Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Sunsettommy, Apr 26, 2021.

  1. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Er....methinks you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debates are conducted, in general, on the vast majority of debate forums. In my experience, it is as matter of course, generally accepted and understood that, under the concept of fairness, that....

    No one should be asked to rebut the contents of links provided, only the content of your commentary

    I could link to five hours worth of dissertation, and not make mention of it in my OP, just allude to it, and would it be fair of me to ask you to rebut the dissertation I linked to?

    Obviously not. So, any less variations of same, hold true, as well.

    You want a rebuttal to something, make that argument, YOURSELF. Use links only to support ( as opposed to make ) your argument.

    Doing otherwise is lazy, and not how debates are done.

    Moreover, eternally tired tricks like ( which fall under the bigger umbrella of 'posturing' such as ...) shaming your opponent I ( in order to puff yourself up) do not actually puff yourself up nor do they improve your argument, though they may undermine your credibility.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
    dgrichards likes this.
  2. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  3. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And still, no response to post other than that which makes me want to offer you cheese to go with your whine. My post had nothing to do with the OP other than to point that his link was to a climate denier blogger and therefore not to be trusted. I also challenged you to find a credible site with that or similar study/article and you still have no answer for me. I suspect that is because a credible site would not carry that which is as specious as this must be! I expect better from you, and I know that you have it in you. Time to let it out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  4. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Ha ha ha, he hasn't posted any for me to make a counterpoint against because he never posted a rebuttal to any of the CONTENT of the article in the first place, are you that blind?

    That is funny that you didn't read post three from dgrichards, who didn't begin to try addressing the topic in the first place, not only that he posted this of his own free will:

    I am the one who posted this article in the first place, who them made this statement that came along with it:

    "How much longer will warmist/alarmists continue to allow climate propagandists keep them dumb and ignorant?"

    Sure enough the replies have been evasive and not addressing the CONTENT of the article at all, the crybaby could have just ignored the thread instead, but Nooooo he wanted to impress people with a source fallacy argument, thus he digs a hole for himself by deliberately AVOIDING the debate.

    Here from the logic of science (LINK)

    ,"What is the genetic fallacy?
    As it’s name suggests, the genetic fallacy results from attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. If you think about that for a second, the reason for the confusion becomes clear. On the one hand, the reason that genetic fallacies don’t work is obvious: the truth of a claim is not dependent on the one who is making the claim.
    Even someone who is wrong 99.9% of the time will occasionally be right. On the other hand, however, the source of the information is clearly important. It’s intuitively obvious that not all sources are equal, and some sources are more authoritative than others. Imagine, for example, that during a trial, the prosecution brought in some random guy off of the street and asked him to testify about the forensic evidence of the case. The defense would very correctly attack the source of that information by arguing that this person was not a credentialed expert and, therefore, his testimony should not be trusted. There is obviously nothing fallacious about that, and the prosecution clearly couldn’t respond by accusing the defense of a genetic fallacy (they also couldn’t respond by saying “well he watched some Youtube videos on crime scene investigations and he’s read some blogs and done thousands of hours of research”)."

    bolding mine

    Now you understand WHY his first post was useless, he didn't address the CONTENT of the article at all, he didn't answer the question either, he rails against it because of his source fallacy problem he has, that I why I kept telling him the Article remains unchallenged, no rebuttal against it at all. He never made a case that any of the information is wrong in the article.

    He has so far posted 7 tomes and STILL nothing about the content of the article or answer the simple question.

    Maybe YOU can teach him how to make a real debate? I already made the first move.... in post one.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  5. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    You AVOIDED the content of this article I posted because you are busy pushing a fallacy over and over, it bothers you so much that you demanded I get a different article to replace it. :crazy:

    ,"What is the genetic fallacy?
    As it’s name suggests, the genetic fallacy results from attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself. If you think about that for a second, the reason for the confusion becomes clear. On the one hand, the reason that genetic fallacies don’t work is obvious: the truth of a claim is not dependent on the one who is making the claim.
    Even someone who is wrong 99.9% of the time will occasionally be right. On the other hand, however, the source of the information is clearly important. It’s intuitively obvious that not all sources are equal, and some sources are more authoritative than others. Imagine, for example, that during a trial, the prosecution brought in some random guy off of the street and asked him to testify about the forensic evidence of the case. The defense would very correctly attack the source of that information by arguing that this person was not a credentialed expert and, therefore, his testimony should not be trusted. There is obviously nothing fallacious about that, and the prosecution clearly couldn’t respond by accusing the defense of a genetic fallacy (they also couldn’t respond by saying “well he watched some Youtube videos on crime scene investigations and he’s read some blogs and done thousands of hours of research”)."

    LINK

    bolding mine

    =====

    It is clear you can't address it and even avoided answering about this chart credibility, I gave you a wide open chance to address it, you ignored it.

    [​IMG]

    Heck you can't even answer a simple question and it was the TITLE of the article:

    Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

    You could have just addressed the question only and ignored the article, but even that was beyond your capability.


    How many more times do you have to make a fool of yourself?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  6. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I actually read the article and much of what was presented was not new to me. Overall, it reads like propaganda because it is selective in what information is presented and evidence
    that runs contrary to the thesis is omitted. I don't believe that we are currently in a climate crisis but we will have a climate crisis in the future if we don't act now.
    The governments of the world need to promote policies to drastically reduce carbon emissions over the next 30 years in order to limit a GMT of around 1.5 -2.0 degrees C above
    pre-industrial levels. The author of that WUWT article, Willis Eschenbach, is looking backwards.instead of looking at future warming scenarios and he doesn't recommend any reduction in carbon emissions.
    His policy would be to wait and see what happens. The next 1.0 degree C. rise in the GMT will produce significantly more danger to human civilization than the first 1.0 degree C. of warming.

    Willis Eschenbach,
    "For five decades, we’ve been told every year that we only have five, ten, or twenty years before disaster … I mean, seriously, how can people still believe these serial failed doomcasters?

    So before we spend trillions of dollars on an unachievable plan to totally redo the entire global energy supply, how about we wait until someone can actually let us in on the big secret—just where is this mysterious “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!”, and when did it start?"

    If we don't do anything about our carbon emissions we will have a climate emergency and that is why we need to be proactive. It will take decades to make the changes necessary
    to prevent warning from becoming catastrophic. Do we wait for a catastrophe to happen and then act?

    Willis Eschenbach on human caused carbon dioxide forcing so far: "The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise"
    His bar chart shows a 2.0 watts/square meter level of CO2 forcing which is not trivially small (the actual number is now 2.1 watts/ square meter). It is the change in CO2
    radiative forcing that matters, not the proportional increase in CO2 forcing above pre-industrial times.

    Willis Eschenbach does not disagree with the IPCC on any of its assessments from what I could gather. That indicates that he thinks the IPCC is a reliable source, something
    that conservatives usually disagree with. Yes, the IPCC gives conservative assessments that are strongly based upon scientific evidence.

    I agree with the IPCC assessments and projections of future extreme weather events. There is much uncertainty. The amount of future warming is very difficult to project
    due to inaccuracies in climate models as well as uncertainty in future carbon emissions.
     
    dgrichards likes this.
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahh, 'in the first place' is where you, ostensibly, went wrong, afaict ( I'll have to go back to see the conversation, that being said.....)

    nevertheless, 'rebuttal to any of the content of the article in the first place' is precisely the problem, which goes back to my point:

    ...you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debates are conducted, in general, on the vast majority of debate forums. In my experience, it is as matter of course, generally accepted and understood that, under the concept of fairness, that....

    No one should be asked to rebut the contents of links provided, only the CONTENT of YOUR commentary that YOU provide.

    I could link to five hours worth of dissertation, and not make mention of it in my OP, just allude to it, and would it be fair of me to ask you to rebut the dissertation I linked to?

    Obviously not. So, any less variations of same, hold true, as well.

    You want a rebuttal to something, make that argument, YOURSELF. Use links only to support ( as opposed to make ) your argument.

    It's on you to make your argument, and you use links to support your argument, not make your argument, nor is it even the slightest bit fair to ask someone to rebut the content of something you link to, that is laziness. Do the work. If you can't do that, you have no business being on any debate forum, at least ones I've been part of in the last 25 years.
     
    dgrichards likes this.
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We'll have to disagree. Seems to me the point is to get the ideas and arguments in play -- however one chooses to do that -- and then discuss them. Everything else strikes me as pettifogging deflection.
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ever Deeper And Deeper Into "Climate" Fantasy
    April 24, 2021/ Francis Menton

    • It never ceases to amaze me how the very mention of the word “climate” causes people to lose all touch with their rational faculties. And of course I’m not talking here just about the ordinary man on the street, but also, indeed especially, about our elected leaders and government functionaries.

    • The latest example is President Biden’s pledge, issued at his “World Climate Summit” on April 22, to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 - 52% from the levels of 2005, and to do so by 2030.

    • In my last post a couple of days ago, I remarked that “Biden himself has absolutely no idea how this might be accomplished. And indeed it will not be accomplished.” Those things are certainly true, but also fail to do full justice to the extent to which our President and his handlers have now left the real world and gone off into total fantasy.
    READ MORE
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  12. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, make an argument and I will respond to it. You haven't done that yet. You want to make an argument, fine. Use links to support your argument, as I did on the previous thread we were on, and not too make your argument. By the way, still waiting for a response to my last post on that thread, or have you retired from the field?
     
  13. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An old friend, a champion debater in college, shared with me the secret of his success: "Debates are won in the library." Perhaps you should visit the library more often.
     
    drluggit and Sunsettommy like this.
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, I'll link to an hour long video of a Noam Chomsky lecture, and I'll ask you to rebut him.

    Is that fair?

    No.

    If you think it's fair, you are wrong.

    Make your argument, use links to support your argument, that's what is the subject of debates.

    To do otherwise is to be lazy.
     
    dgrichards likes this.
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think I'm the lazy one.
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  16. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One usually uses an article to support their argument. What we have here is using a link to make his argument, and not exactly a credible link at that.
     
  17. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    So the question was too hard for you......

    Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
     
    drluggit likes this.
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    21,190
    Likes Received:
    18,023
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last I looked, Noam isn't a climatologist. He's actually quite the perverted communist sympathizer, and has been most of his life. Why not try to actually learn something about the scam that is climate change orthodoxy and the amount of power you'd allow the elite to drub you with because you're afraid. I'd suggest that you haven't yet produced a cogent, or descent argument that justifies the level of economic and social political intervention into the lives of our global citizens to justify the artificial annuity stream you're advocating for. The fact that you actually don't understand the outcome of your argumentation is just icing on the desert that is your commentary.
     
    Jack Hays and Sunsettommy like this.
  19. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The question is irrelevant.. Just another dumb troll. Not to mention a stupid question. Belongs to the woodchuck family of questions.
     
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's actually the question.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Debates are won in the library.
     
  22. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,567
    Likes Received:
    3,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know how you boil a lobster. Put it into cold water and gradually increase the temperature. It'll just sit there and let it happen. The worst things in life come at you in slow motion. So most people don't give them any mind and procrastinate. But eventually they reach our doorsteps but then its too late. The climate emergency isn't here yet, but it is coming, very very slowly.
     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no emergency. And no, you put a lobster in boiling water.
     
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think, intellectually, in that particular circumstance, you were.
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Noam Chomsky, nor climate change, was the subject of my subthread with @Jack Hays. Chomsky's mention was merely incidental to the issue I had with mr Hayes.

    Next time, look before you leap.
     

Share This Page