Facebook politics

Nicole Foss blocked

Nicole Foss

Last night I posted an article on the terrible floods in Sri Lanka with reference to Nicole Foss’s denial.

She came back this morning with THIS in which she shed not a single tear for the people of Sri Lanka or elsewere but continued her diatribe.

• Nicole Foss My life is somehow petty merely because I disagree with McPherson and NTHE? You persist in calling me a climate change denier simply because I disagree with the ill-founded and overblown prognostications of your idol-du-jour? Please get a grip.

  1 · 21 hrs
• 

  Nicole Foss LOL, you say this without knowing one single thing about me or my position on any issue whatsoever. This is groupthink. Science is about questions and debate. It is not about certainty.

  1 · 21 hrs
• 

  Nicole Foss Please note that the comment I was replying to above has been deleted.

  1 · 21 hrs
• 

  Guy McPherson As mentioned in the original post, Foss denies abrupt climate change. The evidence is overwhelming, and the denial is profound. Even as 5 million people die every year as a result of climate change, it's perceived as an unimportant "problem."

  Like · Reply · 4 · 18 hrs · Edited
• 

  Jo-Ann Child · Friends with Guy McPherson

  Until it happens to them

  Unlike · 3 · 9 hrs
• 

  Pauline Panagiotou Schneider " idol-du-jour" I'll have some of that. 

  Unlike · 3 · 8 hrs
• 
• 

  Jo-Ann Child · Friends with Guy McPherson

  There was a time when people disagreed about the role of the earth and the sun, the sun revolved around the earth. They disagreed, men were put to death but none of that changed the facts.

  Unlike · Reply · 3 · 18 hrs
• 

  Martha Goodrich-Borzoni · 8 mutual friends

  Nopium

  Unlike · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs
• 

  Biff Vernon "The evidence is overwhelming" Well, it may have overwhelmed Guy, but while probability distributions have fat tails that it could be dangerous to ignore, I find the evidence for disastrous climate change compelling but that 'gradual' is a better descriptor than 'abrupt'. These are non-numerical terms and open to interpretation, but such is the richness of language. To link Nicole Foss with denial merely serves to remove all credibility from the author, making the attempt at rational discourse fruitless.

  Like · Reply · 2 · 17 hrs
• 

  Nicole Foss I disagree with abrupt climate change. You, as usual, try to paint me as a heretic for doing so, as if things were black and white when they are not. The world is a far more complex place than you seem to think. Peddling ill-founded certainties serves no one well, except yourself in forming a cult of personality of course. It certainly does not serve the cause of actual knowledge or understanding - it actively undermines them. I think that's intentional, which is very sad. Science is about questions and debate, not about iron-clad certainty, especially when that certainty rests on flawed or misrepresented sources and on mathematically indefensible extrapolations of data. Misanthropy is not a pleasant trait to observe either.

  2 · 10 hrs
• 

  Guy McPherson Anybody checked the abundant evidence for abrupt climate change? I'll link it here, you'll continue to ignore it, and you'll continue to disparage me and my work. Denying evidence makes you deniers. Resorting to name-calling is exactly what I expect. http://guymcpherson.com/.../climate-change-summary-and.../

  

  Climate-change summary and update

  Updated frequently, and most recently 26 October 2014. ** Latest additions are flagged with two asterisks on each...

  GUYMCPHERSON.COM

  Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 5 · 9 hrs
• 

  Nicole Foss I don't call people names. I comment on behaviours, particularly behaviour patterns.

  8 hrs
• 

  Robin Westenra I have removed some comments. I will not tolerate comments that are purely ad hominem

  Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs
• 

  Pauline Panagiotou Schneider Nicole, when I read you initial comment I was certain it was posted by a right wing nut job from the South of the US. Then I saw your name! 
  wow.

  Unlike · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

  • 
    

    Robin Westenra "t was not the subject of this thread."!!!! Did you read the article,per chance?

    Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs
  • 

    Guy McPherson Ha ha ha. Why bother reading anything when you already know everything?

    Unlike · Reply · 2 · 7 hrs
  • 

    Nicole Foss That's you modus operandi , not mine.

    7 hrs
  • 

    Robin Westenra The denier now denies being a denier. "Why concentrate in that which cannot be changed by human agency? That is just a recipe for pointless angst " Here once again is my article - all the references are there, so you can go back and see who said what and when.http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com.tr/.../serving-empire...

    

    Seemorerocks: Serving the Empire of lies

    The intellectually dishonest, climate denier, Nicole Foss has removed that FB thread. Attempting to cover her scat...

    ROBINWESTENRA.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY SEEMOREROCKS

    Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · 7 hrs
  • 

    Nicole Foss Why do you persist in smearing and defaming me merely for disagreeing with you? People disagree with each other all the time. The world is not a place of certainty. Certainty, even when unpleasant, is strangely comforting. We need to be brave enough to face uncertainty. It is human hubris to assume everything important is known. It is not, and never will be. Living with risk and uncertainty will always be part of the human condition.

    7 hrs
  • 

    Robin Westenra I do NOT defame you. I am challenging you. You are a public figure and, as such, accontable for what you say.

    Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs
  • 

    Robin Westenra We are not talking about certainty or uncertainty - it is about DENIAL dressed up as intellectual debate.

    Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs · Edited
  • 

    Nicole Foss You consistently defame me by distorting every word I say, twisting everything to paint a picture that suits you, but is highly inaccurate. You are also accountable for your words. I stand by my words as written and am happy to be accountable for them. Your misrepresentation of my words, used expressly for the purpose of character assassination, is inexcusable. Can you tell the difference between denial and intellectual debate? I don't think so. Anyone with a genuine appreciation for science can do so easily.

    7 hrs
  • 

    Robin Westenra I stand by every single one of them. I have invited people to read the particular articles and make up their own minds - its all there in my article. I have withheld nothing.

    Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

I warned that I would not tolerate this discussion going on, and on, ad nauseum.

In response to this:

For Nicole Foss' benefit, of all the people that attended Guy McPherson's hui there was no one I or Pam can recall who expressed feelings of depression or despair. There was one criticism that we didn't go far enough. Funny, that! Just a group of people reflecting on life.

Says Ms. Foss:

• Nicole Foss Oh really? How recently did you write this (below)? Is that not despair?

  

  4 hrs
• 

  Robin Westenra How dare you presume to interpret my emotions!

  Like · 1 · 1 hr
• 

  Nicole Foss This is consuming you. It's compounding your health problems. This obsession isn't helping anyone. It's deterring people from moving forward in useful ways. Of course the best we can do won't save civilisation in anything remotely like its current form, but in combination with economic collapse the effect may well be sufficient to avoid some of the more extreme climate scenarios. It is terribly premature, and unsubstantiated by real science, to write off all of humanity in the short term. It is also profoundly unhelpful to let this false certainty cloud our judgment, and even more so to propagate it as Truth when it is mere speculation.

This is consuming you. It's compounding your health problems. This obsession isn't helping anyone. It's deterring people from moving forward in useful ways. Of course the best we can do won't save civilisation in anything remotely like its current form, but in combination with economic collapse the effect may well be sufficient to avoid some of the more extreme climate scenarios. It is terribly premature, and unsubstantiated by real science, to write off all of humanity in the short term. It is also profoundly unhelpful to let this false certainty cloud our judgment, and even more so to propagate it as Truth when it is mere speculation.

Guy’s reasonable response (IMHO):

Unfounded judgment is your specialty. Apparently you think you're a medical doctor, too, among your many other "talents." It's too bad you don't accept evidence, as scientists do. Rather, you believe "the best way to address climate change is not to talk about it." What a bad joke.

And Ms. Foss - 

I don't make unfounded judgments, I leave that to you Professor, LOL. I do accept real evidence, but I don't accept false certainty based on wild speculation. Again, I leave that to you.

All of this was one step too far and I have both “unfriended” and blocked Nicole Foss