Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Global Warming's Six Americas in May 2011

Nonsense. I did not critique any "scientific" report at all. I read the piece I quoted, and commented on it. My pc needed to be rolled back in order to read pdf, after I had installed a player. I'll comment more when I read more.

The complaint offered ( regarding my action of choosing to read and comment on the executive summary, first, before reading the entirety, exhaustively ), is so weak that it hardly needs to be addressed.

It's already had more attention than it warranted.

no, more is warranted. your use of language is weighted. it is apparent by your choice of words that you chose avoid, at least at first, the appearance of not having read the study. in short, you were misleading. that is until you and i got more specific. no worries, ill take you at your word, though. i am certain you will be reading and commenting on it in its entirety. i look forward to your (un?)biased analysis.

no, it's not.
weighted ? show what you mean please
Where? Will you not provide examples to support your claims ?


Also, who here is assumed to have read the study exhaustively ? All those who have posted a comment ?

you've shown nothing of that. you've merely offered an allegation, but provided no instances of it occurring.

defensive much?

I revealed that I had not read it, immediately - even though you did not ask if I had read it.

I could have evaded, at that point had I so chosen. But I would not allow even a false impression, which would be created by answering otherwise than I did, to remain.

Your allegations are baseless, the debris has been cleared.

redux

Should I allow a delusion expressed - an unwarranted presumption implied - to remain unaddressed, it would be creating illusion for the reader.


It was just another bit that had to be batted as soon as I noticed you had that wrong presumption running.

such heroic commitment to readers is commendable!

Are you saying that it is acceptable practice to comment on scientific reports based upon a few words that caught your attention? Those words caught your attention because of your prejudice. If you had waited until reading the rest of the words had provided your understanding with proper context, then maybe your credibility wouldn't have been so damaged.

I assert that your own bias relative to the subject is so overwhelming that you cannot even read a data report (that you should find interesting and not biased, by the way) without jumping to conclusions about the integrity and meaning of the researchers.

This information supports my previous personal observation that the information you present here, especially that which is not accompanied by clear supporting documentation, is heavily biased and often incomplete or misinterpreted (as in your comments on the Six America's report and on tree rings = thermometers).

That just leaves the question of what, exactly, your position is on the issues you choose to comment on. I am not familiar with any clear and concise positions that you have presented on anything. In other words, what is it that you would like to persuade me of? As of this moment, I don't know what that is.

It might make it easy if you just wanted to tell us which profile from the report best fits your beliefs and perpective.

It could be. You're so imprecise that it's impossible to give any good answer even were your question to be cleaned up...if it were not a loaded one. e.g. in need of cleanup: your use of "acceptable practice". Where? By whom? For what purpose?

Why is it that you are not using my words directly ? No need to paraphrase for me !

so you claim - again providing nothing to substantiate the claim