Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

Here is a link which ought to illustrate how heavy handed the methods might be.

???

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

???

Hello; I had intended to add a link but did not. Not sure what happened. Went back to look for it but cannot find it now, so never mind.

 

[K4fxd]

Shame, I wanted to read it.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I think for the most part I will not respond directly to them. Maybe from time to time to illustrate the tactics they use.

Hello; Here is a link which ought to illustrate how heavy handed the methods might be.
I thought the time line graph was of interest. One item stood out a bit. The part about coal power plants. I know this has been pointed out about how the Chinese are reported to continue to build new coal plants up until 2030. I wonder if those new plants will have all the carbon capture tech?

"they" "tactics" "heavy handed"

More bias. Amazing that you never really take issue with what I say, just your feelings about how I say them. Then you take great pride in ignoring me.

You are still wrong though about most things.

 

[Burkey]

I am fairly sure the twins understood as well. They are sneaky but not dumb. I also figure you noticed the conversation was deflected away from the points I tried to get into the discussion.

I’m sorry but “sustain” could imply nearly anything.
If I were to say that the Earth sustains us, would I be referring to a very specific singular thing or a combination of things?
It‘s vague and ambiguous.
Write with more precision and there will be no confusion.

They are sneaky but not dumb.

You were saying something about personal attacks?
You have no evidence to support this one I’m sorry.
What we have is evidence of ambiguous language being used.
Blaming me for not understanding a point that you failed to make with precision isn’t my fault. It’s not ”sneaky”. It’s not a tactic.

We each will get to make up our minds about this climate issue.

Can you please clarify this statement. It’s very vague.
In fact, in your next response, if could please expand on this one theme alone, that would be great.

It could be interpreted as:
”we each will get to decide if the science is correct”
Or
”we each will get to decide how we wish to go about mitigating the problem, or, if we wish to do nothing”

There’s two possible interpretations I saw without even trying. Quote honestly, I don‘t know how to interpret it.

Unfortunately those on one side hope to stack the deck in favor of what they think is the way to go and are willing to push an agenda onto everyone.

This one‘s a mess.
Who is “those on one side”?
Are we talking about the scientists, the politicians or the activists? Be specific!
You’ve presented this as if there are only two sides (false dichotomy) then asserted that one side is “stacking the deck” (whoever/whatever that is supposed to imply) and then tell us there’s an agenda (which is true in terms of the politics but not the science).
You‘ve conflated ideas, introduced dichotomous thinking and made claims that you failed to specify.

THAT is why we’re struggling to follow along.
I‘m asking you to be more precise in your statements.

 

[K4fxd]

You are good at using Allinsky's rule number 5

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

Except SK47 has not taken the bait.

Try a different tact. This one is getting old.

 

[sk47]

Shame, I wanted to read it.

Hello; I will look some more. It was one of those article which pop up when I go online.

 

[CJJon]

You are good at using Allinsky's rule number 5

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

Except SK47 has not taken the bait.

Try a different tact.

Willful ignorance should be ridiculed.

More emotion...

 

[K4fxd]

Don't forget rule 7.

"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

 

[Sivi70980]

Surprised this thread is still chugging along lol.

 

[CJJon]

Surprised this thread is still chugging along lol.

If it hits 100 pages, I'm out.

 

[sk47]

Shame, I wanted to read it.

Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis - IEA

Hello; I did not find the same version of the report, but did find a much more expansive version of the same report.
There are lots of graphs and the one I am thinking of is several pages down. I think it combines several of the graphs into one time line. The link has a lot more to plow thru but does have the same information.

 

[K4fxd]

Rule 9

"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
____________________________
It's getting warmer......The Islands will be under water.....Hurricanes will be more severe...ECT...

 

[sk47]

Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis - IEA

Hello; I did not find the same version of the report, but did find a much more expansive version of the same report.
There are lots of graphs and the one I am thinking of is several pages down. I think it combines several of the graphs into one time line. The link has a lot more to plow thru but does have the same information.

Hello; I opened the report and hit page down about 58 times to get to the graph I am thinking of.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I opened the report and hit page down about 58 times to get to the graph I am thinking of.

This is the all-time best references ever! Just page down 58 times!

Funny!

Sponsored