Louis
Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (Assassinator @ April 26 2008,11:18) | [SNIP]
Quote | An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things. |
And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it? EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)
[SNIP] |
Here fucking here!
Look I can, justifiably, be told off for being too nasty. Mea culpa, I accept the opprobium wilingly.
BUT:
What I will never accept is content free bloviation being treated as if it were fact. I want to know about Obvliviot's opinions, I genuinely do, I want even more to know what the basis for them is, the evidence and logic behind them is, I want to know from whence they spring. Thus far, based on N months/years of encountering Obliviot the answers to the questions posed by that statement are: Opinion: vapid, Basis: prejudice, Evidence: nil, Logic: fallacious, Source: his arse. I want that to change, but *I* cannot change it, only *he* can.
In all things, as usual, Obliviot has the situation backwards. He would contend that his opinions butter no parsnips with me because I dislike them and thus I declare them to be without support. The situation is entirely the opposite: his opinions are without support, thus I declare that I dislike them. Ok so not dislike, more accurately "find unworthy of intellectual attention until evidence is forthcoming". He's entitled to his opinions, no matter how ignorant, he is not entitled to his opinions being unscrutinised, no one is. His behaviour is derived from his fear that upon scrutiny his opinions will be shown to be even more vacuous than they already have been. His fear in this matter is well founded.
Like I said in the previous post, this is PRECISELY the large problem we have writ small. If people are unwilling to make the intellectual effort required to discuss a topic then why should people who HAVE made that effort and are willing in general to make it, treat their uninformed opinion as anything else? That is so relevant to any discussion of the politics and science of climate change it hurts!
Louis
ETA: P.S. Up early? It's 11:34 am here. As it seems to be of interest: I've been up since 6:30am as is my habit at weekends (I don't sleep a lot, 5 or 6 hours is more than enough, 4 is more usual), I've read this week's Nature*, Science, Angewante Chemie, CE and N, Chemistry World, (I skimmed the latter two for anything interesting, I'll read them later fully) and I'm working on reading Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, Organic Letters and a couple of back issues of The Skeptic before 4pm. Then it's off for a nice long walk around some segment of the Chilterns, a pub supper, and a terrifying visit to the In-Laws (How To Ruin A Perfectly Good Day Part 1). All in all, apart from the in-laws a standard Saturday! Admittedly coming online usually puts a spanner in the day's working plan, but meh, it's my weekend, I can fuck it up if I want to! ;-)
ETA *There's a n interesting piece on Greenland and tipping points......oops have I said too much? ;-)
-------------- Bye.
|