Psilygirl writes:
"I however gave up posting in PA&L because no matter what scientific arguments I gave for environmental issues, I got told I was wrong and there wasnt enough evidence and basically got the boot."
I've read this whole thread and refrained from saying anything at all about prior references to myself because this thread isn't about me or PA&L, it's about Swami and S&P.
However, since my name has now been mentioned several times in this thread I think I am justified in pointing out that a look at Psilygirl's perceptions of how she was treated in the global warming thread may shed some light on the reason why this action re Swami is being so fiercely debated.
"...no matter what scientific arguments I gave for environmental issues..."
Psilygirl didn't always give exclusively scientific arguments that human activity is contributing to global warming. Some of her posts were "appeal to authority" type comments -- "the consensus of the scientific community is..." kind of thing.
"...I got told I was wrong..."
I didn't just tell her "she was wrong", I pointed out the fact (and yes it is a fact) that many scientists remain unconvinced that human activity is causing global warming. I further mentioned data -- not opinion, or speculation or models or projections or estimates mind you, but data -- from weather balloons and satellites showing there has been no temperature increase since these measurements have been started. I also mentioned that some of the peer-reviewed articles have been shown to be erroneous in that they use bad methodology, faulty mathematical analysis (i.e the broken "hockey stick" example), inbuilt bias in some of the computer models, etc. I also mentioned it has been confirmed that the sun is currently going through one of its more active phases in terms of output. More heat from the sun = more heat on earth.
I should also mention I am not the only one who has brought these and other easily-checked facts to the table of discussion on global warming. There have been numerous threads in PA&L on this topic. Psilygirl probably hasn't seen them all. She may not have seen any of them.
"...and there wasnt enough evidence..."
Here's the thing. There is apparently enough evidence that humans are causing global warming to satisfy her. The point is, there is not enough evidence to satisfy me or several other frequent posters in PA&L or for that matter many, MANY scientists either. She feels browbeaten because she feels the evidence in favor of her position isn't given enough weight by myself and others, yet she has no qualms about giving no weight at all to the evidence (and yes, it is evidence -- evidence as good as and often more scientifically rigorous than some of the speculations from her sources) I and others bring to the table. She is convinced of her position and sees any opposing views as instantly dismissable. She came right out and said the balloon and satellite data was meaningless. Although apparently I must accept her "evidence" at face value with no questioning, she feels no such compunction to do the same with mine, because global warming is REAL, dammit!
"...and basically got the boot."
That's just wrong. I've debated the same issue with others, they weren't given the boot. Neither was Psilygirl. She got frustrated the evidence she presented didn't instantly convert us skeptics and bailed. No one -- least of all me -- "gave her the boot".
"Some people are just really full of themselves and think they know everything and should chill the fuck out and let others discover their own ideas without the fear of their ideas being derailed because one random dude "knows all."
Indeed, Psilygirl. You are convinced that you know global warming due to human action is actually occurring. You know everything about global warming -- I know nothing. You can't possibly be in error, it must be me who's too stupid to buy your assertions. I know nothing about satellite data or solar cycles or faulty statistical analysis -- because damn it, global warming is real!. Therefore, the only reason I am debating you must be because either
a: I am a dickhead
b: I am too stupid to see you are right
Maybe Psilygirl started the thread just assuming we would all accept as a given that global warming is real, in the same way we all agree the War on Drugs is wrong. The thing is, we don't all agree with her premise, and that surprise may have affected her perception on the nature of the responses she received.
So how is this relevant to the Swami situation? Because it's all about perceptions. Psilygirl's perception of what occurred in that thread differs from that of mine and the others who don't see her arguments as convincing. The same thing occurs in threads in which Swami participates. People often have a lot invested in their particular belief system, especially their personal spiritual belief system, and when it is questioned they are not always able to separate themselves from their beliefs. "That guy is treating me mean!" Well... maybe he is. But maybe he isn't. Maybe someone looking in on the discussion doesn't see any meanness, because he has nothing invested in the topic under discussion and can instead dispassionately examine the relative values of the arguments being presented and come to his own conclusions.
Don't take any of this to mean I am on Swami's side or that I am against Swami. I've read too few of his posts in S&P to have a valid opinion on this one way or the other. I merely used posts in which my name appeared to make a point about how the two sides in this standoff perceive things differently.
pinky
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
looner2 
Phred 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
World Spirit
nonick
Anonymous
1 2 all )
spud
Smallworlds
fireworks_god
bigidiot
Krishna