You are making a fool of yourself.

I never said that. this is the problem. You have formed in your mind a narrative of what I must have said/what You think I mean. When it's not what I said or mean.

2 pages of me telling you that and you have not gone back and checked. Just known you are right.

quote:

You are the one who said PBS including certain science, namely climate change, was not appropriate in a documentary about dinosaurs.

So, I can't assume where your line is regarding inclusion of science in a documentary.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
One thing I didn't unpack enough is: "even though I believe in climate change".

Are you referring to personal observations or science? When did you start believing? Was it like most Rightists and after denying climate change or global warming for years, when it got hot and too obvious, did you adopt the fact climate changes?

I didn't get your opinion on anthropogenic climate change. What is it?

Also, what is your opinion regarding Trump(ism)'s and admin's anti science policies?

well, maggie, since all scientist are humans, atm, EVERY scientific observation has been "personal" ... OHHH, did you mean using the scientific method (you can look that up), which recognizes that that observer is a PERSON - but has rules built around it?

How long have I been aware of "climate change" -- "well, sonny, I've believed in global climate change since it was called global cooling/next ice age" -- and here's an article THIRTY years after time published that the earth was cooling and we were headed to a new ice age -- oh, btw, the original time article, called that CO2 was COOLING the Earth ... "settled" my eye
https://www.newsweek.com/newsw...lobal-cooling-252326

oh, and btw, you could try stopping using this IDIOTIC term "settled science", as that's actually an anti-pure science (with math as a separate discipline) - Literally today, if we draw a line of issac newton / the royal society as the foundation for "modern" science (you'd be amazed at what the RS did from say 1650-1725 is terms of HUGES chunks of modern logic and processes being laid down) -- and we STILL have people working on Boyle's law and the theory of gravity (Newton and Liebniz had some amazing, hmm, discussions) - science is NEVER settled, it's only observed by others, in their "labs" and confirmed -- until we know better -- sort of like the youtube videos "things you were taught as facts that are no longer true" ...
Science is only "settled" when the funding runs out

on - observation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Awww "anthropogenic climate change" - i think it's insignificant in impact, though a fact - when one fire in cali wipes out decades of their efforts to reduce emissions (see how the words shift) that anthropogenic climate change is a different label from pollution - and then it went from smog, to invisible pollutants - like ONE kajillion acres forest fire, and, goodness me, a volcano in iceland (right NOW) releases more pollutants than all the cars/trucks in the world? oh, and let's not unpack that a handful of cargo ships release more than the entire fleet of cars



Oh oh oh, but it's getting hotter -- it is ....we are in a VERY active solar cycle, and we have climate change -- you know what the climate was 12.5 k years ago? ice ball earth--- do you know what it will be in 8-12k more years? ice ball earth -- it's a CYCLE


on this non-science question
Also, what is your opinion regarding Trump(ism)'s and admin's anti science policies?
there's 2 parts, well, 3, actually
1 politics - have no place in science (but there are there) and trump's opinion of science and therefore i am, over the long term, indifferent
2 - "anti-science" makes about as much sense as your anti-religion - both are CULTS and will pass -- and i don't recall, nor care, if you could point out a SINGLE official anti-science plank in their platform
3 you are under the combined impressions that pure science can exist in a vacuum AND that the government is a majority funder of same -- nah, bruv, neither is true - pure science has a definition, you can look it up, and the majority of scientific research is applied science (you can look that phrase up as well) that is performed at the direction of or as a result of FUNDING

STEM humor -- 99.8% of all scientist agree with who's funding them

Oh, forgot to mention, one cool thing about the scientific method is that you must br open to observations and facts that are unexpected or unwanted.. sort of like a failed airplane adhesive becoming post it notes

In the 70s, everyone was worked up with global cooling

The settled science is a favorite of Kabobs.
I gave him the link to scientists who wrote.
Scientists are often wrong, and thats a good thing.
It was about if they thought something was settled, they would stop looking. So being wrong, means they are doing their job.
It's to much for Kabob to digest, that almost everything has been revised and updated, when it comes to science.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Oh and dont get me started on the hubris of this sentence.

quote:
If I deem worthy, I might respond.

"funny" is the context.

Except, maybe I'm serious.

It's my hubris, and I cherish it.

I mean, really, when was the last time you changed anyone's opinion herein?

So, what's left?

Find a gem of hypocrisy, and turn hubris loose.

what's left is the difference between unnecessary, and appropriate. But you wouldn't understand.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
You are making a fool of yourself.

I never said that. this is the problem. You have formed in your mind a narrative of what I must have said/what You think I mean. When it's not what I said or mean.

2 pages of me telling you that and you have not gone back and checked. Just known you are right.

quote:

You are the one who said PBS including certain science, namely climate change, was not appropriate in a documentary about dinosaurs.

So, I can't assume where your line is regarding inclusion of science in a documentary.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I really enjoy PBS and watch quite a bit of their Youtube productions.
From the start lets just say Their content is factual.

But I have thought for quite some time that they would be better if they left out unnecessary political side comment.

on one I watched about dinosaurs, they interrupted their own dialogue to get in a hit on climate change. It just was not needed, and even though I believe in climate change, I could see it was incorrect to be there.

==========================

"interrupted" and "hit" indicates your subjectivity.

If you had said, they included in their dialogue climate change. That's neutral and factual. Instead you disparaged it as interrupted and hit.

Also, you said "left out". A reasonable interpretation of that is censored.

Your choice of words and expression implicates your bias.

==========================

For your edification:

What's the difference in unnecessary and inappropriate and incorrect"

AI Overview

Differentiating "unnecessary," "inappropriate," and "incorrect"

While these words can sometimes be used interchangeably in casual conversation, they have distinct meanings:

Unnecessary: Something that is not needed or required. It could be something extra, superfluous, or done without cause.

Example: "The long, drawn-out introduction to the presentation was unnecessary and took up valuable time."

Example: "Turning on the lights during the day is unnecessary".

Inappropriate: Something that is not suitable or proper for a particular situation or context. It often refers to behavior, speech, or clothing that is out of place, unbecoming, or socially unacceptable.

Example: "Wearing a bathing suit to a formal state dinner would be considered inappropriate".

Example: "Making sexually offensive jokes at a business meeting is inappropriate behavior".

Incorrect: Something that is wrong, inaccurate, or deviates from the truth or established facts. It refers to errors, faults, or a lack of correctness.

Example: "The student's answer to the math problem was incorrect".

Example: "Injuries can be caused by incorrect posture".

In essence, something can be:

Unnecessary but not inappropriate or incorrect: Giving a longer explanation than needed, even if the information is accurate and suitable for the situation.
Inappropriate but not necessarily incorrect or unnecessary: A true statement that is said at the wrong time or in the wrong setting, like shouting a secret in a quiet library.

Incorrect, and possibly also unnecessary or inappropriate: A false statement that is also irrelevant or offensive in the situation.

Understanding these distinctions helps to communicate more precisely and to interpret the nuance in situations involving these terms.