4 ms·

> Define "scientific consensus" If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? > Oddly missing from that What does the "that" refer to?

> Define "scientific consensus" If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? > Oddly missing from that What does the "that" refer to? I refer to all papers published in what is generally described as scientific journals during the late 1960s and the 1970s. Since that appeared to be what you were talking about. > Unless he did more than one, yes "In Search of..." started with "This series presents information based in part on theory and conjecture. The producer's purpose is to suggest some possible explanations, but not necessarily the only ones, to the mysteries we will examine." This is the same series that asked if plants respond to people's thoughts, explored the idea that the Nazca Lines landing instructions for UFOs, and searched for several forms of cryptozoology. That's a show you want as the foundations for your beliefs? You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas.

tal8d 6y ago
> If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? I do like it, I like it a lot - it perfectly represents the manipulative nature of the situation. "...both scientific consensus and political will have come a long way." -- VP Al Gore, Kyoto Climate Change Conference 1997 > What does the "that" refer to? The false dichotomy you seem so interested in pursuing. The ratio of cooling to warming papers doesn't mean anything when neither deliver accurate models. > You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas. I wonder if you are so obtuse that you believe that to be an accurate estimate of my position, or even a clever dig. It just makes you look desperate to avoid the fact that science plays little role in what has become an ad-campaign/power-grab.
- eesmith 6y ago
  It appears that when you wrote: > Ah, global cooling - the conveniently forgotten scientific consensus you said it thinking it is essentially meaningless. Obviously everything that you and I have written can be viewed through the same lens of manipulation. There is therefore no point in continuing. I'll leave with a pointer to Asimov, who was writing about global warming since at least the early 1970 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA&feature=youtu.be .
  - tal8d 6y ago
    okbye, good luck with the word blindness.

tal8d 6y ago

> If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? I do like it, I like it a lot - it perfectly represents the manipulative nature of the situation. "...both scientific consensus and political will have come a long way." -- VP Al Gore, Kyoto Climate Change Conference 1997 > What does the "that" refer to? The false dichotomy you seem so interested in pursuing. The ratio of cooling to warming papers doesn't mean anything when neither deliver accurate models. > You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas. I wonder if you are so obtuse that you believe that to be an accurate estimate of my position, or even a clever dig. It just makes you look desperate to avoid the fact that science plays little role in what has become an ad-campaign/power-grab.

eesmith 6y ago
It appears that when you wrote: > Ah, global cooling - the conveniently forgotten scientific consensus you said it thinking it is essentially meaningless. Obviously everything that you and I have written can be viewed through the same lens of manipulation. There is therefore no point in continuing. I'll leave with a pointer to Asimov, who was writing about global warming since at least the early 1970 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tSYRY90PA&feature=youtu.be .
- tal8d 6y ago
  okbye, good luck with the word blindness.