Could be Trump?

[Bastet]

The earth is shaped like a cube

[Grey Area]

[Bastet]

  

[Grey Area]

[Bastet]

You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.

[Grey Area]

You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.

[Bastet]

You can put those lampshades on your head when you're drunk. I guess if you're deity sized.

[MLA]

Hold on.  You're a climate denier now?

Anything for Trump.

What do you mean, Odeon?

Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.

Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?

You got to read better, Scrap. I'm not denying Climate change.

Yeah, not Scrappy-doo.  And honestly, I can't get to the bottom of what you are actually trying to say anymore.  It mostly seems like arguing for the sake of arguing with Odeon.  Glad to hear we are on the same page re: climate change and the shape of the world though. 

[Al Swearegen]

In respect to this? Climate change? 

Probably best explaining it is like this.

Let say you are a Christian and you are trying to sell me on the concept of God's existence and you go with the strongest argument, God the creator. The universe and everything in it had to come from somewhere?  Now let's say your argument was particularly persuasive and I agreed to tge fact that there was a God that created everything. (i should not have to point out at this point I do not believe in these things and that this example is only illustrative but I don't want this misconstrued)
So I agree with THAT much and now you say "I expect to see you Sunday at church because patt of believing in God is to appreciate, he listens to your prayers and looks after your soul in the afterlife or sends you to Hell and occasionally interferes in worldly matters, including impregnating a woman and later killing his child (but dont worry, he loves you)...."

You would rightly say "Look I agree with what is reasonable BUT that doesn't mean everything about your ideology is now a foregone conclusion and that every possible thing that could possible be informed by this ideology is equally as credible or evident.

The same is to be said of the ideology of climate change. Yes, I believe in climate change in general and where specific facts seem strong and or evident ti me. But making broad reaching conclusions or extrapolating everything and pretending it is equally as proven or evident is equally as bad as the above illustration.

So where I have the issue is when people hold a smug faux intellectual superior position because they buy everything lock stock and barrel and will roll their eyes at people who do not.

The fact that my pointing out that there is plenty that is not known nor proved has people assuming I am a climate change denier or that this ought to be the position to defend is strange.

I think people claiming truth and knowledge both sides is odd but I will listen out the best arguments on both sides. I am not going to say it doesn't exist nor that it is every change in climate is due to humans.

[MLA]

I tried to follow that Al, I really did.  What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".

[Al Swearegen]

I tried to follow that Al, I really did.  What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".

What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?

What I said is not THAT hard to follow.

If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).

Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.

So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.

Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.

I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.

Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.

[odeon]

Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.

Next.

There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?

I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.

Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.

This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).

[odeon]

Hold on.  You're a climate denier now?

Anything for Trump.

What do you mean, Odeon?

Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.

Where do you stand on the shape of the earth?

 

[odeon]

I tried to follow that Al, I really did.  What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".

What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?

What I said is not THAT hard to follow.

If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).

Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.

So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.

Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.

I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.

Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.

In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.

[Phallacy]

He's not a denier, he's a "skeptic".