Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And since you started this Will, you don't even think an aircraft hit the pentagon, how can I take your interpretation of any 'data' seriously when it comes to something political? It always pisses you off when I bring this up, but you have a 20 page thread in paranoia as public record. You have described yourself as far left now, and my belief, and others, including the founder of Greenpeace think people like you are using the environment as a scare tactic to attempt to sway the general public into adopting far left political ideas.
Quite frankly Will, you can't be trusted to be scientific in such debates. I don't have an axe to grind with society, I have a long term stake in the 'future' of the planet now that I have children, I am in fact impartial on the whole debate. If I thought my children would be living in some post global warming apocalyptic world that could be avoided I'd be the first fighting to change policy.
You on the other hand live in a world of massive conspiracies and global injustice. You have the axe to grind, you want to see society change, and this is your tool.
|
Your point about original data interpretation might be a good one, but I confess to being skeptical that you sit around reading the raw data for these studies.
More than that, I'm stunned that in the last 4.5 years you haven't figured out the difference between discussing issues and discussing people. It's really not that difficult.
What possible gain do you get from trying to diminish Will's status in this argument? If you're going to take down scientists who believe in global warming one at a time in this fashion, you'll be stuck here for a while.