Scott, here again, your approach is completely nonsensical and vapid. You’re responding with words saying absolutely nothing.
-
-
Replying to @robhon_ @CollinMaessen
I can simplify. State any fact you hold as true while believing I do not think it true. Watch what happens.
5 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @CollinMaessen
You’re merely playing a childish game rather than engaging on a substantive level w/ actual relevant points.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
I wonder,
@ScottAdamsSays, if you've ever sat down face to face with a real climate scientist for a friendly conversation about the science?4 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Given that I could not validate anything said by such a person, how would it help? A skeptic would sound equally credible.
6 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
How do you validate anything your family physician tells you?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't engage in analogies. It's a waste of time.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Scott, your entire professional career has been about analogies!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Analogies are good for explaining a concept. They are useless for winning arguments as you were attempting with doctor example.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
And I was using the analogy of a family physician to explain how we all rely on the expertise of others as a normal process.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Good example of why analogies are useless. Doctors are not climate scientists are not climate models.
-
-
But physicians are experts and you trust their opinions. Climate scientists are also experts in their fields of research.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The question remains, Scott. How do you validate what your family physician tells you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.