The Forum > General Discussion > A Possible Explanation for Climate Sceptics Reasoning
A Possible Explanation for Climate Sceptics Reasoning
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:11:56 AM
| |
spindoc,
"...you do seem to be well out of your depth on this forum..." What depth? It's often quite shallow around here, a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y. Naomi Klein on capitalism verses climate: http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:40:18 AM
| |
Poirot, rest assured Athonyve has it right.
In answering your self and others some shoot the messenger . And in fact them selves in both feet. Spin doc, descriptive TERM that. Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:55:24 AM
| |
Hi Anthony,
I don't think this analysis is likely to win over any of those you refer to as climate sceptic "friends". As winning over more support for climate action is apparently your goal, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask "What can we do to help climate skeptics overcome their concerns & embrace the precautionary principle?". I discovered a site that might just help find some constructive answers. please have a quick look at http://www.allourideas.org/forclimateskeptics Regards Chris @landrights4all Posted by landrights4all, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 11:25:05 AM
| |
Thanks Anthony, not sure what you said but i'll get back to you in 2020? Anyway, you have Belly's support, what more do you want?
He,he,he. Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 11:25:44 AM
| |
A bit off topic, but a horde of Christmas guests are about to arrive so my screen time will be seriously curtailed for the next couple of weeks.
I'll just take this opportunity to wish everyone compliments of the season and a great - and vocal - 2012. Merry Christmas all. Cheers, Anthony http://www.observationpoint.com.au Posted by Anthonyve, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 11:38:29 AM
|
At the risk of repeating myself, you are falling into the trap of shooting the messenger.
And, as I've already noted, efforts to do so usually result in validating the message.
Your response validates my message perfectly, particularly in that it is curiously defficient in any attempt to refute it. You simply, and rather ineffectively, attack me.
One could reasonably assume then that you have given up trying to refute the message under the sheer weight of evidence supporting human induced global warming.
Although, on the other hand, the article at the head of this thread explains why you probably haven't; given up that is.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au