[gouranga]

Oh here we go. Go and re-read my comments, then attempt to understand them again.

The word fabricated is wrong.

The issue is that we are fed assumptions and conclusions without the supporting facts or evidence and expected to consider them as facts.

I choose not to take the conclusions as gospel unless the facts are presented to me. In neither case facts are present which are independent and not politically biased.

If you believe something without having done the research or finding any facts, it's called faith. I do not support faith of any kind. It's illogical.

The verdict on both is open. That is my view.

Please try to understand this.

Thank you for listening.

[jellicle]

No, the issue is you are a Republican voter who watches Fox News, and you've been told by your team that climate change is made up, and therefore when forced to choose between the worldwide scientific consensus and your team, you're choosing your team.

This is a very human thing to do, but it has nothing to do with science or facts. The science is, of course, 100% in favor of climate change:

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-co...

[gouranga]

Well that's kind of the reply I expected. You're reacting as per my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4223478 (see note on red vs blue).

I am neither a Republican voter nor a US citizen. In fact I'm sitting here at home in London in the UK staring at the Thames out of my front window.

I do not choose a team. I have no political allegiance. I do not vote as I do not wish to be responsible for the person I voted in. I try to be a rational independent human and do not align to a stereotype well. A close stereotype is secular humanist.

I suggest you do some research on "accepted norms" and how it applies to climatology plus how conflicting views with theories and data are thrown out without being considered.

[urbanjunkie]

Sighs.

So you must necessarily not accept anything without having obtained the raw data, formed a hypothesis, processed the data, and formed a conclusion, by yourself.

Or are you just selective in the facts you choose to accept without personal research and verification and the ones you don't.

Ludicrous hypocrisy.

[gouranga]

I accept tangibles without evidence. Neither of the original points were tangible or independently verifiable.

I do not accept memes and ideas without supporting evidence.

Please provide me with some examples and I will guide you through my thought processes if you do not understand my point.

I suggest that your point is that critical thinking is wrong?

[urbanjunkie]

Ok, so you are selective in what you choose to accept as fact. That's fine, we won't get into bias effects and the subjectivity of any possible definition of tangibility.

It's also interesting that you would categorise the holocaust as a meme or an idea, but I think that pretty much sums up the way your own personal biases affect your thinking process.

[gouranga]

We all are - that's what defines your personality. We are just a bunch of memes.

You are selective in what you have chosen to accept as fact too. You can't get out of that argument on a moral high ground as there isn't one.

You and me are alike, but are exposed to different memes.