Veritas Libertas wrote: » One personal attack in this thread by a poster named: Mongfinder General.
Tell me how wrote: » What she has said is that the solutions which are needed have not yet been invented and that people need to unite and empower scientists in order to help come up with solutions. What is knee jerk or inappropriate about that.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Wonderful name. Kudos.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Peer reviewed research is the most reliable research.
is_that_so wrote: » Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of studies.
is_that_so wrote: » Sure, but not necessarily conclusive just that it meets the standard. There are still issues with the reproducibility of some studies.
Tell me how wrote: » Yes but is there a preferred alternative in your view?
is_that_so wrote: » No, peer-reviewed is good but you seem to have trouble accepting other good things like democracy with all its warts!
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Well, I have encountered too many peer reviewed articles that challenge the existence of climate change. In fact, none.
Tell me how wrote: » I'm sorry, what? Where have I questioned democracy?
Veritas Libertas wrote: » My point though is that its not happening nearly as much as you initially suggest.
is_that_so wrote: » In your sneering at politicians above.
Tell me how wrote: » I think the number of people who would suggest they trust democratically elected politicians above peer reviewed scientific research would actually be quite small, but you are entitled to do so should you wish. Do you therefore agree with the elected politicians who have agreed with Greta's view that something needs to be done.
is_that_so wrote: » I'm not disputing the purpose of it but its aim is to be satisfied about the standard of the science and so far as we know the science appears correct.
Tell me how wrote: » I'm sorry, but is this sneering at politicians and showing disregard for democracy?
For the love of god, if I said I was fond of a cup of tea I'd be accused of demeaning and insulting coffee growers.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I agree, the science behind climate change research is correct.
is_that_so wrote: » As far as we know!
smelly sock wrote: » How do you know though? Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you have a time machine
Professor Moriarty wrote: » She's not important. The publicity she is generating is important. The personal attacks on her are meaningless.
gozunda wrote: » I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious is that the publicity derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings) or where the trip to the US is seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which have been made to date. What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of relevant issues as a result.
gozunda wrote: » I agree she is not important but more importantly the fact is that not all publicity is good publicity. Where it is obvious that publicity is derived from her personal fears (as in the case of her doomsday rantings etc) or where the trip to the US ends up seen as little more than a PR stunt - then such publicity is more likley to have a negative effect and destroy any gains which may have been made to date.
gozunda wrote: » What is being omitted is the genuine criticism of the circus which has grown up around this teenager and ultimately the polarisation of all relevant issues as a result.
smelly sock wrote: » Political world leaders who were democratically elected. A lot of these science boffins are paid directly by the cult like eco maniacs. Thread carefully.
Tell me how wrote: » Ooh, this is brilliant, attack the messenger. Person A: I have several varied and unconnected reasons why I dislike Greta drawing attention to the climate. Person B: You should listen to the scientists who have done work on climate issues. Person A: You are very arrogant and insulting and clearly have no time for rational discussion. Person B:
I saw that comment. The arrogance was palpable and definitly not conducive to any rational discussion. But there we go.
gozunda wrote: » Wrong again. Comprehension issues? I was correctly commenting on the message. If you dont agree with that tough. But do not attempt to be disingenuous , it does you no favours. And again. Because it is quite simple... But in the spirit of discussion let me simplify it for you. The tone of that comment was arrogant and failed to aid the discussion.I can make it simpler again if you like?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Maybe billions of people heard her speech or parts of her speech. That plants awareness of climate change in their minds. The publicity surrounding her is irrelevant or a deflection at best. Look at this thread. People are discussing climate change here because of her.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » I know you weren't talking about my name earlier :cool: Millions of people are talking about politics because of Trump, does this excuse his hyperbole?
easypazz wrote: » National Geographic.The Greenland ice sheet is 10,000 feet thick in places and contains enough ice to raise sea levels 23 feet (7 meters). Are you still doubting me?
gozunda wrote: » Maybe so. But where awareness is a result of a negative perception of what is being said or done - that is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of the discussions I have seen are increasingly derived as a reaction against that. This thread for example - is about her so perhaps it is not strange that her various commentaries are getting dragged over the coals.
