|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:02:25 GMT
How can you persuade someone who wont listen. There's shed loads of information out there have you read anything that wasn't published by a denier? Ever? You are part of a group claiming almost every scientist in the world is part of a cult or lining their pockets. You offer no explanation as to how Chinese scientists came to Agree with American ones or British ones. Apparently its enough to believe they all get their funding if the agree on climate change. Not attempt to explain why Europe, America, China Etc are all spending fortunes fighting a thing you say only exists so scientists can get hand outs. You say all this while calling the other side a cult. They will listen but not to a cult . Find an eminent climate scientist and make them the head of the net zero campaign not a child …but YOU don’t want to listen do you ? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:02:52 GMT
So protesters against asylum seekers being allowed to come here should be ignored because they are not experts? Strawman.. Dodge. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 23, 2023 21:06:09 GMT
Absolutely yes, given the obvious lunacy of most high-profile climate change protesters. So protesters against asylum seekers being allowed to come here should be ignored because they are not experts?
Whataboutery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:06:49 GMT
I’m actually quite alarmed at this. I have two posters who insist that doubters should not be persuaded . They should simply believe it because it’s right . It’s a cult … That is a fallacy. We are questioning the scientific basis behind your refusal to accept the reality being presented to us by the vast majority of scientists. This is not being handed to you via scripture or the ten commandments, nor by some religious guru, nor by a bunch of loons on the internet. We are simply questioning your bona fides when it comes to the extraordinary claim that you know more about the worlds scientists, all of them experts in the field who have been studying this for decades. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary backing. What are you scientific credentials? Qualifications? Years spent working in the field? Peer reviewed scientific papers published? Because when people such as you and others like you claim to disbelieve what the worlds scientists are telling you, it either suggest scientific genius on your parts of a kind likely to have been widely recognised by now, or - probably more likely - you are refusing to believe the scientific evidence for no better reason than the fact that you don't want to believe it. No you are not . You are defending a cult like climate campaign headed by an unqualified girl and not a qualified scientist. This has been put to you enough times to make your false claims that the argument is based on my refusal to believe climate change . You are making a dishonest straw man and false claims to deflect your slavish devotion to a teenage cult figure . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:08:19 GMT
Not interested. You deflecting form my point. He doesn’t head the campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:08:59 GMT
Pointing out a fallacy isn’t a dodge . The fallacy was the dodge . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:14:02 GMT
Not interested. You deflecting form my point. He doesn’t head the campaign. To clarify. You refuse to accept man made climate change exists because the campaign for change is lead by a young woman and not a scientist. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:16:21 GMT
So protesters against asylum seekers being allowed to come here should be ignored because they are not experts?
Whataboutery.
Indeed. Whatabout if the amateur protesters support your view. Do they suddenly count. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:21:39 GMT
Not interested. You deflecting form my point. He doesn’t head the campaign. To clarify. You refuse to accept man made climate change exists because the campaign for change is lead by a young woman and not a scientist. Is that correct? No. You made that up . This is typical of cult based arguments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 21:24:29 GMT
That is a fallacy. We are questioning the scientific basis behind your refusal to accept the reality being presented to us by the vast majority of scientists. This is not being handed to you via scripture or the ten commandments, nor by some religious guru, nor by a bunch of loons on the internet. We are simply questioning your bona fides when it comes to the extraordinary claim that you know more about the worlds scientists, all of them experts in the field who have been studying this for decades. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary backing. What are you scientific credentials? Qualifications? Years spent working in the field? Peer reviewed scientific papers published? Because when people such as you and others like you claim to disbelieve what the worlds scientists are telling you, it either suggest scientific genius on your parts of a kind likely to have been widely recognised by now, or - probably more likely - you are refusing to believe the scientific evidence for no better reason than the fact that you don't want to believe it. No you are not . You are defending a cult like climate campaign headed by an unqualified girl and not a qualified scientist. This has been put to you enough times to make your false claims that the argument is based on my refusal to believe climate change . You are making a dishonest straw man and false claims to deflect your slavish devotion to a teenage cult figure . You are not dealing with reality here and inventing straw men. I do not see Thunberg as the leader of a cult but as the campaigner for a cause she believes in. I do not see climate change science as a cult. And I am certainly not a follower of Thunberg, though I do at least recognise her right to have an opinion without feeling the need to insult her because of it. Your desire to see it all as a cult is most telling. And you have done nothing thus far here to demonstrate that you believe in the evidence being presented by most of the worlds scientists. You admit to doubts but cannot give a solid foundation to back them that does not amount to challenging the global scientific community. At some point you will probably seek out some maverick on the internet with little scientific standing in the field to back you. And post a link to some unreliable source or other. Because your refusal to believe what the scientists are saying based on the evidence is far more cult-like than climatologists because it is built on faith without evidence and believing what you want to in defiance of the experts. You also refuse to see the difference between a campaigner and a scientist, and mistake the former for a cult leader because you don't like her message but others listen. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 23, 2023 21:26:10 GMT
Indeed. Whatabout if the amateur protesters support your view. Do they suddenly count. Don't be daft, Zany - there's a chap. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:33:42 GMT
No you are not . You are defending a cult like climate campaign headed by an unqualified girl and not a qualified scientist. This has been put to you enough times to make your false claims that the argument is based on my refusal to believe climate change . You are making a dishonest straw man and false claims to deflect your slavish devotion to a teenage cult figure . You are not dealing with reality here and inventing straw men. I do not see Thunberg as the leader of a cult but as the campaigner for a cause she believes in. I do not see climate change science as a cult. And I am certainly not a follower of Thunberg, though I do at least recognise her right to have an opinion without feeling the need to insult her because of it. Your desire to see it all as a cult is most telling. And you have done nothing thus far here to demonstrate that you believe in the evidence being presented by most of the worlds scientists. You admit to doubts but cannot give a solid foundation to back them that does not amount to challenging the global scientific community. At some point you will probably seek out some maverick on the internet with little scientific standing in the field to back you. And post a link to some unreliable source or other. Because your refusal to believe what the scientists are saying based on the evidence is far more cult-like than climatologists because it is built on faith without evidence and believing what you want to in defiance of the experts. You also refuse to see the difference between a campaigner and a scientist, and mistake the former for a cult leader because you don't like her message but others listen. I’m not the one constructing strawmen. You are the one basing my point about Thunberg heading the cult of climate change with my denial of climate change . That isn’t important anyway but like a good cult member you divert the narrative to false claims about the person questioning the cult . It’s classic Scientology strategy. Mix that with deliberate obtuseness and you have an impenetrable non argument. Here’s a choker for you. I accept AGW as a fact and I believe renewable energy is the future . Your problem is that this has nothing to do with my point. Your other problem is that it dissolves your false claims and assumptions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 21:35:20 GMT
Not interested. You deflecting form my point. He doesn’t head the campaign. But he is an eminent scientist saying the same thing. Not what you want to hear or believe though is it, so you use the non-scientific and youthful credentials of a campaigner as an excuse to ignore the science. That is the modus operandi of someone in denial about scientific facts because he doesnt want to believe them - simple as that - but wants to find an excuse, any excuse, for his denialism. The high profile of a campaigner is not a good reason for dismissing her cause when it is backed by most scientists, unless you are merely looking for an excuse to latch onto because you dont want to believe in the facts so prefer to regard them as some part of a cult. Anyone who dismisses anything to do with the facts of climate change as some sort of cult is themself showcasing where they are actually coming from, a desire to disbelieve scientific evidence because they don't like the look of it or what it might mean. Better to ignore it or belittle it, call it a cult, pretend it isn't real, and use the youth of a campaigner rather than any actual data as a justification for denial. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:41:55 GMT
To clarify. You refuse to accept man made climate change exists because the campaign for change is lead by a young woman and not a scientist. Is that correct? No. You made that up . This is typical of cult based arguments. Just answer will you. Why don't you believe in climate change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 21:43:15 GMT
You are not dealing with reality here and inventing straw men. I do not see Thunberg as the leader of a cult but as the campaigner for a cause she believes in. I do not see climate change science as a cult. And I am certainly not a follower of Thunberg, though I do at least recognise her right to have an opinion without feeling the need to insult her because of it. Your desire to see it all as a cult is most telling. And you have done nothing thus far here to demonstrate that you believe in the evidence being presented by most of the worlds scientists. You admit to doubts but cannot give a solid foundation to back them that does not amount to challenging the global scientific community. At some point you will probably seek out some maverick on the internet with little scientific standing in the field to back you. And post a link to some unreliable source or other. Because your refusal to believe what the scientists are saying based on the evidence is far more cult-like than climatologists because it is built on faith without evidence and believing what you want to in defiance of the experts. You also refuse to see the difference between a campaigner and a scientist, and mistake the former for a cult leader because you don't like her message but others listen. I’m not the one constructing strawmen. You are the one basing my point about Thunberg heading the cult of climate change with my denial of climate change . That isn’t important anyway but like a good cult member you divert the narrative to false claims about the person questioning the cult . It’s classic Scientology strategy. Mix that with deliberate obtuseness and you have an impenetrable non argument. Here’s a choker for you. I accept AGW as a fact and I believe renewable energy is the future . Your problem is that this has nothing to do with my point. Your other problem is that it dissolves your false claims and assumptions. Well you claim to accept the reality of AGW so thats progress. So why do you insist on regarding a campaigner for the cause of doing something about is as a cult leader when she clearly is not? Why do you so obviously regard those wishing to do something about AGW as some sort of cult if you recognise the reality of the danger? And why do you insist on trying to falsely label me a devotee of hers when I am not? This itself suggests either a degree of wilful obtuseness on your part or a desire to misrepresent me for dubious purposes. |
|
