Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jan 7, 2022.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why, can you not actually discuss the actual illogic of what you claimed?

    You claimed that "deniers" both claim there is no warming, and that it is not caused by humans.

    Can you not even see this is a complete contradiction?

    You immediately scream I am "delusional", then just vomit up two links with absolutely no reason why I should even look at them.

    As I said quite clearly, I find it almost impossible to discuss this because most of those on the other side are fanatics, almost the the degree of religious fanatics. You can not even discuss the contradiction, simply insist I am mentally impaired because I actually see the contradiction in your claim . But funny, you refuse to even discuss that.

    Once again, you simply prove why I find it impossible to have a rational and logical discussion or debate with people that are all into the "man made global warming" belief. You are all prejudiced and bigoted, and dismiss anything that does not agree with your beliefs.

    Not unlike say a religious fanatic.
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you even notice his "references"?

    "Americanprogress.org" and some almost insane spreadsheet?

    Once, just once I would love to have an actual intelligent and non-partisan debate (not argument) with one of these people. In reality, I probably fall much more in line with their beliefs (and probably exceed most of theirs). Yet, I will always be their "enemy", simply because I do not agree with the cause.

    I wonder, how many are willing to give even 20% of their income to the poor. How many would not buy an SUV if they had a chance. I actually find it almost comical when they try to "shame me", and they have absolutely no idea how I live or act in my life.

    But in reality, talking with them is as bad as some "born again fundamentalist Christian", that is convinced that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and can vomit up all kinds of websites that agree with them. They will not actually discuss anything of a neutral stance that actually looks at both sides, but only cherry pick places that agree with them and anything else is "fake".

    They can not even recognize that as you say "denier" is propaganda. How can one both deny that things are warming, and also that the warming is not caused by humans? That is like saying that you are against any killing, but support capitol punishment and abortion. Or that you are a Jew, but accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and your Lord and Savior.

    Or that you agree with the right of the Confederate States to Secede, and are also against slavery. Or that the Democrats were all about Equality and Integration, as George Wallace was screaming "Segregation, today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"

    That is the funny thing, being in the middle of the road politically. I can smell the bullshit from both sides.
     
    gfm7175, 557, Lil Mike and 1 other person like this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!

    Mushroom used the word "denier", and that is who I responded to.

    My links directly refute the claim that was made.

    I don't know of a different term for those who deny that Earth is warming due to human cause.

    What term do YOU use?
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any site can report on what position our congressmen hold.

    If you think those data are wrong, your free to correct it.
    I think there is a LOT to debate about concerning what our response to climate change should be.

    However, scientists from the world over are in agreement on climate change and its causes. Having a debate about whether those with the expertise and training are right hits me as a little silly. People on this board are not better informed than are the scientists studying the many areas of science that are involved.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2022
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You introduced "deniers" in #1299.
    The accurate term, relative to "consensus" claims, would be "skeptics."
     
    gfm7175 and Mushroom like this.
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that term confers science based credibility and a pattern of examining through science that simply doesn't exist.

    Skepticism isn't what one calls cherry picking individual papers with NO interest in how the community of experts sees those data fitting into the larger picture, for example.

    Those who reject anthropogenic warming are not doing so out of skepticism. They are doing in out of political motivation.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for illustrating my point. Your "argument" actually a mere propaganda theme to shut down rather than engage scientific debate. Your #1331 is a textbook example. Thanks again.
     
    gfm7175 and Mushroom like this.
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Throughout the world we have experts working on the many areas of science that must be included in analysis of climate change.

    There is no justification for suggesting that anyone on this board can refute the conclusions that these scientists present.

    One can always cherry pick some study that LOOKS like it refutes something. But, without knowing how such papers are explained or incorporated in the analysis of climate it is pointless, in fact it is anti-science to debate that.

    On the other hand, it's fully reasonable to debate what policy or direction should be taken given what has been learned.
     
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ". . . what has been learned" is the point about which skeptics are skeptical.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2022
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cherry picking papers that you think support your preconceived position without bothering to verify what sources of science think about those papers is NOT SKEPTICISM.
     
  11. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You may wish to re-phrase that comment. What anyone “thinks” about evidence is irrelevant. Doesn’t matter who it is. If we go off what someone “thinks” of something that’s appeal to authority.

    Evidence carries the same weight no matter what anyone “thinks” about it.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "What [other] sources of science think" is what makes it a debate. We call that freedom of inquiry. Try it.
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That might make it a debate among scientists.

    But, on this subject scientists the world over agree that Earth is warming due to human activity. That is not a "debate".
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. There are authorities. It is absolutely appropriate that we appeal to authority.

    The "appeal to authority" fallacy comes when the indicated authority has no justifiable claim to authority on the specific question being asked.

    In the case of climate change, I'd point out that there is NO CHANCE that a civilian can actually evaluate the evidence as the volume is gigantic, the sources are highly varied, the change is not spread over Earth in an even manner, there are several important cycles going on that can lead to mistakes by civilians who are not equipped to evaluate data in the context of those cycles, etc.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will concede that there are a LOT of Americans who do believe that if there are authorities, we absolutely MUST ignore what they discover.
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should certainly listen to those with knowledge. Absolutely. But you have missed the point completely. What even a person with superior knowledge “thinks” about evidence is irrelevant.

    You are also incorrect about what appeal to authority is. It has nothing to do with the credentials of the one appealed to. Appeal to authority is any time an argument is posited or accepted based on credentials of the one making the argument, no matter how qualified.

    I like Carl Sagan’s take.

    You do not accept evidence, you accept arguments based on who makes them. This is antithetical to science. It’s pure appeal to authority fallacy independent of whether the accepted argument is supported by evidence or not. This approach has no place in any matter pertaining to science.

    To the climate science part it’s true nobody can know all there is to know. That’s why I focus on the areas I am an expert in. If I debate ocean acidification I must depend on evidence produced through the scientific method, not what someone else “thinks” about it. What someone “thinks” about ocean acidification is irrelevant whether the person is a guy from Kansas who’s never seen an ocean or a marine biologist who’s studied ocean pH for decades. All that matters is the evidence.

    But I am at the mercy of those providing the available evidence on the subject of ocean acidification. I don’t have the knowledge base to spot data omission or flawed methods or conclusions.

    However, if the subject is the effects of CO2 and climate change on food production things are much different. Since I have extensive formal education and decades of practical experience in the subject matter, I can see the flaws when they occur. Yet, when I do see flaws, I can’t just say I’m right without evidence. Nobody can. If I’m to be taken seriously I must show my evidence trumps the flawed evidence or incorrect conclusions.

    This is where you and I disagree. As Sagan said, authorities must prove their contentions like everyone else. I do so when I discuss science here. You do not. You give unsubstantiated opinions and opinions of others. I provide verifiable facts and evidence produced using the scientific method. I never accept an argument based on the qualifications of the one positing the argument. No scientist should.
     
    gfm7175, Jack Hays and Mushroom like this.
  17. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s probably accurate. I believe that demographic can be split into at least two camps. First, those who are intimidated by those who claim elite status and reject evidence based on dislike of the messenger. Second, those who have been lied to by authorities enough times they can not in good conscience trust them anymore. Probably some subgroups as well, but those are the most common in my experience.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the entire world of science agrees on the fundamentals of climate change, I absolutely do give that serious credence.

    Sagan would, too. In fact, he testified before congress in 1985 on the shift in climate that was known to be coming.

    Sagan is NOT saying that every expert should be discounted BECAUSE they are an expert.

    What we have today is people saying that if someone is educated and highly experienced on a topic, then they MUST be totally discounted because of that.

    We have people with NO science credentials thinking they are smarter than all the scientists put together.

    I do object to that, as this is a serious topic and we DO have experts.
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, they do not.
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Also look how often they claim "consensus", that is like a holy mantra to them.

    [​IMG]
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it was a question of the OP. Some people are deniers of AGW/ACC. Some accept it. some are undecided.
     
  22. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s something to consider. But you must also consider it’s possible the drawn conclusions on climate change are incorrect. Even some of our best attempts at science are shown to be wrong over time. Spontaneous generation was accepted for 1000 years. We don’t fully understand cloud formation as it occurs today.

    To be clear I’m not making an argument against AGW. I’m quite sure the planet has been warming and that greenhouse gasses bear a measure of responsibility. I’m just pointing out science must always consider it’s wrong or missing an important puzzle piece.

    His presentation was based on evidence, not an appeal to authority. It’s actually an interesting thing to watch knowing what we know now. For those third parties who are interested here it is.




    Did someone claim that’s what Sagan said? I’m uninterested in fallacious arguments.


    Who? I tend to give “experts” the benefit of the doubt—until they lie to me.

    Well, I can assure you not all the smart people are employed in climate science fields. I can also assure you that all the past errors of science like spontaneous generation were eventually corrected based on the questioning of dogma by individuals or small groups. Again, this is also appeal to authority, rejecting ideas because they don’t come from the “correct “ source. If the idea is without merit it’s easy to demonstrate that with evidence. Addressing intelligence isn’t productive.

    I don’t see opinions on the matter as problematic. What I see as problematic is the continued lack of focus on solutions by the experts. And the dishonesty most prevalent in reporting on climate change. I am not happy with how science is misrepresented to the public.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!!!

    They had to be right.

    They didn't get rewarded for disagreeing. They got rewarded for being right.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  24. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, there can be no advancement or discovery without questioning consensus.
     
    Jack Hays and Mushroom like this.
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You and others throw that word around all the time, and with you it really is absolutely worthless.

    You somehow seem to have no problem linking it to two very different beliefs at the same time. In other words, it is a blanket term you use for any that refuse to accept that humans are the cause. It is illogical, unconcise, and you use it as a hate word.

    As I have said many times, I would enjoy an actual rational conversation. But as you seem incapable of ever having one, I see it as pointless. You even skip around your absolutely horrid references, and then scream that we should find better ones.

    Which is also an exercise in futility, as you will reject any that you do not agree with. Meanwhile pulling from blatant political sites that is all about an agenda and not science at all.
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.

Share This Page