You get it it detracts from their message?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.
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?Roff posted a criticism of the way data had been presented that's all and for that heinous crime he's "part of the problem camp"?
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!sorry but not going round in circles on that point, I'll leave you to it...
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?Someone has got an emotional boner on for a Professor.
Have a minute.
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.
Here it is the crucial non-scientific issues around climate change that should take centre stage. Instead, valuable media and political attention has been expended on boosting the 97% meme, crowding out deeper conversations about policy framing, coalition building, public values and morality which do not lend themselves to headline numbers.
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:
I think Stewski had ulterior motives with this thread.
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
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?The irony is, he started a thread about reasoned debate and due to his own contributions we've been unable to have one…
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!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.
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!So, can someone do a quick summary of the goodies and the baddies in this very important thread? Thank you.
I can't make love to this!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!