Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?
- Thread starter stewski
- Start date
You get it it detracts from their message?
Or alternatively you just projected what you feel on a wide ranging group of international unaffiliated scientist who would like each others lunch if they had a chance...
Did he accuse Dr Cox and all climate science of wilful mis representation of evidence whilst hiding behind anonymity and simultaneously refusing to allow those he accused the right to reply?
You are circles! either he's accusing anonymously or not, either he is un willing to allow response or not either his position stands up to rigour or not!
Off the top of my head Ive suggested multiple reasons more plausible than a disperate 'science' conspiracy, the anonymous unqualified attacks are unreason personified!
Last edited:
Actually I find the man really annoying and particularly dislike his TV Shows, much like my proff at University he's not an un reasoned buffoon, your point was?
If only there was some way for individual with a 'belief' that (thousands of disparate and competitive) scientists are mis representing data wilfully to a specific end, to put their feelings across to one of them in a public forum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink
Soldato
Well...I'm sure we can all agree that climate change won't destroy the planet.
I heard Africa was becoming greener and more fertile due to the cardio dioxide/rain, I also heard those pesky rich people with beachfront villa's might have to sell up in 2075.
I heard Africa was becoming greener and more fertile due to the cardio dioxide/rain, I also heard those pesky rich people with beachfront villa's might have to sell up in 2075.
Last edited:
Climate change itself is largely irrelevant to this thread - my point was that even the way "empirical evidence" and science is used can erode the position of reason especially when used in a manner to stifle debate - slightly on a tangent from that take this article for instance https://www.theguardian.com/science...ange-if-academics-keep-the-focus-on-consensus this bit especially:
This kind of thing ultimately tends to deflect from the value of reason and empirical evidence and consider it of lesser importance - if you look into some of the names behind the consensus science project for climate change you'll find many of the names were involved in something similar for modelling predictions of solar cycle 24 - where they used similar principles to discredit and try to silence a small number of people who had a different theory on how it would pan out - turns out that small number of people were right and the others were dead wrong https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09...ich-turned-out-to-be-the-lowest-in-100-years/ the way some experts have acted is as much to blame for any decline in people listening to experts and evidence, etc. in political debate as anything else.
EDIT: And to be clear I'm not suggesting Brian Cox is some heinous villain at the centre of this - he just happened to use a chart I've long been critical of due to the manner it portrays the data and the way it is often used - in many cases in a far worse way than what Brian Cox did - and I doubt he even was the one that chose to use it - it was probably all carefully stage managed by a production team.
Last edited:
Soldato
I think Stewski had ulterior motives with this thread. What I said can also link in with reason and evidence, for example, if you say anything but a doomsday scenario regarding climate change, you are sneered at by certain people, but it's only a doomsday scenario for certain places, for other places, it's a blessing in disguise.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-earth-is-getting-greener-why
Oh he certainly did - it was largely sniping for personal gratification.
Soldato
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity IMO.
I guess if you ignore all the contributions that arent an anonymous conspiracy theory about climate science whilst ignoring more plausible explanations and a simple request to join the discourse and address the people you accuse?
My motive for refuting such nonsense is far from ulterior its the point of starting this thread!
Last edited:
Or it's the most probable timeline humans are likely to have affected the climate and have any accurate data for, still it's easy to address directly with him rather than spreading a conspiracy theory based on emotion, anonymously!
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
So, can someone do a quick summary of the goodies and the baddies in this very important thread? Thank you.
People not emotively projecting a shared motive on 10s of thousands of disparate scientists who don't all agree, (whilst ignoring more plausible explanations) or those who pose a question in a discussion thread are likely better at not being unreasonable!
Caporegime