| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 376 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
|
Probably a good idea to read through the Talk section of the wiki page before granting too much credence to the main page. I've seen other Wikipedia pages on contentious subjects that are mostly curated by one or two highly biased individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skeptical_Science
--------------
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15735 | TRs
|
| I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bit of controversy in the talk section. I don't really see anything that leads me to dismiss SkS as a trash blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs
|
| thunderhead wrote: |
| utterly normal. |
How about the Midwest in the past 45 days or are you unable to read. And Pennsylvania last year....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs
|
| Parked Out wrote: |
| If you actually want a response from me you'll need to drop the snottiness. |
Easy way to refuse to answer. "I'm going to take my toys and go home." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs
|
| thunderhead wrote: |
| You know you have reached a totally bogus site when a tab is labelled "arguments" |
Bunch of horsepucky, I wouldn't expect more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6386 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
|
| thunderhead wrote: |
| You posted a link to a trash blog and I indeed dismissed the entire thing as trash, after a quick glance showed no data and multiple simple physics errors. Come back with something that isnt trash if you want me to give it any significant attention. |
Again you are dismissing multiple specific debunks of climate change denial theories with only a "I choose to ignore your source" argument.
One specific case was debunking using Greenland ice core temperatures to prove that temperatures aren't rising. The SkepticalScience blog debunks that specific theory by pointing out that ice core temperatures can only record temperatures to about 150 years before present -- as that is how long it takes for snow to compress to ice on the ice cap. So here Skeptical Science uses specific data to contest the climate change denial claim of no rising temperatures, since ice cores don't record temperatures during the industrial era.
So I've repeated the specifics of the debunking. Are you now just going to dismiss it again as "trash" or provide something specific about why Greenland ice cores represent 20th and 21st century temperatures? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
Gorecrow
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1538 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
|
| RandyHiker wrote: |
| Are you now just going to dismiss it again as "trash" or provide something specific about why Greenland ice cores represent 20th and 21st century temperatures? |
Snottiness detected! Denial justified! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6386 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
|
| Doppelganger wrote: |
| Snottiness detected! Denial justified! |
I suppose in the age of Trump whining is considered a valid counter argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs
|
| RandyHiker wrote: |
| Doppelganger wrote: |
| Snottiness detected! Denial justified! |
I suppose in the age of Trump whining is considered a valid counter argument. |
What else is there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14058 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
|
| gb wrote: |
| What else is there? |
Personal insult, name calling, false accusations. 
--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7565 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
|
| gb wrote: |
| RandyHiker wrote: |
| Doppelganger wrote: |
| Snottiness detected! Denial justified! |
I suppose in the age of Trump whining is considered a valid counter argument. |
What else is there? |
Why, alternative facts, of course!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
|
| Tom wrote: |
| I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bit of controversy in the talk section. I don't really see anything that leads me to dismiss SkS as a trash blog. |
I agree. It's their intentional and continual abuse of logic such as the use of strawman arguments, misdirection, and claiming to 'debunk' arguments they don't actually show to be false, which leads to that conclusion.
It's not the talk, it's the lousy content
--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
|
| joker wrote: |
| Why, alternative facts, of course!! |
Exactly. Facts which are true but unpopular because of their content
Such as the fact that the 97% of scientists who agree with AGW was not actually 97%. Or the fact that there are tons of studies showing that it has already been hotter for longer in the current interglacial at the sites studied
Facts are determined by the process used to derive them, not wether they are popular
--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10927 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
|
| Tom wrote: |
Why would shorter term concerns de-legitimize longer term concerns? Flip the priority and pitch the same argument to the man in the mirror.
I do find it interesting to see ultra conservative leaning family members investing in electric vehicles. I suspect the grandkids have an impact. |
I suspect tax breaks and subsidies
Lets eliminate them and find out
--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs
|
| MtnGoat wrote: |
| I agree. It's their intentional and continual abuse of logic such as the use of strawman arguments, misdirection, and claiming to 'debunk' arguments they don't actually show to be false, which leads to that conclusion. |
I agree. That nails Fox to a 'T'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
