Open letter to our true believers on climate.

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Well I was wondering if you'd come around to this again, refusing to actually substantiate your claims/postings and then asking me to stop responding to your posts when I challenge you about it. Based on some things you indicated, I thought this time would perhaps be different.

Since I am not sure if this time it means you are going away, I'll take the opportunity for a quick summation.
- As always, you seem to just be opinionating and spewing propaganda, not willing to actually specifically substantiate for the claims you are making.
- For some reason, you think it's better to suggest that you are factual and scientific based, as opposed to just accepting like everyone else that people have different opinions and suggestions, that things can be discussed based on merit.
- You are expecting others to try to figure out by themselves what it is you might actually precisely be trying to indicate, and for them to also try to find the proof you suggest exists that backs up your claims, the claims that no one but yourself actually precisely understand.
- Worse yet, when folks take a summarization and abstraction response approach to your postingss (what else can they do given your lack of specifics), you spin that around and acuse them of not being factual and scientific based, the exact behaviour you are demonstratimg that is getting you into various arguments in the first place.
- You view yourself on some sort of "side", on some sort of mission I guess against the likes of "the climate change advocates" as you refer to them, and anyone not with you must be against you, and anyone who doesn't immediately understand and agree with what you are dictating, spewing, spinning, propogating, well those people must be against you and on the "opposing side"
- For some reason, you can't really fully comprehend all of the above and what is going on, but you are frustrated with lack of success for "your side", and starting to get more desperate

I do not engage with people who cannot do simple research again go away take your word salad with you

 

[spARTacus]

I do not engage with people who cannot do simple research again go away take your word salad with you

Everyone is really interesting in understanding your research for indicating why you feel or believe the way you do. When you don't provide the details of your research, there is no other conclusion folks can make other than an assumption that you don't have any research (and therefore that your claims are baseless).

It's pretty easy for anyone to find samplings of reports that suggests various past predictions have generally been mainly correct. Also, easy to find explanations for differences. Also, easy to find evidence of some past claims that are nowadays proven to be way off the mark.

What does all that mean? Nothing. If you aren't going to be specific as to what aspects apply to what you are trying to suggest for your campaign of claims (what are you at now, 50 plus threads here in CB2 that have an element of denial of climate change, global warming or the contributions of such from fossil fuels), then you aren't achieving anything other than a shameless cut and pasting of opinions and propaganda here into CB2 from elsewhere. Many months (maybe it was years) ago, they shutdown an entire sub-forum of AC because of basically the same thing, shameless political smearing going on from all sides.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Everyone is really interesting in understanding your research for indicating why you feel or believe the way you do. When you don't provide the details of your research, there is no other conclusion folks can make other than an assumption that you don't have any research (and therefore that your claims are baseless).

It's pretty easy for anyone to find samplings of reports that suggests various past predictions have generally been mainly correct. Also, easy to find explanations for differences. Also, easy to find evidence of some past claims that are nowadays proven to be way off the mark.

What does all that mean? Nothing. If you aren't going to be specific as to what aspects apply to what you are trying to suggest for your campaign of claims (what are you at now, 50 plus threads here in CB2 that have an element of denial of climate change, global warming or the contributions of such from fossil fuels), then you aren't achieving anything other than a shameless cut and pasting of opinions and propaganda here into CB2 from elsewhere. Many months (maybe it was years) ago, they shutdown an entire sub-forum of AC because of basically the same thing, shameless political smearing going on from all sides.

Sorry disengaged

 

[spARTacus]

Sorry disengaged

No need to apologize (at least not for the benefit of myself) for your beliefs and choices. They are your beliefs and choices, you have ownership of them. That stuff can't be taken away.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

No need to apologize (at least not for the benefit of myself) for your beliefs and choices. They are your beliefs and choices, you have ownership of them. That stuff can't be taken away.

No need to apologize (at least not for the benefit of myself) for your beliefs and choices. They are your beliefs and choices, you have ownership of them. That stuff can't be taken away.

Sorry disengaged please go away……. And by the way, I’d rather have my eye poked out with a hot poker that never ever apologize to you.

 

[Ph1llip]

Ha. Depending on if you came up with and wrote all that yourself or if you cut and paste from elsewhere, one might think you're trying to graduate to become a word salad chef with the length of that post.

Couple of quick questions to start:

- To whom did you intend the open letter to be targeted? Like, who do you mean specifically (or explain generally if that's easier) when you refer to the addressees as "our true believers on climate"? Do you mean anyone that believes they think they know what the definition of the word climate means? The text of your letter refers to people here and there a few different times, about a certain crowd that is at the alter of Greta, uses some terms like "you" and "we" and "our" perhaps interchangeablly, and at the end it refers to the concept of "climate change advocates". Are those all meant to be same for what you wrote, same also as the intended addressee for the letter, the "believer" person or people? Just trying to better understand what you are trying to accomplish with the post, if specifically you are looking for a response, from whom, on all parts or just some parts, etc?

Spartz, I'll make it short.

In my line of work, I sometimes go on what are called "listening tours". I go to places where "doers" are busy "doing" and try and learn.

I ask short, simple questions. When someone responds to one-liner comments or questions with fifty-liner responses, they usually don't know what they're talking about, are not confident about their responses or are trying to something conceal something or have a hidden agenda.

You're one of those. And you're not very good at it. Your attempts to muddy the waters because you don't agree with what was posted is really just very obvious . But points for trying...

 

[spARTacus]

Spartz, I'll make it short.

In my line of work, I sometimes go on what are called "listening tours". I go to places where "doers" are busy "doing" and try and learn.

I ask short, simple questions. When someone responds to one-liner comments or questions with fifty-liner responses, they usually don't know what they're talking about, are not confident about their responses or are trying to something conceal something or have a hidden agenda.

You're one of those. And you're not very good at it. Your attempts to muddy the waters because you don't agree with what was posted is really just very obvious . But points for trying...

Ha.

I normally try to listen/read/digest as much as I can in order to assess what is being said and presented. Then, if there seems to be some risk of something not being logical or substantiated, then depending on the risk and subject I will ask pointed questions. Often, it will then becomes clear if the presenter/speaker/writer actually knows what they are talking about, if they have actual adequate depth of details and substantiation, if they have assumed faulty, if they have an otherwise agenda, or in some cases if they are just ignorant or incompetent.

I think lots of people must indeed be trying to muddy the waters wrt climate change, hidden agendas and all of that. And/or, lots of people are just ignorant or incompetent or blindly following what some others are saying, without assessing what actually makes sense, without actually looking beyond the short messages for the validity of the details behind the messages.

You are free to suggest if I am trying to spew propaganda or if I am trying to enquire for understanding ground truth.

Normally when I come across someone or something that is short for brevity purposes of a message and analysis, and if it is not clear in the short message if the detailed substantiation exists, then normally when there actually is a detailed analysis substantiation behind the work that then comes out really quickly upon the questioning. Sometimes it becomes very quickly clear that there is nothing of depth behind the short messages. Those situations represent extremely high potential for danger. Not all of them are automatically wrong (I have run into lots of people who have for example been able to make very quick short correct analysis based on only gut feel and very high level assessments). However, for almost all of them the detailed proof and substantiation is still required. At least half the time, the detailed work ends up revealing errors and miss-leading representation made in the short messaging.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Ha.

I normally try to listen/read/digest as much as I can in order to assess what is being said and presented. Then, if there seems to be some risk of something not being logical or substantiated, then depending on the risk and subject I will ask pointed questions. Often, it will then becomes clear if the presenter/speaker/writer actually knows what they are talking about, if they have actual adequate depth of details and substantiation, if they have assumed faulty, if they have an otherwise agenda, or in some cases if they are just ignorant or incompetent.

I think lots of people must indeed be trying to muddy the waters wrt climate change, hidden agendas and all of that. And/or, lots of people are just ignorant or incompetent or blindly following what some others are saying, without assessing what actually makes sense, without actually looking beyond the short messages for the validity of the details behind the messages.

You are free to suggest if I am trying to spew propaganda or if I am trying to enquire for understanding ground truth.

Normally when I come across someone or something that is short for brevity purposes of a message and analysis, and if it is not clear in the short message if the detailed substantiation exists, then normally when there actually is a detailed analysis substantiation behind the work that then comes out really quickly upon the questioning. Sometimes it becomes very quickly clear that there is nothing of depth behind the short messages. Those situations represent extremely high potential for danger. Not all of them are automatically wrong (I have run into lots of people who have for example been able to make very quick short correct analysis based on only gut feel and very high level assessments). However, for almost all of them the detailed proof and substantiation is still required. At least half the time, the detailed work ends up revealing errors and miss-leading representation made in the short messaging.

Blah blah….more long wind about nothing………….no engagement

 

[spARTacus]

Blah blah….more long wind about nothing………….no engagement

Well a single liner caveat basically applies to most of your postings, something like the fact that there is no validated science/details being presented to substantiate as correct what you are stating. You've basically enticed for not wanting that approach to be used here in CB2, with your claims about the importance of a scientific approach to everything. You should make up your mind what you prefer, you can't have it both ways.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Well a single liner caveat basically applies to most of your postings, something like the fact that there is no validated science/details being presented to substantiate as correct what you are stating. You've basically enticed for not wanting that approach to be used here in CB2, with your claims about the importance of a scientific approach to everything. You should make up your mind what you prefer, you can't have it both ways.

Disengaged disengaged disengaged………. Got it now

 

[spARTacus]

Disengaged disengaged disengaged………. Got it now

Well you say one thing but then you just keep reading and posting. So, logic would suggest you just don't want to engage for stuff that's not aligned with what you want to propagate or for when you can't logically substantiate your claims. Yeah I get it. Got that long ago. Unfortunately for you, that's pretty hypocritical.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Well you say one thing but then you just keep reading and posting. So, logic would suggest you just don't want to engage for stuff that's not aligned with what you want to propagate or for when you can't logically substantiate your claims. Yeah I get it. Got that long ago. Unfortunately for you, that's pretty hypocritical.

Sorry went fishing…LMFAO