| 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. |