Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
... First, your response to me saying "I don't know" was to accuse me of putting my head in the sand.
|
Your "I don't know" declaration was made in reference to you believing the distorted info in SoF, which leads one to conclude "nobody knows" so what the point in doing anything ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Do you acknowledge that there may be some intelligent people who may come to different conclusions?
|
Absolutely, but I'd expect that the "different eye-opening conclusion" not be derived based on distorted information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
If yes, then would you retract the head in the sand accusation?
|
No, you refuse to seriously consider your conclusion was formed on distorted information. That is a head-in-the-sand position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Second, do you acknowledge that it was you who brought the political into this discussion?
|
Absolutely. The "talking heads" on the right are leading the view you've adopted (thru enlightenment) ... The science is apolitical - there's no need for a divide along political affiliation lines. The hypotheses, the experiment design, the data, the analysis, and the conclusion are there for all to see. As I suggested, you should consider who the powerful right most closely represent and what the vested interests are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Third, do you acknowledge that some people may view your cherry-picking of sources as somewhat suspicious?
|
I'm referring to the science and those who actually understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Fourth, do you acknowledge that bias occurs on both sides of the global warming equation?
|
More on one side than the other ... one side is more focused on the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Fifth, will you cease attacking the messenger as your primary defense against other viewpoints?
|
You've proven beyond a doubt that you don't know the difference between "attacking the messenger" and "attacking the positions/points made made by the messenger" using facts. You fail to recognize that discussions on this topic has been taking place for several years and that some sources have already been vetted and their veracity judged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Sixth, will you acknowledge that your argument is harmed by admitting you don't read contrary viewpoints?
|
I can read contrary viewpoints. When trusted experts on a given subject have already read a viewpoint and have identified clear and repeated flaws, it's logical to not waist your time. Seems straight forward to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Seventh, do you really believe that we understand all the variables associated with climate change?
|
Clearly not. But I've already indicated that many times. But you now chose to ignore an accurate picture of what we do know and at what level of certainty.