Re:Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted globa...
by mistermann on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @10:50PM
(#21709830)
> TFA article does say.
It says something.
> They looked at 17 forecasts drawn from 14 models.
It does not say this. What you have written is your uncritical interpretation, what I wrote is a literal quotation, which allows for (satisfies) the conspiratorial possibility that I raised.
> You are the one who implicitly believes they are lying about that
You are speculating. Speculation is fine, but it's best to realize (and state explicitly) when you're doing it.
Know how I know you're speculating? Because while you only believe you can read my mind, I can actually do it, and I do not "believe they are lying". I was only pointing out that as written, they could be lying.
And I even told you the reason why I wrote that comment: "Articles written in this style provide rich fodder for conspiracy theorists..."
If you truly want to change minds, you might want to learn how the minds you want to change work. Go spend some serious time in conspiracy forums, I suspect you might learn something useful.
And rather than largely ignoring the actual words of someone who's trying to help out your cause, treating them as an enemy rather than someone who may have some insight you lack, it might be helpful to keep a more open mind. Perhaps if those with knowledge severely lacking in the mainstream discourse weren't rate limited, some here may find some new ideas to consider.
It says something.
> They looked at 17 forecasts drawn from 14 models.
It does not say this. What you have written is your uncritical interpretation, what I wrote is a literal quotation, which allows for (satisfies) the conspiratorial possibility that I raised.
> You are the one who implicitly believes they are lying about that
You are speculating. Speculation is fine, but it's best to realize (and state explicitly) when you're doing it.
Know how I know you're speculating? Because while you only believe you can read my mind, I can actually do it, and I do not "believe they are lying". I was only pointing out that as written, they could be lying.
And I even told you the reason why I wrote that comment: "Articles written in this style provide rich fodder for conspiracy theorists..."
If you truly want to change minds, you might want to learn how the minds you want to change work. Go spend some serious time in conspiracy forums, I suspect you might learn something useful.
And rather than largely ignoring the actual words of someone who's trying to help out your cause, treating them as an enemy rather than someone who may have some insight you lack, it might be helpful to keep a more open mind. Perhaps if those with knowledge severely lacking in the mainstream discourse weren't rate limited, some here may find some new ideas to consider.