3 ms·
Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, no
by skh 8y ago
Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, not mine.
Nothing I wrote suggests that I think a 5 year old read papers published in the 1800s. I think you did not fully comprehend what I wrote. This conclusion of mine is further evidenced with your last two sentences. It’s been known for quite a while that temperatures are increasing due to man made causes. This is established science as far as these things can be established. One does not convert to accepting scientific fact if the starting point is that scientific facts ought to be believed.
- nilkn 8y agoAs an outsider to this exchange, I think porpoisely intended to highlight the "since I was 5 years old" part in his/her original quote, so that's why your response was interpreted in that context.
- skh 8y agoWhat you say is reasonable and seems correct from my perspective. I’ll elaborate a bit more on my perspective of the exchange. From the article it’s hard to come to the conclusion that the couple are extremists. That they had this concern at a young age speaks to the influence of their parents. But they are now philosophers of science and professors. Presumably they are well informed and well read at this point in their life. They are devoted to the study of scientific misinformation. I find it odd that porpoisely focuses on the fact that at a young age they were concerned about climate change. I think it says a lot about porpoisely that he/she focuses on this. Specifically that he/she is looking at superficial reasons to discredit the couple and ignores what expertise they have. This shows the bias porpoisely has.