6 ms·

"climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing. " This is where you got me ba

"climate skeptics that deliberately point out one small part of a study and misconstrue it in attempt to debunk the entire thing. " This is where you got me badly wrong. I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation. I think there's a wider discussion to have here about whether disinformation is OK if it's done with noble intentions, and only those spreading disinformation with malicious intent should be censored. Or should we find all disinformation campaigns equally repugnant?

colordrops 8y ago
That is a very good question. Many seem to think the Russia investigation is ok even if there is nothing to be found because the intentions are to take down trump. I've had many debates with friends where I pinned them down and they finally admitted there is no direct evidence of collusion with Russia, and they admit that it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter. I'm a progressive and despise Trump, but these dishonest tactics only do harm to the cause. Same goes for the anti-anti-vaxxer campaign. It's obvious to most educated people that vaccines are a good thing, but to the uneducated, they see through all the propaganda for vaccines and it backfires because they end up trusting the establishment even less. Seeing everything as a team sport ends up with each side using any tactic, no matter how dishonest, to win the game.
fzeroracer 8y ago
> I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation. You're pointing out an 'instance of disinformation' by using a site known for disinformation and spreading disinformation. Don't lie now, we both know exactly what you were trying to pull.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  You're ignoring the easily verifiable facts that I have shown you. Instead choosing to bury your head in the sand and make assumptions. You are wilfully ignorant.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    And you're a liar refusing to provide me with an actual proper citation or resource. If these are easily verifiable facts, then I would expect you could find me a reputable climatologist that debunks the claims made. Neither of us are climatologists and can make claims as to whether or not someone nitpicking an incredibly tiny portion of a paper (which has more data corroborating the growth in temperature) invalidates the whole thing. I have long learned not to trust climate skeptics to debate in good faith. So please, provide a proper source.
    - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
      If the people who operate the weather station explicitly saying that its data should not be used for long term interpretation isn't credible enough for you, frankly I don't know what would be. Once again, I am not a 'climate skeptic'. You need to dial down your irrational hatred.

colordrops 8y ago

That is a very good question. Many seem to think the Russia investigation is ok even if there is nothing to be found because the intentions are to take down trump. I've had many debates with friends where I pinned them down and they finally admitted there is no direct evidence of collusion with Russia, and they admit that it's for a good cause so it doesn't matter. I'm a progressive and despise Trump, but these dishonest tactics only do harm to the cause. Same goes for the anti-anti-vaxxer campaign. It's obvious to most educated people that vaccines are a good thing, but to the uneducated, they see through all the propaganda for vaccines and it backfires because they end up trusting the establishment even less. Seeing everything as a team sport ends up with each side using any tactic, no matter how dishonest, to win the game.

fzeroracer 8y ago

> I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation. You're pointing out an 'instance of disinformation' by using a site known for disinformation and spreading disinformation. Don't lie now, we both know exactly what you were trying to pull.

SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
You're ignoring the easily verifiable facts that I have shown you. Instead choosing to bury your head in the sand and make assumptions. You are wilfully ignorant.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  And you're a liar refusing to provide me with an actual proper citation or resource. If these are easily verifiable facts, then I would expect you could find me a reputable climatologist that debunks the claims made. Neither of us are climatologists and can make claims as to whether or not someone nitpicking an incredibly tiny portion of a paper (which has more data corroborating the growth in temperature) invalidates the whole thing. I have long learned not to trust climate skeptics to debate in good faith. So please, provide a proper source.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    If the people who operate the weather station explicitly saying that its data should not be used for long term interpretation isn't credible enough for you, frankly I don't know what would be. Once again, I am not a 'climate skeptic'. You need to dial down your irrational hatred.