Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

[Irish_Tom]

If Boris would be compelled to post his detailed objections to the ONS and others over EU contribution data, would that too, be a distraction?

No, because Boris is the foreign secretary and his comments directly relate to a subject of significant national importance upon which he's commenting.

He's not posting on an internet forum in a thread about a semi-related matter to that which was originally being discussed.

For me, unreason is holding a belief with little to no interest in exploring the evidence to support or deny it.

I suppose both sides are equally to blame in that regard, there's very little critical thinking in the world and most people are guilty of confirmation bias. If there is evidence to support your position, you're less likely to try and find evidence to discredit it.

Boris likely believes the ONS data unfairly represents a situation, he may even think people using that data are stage managed and well-intentioned (who knows), if he is unwilling to discuss with the people he accuses of this, the actual evidence and reasoning behind using specific data sets and ignores reasonable explanation of their data, that would be unreasonable, no?

There's an awful lot of conjecture and assumption in that question but, if true, I'd agree, that would be unreasonable.

To be honest, I don't think that Boris actually believe's the £350m figure — I think he's using it for media attention and political gain.

This thread is really weird.

I think it's quite fun.

 

[stewski]

If we listed the conjecture so far in this thread it would make a really boring book about the motives of scientists, me and a bunch of people.

I'm not convinced how much Rroff believes of what he has stated and part of that is a compliment to healthy scepticism!

 

[stewski]

Don't get us on to the issue of attributing equal blame for 'balance'!

 

[Trusty]

I think it's quite fun.

 

[Arazi]

Define 'posting style'.

"Like a Girl"

Go on, emotionally pick that one to bits.

 

[stewski]

"Like a Girl"

Go on, emotionally pick that one to bits.

What is to pick (bits or otherwise) in your average post?

 

[dowie]

This position isn't just based on this thread, it's is based on countless other threads where you've played 'mental gymnastics' with the likes of @dowie and others. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to go hunting all over the forum to provide evidence of this.

based on past experience I now think it's best to reply with an opinion and (aside from a note to say you're not really interested) ignore a lot of the noise that then follows unless it actually raises another point worth commenting on

 

[stewski]

Thank 'heavens' for small mercies.

 

[Rroff]

@Rroff I'll say: I have/would not accuse your position of being one of climate change denial, later you have explained that you have at least attempted to get feedback (from those who may even work in the field) about your position and until apparent point blank refusal to discuss the subject with the people directly involved, I did not say that what you have suggested was wildly unreasonable.

I will also say, I mentioned that your points would likely gain more consideration from the Likes of Dr Cox (than NASA corrupted the data) and I'll add, aside from his face there doesn't appear to be anything scary about him. I'm not sure what is to lose in getting a straight answer. I can see you are rightly conflicted about the effects of questioning the IPCC data/graph, I'm just not sure how perpetuating the perceived issue (and motives) anonymously elsewhere, whilst ignoring the individual(s)/organisations in question, is a lesser problem!

As someone said earlier the whole climate change topic has become highly politicised which seems to make many professionals in the field cautious of debating anything that might be even slightly controversial probably in case they get ostracised.

 

[stewski]

As someone said earlier the whole climate change topic has become highly politicised which seems to make many professionals in the field cautious of debating anything that might be even slightly controversial probably in case they get ostracised.

To be honest, I considered posting your described point myself to Cox just so we could actually find out what his response was and put an end to me / you / world and dog speculating and/or projecting motives.

I'm not detracting from your effort/thoughts on the topic (it's not uncomplimentary to advise getting a position refereed) however, making assumptions of motive and guessing subsequent behaviour of other parties when discussing a question of concern (which is how I would suggest it would best be framed) that is directly related to a scientific position/discussion, can and arguably has lead people to take positions of 'belief' without anything like evidence.

The only reason I didn't post it publicly is, I consider there are more probable reasons for Cox and others to use that graph/timeline (as I have outlined) and if that proves the case in public debate we are fuelling pointless FUD.

In all of this I'm sure we even as laymen agree, longer timelines/datasets are: widely available to all people debating, likely to be decreasingly accurate as we project backwards, relate to periods unlikely to be affected by man and if xkcd are to be believed still show a probable, huge swing, that reads to me unlike anything on record or estimated.