BBC Blog Network

Listed below are comments made by davblo between Friday, 4th December 2009 and Saturday, 5th December 2009.

• «Newer
• Older»

• Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 7:21pm on 05 Dec 2009 JeffM #83: "Precisely what function does the adjective 'overtly' serve in that,..."
  
  Well JeffM; overtly means "done or shown openly", so I guess Tony Abbott has made his scepticism about climate change know publicly as opposed to keeping it to himself.
  
  Does that help you?
  
  /davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 7:10pm on 05 Dec 2009 Researcher 14175758 #79: "...[unrepeatable]..."
  
  My first reaction was to complain and have your comment removed.
  
  But on second thoughts it's probably just as well that you've shown your true colours.
  
  /davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 7:01pm on 05 Dec 2009 SnoddersB #73: "As a skeptic, both about the EU and the Climate Change debate and the human input to the change." and "Unfortunately the government and the EU are obviously paying for the media to continue the scam."
  
  Deja vu.
  
  I claim a foul.
  
  A sceptic questions and doubts.
  
  You are stating that AGW is a scam.
  
  You are not a sceptic you are hard line anti-AGW.
  
  You hereby loose the right to call yourself a sceptic.
  
  /davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 07:59am on 05 Dec 2009 poitsplace #767: "In other words...you are wrong on both counts so give it up"
  
  You haven't read that thread of discussion properly.
  
  If you look at bowmanthebard #725 you'll see that he introduced agnosticism into the argument.
  
  I merely replied to him in my #738, and if you look closely you'll even see that I said my view of what agnosticism appears to differ from his. But that didn't affect the line of the main discussion.
  
  In bowmanthebard #742 he replied and in my #743 I continued talking about scepticism and avoided mentioning agnosticism altogether because I thought is detracted from the main point (scepticism).
  
  Finally bowmanthebard #760 pretty much finished it off, again without mention of agnosticism.
  
  If you really want to debate the meaning of agnosticism then you should address your comments to bowmanthebard; I'm just a plain atheist.
  
  /davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 9:52pm on 04 Dec 2009 bowmanthebard #742: "Maybe you had better explain what you mean."
  
  I did. It's in the part of my #738 which you didn't quote.
  
  bowmanthebard #742: "You seem to think that scepticism is inconsistent with alternative views."
  
  Yes. The definition of scepticism says nothing about alternative views.
  
  Scepticism involves questioning and doubting accepted views.
  
  Advocating alternative views is something else.
  
  Did you understand the point about the onus of proof?
  
  Sceptics don't have to prove anything.
  Advocates of an alternative theory do.
  
  Why do you want to mix the two things up?
  
  /davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 9:13pm on 04 Dec 2009 JaneBasingstoke #737: "..you made sense it didn't make sense.."
  
  Yes, I admit I don't fully understand what has been happening.
  But setting ones own details probably helps.
  
  I even shook off my trailing "2".
  
  The best way to check how you are appearing in reality, as opposed to the "you wrote" it shows just you, is to log out and re-open the web page. Then you see what everyone else sees.
  
  All the best; davblo
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 8:58pm on 04 Dec 2009 bowmanthebard #725: "Do you think the fact that these two theories are mutually exclusive means that agnostics are not really sceptical at all?"
  
  Rather fruitless I feel, but since you argue the point...
  
  I disagree.
  
  An agnostic who goes only as far as being agnostic can be said to be sceptical (if that fits with your understanding of agnostic - it doesn't with mine, but that's another story).
  
  An agnostic who advocates the big bang theory is going beyond simple scepticism and is advocating a specific theory. He is making a counter claim.
  
  The big difference is that, (as sceptics here are quick to point out), a pure sceptic doesn't have to prove any alternative theory, he can just question and doubt the one he is sceptical of. On the other hand a counter claimant is obliged to try and prove his alternative theory.
  
  In your example, a simple agnostic can be content with saying "I doubt that god exists"; no evidence required. But an advocate of the big bang theory has to support his claim with evidence, and that is not scepticism.
  
  /davblo
  
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 8:16pm on 04 Dec 2009 JaneBasingstoke #724: "Does anyone here know a fix for the U number business?"
  
  
  Did you read my #684?
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 10:20am on 04 Dec 2009 minuend #686: "The Hockey Stick was there yesterday - now it has disappeared."
  
  When I open that link I get a blank page offering me a "text only version". Probably because I'm outside UK and not allowed to view the "animation".
  
  The text only version has a couple of pictures but no diagrams or graphs at all.
  
  So I think your comment "BREAKING NEWS: BBC pulls controversial Hockey Stick..." is rather contrived.
  
  /davblo2
• Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 09:23am on 04 Dec 2009 Roland D #683: "The comments system seems to be randomly eating names"
  
  The beeb changed the registration system recently and as far as I knew we all had to re-register to the new system. Maybe we've been pulled across in stages.
  
  Anyway, the new system has both a "login name" and a "name to show on comments"; allowing them to be different. I just kept mine the same.
  
  Maybe those moving to the new system who havent specifically nominted a "name to show on comments" get a default "Uxxxx" name or one derived from their real name.
  
  I suggest you got to top right of this page and click on "Settings" where you can update your profile.
  
  All the best; davblo2
  
  PS. My "Preview" button comes back if I use Microsoft Internet Explorer, but not in my normal browser.

• «Newer
• Older»

BBC.co.uk