- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.
I believe the Orwell quote is from an essay rather than 1984 but I could be mistaken. Regardless, it's well within the bounds of polite discourse.
If I call you a murderer in a calm monotone, this is not polite discourse.
Coal emissions cause cancer.
You support less restrictions on coal emissions.
Therefore you support more cancer, including that in children.
Demonstrated: You support the death of children.
What? This is just logical, polite discourse. No need to get so upset. Why can't you talk about your support for dead children rationally?
I have no objection to your formulation. What's your point?eace
That you support the death of children, and so does Lindzen. Why are you listening to a murderer?
I am willing to let you make this argument ad infinitum because it damages only you. Let me know when you're ready to take up the substance of Lindzen's critique.
If Lindzen wanted that, he shouldn't have started with ad hominem.
The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.
Here's a good straw man from Lindzen:
Nobody was suggesting that it was. Again, Lindzen is making the mistake in believing that he can just snip out little bits of the report and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum.
It's not an ad hominem if it's true.
So you agree with him?
The Orwell remark was not responding to "the substance" of the IPCC report. Suddenly that's ok when your guy does it.
Um, yes. Like I said, it's a straw man he's attacking.
Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.
Here's a good straw man from Lindzen:
Nobody was suggesting that it was. Again, Lindzen is making the mistake in believing that he can just snip out little bits of the report and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum.
As always, you strive to be as unclear as possible in your assertions.
Are you saying that the IPCC is not recommending any changes in anything done by man?
I wasn't unclear. I said what I meant. Then you decided to add to it for some reason. This is your problem, not mine.
Invoking 1984 is not "restrained" just because it's stated in a calm manner.
As always, no point and no conclusion in your post.
The conclusion you should have reached from the post you just quoted is "No, I wasn't saying that."
Jesus you have to spell out everything for some people.
You're doing an admirable job of avoiding a substantive discussion.:applaud
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?