He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is precisely your breathtaking credulity.

But clearly any attempt at rational discussion here is doomed to failure.
Well Michael Larkin IS right, you are a troll with a nasty attitude and a false sense of intellectual superiority, so characteristic in belligerently ignorant. Over and out.
 
Last edited:
And of course, the name-calling and personal abuse is absolutely fine when it comes from your own side.
Now, you are faking rigteous indignation, after your own provocations? People like you remind me of provocaturs in demonstrations, who raise their hands in the air, pretending to be peaceful, screaming "excuse me, passing through!!!" on top of their lungs, while savagely slamming into people with their bodies, and then, when responed in kind, start playing victims.
Your snotty passive/aggresive attitude fully deserved the response it got.
 
Last edited:
I must admit it's interesting in a way.

Just as any kind of evidence can be explained away by a conspiracy theory, so any kind of behaviour on a discussion board can be fitted into the picture of the other side as a group of evil conspirators. If someone is well informed they are probably a paid agent. If someone tries to be reasonable they are "passive/aggressive". If someone criticises you, they are being "nasty" (even if you yourself have spent the last thirty pages slinging mud in all directions). If someone complains at your rudeness, they're "playing the victim" - but of course you won't hesitate to run to the moderator yourself if they say something you don't like.

I suppose should have known better than to expect anything else.
 
I must admit it's interesting in a way.

Just as any kind of evidence can be explained away by a conspiracy theory, so any kind of behaviour on a discussion board can be fitted into the picture of the other side as a group of evil conspirators. If someone is well informed they are probably a paid agent. If someone tries to be reasonable they are "passive/aggressive". If someone criticises you, they are being "nasty" (even if you yourself have spent the last thirty pages slinging mud in all directions). If someone complains at your rudeness, they're "playing the victim" - but of course you won't hesitate to run to the moderator yourself if they say something you don't like.

I suppose should have known better than to expect anything else.
Continuing with the victimism No, won't fly, man. I was friendly with you up until the moment where you started talking to me in a snotty, patronizing way. Had you maintained the friendly manner of the previous exchange, none of this would have happened.
 
Last edited:
And of course, the name-calling and personal abuse is absolutely fine when it comes from your own side.

Hi Diogenes, as you and PTEHA have discovered by now, talking about non-psi topics on this forum can be a rude awakening. There are some very divisive topics here and this is one of them. If you find yourself on the wrong side of the issue on these, you get a lot of abusive attention which seems to escape the notice of the moderator(s). It won't get any better the longer the debate continues...I've been on the receiving end of the abusive posts but nothing ever changes. It's a sad state of affairs, and always make me reconsider my decision to come back. I suspect the longer this behavior goes unchecked, the more likely it will be that I decide to leave permanently. It's sad because there are a lot of good discussions here as well, but this abusive stuff that happens here is just a huge turnoff for me.
 
Hi Diogenes, as you and PTEHA have discovered by now, talking about non-psi topics on this forum can be a rude awakening. There are some very divisive topics here and this is one of them. If you find yourself on the wrong side of the issue on these, you get a lot of abusive attention which seems to escape the notice of the moderator(s). It won't get any better the longer the debate continues...I've been on the receiving end of the abusive posts but nothing ever changes. It's a sad state of affairs, and always make me reconsider my decision to come back. I suspect the longer this behavior goes unchecked, the more likely it will be that I decide to leave permanently. It's sad because there are a lot of good discussions here as well, but this abusive stuff that happens here is just a huge turnoff for me.

Curious - are you reporting the comments you feel are offensive?

I think there's only one moderator who isn't necessarily reading every thread?
 
Yep, Gore made shitload on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#20090c237502

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hange-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/

I'm not a fan of Fox, still, I doubt very much that " the owner makes money from denying (man made) climate change"
I'm not bothered by the term "conspiracy theory", given that the term was invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who would question the official versions of events:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

The oil companies, whether you like them or not, sell you - not a conjecture or a myth, but the fuel your car runs on.
I'm all for alternative energy research, but for the moment, my car runs on gas.

The establishment holds the power, and will do anything to hold on to it, and has and will perpetrate wars and other atrocities to retain and expand that power, so, yea, to me, estblishment IS bad.

So he's not a billionaire then, and has put a lot of his own money forward?

Yeah that doesn't change the fact that the fossil fuel industry is way bigger then the Green industry, the fossil fuel companies don't want to give up their money do they?

I agree that a lot of bad things have come through common consensus, but that doesn't mean all common consensus is wrong or bad.
 
Curious - are you reporting the comments you feel are offensive?

I think there's only one moderator who isn't necessarily reading every thread?

The abusive behavior is so over the top and obvious that I don't feel the need to report it. Moderating means moderating. Maybe the moderating isn't working as expected?
 
On bias in peer review - this is seems like a solid focal point for discussion.

Either there is an issue where peer review is utilized as a means to stifle dissent, or it is not?

This doesn't instantly make such findings necessarily applicable to global warming or climate change but at the same time it's something that I think can be more easily settled?

The abusive behavior is so over the top and obvious that I don't feel the need to report it. Moderating means moderating. Maybe the moderating isn't working as expected?

I don't know if I've been on a forum in recent memory where mods read every post.

And to be fair, there seem to be insults directed at climate change skeptics as well. I do think there needs to be a toning down of rhetoric when it comes to people talking directly with each other on this forum.
 
Maybe the expectation is not matching the way things actually work.

The same applies to spam. We all agree it's not welcome, but it still has to be reported in order for action to be taken.

Yea, I think that's pretty obvious to me too. :) I guess I have some decisions to make.
 
The abusive behavior is so over the top and obvious that I don't feel the need to report it. Moderating means moderating. Maybe the moderating isn't working as expected?
Someone could fill an entire page with the most foul rant imaginable, but if nobody reports it, and it is part of a thread that I don't read, I won't know about it because I am not psychic!

David
 
Someone could fill an entire page with the most foul rant imaginable, but if nobody reports it, and it is part of a thread that I don't read, I won't know about it because I am not psychic!

David

I suspect what's needed are some strict rules governing person to person contact.

However, I do think at the same time people should be allowed to make general statements that aren't directed at other members?

For example I don't think I should be banned for referring to "materialist cults", however directly accusing someone on this forum of being a brainwashed member of the materialist cults is a [temporary] bannable offense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For example I don't think I should be banned for referring to "materialist cults", however directly accusing someone on this forum of being a brainwashed member of the materialist cults is a bannable offense.

Really? I think that's a bit PC. It's difficult to know where to draw the line, it's complicated. I think some humour is called for sometimes and a bit less ego.
 
OK - hopefully everyone has cooled down a bit, and since so many people have contacted me asking to be able to continue the discussion, I am re-opening this thread!

Please, everyone, stick to the point, and if you see anyone going wild - as someone did recently, ignore him but report him! Please do not resort to attacking people rather than their ideas.

I may be biassed (who isn't), but I feel that the pro-CAGW side attracts some people for whom this cause has become a religion. For them any attack is an attack on a sacred belief.

I have been through this issue before, so it is up to others to explore this further, but I hope even the 'believers' in CAGW will recognise that if this concept is bogus, then it should be exposed.

David
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top