|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:46:32 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. He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 21:49:31 GMT
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. He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… About sums it up. That's all you've got. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:52:24 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? An unqualified teenager . Where did I say that I didn’t accept AGW? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:52:58 GMT
He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… About sums it up. That's all you've got. That’s all I need . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 21:53:44 GMT
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. He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… So frigging what!!! You ignore him because someone campaigning for his cause has a higher profile than him? That truly is pitifully pathetic. Thunberhg is not a leader. She is a campaigner with a higher profile than most. She does not give orders to anyone. She is not at the head of any kind of hierarchy. Right now you are transparently using her as a laughable excuse not to even listen to an eminent scientist? Your doubts exist because you want them to and refuse to look at learned evidence that might tell you something you dont want to hear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 21:55:20 GMT
He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… About sums it up. That's all you've got. It truly is pathetic, isnt it? To think this part of the site is called the Mind Zone, lol |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 21:57:26 GMT
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. She clearly is ..and you a devotee. You are your own problem but you are so enamoured by Greta that you don’t realise it. I would rather have a middle aged eminent scientist with bad breath to put forward a compelling argument for AGW than an unqualified teenage poppet. Until the eco worrier cult members feel the same then they will just be frustrated cult members . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 22:00:06 GMT
He doesn’t head the campaign.…………… So frigging what!!! You ignore him because someone campaigning for his cause has a higher profile than him? That truly is pitifully pathetic. Thunberhg is not a leader. She is a campaigner with a higher profile than most. She does not give orders to anyone. She is not at the head of any kind of hierarchy. Right now you are transparently using her as a laughable excuse not to even listen to an eminent scientist? Your doubts exist because you want them to and refuse to look at learned evidence that might tell you something you dont want to hear. Had you bothered to read my posts then you might know ‘ frigging what ‘. Thunberg is the face of AGW . You like it that way . You are the problem . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2023 22:00:28 GMT
About sums it up. That's all you've got. That’s all I need . Dream on. You actually need a decent argument if you are going to avoid looking silly. Though that boat has probably already sailed, sadly. Not listening to the science because you find the youth and high profile of a particular campaigner obnoxious does nothing for your credentials as a serious contender in climate science debate. Most outside your little circle of denialists can see that because it is blatantly obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 23, 2023 22:04:33 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? An unqualified teenager . Where did I say that I didn’t accept AGW? When you talked about only being persuaded if a scientist lead the campaign. If you already believe AGW is happening why do you need persuading. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 22:09:44 GMT
Dream on. You actually need a decent argument if you are going to avoid looking silly. Though that boat has probably already sailed, sadly. Not listening to the science because you find the youth and high profile of a particular campaigner obnoxious does nothing for your credentials as a serious contender in climate science debate. Most outside your little circle of denialists can see that because it is blatantly obvious. Still posting the lie that I’m an a denialist several posts after I told you otherwise ? Classic cultism . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 22:12:04 GMT
An unqualified teenager . Where did I say that I didn’t accept AGW? When you talked about only being persuaded if a scientist lead the campaign. If you already believe AGW is happening why do you need persuading. When did I say that I would only be persuaded if a scientist lead the campaign?. More false claims . This is more classic cultist strawman fallacies . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 22:17:38 GMT
Mind zone or not . We have two cultists here who will make up any false claim or strawman to swerve away from a valid point that the AGW campaign should be headed by an eminent climate scientist capable of making a compelling case rather than an unqualified teenager .
It’s rather sad .
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 23, 2023 22:23:38 GMT
Mind zone or not . We have two cultists here who will make up any false claim or strawman to swerve away from a valid point that the AGW campaign should be headed by an eminent climate scientist capable of making a compelling case rather than an unqualified teenager . It’s rather sad . I used to call them the children of the corn, now they say they are the future, so I guess they have become the Hitler youth. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 23, 2023 22:28:32 GMT
Mind zone or not . We have two cultists here who will make up any false claim or strawman to swerve away from a valid point that the AGW campaign should be headed by an eminent climate scientist capable of making a compelling case rather than an unqualified teenager . It’s rather sad . I used to call them the children of the corn, now they say they are the future, so I guess they have become the Hitler youth. They hate the argument that an eminent and articulate scientist should replace Greta as the face of the net zero campaign. Any false claim and strawman is fine to deflect away from the point . It’s pure cultism and it’s quite worrying tbh . |
|
