gouranga

I am literally just withholding judgement. The opinion only needs to be challenged if it feels threatened. I do not wish to challenge it personally but would passively accept more information as it becomes available.

Genuine thanks for the notes - very interesting and a good read.

We all are - that's what defines your personality. We are just a bunch of memes.

You are selective in what you have chosen to accept as fact too. You can't get out of that argument on a moral high ground as there isn't one.

You and me are alike, but are exposed to different memes.

That's some good information. Thank you. This is quality discussion.

The irony of the concept of denial is that those (like myself) who choose not to form an opinion yet are lumped on with the denying group. This very concept itself is a form of fascism / authoritarianism.

Bringing Orwell back into the discussion, this is a form of doublethink i.e. holding two contradictory ideas:

1. Fascism is bad.

2. We'll use fascist tenets to promote that fascism is bad.

Paradox! (I personally aim to be paradox free)

You've demonstrated my point entirely. I have been there but I cannot prove it. The idea that going there doesn't prove anything as well is valid.

So it's not possible to draw a conclusion, which is my point. So rather than be a "denier", I simply lack a conclusion and do not take the official one on faith.

I accept tangibles without evidence. Neither of the original points were tangible or independently verifiable.

I do not accept memes and ideas without supporting evidence.

Please provide me with some examples and I will guide you through my thought processes if you do not understand my point.

I suggest that your point is that critical thinking is wrong?

This is a fair point and one I agree with, however the issue at the moment at least is that as standard of living grows, problems are pushed to other places. This is because they are truly uneconomical to solve locally due to people wanting to protect their standard of living.

The lowest rung of the ladder always gets to solve the problem at the end of the day.

It's a fair observation, but that is the US. There's a big rug in the far east with lots of toxic crap under it. There's also a lot of stuff we buried in various places and cross fingers it'll never escape.

I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then.

In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.

Oh here we go. Go and re-read my comments, then attempt to understand them again.

The word fabricated is wrong.

The issue is that we are fed assumptions and conclusions without the supporting facts or evidence and expected to consider them as facts.

I choose not to take the conclusions as gospel unless the facts are presented to me. In neither case facts are present which are independent and not politically biased.

If you believe something without having done the research or finding any facts, it's called faith. I do not support faith of any kind. It's illogical.

The verdict on both is open. That is my view.

Please try to understand this.

Thank you for listening.

The reason it introduces so much emotion is that it's used as political leverage and people get all uppety when red vs blue comes into the picture.

We're screwing up our direct environment for certain as that is directly observable, but we're not necessarily screwing up our climate. The latter is pseudo-science, despite how we wrap it up. We just haven't been around long enough to come up with a climate model that makes any sense.

Correlation does not imply causality.

How do we know if thousands of years ago, glaciers that were thousands of years old weren't disappearing as well?

Probably was. Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.

The typical response. The burden of proof is on the inclusive case.

Were you there? If not, all you have is stories passed down built on propaganda. I don't disbelieve, but i expect evidence. I've been to Auschwitz btw - have you?

I dint get the moon landings point. They did happen.

This is true. I think most of the RT stuff i.e. GSM/3G stuff is offloaded onto dedicated devices.