[hotdogscout]

>(I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, my honest position is man-made global warming is a real alarming issue AND some scientists and journals engage in unsavory tactics to convince the public of it.)

I said some.

You also abandoned evidence and resorted to ad hominems.

Maybe (that was my point) truth is not as simple as science good right wing bad, and even people who dissent on basic facts can have valid criticisms of science and should not be put in a political "do not engage" box. Morality is not simply a matter of acknowledging a shared universal material reality.

[teh64]

What part of my comment is not evidence based and where have I resorted to ad hominems?

[hotdogscout]

>What part of my comment is not evidence based and where have I resorted to ad hominems?

I will list them.

>The facts are true, but the vibes and the feelings are off, so of course it can't be true.

No evidence.

>Do you have any non anecdotal sources that they are "manufacturing models" or that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok"?

Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.

>No of course not, you "feel" it does because that is a narrative you have been fed.

Ad hominem.

[teh64]

> No evidence.

What evidence should I provide? You concede that climate change is true.

> Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.

1. They are both the same source, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia emails.

2. Def of anecdotal: "(of an account or evidence) possibly not true or accurate because it is based on personal accounts". I would say emails are anecdotal if there is no evidence backing up that the claims made in the emails are true. My point is that these messages do not prove that models were manufactured, as your own source admits: "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data used for his research" and "no evidence of inappropriately manipulated data". Maybe anecdote was the wrong word to use for this.

3. The emails provide no evidence that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok".

> Ad hominem.

I would define Ad hominem as attacking a persons character rather than their positions. I believe that narratives can influence a persons position, and I am not commenting on your character, but how your position has been influence by a narrative.

[hotdogscout]

I don't think minimally sane climate change deniers deny climate change (there are thermometers), I think they deny it's man-made.

I agree evidence is overwhelming on the side of scientific institutions, it's why I believe they're correct on this conflict.

I was making the best argument for that position because I believe you didn't.

I also don't think they shouldn't be listened to.

>What evidence should I provide? You concede that climate change is true.

You accused me of following a narrative? What narrative and why?

>The emails provide no evidence that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok"

I agree. The strongest argument against that position is if it happened with University of East Anglia, why should you trust every other scientific institution?

Again, I know how to dismantle this argument (it's absurd this many actors with differing interests coordinating), I'm playing devil's advocate, because I don't think you can or should write off these people as completely irrational.

There's some valid criticism (some scientists and scientific journals are capable of unsavory actions) which shouldn't be completely disregarded.

>I would define Ad hominem as attacking a persons character rather than their positions. I believe that narratives can influence a persons position, and I am not commenting on your character, but how your position has been influence by a narrative.

That has no bearing on something being true or not.

The scientific method is a narrative, a belief that the material world holds truth. Language is not reality, it's a narrative (narration) of reality.

[teh64]

> Maybe (that was my point) truth is not as simple as science good right wing bad, and even people who dissent on basic facts can have valid criticisms of science and should not be put in a political "do not engage" box.

I never said or implied any of this.

> Morality is not simply a matter of acknowledging a shared universal material reality.

No, but without the shared reality is there even a point in debating morality?