As the days of my life are but grains of sand

talking Paul links to What Can We Learn About Human Psychology from Christian Apologetics? The article itself is an exercise in proving itself right: the only people reading it will be those who disagree with Christian Apologetics. But I digress; the point I was trying to make was the connection with "the GW debate" and perhaps Sou's Talking to contrarians. Why do you do it? Or why not? Most people are talking past each other, or in many places (perhaps canonically WUWT) deliberately going to places where they can be sure they won't be disturbed by contrary opinions: either because they won't meet them at all, or because the few that are there will be happily shouted down by fellow believers.

So why am I writing this? Because its fun! Mostly. Habit, partly. For the lurkers? Maybe.

Meanwhile, Wotts has been trying to talk to RP Sr who really really doesn't like people to be anonymous and pretends that dislike is civililty. And the reason I mention that is because RP posted Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue. Like everyone else, I haven't read the details. Why should I? If RP had a real point, he wouldn't have published it at WUWT, where only the fanbois go. He'd have offered it to RC, or somewhere else with a reputation. If no-one but WUWT will publish your stuff, you're lost. This begins to look like the Dr Spencer problem.

More like this

Is the necessity of a leap of faith for the apologist analogous to the need to break through cultural and ideological filters for the climate communicator?

By Paul Kelly (not verified) on 28 Oct 2013 #permalink