Attacking the source will do you no good. The facts are facts. You seem to have a problem with science when it doesn't support your theories. It is the science you have a problem with, not the source. Why do you avoid confronting the facts with evasive tactics?
@wildgrasssaid The source is horrible when it contradicts your thesis.
When the source lies it is a horrible source of information. Show me the Consensus Project's source of information. Their claim man is the cause is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake. Now that they refuse to do it is evident they are deliberate liars.
Do you intend to defend their lies? Are you that incredibly foolish?
@metal-brainsaid When the source lies it is a horrible source of information. Show me the Consensus Project's source of information. Their claim man is the cause is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake. Now that they refuse to do it is evident they are deliberate liars.
Do you intend to defend their lies? Are you that incredibly foolish?
How do you know whether any given source is lying?
@deepthoughtsaid How do you know whether any given source is lying?
I suppose it is remotely possible the consensus project made unjustified assumptions for several years without anybody correcting their falsehood, but how bloody likely is that?
Are you defending the consensus project's false info? You will at least acknowledge it is false information on their website, right? You are only questioning intent, right?
I would think alarmists would have more incentive to correct falsehoods that make their side look silly. Why do you tolerate skeptical science discrediting their own agenda? I have no incentive to do so because it is easy to make alarmists look foolish since that is the "go to" site for most uninformed alarmists.
First it was humy and sonhouse that embarrassed themselves relying on skeptical science, now it is you that is embarrassing yourself.
@metal-brainsaid I suppose it is remotely possible the consensus project made unjustified assumptions for several years without anybody correcting their falsehood, but how bloody likely is that?
Are you defending the consensus project's false info? You will at least acknowledge it is false information on their website, right? You are only questioning intent, right?
I would think ala ...[text shortened]... lves relying on skeptical science, now it is you that is embarrassing yourself.
This is too easy.
I have not looked at either site and haven't been following this thread much. What I'm wondering about is how you make the judgement call about who is lying.
@deepthoughtsaid I have not looked at either site and haven't been following this thread much. What I'm wondering about is how you make the judgement call about who is lying.
The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake of relying on the consensus project for false info. Now that they refuse to do so it is evident they are deliberate liars.
@metal-brainsaid The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake of relying on the consensus project for false info. Now that they refuse to do so it is evident they are deliberate liars.
So you think they are lying because they rely on another site which assigns cause to mankind. How do you avoid automatically rejecting new evidence which contradicts your position?
@deepthoughtsaid So you think they are lying because they rely on another site which assigns cause to mankind. How do you avoid automatically rejecting new evidence which contradicts your position?
@metal-brainsaid Do you deny it is false information?
whether he does or doesn't or has no opinion on that is irrelevant to the question he just asked you and which you still haven't answered.
His question was;
"How do you avoid automatically rejecting new evidence which contradicts your position?"
@humysaid whether he does or doesn't or has no opinion on that is irrelevant to the question he just asked you and which you still haven't answered.
His question was;
"How do you avoid automatically rejecting new evidence which contradicts your position?"
So you question there was intent to deceive? Let me guess, you think it was an honest mistake and nobody bothered to correct them after years and years.
@metal-brainsaid So you question there was intent to deceive? Let me guess, you think it was an honest mistake and nobody bothered to correct them after years and years.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about above;
Which of my 'questions' are you referring to in the above "So you question there was..."? -And from which of my posts? The question in my last post wasn't mine but his.
"deceive" how? And who? You?
"correct" who? DeepThought? Me? But then why use the word "them"? Who are these "them" And "correct" them/me/him, whatever, for what, exactly?
@humysaid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about above;
Which of my 'questions' are you referring to in the above "So you question there was..."? -And from which of my posts? The question in my last post wasn't mine but his.
"deceive" how? And who? You?
"correct" who? DeepThought? Me? But then why use the word "them"? Who are these "them" And "correct" them/me/him, whatever, for what, exactly?
You are excusing false information as if it is normal. When a website contains false claims it is not a reliable source of information. Why are you condoning false information as if it is acceptable?
Sea level rise
27 Apr '19 20:49
Back to Top