4 ms·
If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temp
by anthonyb 16y ago
If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temperature records - support it. I'm quite happy to take a look if you can find it.
The point with that link is that even when asked a straightforward question on the one piece of evidence (a non peer reviewed paper) that's been put forward so far, nobody wants to actually answer it. They'd much rather dodge and weave and pull out the same old tired talking points about how things are getting colder, we're overdue for an ice age, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, what does that have to do with the originally cited paper?
Not sure what makes me come across as unstructured, either. Perhaps I'm just too used to arguing these points, so I'm "talking" a bit fast?
- iuguy 16y agoI think perhaps you're unaware of your emotional investment in the argument. I can tell this is something you're passionate about. Unfortunately in that argument your passion is working against you.
- anthonyb 16y agoPassionate? Sure, but also interested in the mindset behind the arguments. I've seen it multiple times, but nobody can quite articulate exactly what it is that convinces them that, say, global warming is a hoax, or that vaccines are dangerous. It shouldn't do, but it also annoys me that people like lzw get voted up for saying basically nothing - it's either personal attacks or the same tired old cliches. Trying to keep things on topic instead gets interpreted as "refusing to answer the questions". One question! That's all that I'm asking, and it might give some real insight into the opposing viewpoint, or spark some real discussion, but nobody's taken it up so far, which is sad.