Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

[Bear]

Why not ask the guy who used it?
The likely answer is it seems improbable based on current knowledge that humans could affect the global average surface temperature much before then.

Absolutely, then the question would be what was the cause of the initial large rise pre mid 1700s. It's an uncomfortable question and obviously one they don't want to bother answering which is why they start in the mid 1800s. I get it, it detracts from their message which is why they do it, it just feels dishonest.

 

[Rroff]

This was my Second full response, hardly you being quashed!

I never said quashed in the context of this thread.

 

[stewski]

Zefan pretty shrewdly had you to rights.

Is that the same mod who has failed to respond in anyway to why this thread was moved, what elements of the original post are clearly flawed, which SC rules it breaks or why numerous other SC threads persist?

 

[Rroff]

I get it, it detracts from their message which is why they do it, it just feels dishonest

I get it as well, don't like it though I support the overall goal - but the reason I brought it up was the context of this thread and that the way it feels dishonest works against an age lead by reason (and it was used as part of the example in the OP).

 

[stewski]

Absolutely, then the question would be what was the cause of the initial large rise pre mid 1700s. It's an uncomfortable question and obviously one they don't want to bother answering which is why they start in the mid 1800s. I get it, it detracts from their message which is why they do it, it just feels dishonest.

Lol 'they'.
The science community who are all one big blob, who all love each other and wouldn't like to tear a strip off of any prevailing scientific theory ever?

 

[Bear]

Quote anything I said that illustrates the point above.
I've said publish and be damned or stop spreading unsubstantiated fear uncertainty and distrust.
Anonymous postings suggesting science en masse are wilfully misrepresenting data, is the work of conspiracy theorist and intellectual cowards!

There's nothing to publish, it's just looking at data which is already out there and asking questions about that data.

 

[Irish_Tom]

@stewski, your method of questioning everyone and everything would give Socrates a headache.

I agree with @Zefan; intentional or not, your posting style often comes across as more emotional than reasoned debate — maybe it’s all the exclaimation marks — either way, there’s a juicy irony in that and the content of your OP.

The thing is; half the time I agree with you, but you don’t make it easy to have a discussion due to your frequent and often tangental lines of questioning.

 

[stewski]

@stewski, your method of questioning everyone and everything would give Socrates a headache.

I agree with @Zefan; intentional or not, your posting style often comes across as more emotional than reasoned debate — maybe it’s all the exclaimation marks — either way, there’s a juicy irony in that and the content of your OP.

The thing is; half the time I agree with you, but you don’t make it easy to have a discussion due to your frequent and often tangental lines of questioning.

Sorry but in what way does accusing professor Cox anonymously deserve a slap on the back?

 

[Irish_Tom]

Sorry but in what way does accusing professor Cox anonymously deserve a slap on the back?

There you go again… what leap(s) of logic were required for you to make that conclusion from what I wrote?

 

[Rroff]

Sorry but in what way does accusing professor Cox anonymously deserve a slap on the back?

I'll give you points for the tangental line of questioning LOL. He is right though - things like inferred slights through comparison to authority figures, re-appropriation of things people have posted in a different context that better supports what you are saying than they originally wrote it, etc. doesn't help any kind of debate or reason and comes across as more emotionally driven.

 

[stewski]

There you go again… what leap(s) of logic were required for you to make that conclusion from what I wrote?

You have said nothing specific except a vague slur about 'posting style' until professor Cox was accused (along side climate science in general) of wilfully misprepresenting evidence this thread reads rather differently, so what is your problem thus far?

Note: You can read my first 2 responses to roff on page 1 (or summarised on page 3) after he veered into conspiracy territory I suggested he post direct to the source/seek peer review, what leaps of logic have you gone through?

 

[stewski]

I'll give you points for the tangental line of questioning LOL. He is right though - things like inferred slights through comparison to authority figures, re-appropriation of things people have posted in a different context that better supports what you are saying than they originally wrote it, etc. doesn't help any kind of debate or reason and comes across as more emotionally driven.

As ever accusations without evidence, show where any of that has occurred here.
Either you have an idea about a deep routed problem in science that you would put your name to or it's no different to NASA "corrupted" conspiracy nonsense!

 

[Irish_Tom]

You have said nothing specific except a vague slur about 'posting style' until professor Cox was accused (along side climate science in general) of wilfully misprepresenting evidence this thread reads rather differently, so what is your problem thus far?

Note: You can read my first 2 responses to roff on page 1 (or summarised on page 3) after he veered into conspiracy territory I suggested he post direct to the source/seek peer review, what leaps of logic have you gone through?

My original post was a general point about your posting style, I have said nothing specific about this particular thread.

To use your own style of questioning against you: where in my original post did I say anything about Dr. Cox or misrepresenting evidence?

 

[Bear]

This thread is an utter farce. You are so blinkered in your emotional thought process that you can't see reason, it would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous

 

[Arazi]

Someone has got an emotional boner on for a Professor.

Have a minute.

 

[mmj_uk]

Talking about emotion if Dr Cox were to actually speak out against global warming he would quickly disappear from our television screens, it is too politicised at this point it's like the Google memo guy where even if a scientist were to make a good scientific argument against the mainstream concensus they will basically be ruined by the establishment for voicing it. That's not science it's a political agenda.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Talking about emotion if Dr Cox were to actually speak out against global warming he would quickly disappear from our television screens, it is too politicised at this point it's like the Google memo guy where even if a scientist were to make a good scientific argument against the mainstream concensus they will basically be ruined by the establishment for voicing it.

His position on the subject is pretty clear based on his comments on The Infinite Monkey Cage (a BBC Radio production) but I get your point — he’s not a shouting it from the rooftops at every opportunity.

 

[dowie]

Well back onto the subject of the thread - I'm not so sure about the OP's 'theory' here (it doesn't seem to have been 'peer reviewed') and bizarrely he seems to want to derail his own thread however here is my 2p:

There has been a narrative in the press about people not being willing to listen to experts though lots of this has come from the general public in the UK and the US being seen as recently voting for the 'wrong' choice in the recent referendum/election.

Climate change 'skepticism' has been around for a while, it isn't particularly new, ditto to people not accepting evolution but turning to religious arguments - if anything the world has gotten less religious so at least that aspect shouldn't be on the rise (or maybe it is in America?). Likewise over a decade ago we had the MMR scare where people also weren't willing to listen to experts - in that case the expert opinion from medical professionals re: the safety of vaccines being far more robust than that of economics experts and their forecasts.

Personally I think portions of the public have always ignored 'experts' various contexts and that this isn't anything particularly new.

 

[stewski]

My original post was a general point about your posting style, I have said nothing specific about this particular thread.

To use your own style of questioning against you: where in my original post did I say anything about Dr. Cox or misrepresenting evidence?

What is a 'posting style' and what relevance does it have to using reason and evidence to govern and why should anyone care what you think of it?

This thread clearly had other contributions that were not random anonymous unsubstantiated accusations against Dr Cox or Climate Science in general, in fact until such dross was posted I can't see what on earth anyone could complain about?

The very notion of what Roff has posted here is why this thread exists and anyone defending that position pretty much fall in to part of the problem camp at this point!

 

[stewski]

Well back onto the subject of the thread - I'm not so sure about the OP's 'theory' here (it doesn't seem to have been 'peer reviewed') and bizarrely he seems to want to derail his own thread however here is my 2p:

There has been a narrative in the press about people not being willing to listen to experts though lots of this has come from the general public in the UK and the US being seen as recently voting for the 'wrong' choice in the recent referendum/election.

Climate change 'skepticism' has been around for a while, it isn't particularly new, ditto to people not accepting evolution but turning to religious arguments - if anything the world has gotten less religious so at least that aspect shouldn't be on the rise (or maybe it is in America?). Likewise over a decade ago we had the MMR scare where people also weren't willing to listen to experts - in that case the expert opinion from medical professionals re: the safety of vaccines being far more robust than that of economics experts and their forecasts.

Personally I think portions of the public have always ignored 'experts' various contexts and that this isn't anything particularly new.

Is a question a theory?