The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Will We Listen To 11,000 Scientists?
65 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rationalist - // Andy HUghes you had the choice of being pernickety and quibbling over words like impact, which is commonly used to mean any effect , or accepting you were wrong. //
I actually have fare more choices than that!
But the fact that your use of words is incorrect speaks to the notion that your information may well be too. If you are going to take a superior position on something you know only from reading and drawing your own conclusions, than you are on dodgy ground talking down to someone who is equally able to do exactly the same thing, and form their own views.
// You chose to be pernicketty. In doing so you demonstrate that you have learned from right-wing politicians and other purveyors of misinformtion that, when called out, you double down and repeat your lies. //
Your breathtakingly ability to assume that you know what I have 'learned' and from what source speaks to your increasingly evident arrogance, whereby you fail to make your point effectively, dislike being challenged on it, and shake your head and tut at the perceived inability of others so see the 'truth' as you do.
// Like so many on here, you refuse to see the evidence in front of you. //
Actually, like so many on here, I am a seasoned debater, and I don't take as fact the views of another unqualified individual simply because they take a superior attitude to pointing out their position.
// There really is no point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that they can successfully argue that black is white. //
I am not arguing that 'black is white' - I am arguing that climate change is a fact, but the reasons and proposed solutions to it are not.
// I thank you for your time. //
You are welcome - come back any time - but please ensure that you are responding to what I actually say, not what you imagine I believe.
I actually have fare more choices than that!
But the fact that your use of words is incorrect speaks to the notion that your information may well be too. If you are going to take a superior position on something you know only from reading and drawing your own conclusions, than you are on dodgy ground talking down to someone who is equally able to do exactly the same thing, and form their own views.
// You chose to be pernicketty. In doing so you demonstrate that you have learned from right-wing politicians and other purveyors of misinformtion that, when called out, you double down and repeat your lies. //
Your breathtakingly ability to assume that you know what I have 'learned' and from what source speaks to your increasingly evident arrogance, whereby you fail to make your point effectively, dislike being challenged on it, and shake your head and tut at the perceived inability of others so see the 'truth' as you do.
// Like so many on here, you refuse to see the evidence in front of you. //
Actually, like so many on here, I am a seasoned debater, and I don't take as fact the views of another unqualified individual simply because they take a superior attitude to pointing out their position.
// There really is no point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that they can successfully argue that black is white. //
I am not arguing that 'black is white' - I am arguing that climate change is a fact, but the reasons and proposed solutions to it are not.
// I thank you for your time. //
You are welcome - come back any time - but please ensure that you are responding to what I actually say, not what you imagine I believe.
'If you are going to take a superior position on something you know only from reading and drawing your own conclusions, than you are on dodgy ground'
What are your opinions based on AH?
Its common sense that people aren't suddenly going to get together and decide to use less energy / plastics / fuel but act as individuals in doing so. The collective effect will be massive.
What are your opinions based on AH?
Its common sense that people aren't suddenly going to get together and decide to use less energy / plastics / fuel but act as individuals in doing so. The collective effect will be massive.
Zacs - // 'If you are going to take a superior position on something you know only from reading and drawing your own conclusions, than you are on dodgy ground'
What are your opinions based on AH? //
Exactly the same sources, but the difference is, I am not shaking my head and tutting because someone doesn't see climate change as I do - that's left to individuals like the ironically named Rationalist, who think they have a monopoly in being right because this notion tickles their self-righteous button.
// Its common sense that people aren't suddenly going to get together and decide to use less energy / plastics / fuel but act as individuals in doing so. The collective effect will be massive. //
At the risk of repeating myself, the collective effect is not created by individuals, and that is the point I have been making - individuals have no effect whatsoever, collectively they do have an effect, but that means they are no longer individuals.
What are your opinions based on AH? //
Exactly the same sources, but the difference is, I am not shaking my head and tutting because someone doesn't see climate change as I do - that's left to individuals like the ironically named Rationalist, who think they have a monopoly in being right because this notion tickles their self-righteous button.
// Its common sense that people aren't suddenly going to get together and decide to use less energy / plastics / fuel but act as individuals in doing so. The collective effect will be massive. //
At the risk of repeating myself, the collective effect is not created by individuals, and that is the point I have been making - individuals have no effect whatsoever, collectively they do have an effect, but that means they are no longer individuals.
I'm glad that my views are the subject of so much discussion but there's no inconsistency in anything I've said on the subject. Nor have I appointed myself an expert. My views are merely those of the scientific community as a whole, as represented in, for example, the subject of this very post.
As to the question of individual v. collective action -- I do not say that people can't on their own make a difference but it is pretty clear that any ultimate solution will need to come from changes in government policy. Counter to Naomi's consistent (and consistently wrong) claims, this *is* achievable, and humanity as a whole *can* do something about it, but the political will has to be there. And we are getting much closer to that these days (the US excepted, and then only at a federal rather than a state level).
As to the question of individual v. collective action -- I do not say that people can't on their own make a difference but it is pretty clear that any ultimate solution will need to come from changes in government policy. Counter to Naomi's consistent (and consistently wrong) claims, this *is* achievable, and humanity as a whole *can* do something about it, but the political will has to be there. And we are getting much closer to that these days (the US excepted, and then only at a federal rather than a state level).
