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.

Yep. It was uneccesary because it was off topic. A non sequitur as I explained.

And

In that context which made it political, not science.

as I also explained to you again and again.

It was incorrect to be there

Nothing about climate denial, not anti science. Just a recognition that things can be placed in wrong time and place.

4 pages of nothing because you chose to interpret something that suited your self righteousness and refused to listen.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
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.

In this case hes taken offence and thought he had an easy win over a horrible rightist, And can't accept there is nothing in it, can't leave it alone or accept. So we have 3-4 pages of stupidity.

The good news Is TB40, you are not actually on ignore. He peeks through his fingers at everything you write and just likes to post up the ignore message as some sort of childish tongue poke. Which is very amusing from someone who thinks they decide what's worthy of them.

Just agreeing with TB40 shows your mindset despite claiming open-mindedness.

TB40 is full of himself and chit most of the time.

He made up the settled science re me, and like so much more thinks it's true.

Anyway, your little expose is like a large cavern or sinkhole in limestone, where only a small hole shows on the surface, until the whole thing collapses and takes a lot with it.

https://www.google.com/search?...IBzc&sclient=gws-wiz

Information, awareness, and reality are key, and antidote to lies.

We are facing multiple existential threats from the Trump regime, and people are in denial or ignorance about what's happening.

Your little slip-up showing what you really think seems innocuous and maybe is, but right now. IMO people like you in particular need to wake up. That's because, IMO, you don't represent ordinary ignorance. You represent something more subtle and hard to ID. Blatant ignorance is too easy to see.

Here's what I'm talking about:

https://www.google.com/search?...yAcC&sclient=gws-wiz

The Endangerment Finding

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

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...avy?ocid=socialshare

Trump Has Golden Opportunity To Blow Up Climate Agenda’s Crown Jewel

Opinion by Audrey Streb
Jul 21 • 5 min read • Updated 20h ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Pvh?ocid=socialshare

'We are eating the Earth': How our food system is accelerating climate change
Extreme weather is already driving up food prices, and researchers say it’s only going to get worse. Author Michael Grunwald joins Morning Joe to discuss his new book 'We Are Eating the Earth,' which argues that our food system is a massive but overlooked driver of the climate crisis. He warns that while “factory farms make a mess,” rejecting high-yield agriculture could require using even more land: “We’re going to have to make more food over the next 30 years than we’ve made over the last 12,000."

https://www.livescience.com/pl...an-we-reverse-course

We're within 3 years of reaching a critical climate threshold. Can we reverse course?
News
By Sascha Pare published July 19, 2025

Poor little maggie the victim.

Still self quoting in your signature, eh? Well hubris is a thing

do you know how to read what you have written and realise what you have said?

its gibberish dude.
I mean you are down to guilt by associating with someone you dont like now.

And im indefinably ignorant.

Your allegations are built on imagination and you have nothing to back them up.
Your presumptions are laughable and the extrapolations nothing more than flights of fancy.

really I thought we had put this kind of conversation behind us years ago. But since you have dug in, and its obvious you are holding onto old resentments, Im just going to sit here and laugh at you.

She can pull up screenshot
S from years ago, where she was injured. A
All women seem to argue thusly

The real kabob shows up right on cue.
There was a thread on Andrew McCabe. He had the fbi chasing a leak, that he himself released. Kabob said he was a fan of McCabe.
When it showed he had lied to his own men, he changed his tune. I pointed out kabob was a fan on page one of the thread, he denied he even said it. Claimed I made it up, even when it was right in front of his lying eyes, that he posted it.
He has done the same many times. His telling about flock shooting at deer, as he didnt know which was wounded, so just shot at the bunch.
Denied he said that, in the same thread!
I dont know if it's because he's a drunk, old or just cant be wrong, but you are seeing what we have all seen for a long time now, shanks.

Ive always known it too. I just try and give people second chances.
To be honest I had hoped he had put this type of behaviour behind him, and was content in not having to go through this type of stupidity, because when there is a fair and reasonable topic of discussion, he can add something and I do enjoy a debate.
But I will not tolerate mischaracterisation! and I understand why you use KABOB, because a leopard doesn't change its spots.

The balls in his court. He can stop the silly stuff and we can have a discussion, or continue and I'll make fun. His choice.

quote:

do you know how to read what you have written and realise what you have said?

The question is do you know how to read what I have written and realize? Apparently not.

I think I characterized you and the others accurately.

Actually, I gave you a second chance and you promptly rubbed it in and repeated the same thing you wrote before and doubled down.

But characterizing you and the others is not the point. The point is that you decided that PBS should have censored their documentary.

Since you keep diverting from that fact and refuse to acknowledge it, and double-down on it, I can make some assumptions.

For one thing, you are not the climate science believer you claim. Or was that climate change, distinct from climate science somehow?

Just by writing that you think PBS should have omitted climate change/science because you think it was unnecessary says all.

And there it is. You feel hard done by because I rubbed in your failure. That's in essence what this is all about. Slights on your image of yourself.

With all narcissists they tell you what the real issue is. They can't help it.
The rest is your attempt to anger me or tempt me to say something you can hit back with.

I repeated the same thing because it's the truth. I havnt doubled down. I have remained consistent. You dont seem to be able to deal with that. Oh my, how you got yourself in this position.

quote:

I repeated the same thing because it's the truth. You dont seem to be able to deal with that.

Yes, repeating your opinion re censorship is true. You did express that opinion several times. Your opinion is just an opinion.

And the fact is that I have shown that I'm very able to deal with your opinions, and infer a lot from them.

The inferences are what you can't deal with.

And I'm not trying to anger you. That's jeffee's ploy. If you get angry, that's on you.

I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge what the issue is, and I've explained it adequately, IMO.

[QUOTE] Yes, repeating your opinion re censorship is true. You did express that opinion several times. Your opinion is just an opinion.

And the fact is that I have shown that I'm very able to deal with your opinions, and infer a lot from them.

The inferences are what you can't deal with.

And I'm not trying to anger you. That's jeffee's ploy. If you get angry, that's on you.

I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge what the issue is, and I've explained it adequately, IMO.
/QUOTE]


The one true thing you have said so far. Yes what I have said is just an opinion.
Not only that, but a very minor, Inconsequential opinion too. That its caused so much contortion is bloody funny!
And yet, somehow just refusing to play your games feels to me like punching down. Im starting to feel a bit sorry for you. That you are so invested in this, that you can't go back and discuss the truth. Have a reasonable conversation.