned to get through some courses had to pretend like the professor was the boss and all had to do was get past them. History and English lit were the worse classes. I had a 4.0 gpa until met a history teacher which dropped me to 3.89 gpa. gotta say what they say........ don't open that book
Ridicule sure isn't going to work either, and as Bob points out, does you no favors. You say it does not work, and that's your opinion. The facts however don't support that, numerous studies have shown that disucssion is one of the best ways to resolve conflict [ref].
I doubt anyone on the forums is secretly on the payroll of Hill of Knowlton. Occam's Razor points to your earlier explanation that powerful propaganda is being used to deceive people. Given that they are powerful forces, it's easy to see why some would think that way.
I agree it has never worked in this thread, but my goal isn't to change their mind. Only they can do that. Also, I myself am proof that it has worked, people do change their opinions when they seriously look into the topic.
How many people are like Bob & myself that have been deceived? If you google for facts it's a quagmire and hard to separate fact from fiction.
The problem with the way you do "research" is that you follow only those arguments that agree with your position.
I don't believe that's sufficient in itself, for example, CO2 has been in the atmosphere long before our contributions. The whole "it's natural" argument because CO2 varies is designed to hand-wave that away. Or, if you know a little more about GHGs you can say H2O is a far more impactful GHG and in far higher concentrations, CO2 is nothing in comparison; how come no one talks about that? That they don't talk about it isn't proof of course, it's more that hardly anyone asks. From my look at the NASA model, it is accounted for.
You are right, but it is that start of having a reasoned debate. And the argument that CO2 has been in the atmosphere (at various concentrations), before our contributions is correct. The current levels of CO2 is one of the reasons the average temperature on earth is warmer than on the moon. So if you wanted to argue that CO2 is not the only trigger, you would be right, but you would be ignoring the fundamental argument that (withou changing anything else) increasing CO2 does increase the heat retention.
We all have different things that trigger a change of thinking. I tend to lean towards the majority opinion of the scientists, not because they are always right, but because they are more likely to be right. They spend way more time on the subject and have access to information that is difficult for me to comprehend in depth. People might argue that scientist can and do make mistakes, but it is a big leap from "individual scientists making mistakes", to "all scientists are part of a fast conspiracy".
Basically taken right from google.... the science is confused and bewildered and Al Gore was wrong.
