Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol misc |
On 11/05/2024 10:31, D wrote:Wow, way more articulate than I usually see. Do you have a blog or something where you expand on your brief summary above?On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:>
On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:16:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:No they don't. Seriously, they don't. I think you are trapped by the eco-fascist propaganda Lawrence.
On 09/05/2024 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:They have evidence. You don’t.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Try telling that to climate change [scientists]...
And that is the problem. There is a conjecture - one of many possible - that purports to explain the 'facts'.
But the problem of induction, means that there are an infinite number of conjectures that could explain the data, even if the data was clean, plentiful and unambiguous, which it isn't.
And the current conjecture fits the data so badly that its excused by the fallacious 'precautionary principle' to justify doing stuff that cannot work 'in case' they are in fact right.
>
Another conjecture, that they dont understand how climate works at all, and something else is in play, is simply disregarded, because it doesn't lead to sales of greenCrap™ and research money for academics.
>
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and 'climate scientists' don't vote for 'natural causes'.
>
Nor do the mass of ArtStudents who have leapt on the media bandwagon or the companies that sell greenCrap or the politicians trying to make careers out of it.
>
Its a trillion dollar boondoggle.
>
All based on just one conjecture, that has in fact been demonstrated to be false.
>
A most convenient lie, however.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.