Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
Ilmoita tämä viesti
I recommend ignoring Hedning.
It is not the first thread they have blown out of proportion—several times against me and several times against Knighttemplar1960.
If he leaves his poisonous politics aside and focuses on the game he actually does give the occasional bit of good advice about the game (although he usually over complicates it for new players). I have given him non-jester awards on occasion when his posts are accurate, brief, and clear.
Let me see. Knighttemplar has called climate change "pseudoscience". He's called scientific consensus "the nerd version of the Oscars", peer review "facetious". He's called me "indoctrinated" for believing in main-stream science and a "hypocrite". Not him but someone else called it a "Virtue signal" just to point out that ACC is not a conspiracy.
Now what have I done to escalate or blow anything out of proportion? I called him out on his fake expert claim. That's it.
You seem to agree that climate change is real, or you were when you thought I did not. Knighttemplar is the one denying ACC and I'm the one defending science, like in the article you linked. Do you understand we are actually on the same side here, or will you switch side just to remain my antagonist?
You thought knighttemplar1960 was talking about pseudoscience being real, and he did not do that at any point in this thread other than saying that science from Facebook is unreliable. No good science comes from a political point of view. Also, knighttemplar1960 did not claim to be an expert at any point either.
You have blown up several threads, and I have warned you to deal with your issue before coming to the Steam forum. Surprise, you still haven't dealt with whatever is weighing on you in real life and started a new spicy conversation.
As for me, I am a computer science major, and I deal with theories and testing them on a different level to prove or disprove a theory than Knighttemplar1960 does. However, I still deal with facts and politics differently (partially because where I work, the fund doesn't come from grants).
After 3 different people posted climate denial I made a post to the contrary. What's wrong with that? Why am I not allowed to tell the truth after 3 people post conspiracy nonsense?
All of the examples I give in that post come from actually reading the actual scientific papers that scientists publish their results with.
No, I do not need to reread the thread from the beginning to Hurkyl's reply to you, as I have been posting since the third post. I mentioned the seablock modpack, which turns water into a resource to OP) in my first post in this thread.
Knighttemplar1960 IS advocating for Human-caused climate changes, also known as Anthropogenic Climate Change (which you abbreviated as ACC in your post).
Which three people are advocating for climate denial? Certainly not Knighttemplar1960, as I double-checked his posts and found nothing to indicate a position of climate change denial.
Also, it's "Factorio". With capitalized "F". Only a Chinese spy would make that mistake. It's crucial to point it out.
God, you are so desperate to get a win my teeth hurt. You would agree your mother is a dirty *** if it gave you "discussion points", wouldn't you?
-Sigismund (post #4). I don't get the Nestlé reference but process of elimination tells me it's climate change denial.
-gonavy (post #5).
-knighttemplar (every post after his first)
I'm the one advocating for ACC. Why would I argue against him if we were on the same side? Do you think I am denying ACC? Your reading comprehension is so bad. You're getting our positions on the topic 180° turned around.
My phone auto-capitalizes the first letter of sentences and some common things like "I" and common proper names, but "Factorio" it didn't recognize as a proper name and I was either careless enough to not notice or lazy to not change it. That's quite different to a "researcher" calling it "thermal dynamics". I called it a spelling error but it really has nothing to do with spelling. He clearly didn't know what it was called. If we were using voice chat he would have said "thermal dynamics". It is important to point out because he claims it disproves accepted scientific facts, but he doesn't even know what it's called. If he wasn't arrogantly claiming to have disproved science I wouldn't have pointed it out.
You pointed it out, because you are desperate to argue people, not facts. Were it any different, you would jump off of your high horse and admit it was uncalled for. Instead, you double down and pretend miss-spelling somehow "proves" someone's mental capacity. It's as honest an argument as saying a fat guy cannot be right about athletics, no matter what he said.
The only arrogant person in here is you. I'm done here, the fact you still pretend your attack was somehow "important, crucial even!" (not arrogant at all, no) is beyond pathetic.
I'm not sure what you even think you're arguing against. Does the idea that scientists might ever misrepresent their results offend you that badly? Are you really trying to take up the position that scientists always represent their results flawlessly, without exception?
As strongly as you believe in the hivemind, I'm sure you can come up with examples of wrongthink by scientists that have fallen out of your disfavor that you would like to characterize as misreporting the science. (P.S. the hivemind position on that particular topic at the time was that "positive correlation" and "we don't have enough data to prove a positive correlation" were the only acceptable things to say)
Or... do you just have some vehement personal animosity towards me that you are desperate to say I'm wrong about something even when provided with absolutely no content for you to have an opinion about?