h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If I was to focus my efforts into creating a group on h2g2 - dedicated to people who love all music extreme and wierd, would you join, and how many people in total do you think would be interested?

I'd certainly be up for joining... not sure how many others would join but I think the best bet to drum up interest is to mention it on Ask.

Mr D. to reduce sidetracking of the main thread, from your post 41

"Actually, I think you’ll find that in my post 32 I was answering a question you had asked earlier than the “at least 60%”"

You were answering a question posted prior to post 32 - but post 32 had already been posted. So why ignore the new data? B/c it helps make your case?

You asked me where I got the impression that you thought science was infallible, I answered truthfully by saying that your previous insistance that myself and Ictoan were wrong because we didn't think the predictions could be 100% accurate implied a belief in said infallibility. Yes, in post 30 you gave a margin of error, but that margin of error was given after I had accused you of thinking science was infallible and therefore had no bearing on why I had levelled said accusation at you in the first place. Savvy?

Yes, the first time occurred before post 30. That doesn't explain why it happened after post 30.

Apart from the comment which I retracted and apologised for (paying attention works both ways, kids!) when, after post 30, did I specifically accuse you of saying that science was infallible?

1) there was no retraction for post #32. You've claimed ad naseum that post 32 was in response to a post prior to 30, but the fact remains that post 32 comes after post 30...

2) more importantly:
Mr. D, then what level of accuracy would convince you to change your behaviour, or that human behaviour is responsible and should be changed?

(why do keep asking for "an acceptance that there is a chance, no matter how small, that they might be wrong." I've said they might be wrong, and as Ste points out, they've inherently said they might be wrong?)

<>

I never said there was. There was, however, a retraction for a later post where I dredged up the infallibility thing again and clicked post before my internal editor had a chance to put his hand up. A retraction which you ignored, I might add.

<>

Oh for God's sake. Post 32 was mostly a reply to the section of POST THIRTY that was aimed at me (with a small reply to the bit aimed at Ictoan, which just in case you've forgotten, is the section which contained the 60% figure), not anything prior to it. Okay? In POST THIRTY you asked why I had PRIOR TO POST THIRTY accused you of believing in the infallibility of science. I answered using the relevant information (which, funnily enough was PRIOR TO POST THIRTY) as to why that was the case. Clear? Or do I need to use pictures?

<>

Ah, now we're getting into an entirely different argument. I never at any point said that I didn't believe in global warming, nor that I would sit back and do nothing about it. I currently use public transport or walk wherever possible (even though we own a car), all the appliances when I move house soon will be energy efficient. Also when we move house we will take advantage of the local council's recycling scheme. I am also a member of Greenpeace.

<<(why do keep asking for "an acceptance that there is a chance, no matter how small, that they might be wrong.">>

Because that's all I want. Yet, despite your inclusion of an abitrary margin-of-error percentage, I continue to be shouted down.

<>

Then why in the blue blazes can't you just let it lie?! In fact, if you agree with me about it why did you make such a fuss in the first place? Jesus. Do you just like arguing for its own sake?

Addendum:
Just to clarify in a slightly calmer fashion: I accused you of believing that science was infallible before post 30.
Therefore anything that appeared in post 30 or afterwards has no bearing on why I made the original accusation.
Therefore trying to make me factor post 30 into the reasons behind my accusation is pointless.
Any wording which implied that I was factoring your 60% into the accusation was just bad English on my part.
The subsequent accusation of this infallibility (post 37, in which I used the phrase God-Scientists*), was a childish heat-of-the-moment thing which I immediately retracted (post 38) and was suitably embarrassed about.

*hmmm… I like the sound of that, should I ever write any sci-fi I think I’ll have to include it.

What's that Skip? The kids are trapped down the old mine shaft?

Uh, I was just baffled why you were insisting we don't know with any certainty that global warming might occur on the one hand, but then in your personal life you do what you can to prevent it. I don't have a response to that one.

*Breathes in, breathes out*

I am an island of calm.

Right, so somehow my saying that the climatologists predictions may be incorrect has translated as "I think global warming might not happen"? At least this explains why you got on your high horse about the whole thing.

Yes. That actually was what started the whole thing.

How can climatoligists be incorrect and there be global warming occurring? They are the ones "saying" that global warming is occurring and will get worse.

Because all it takes is a single variance from that prediction for the prediction to be wrong, that's what I was arguing.