reply on: The Climate Fad and How Academic Disciplines Go Wrong \ stacker news ~conspiracy

pull down to refresh

70 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 25 Jan \ on: The Climate Fad and How Academic Disciplines Go Wrong conspiracy

Meta convo before we start: Consider that maybe, just maybe your take is wrong. If I'm arguing with a brick wall—immovable, irresponsive—then there's no point. If you don't get it, I don't have the time to convince you sorry.

Meta level 2: consider that maybe, just maybe experts and entire academic disciplines can be wrong and/or captured.

@denlillaapan, apply this meta to yourself, too, when reading and responding to people with views opposing yours, such as @Solomonsatoshi.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 25 Jan

True dat, anon

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Jan

Except that you do not reply directly to the facts and issues I raise in a fair and transparent contest of ideas.

Instead you evade and avoid them by completely rejigging the narrative on a separate post.

Good science, whether economics or climate, is based upon a fair contest of ideas in an open transparent manner, not rigging and manipulation of the narrative to suit predetermined bias and dogma.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan OP 25 Jan

Didn't. Read the piece again, and especially the accompanying like seven pop articles.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Jan

You have not responded in context to many of my previous comments here and in previous posts. Instead you refer me and readers to links and other posts. You take one snippet of a previous comment of mine responding to a previous post and insert it into this post completely out of context. That is not an in context contest of ideas- that is rigging the narrative and repeatedly taking it out of context. Respond to replies to your posts/comments in context...and demonstrate you are confident of your ideas and capable of defending them IN CONTEXT.