or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
Sure - but one could write an equally dire list of hypothetical consequences of any approach to energy if done badly, including the potential effects of global warming. It really doesn't further the argument in any meaningful way.
I don't disagree that there are multiple forces at work here in your "Church of Global Warming", but the fundamental science does not derive from them and, however unscientific they may be, they do not change the conclusions of actual climate science. Forget the doom-mongers - either you accept the science or you don't. I'll restate the observation that the majority of scientists, and not just the (potentially biased, in your view) climate scientists, do accept it. And I...
 Caius.
Cambridge?
My post was primarily about the perception of science and scientific consensus, not the detail of the climate change debate. However, I mentioned it because, while it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an ideological disagreement, the skeptic side appears (to me) to have tried to make it one to further their argument. I know that you feel strongly about this, and I'm not sure renewing the debate is going to achieve anything. So just a couple of brief comments: There are...
It appears that the consensus, even among the non-scientific public, is increasing, even though the overall body of evidence has not changed much recently. That study actually highlighted a broader problem though - that the views of even moderately scientifically literate, religious and/or conservative Americans tend to be dominated by their religious/ideological beliefs when the scientific consensus is not aligned with those beliefs. Classic cognitive dissonance getting...
Some interesting data on the context of the debate: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/
Great news if it happens, but there seem to have been lots of false alarms on this one.
Yes - OK - but you claimed direct causation, and then reiterated it as a fact. And if, by "self-interested connection", you still mean that his employment influenced his opinion, then not even a smattering of Latin is going to win the argument. If that also reflects your broader view of how everyone else forms opinions - narrow-minded self-interest - then I would have to suggest that you are actually just projecting.
New Posts  All Forums: