Josiahkf said: »
That trademark condescension that only serves to convey, "I am incapable of genuine dialogue."
Random Politics & Religion #19
|
Random Politics & Religion #19
Only when you are predisposed in seeing that. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Josiahkf said: » That trademark condescension that only serves to convey, "I am incapable of genuine dialogue." Could you have responded in a way more befitting of what he just said? You condescend all the time. And even if the person you're speaking to is genuinely wrong, they'd have to be basically incapable of reading (in the literal sense, not your ad hominem retort) to not pickup on your tone. You're not alone by any means in that, but you certainly do it and pretending to do otherwise is you doing a genuine disservice to yourself. The person is talking about Industrial Capitalism not the general encompassing concept of Capitalism. The key to understanding that is the reference to the Industrial Revolution. Also helps if you are a student of more than one history and political ideology.
Ramyrez said: » And even if the person you're speaking to is genuinely wrong, they'd have to be basically incapable of reading (in the literal sense, not your ad hominem retort) to not pickup on your tone. Seriously. That's not even good fearmongering. Climate change policy looks to reduce our reliance on the fossil fuel based economy ushered in by the industrial revolution? GET. OUT.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Seriously. That's not even good fearmongering. Climate change policy looks to reduce our reliance on the fossil fuel based economy ushered in by the industrial revolution? GET. OUT. I don't think it should come at the expense of nearly all of our economic strength, nor should such proponents/advancements be made out of nothing but lies and deceit. If global warming is man-made, then let's fix it. Otherwise, stop saying it's man-made and outright lying about it.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Seriously. That's not even good fearmongering. Climate change policy looks to reduce our reliance on the fossil fuel based economy ushered in by the industrial revolution? GET. OUT. Pleebo knows what he's talking about. If you want good fearmongering, the climate alarmists have that crap on lock.
[+]
Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » And even if the person you're speaking to is genuinely wrong, they'd have to be basically incapable of reading (in the literal sense, not your ad hominem retort) to not pickup on your tone. I have never behaved in the manner your links provide or even rated up that kind of behavior. However, this applies to you: Ramyrez said: » You're not alone by any means in that, but you certainly do it and pretending to do otherwise is you doing a genuine disservice to yourself. This conversation again? Lol. If you want to discuss policy then just keep it to that. Otherwise I'm still looking forward to you two showing your work instead of selectively avoiding anything substantive.
Josiahkf said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » I have yet to see you admit your snarkiness in public. I try to limit my smarmy responses in P and R though since that behavior is best understood between friends. Freaking Canadians.
[+]
Josiahkf said: » I am a very snarky person, I have never denied that and if anyone sees me in other threads it becomes apparent. I've been reported for snark. So much so that the moderators can't stand it to receive complaints by that individual. Oh hey look David Rose is a poster here.
You made a vague reference to him, you're gonna get reported!
[+]
Keeping on linking that daily mail story says a lot about how much they know on the subject.
Valefor.Sehachan said: » You made a vague reference to him, you're gonna get reported! Would doing something like linking their posts in a generalized post whining about other people, count as a report worthy vague reference?
[+]
Welp, Pleebo is proof positive that if you don't like what is reported, you bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Pretending that it never happened never worked out though.
Josiahkf said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » it's very underhanded but even Bates stated the data was sound. Quote: In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’. It's called confirmation bias (at best). Skewing the data so it shows what you want it to show isn't helpful, especially when published while ignoring protocols that help such bias from occurring. It's called bad science. Something that some people applaud as long as their mandate sticks. Also, Rooks, before you nuke this section, please remember that it's only a couple of people who flaunt your rules, not the community at whole. Don't punish us for the actions of a few.
That gave me a good chuckle
[+]
Josiahkf said: » Quote: The federal climate scientist hailed by conservatives as a whistleblower for allegedly revealing manipulated global warming data said yesterday he was actually calling out a former colleague for not properly following agency standards for research. In an interview with Energy and Environmental News yesterday, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration principal scientist John Bates had a significantly more nuanced take on the controversy that has swirled since a top House Republican hailed his blog post as proof that the agency "played fast and loose" with temperature data to disprove the theory of a global warming "pause." Bates accused former colleagues of rushing their research to publication, in defiance of agency protocol. He specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue was that Bates brought up. His beef comes down to the published report presenting its data without the disclaimer of it being research data and not operational data. Operational data is used in things like climate models to directly inform other research so it carries a more strict standard. The NOAA paper wasn't presented as operational data, however. Nor does doing so or not doing so change the results that since have been independently verified by other researchers. It's all an internal dispute that amounts to little more than an ethical disagreement between colleagues.
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.