25 ms·
For the record, I read through his comments to see what you were talking about. You have misquoted him: "CO2 is not a real pollutant" --> "[...]It's high time
by mr_spothawk 10y ago
For the record, I read through his comments to see what you were talking about.
You have misquoted him: "CO2 is not a real pollutant" --> "[...]It's high time to start fighting with real pollutants instead CO2"
here's the one about Coal safety... i guess? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586
but whatever it is, you're not arguing your point. you're attacking the person who's trying to share their views with you.
please take your responsibility to maintain an open dialogue seriously.
- scrollaway 10y agoI did not misquote anything: "The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 "Maybe this will help to shift the focus to real pollutants, which actually harm human health, instead of CO2." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 And the sentence you yourself quoted is quite obviously missing an "of", given the poster's consistent view points on the issue. FWIW, I have had (and still have) an open dialogue with any trump supporter that wants it; one of them I even met up with directly from here. Reasonable discussion is fun and productive. But for similar reasons as why you don't negotiate with terrorists, I'm not going to bother arguing climate science with someone who believes it was designed as a conspiracy to make you vote Hillary or something. Edit: Besides, inopinatus already expressed what my thoughts were on the "assassination" issue.
- mr_spothawk 10y agofrom my perspective arguing with climate-science terrorists looks pretty similar to shouting down climate-scientist terrorists with ad hominem.