I’m otherwise engaged today, so it is time for an open thread.
Discussion is open within the limits of WUWT policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m otherwise engaged today, so it is time for an open thread.
Discussion is open within the limits of WUWT policy.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Mario. Thanks!
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Once again thanks for your persistence in engaging. In the next open thread where my schedule permits me to participate, I will address the history in philosophy of the idea / concept of anti-science irrationalism (which is my concept of pseudo-science) and investigate the explicit philosophies of key members of the IPCC bureau.
Yes, I did find it personally affronting that your initial discourse weakened to essentially just pejorative accusations in the last two or three comments. But, as I indicated in a previous comment, when it occurred I started counting very very slowly to 1000. It neutralized the effect of your pejoratives.
John
John Whitman:
re your post at September 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm.
I used no “pejoratives”. I was extremely polite in my respopnses to your persistent arrogant rudeness. In light of your lack of appreciation I shall not bother to be so restrained if confronted with similar behaviour from you in future.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
998 . . . 999 . . . 1000
Thanks for your latest comment.
You do not consider these pejoratives in benevolent civil discussion?
-disinformation campaign
-tool
-propaganda
-facetious
-boorish
-arrogant
Your references , from the beginning to the end of your comments, to political causation of IPCC incorrect science (your pseudo science) is not sufficient to explain why it would necessarily occur in the IPCC nor does it explain the form and context it takes. I am looking, rather, for fundamental root cause of their preference for irrational looking ‘science’ options versus rational. Your politics focus does not explain that. Rather certain metaphysical and epistemological concepts at the core of irrational philosophy do provide access to the root cause. I suggest that will yield the approach to ‘science’ that is at the most fundamental concept of ‘pseudo-science’.
It is what I will expand on at the next opportunity.
John
John Whitman:
My explanations and documented evidence provided complete explanation. You chose to ignore them and to spout your propaganda repeatedly.
You say you intend to provide more concern trolling on behalf of the IPCC. Whatever twaddle you come up with I will refute with documented evidence.
Until then I shall ignore any more of your pointless posts. They are becoming as tiresome as you.
Richard
John Whitman says:
September 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm
richardscourtney on September 27, 2013 at 1:57 pm
”
You do not consider these pejoratives in benevolent civil discussion?
-disinformation campaign
-tool
-propaganda
-facetious
-boorish
-arrogant
++++++++++++++++
John: For something to be Pejorative, doesn’t it need to meet some qualification? If the terms truly represent the said behavior, then we could describe the words truthful, especially in light of the fact that plenty of evidence supports the correct use of such words.
It has been well established that the intent of the IPCC is to prove that man kind needs to be blamed on what nature does irrespective of evidence to the contrary. And then, they make recommendations of how policy makers should act. At a certain point, the IPCC realized that it was deceiving people, this is known. And to recommend that policy makers act on information which is knowingly deceptive needs to be called out. This is what science is about… being critical, which the IPCC does not want.
Now, my definitions of the IPCC could be pejorative in the sense that you use the word. You sound like an educated man trying to make excuses for really bad behavior.
Thank goodness people like Richard call you out for supporting such drivel. I think I have established the meaning of drivel, pejorative or not.