Atomsk's Sanakan

Banned
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Atomsk's Sanakan

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan
  • Skype
    noctambulantjoycean (Rick Possessed)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Met william.scherk from Twitter around the time of Scott Adams climate challenge. Interested in science, science denialism, and philosophy.

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Noctambulant Joycean
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Richard Joyce's "The Evolution of Morality"; Spawn of Possession; BLAME!; LucuLucu
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh, and just to be transparent: I've posted about this on Twitter, just so people who understand and are genuinely interested in the science, can see the sorts of people we're dealing with and some of the ways they will likely evade evidence.
  2. Some people are beyond having their minds changed by evidence, since they're too busy with personal attacks, saying everything is "bullshit", talking about people instead of addressing scientific evidence, tone trolling, etc. That's why, for example, there are still flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers. Enjoy your corner of the Internet where you can have like-minded folks ignore the scientific evidence with you. Other folks will be off actually reading about, and understanding, the science. See ya.
  3. I'm here to discuss scientific evidence. You're clearly not. You were cited evidence addressing answering your question, and the answer was explained to you at a layman's level. You responded by showing no interest in the evidence or the answers. You were asked questions to help you make it clear which piece of evidence you didn't accept. You responded by willfully ignoring the questions. And you wrapped it up by doing the standard contrarian tactic of acting as if the science you don't accept is on par with religion, while not bothering to actually address the evidence No
  4. And there we have it. You ask for repeatable, falsifiable science on climate change. And when the relevant evidence is cited to you, you're only response is to say you're not interested, while making sure to quote-mine in a way that avoids any of the evidence cited to you. Thank you for showing you're not actually interested in scientific evidence.
  5. I can check if that's the case by seeing how you answer some questions on the science (by the way, I know william.scherk and brad from Twitter; the former from around the time of Scott Adams' climate challenge, and the latter for longer than that). I don't have much patience for ideologically-motivated evasions of science. So what I'm going to do is ask direct questions and then cite you the information needed for answering them. I'm not interested in tangents about me being a Nazi, or other red herrings. The questions I will to ask will help keep things focused on the topic at hand. You