Timeline for Does the logarithmic nature of global warming invalidate climate change claims?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | That's nonsense. Having an agenda to expand the understanding and knowledge in a scientific field is not an agenda that creates a conflict of interest nor does it create a situation where one might misrepresent. Being a paid propagandist is not the same, at all, so the claim that "everyone does it" is nonsense, and the motivations of people denying actual science and having a track record of making claims that have been disproven is absolutely relevant. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 16:15 | comment | added | Dunk | I go one step further than Monty and think your should just remove everything related to criticizing the "science denier" even if you prove he's paid. There is absolutely no source that doesn't have their own agenda. NONE, ZERO, NADA. So the same claim can be made in every single post no matter what position one takes and it adds no value. Also, once someone starts their answer with something like that, all I read afterwards is yada, yada, yada. Knocking down the "science denier's" arguments one at a time is great, but attacking motivations causes your message to be lost. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | Monty Harder | "The source cited in the question is a professional, paid climate science denier". That needs to be backed up or deleted. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:20 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @called2voyage - There's nothing hidden in the quote. What your asking for seems, as I said, arbitrary and tedious and a standard which would lead to never-ending links of links of links of links. It's there, in the link, and it's mentioned, specifically, by name, if for some reason that link should die. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:19 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | HotWhopper includes her sourcing and links, that are available via the link already provided. Again, "what if the link goes down" applies to any additional links you are asking for. The standard is that you provide references. She does mention where she gets all of her material from, so it's not like she's stating something that looks like opinion, with links buried. She states that it's the IPCC report. She states that analysis is from specific authors, by name, along with the links. It's there, if the links go down. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:19 | comment | added | called2voyage | I never said to go three levels deep. Answers have a higher standard than questions. Stop arguing about what you think I meant. You can either take the criticism or not. For what it's worth I like your post, I was just trying to help improve it. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:15 | comment | added | called2voyage | Yes, the portion you quoted did not include any but the ipcc cite. HotWhopper is not notable so you need to show their sources. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:13 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @called2voyage - "not every statement in that quote cites..." you absolutely are referencing that author. The original question links to an article that is quoting another source, that, probably includes references to yet other sources. I don't see you complaining that we're not three levels deep in sourcing for the original question, which only links the original article. That's a pretty arbitrary standard. If you read the source and see that the links are there, why is it phrased as "you need to explain why we should trust....?" Your later statements don't map to the original comment. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:12 | comment | added | called2voyage | Actually I did read the entire article. I was just saying that you didn't include any of the citations in the quote. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:10 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @called2voyage - Okay, so I need to link the links in my links? Do I also need to link the citations and links in the links that my link linked? Nonsense. You were claiming the citations did not exist (questioning the credibility of the source due to lack thereof), which means you didn't bother looking. If you didn't bother looking at what I did link, why would adding more links that you wouldn't bother looking at make any difference? | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:04 | comment | added | called2voyage | I'm not talking about the author, but your post. You should include those references in your own post, just in case the blog goes down. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 22:01 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @called2voyage - Did you go to the actual linked article? It's packed with hyperlinks as well as references to original documents. (for instance "there were only four mentions of the word '1000 ppm' in the latest IPCC report" includes the "IPCC report" as a hyperlink.) If you're not aware of that, then I'd say your mistaken in claiming this author doesn't include references. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:36 | comment | added | called2voyage | You should probably explain why we should trust HotWhopper since not every statement in that quote cites another source. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:17 | history | edited | Sklivvz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 165 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:31 | history | edited | PoloHoleSet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
missing word
|
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:08 | history | edited | PoloHoleSet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 589 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:02 | history | answered | PoloHoleSet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |