|
|
|
|
|
|
by origin_path
1341 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree, they're clearly cranks. It's ad hominem all the way, they're authoritarian sandwich board wearers. But really, so what? We can't agree on that because it's so subjective, and who cares what some rando Wikipedia editors think? They've got no credibility. That's why you have to drill down to the data, the science, in order to resolve disputes. Spencer provides extensive sources, like the raw data I cited already, he has a long career in publishing scientific papers on climatology. If you think the data I cited is wrong, step up and argue that. Just face it, you're totally beaten here. Faced with data and evidence compiled by an actual expert, you retreat to "I found some website that tells me to ignore him" because you can't handle the complexity and worldview challenge that comes with the truth: climatology is as far from settled as can be, its central theories are contradicted by actual data (which is why they have to constantly rewrite the history of global temperatures), and the people telling you otherwise are lying to you. It sucks, I know. It sucked for me too when I found this out. But it's true, and sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "wiki says no" won't make it go away. Those are the tactics of children. |
|
|
Sadly, this is where we are on the modern internat. People can pick their truth and if it's a ... ah, "a niche truth" then it's easy to dismiss other interpretations with "clearly Wikipedia is mainstream fake news!!" etc.
> sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "wiki says no" won't make it go away. Those are the tactics of children.
For some people, every accusation is a confession.