Joined: Sep. 2009
|Quote (Trubble @ July 12 2011,01:06)|
|Quote (Robin @ July 08 2011,10:40)|
Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim.
What blanket claim are you referring to? I didn't think I had made one.
|I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.|
You then followed with this:
|Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.|
...which was not accurate either.
|Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up. |
What "something" appeared to be made up? I asked a question.
To elaborate, the way you approached the subject (appearing defensive in your wording, calling folks here "zealots", creating a list of possible vague "exceptions" to the concept of "denialist", and confusing policy issues with science issues lead me (at least) to conclude you had an agenda regarding the subject. Couple that with the blanket statement that global warming science is a "relatively new field" made the claim appear to be completely made up.
|Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.|
What research should I have done to determine what constitutes "climate change denial"? Maybe I could have gone to a few discussion boards and asked some participants? No, wait...
Sorry...apparently I wasn't clear. I wasn't chastising you for asking a question about global warming denial; I was chastising you for claiming that global warming science is a relatively new field without first doing a rudimentary check to see how long the research has actually been going on.
|Actually, fuck it, never mind. I have no stomach for this kind of thing. It just makes me grumpy and out of sorts. I'll just go back to lurking.|
What kind of thing? Being corrected for being inaccurate and incomplete? That's what science is all about. If you're at all interested in science, of which global warming research is a part, then correction is going to be a part of any discussion.
But even that aside, if you've really been a lurker here for as long as you claim, then try just for a brief moment to consider your first post and then our discussion from my POV. You, a professed lurker who could not (by definition) have an established MO in this group of folks, posts a question about denialism with a number of caveats and even a rather inflammatory label ("you zealots"). After five years here you must realize that a good number of anti-science folks come here and post similarly phrased questions hoping that someone here will answer one of the caveat "gotchas" so the poster can than have his or her agenda based quote mine or just an opportunity to gloat and troll. How am I supposed to know the difference between your post and those others? Seriously, what about your post do you think is different from my POV?
And why should anyone here at this point be expected to give any poster the benefit of the doubt, particularly if the poster in question isn't starting a discussion with a neutral post? You had the option of just asking the question without any baggage, but you chose to be tongue-in-cheek and set-up some pretty specific exceptions in an arena you freely admit you aren't well versed in and on a forum you freely admit to being not well known. Why are you surprised I took it wrong and why are you now getting all cranky with my responses?
Actually, what's really odd is that you've chosen to keep on the same track instead of trying to start over or just just admitting that your initial approach didn't work as intended and saying you'd like to address the responses I and others gave to your very specific questions. Why get into all this other noise if you are really interested in the specifics of what constitutes a global warming denialist?
I realize it may look like I'm trying to give you a hard time, and while that partially true (given that you've chosen not to address my comments on the actual science of global warming), I'm also trying to continue the discussion because I'm interested in what your take on it is. I'm interested in other people's thoughts on the subject of both the science and the policy. But I'm not going to let anyone, layman or professional, get away with laziness and inaccuracy.
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis