Page 11 of 19

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 02:22
by DavidMaletsky
schocker wrote:I am going to take beowulf7 advice " It does not matter what the "enemy" says, what is important is not to listen but to dismiss." So Strategus I think you are wasting your time with them. You are correct to question and probe as that is what is needed not the group think we are being fed.


This is exactly why we have such a monolithic divide... in US politics, anyway. It doesn’t do any good to sit around agreeing with your clan and not listening; in fact, it does harm. Participating in a dialectic is how people come together; and the core of a dialectic is doubt. Anything that stands up to rigorous critique is probably pretty valuable / solid.

Accusing the side you’re not on of “group think” only serves to demonstrate that your jumpoff point is also “group think”. And it should also be noted: group think is perfectly fine in a lot of cases. Like, what’s another view about all the plastic in nature that holds literally any water other than it’s our fault? Gremlins stole it from us and put it there? Ancient aliens made sure we would turn fossil fuels into plastic so they could harvest it later? I mean, seriously

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 02:38
by DavidMaletsky
Should also mention, claims about the motivations of speakers say nothing about the truth value of what’s being said; it’s fallacious to try and link the motives of scientists to whether or not their flames are true. If a chain smoker tells you smoking is bad for you, their hypocrisy is irrelevant; the statement remains true.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 22:01
by schocker
When you read my sarcastic dismissal of the debate realize I am responding to B.....

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 22:04
by schocker
In addition, nobody on our "side" as your "side" likes to categorize us, has said anything but to ask for more research and data. But, this "dismissed" by some.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 02:47
by DavidMaletsky
Well, on October 19, 1980, one of the most famous scientists in the world at the time, Carl Sagan, illuminated quite a bit of research and evidence on the episode of Cosmos entitled “Heaven and Hell”. Some of us have been aware of a large body of work that began decades ago and has only gained increased confirmation since then; and excepting the very young, it’s difficult to imagine anyone who genuinely cared about learning about the topic could be unaware of said work. As a consequence, one might find it tiresome to endlessly repeat points that have been in evidence for decades. Happy to clarify specifics; but the idea that the research hasn’t been done or that there isn’t a mountain of scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates to reasonable individuals humanity’s impact on the environment since the advent of coal and oil is frankly not worth entertaining. At best what you called your “side” is trolling the rest of us... at best.

Not that there actually are sides, of course. Unless beanbags are hard and diamonds are soft are also “sides”.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 17:10
by schocker
I continue to "quote" the "side" statements as they are not mine. It is from beowulf7 as he refers to people who disagree with his position as the "enemy". But, you continue to assign them to me. I think really you are the troll as you have decided that any questions dealing with the field of climate are unjustified as the "evidence" is completely sufficient for all "reasonable" people to conclude that warming is caused by mankind. So just move on and let us dullards have our conversation.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:23
by DavidMaletsky
schocker wrote:I continue to "quote" the "side" statements as they are not mine. It is from beowulf7 as he refers to people who disagree with his position as the "enemy". But, you continue to assign them to me. I think really you are the troll as you have decided that any questions dealing with the field of climate are unjustified as the "evidence" is completely sufficient for all "reasonable" people to conclude that warming is caused by mankind. So just move on and let us dullards have our conversation.


Well, here’s a simple reduction as absurdum argument:

Presuppose that mankind has not had a significant impact on the environment since coal and oil went into widespread use.

Then it must not be the case that human-generated carbon emissions exist in any significant fashion; further, it must not be the case that human generated plastics have significantly impacted the environment, either.

But both of these things are in evidence.

Hence the premise is false.

Hence its counterpoint is true. Q.E.D.

It is unassailable symbolic logic that gets one from one of the above step to the next. The only element anyone can disagree with is “both of these things are in evidence”. So, again, the burden of proof is to show why all of the correlative empirical data built up over decades demonstrates no significant causal link.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:27
by DavidMaletsky
And again, look at what reasonable means... and index that to the use of REASON. Then maybe look up what reason means. Turns out, it’s a combination of using logic and empirical observation. So yes, LITERALLY, “reasonable” people cannot hold the view that humanity has had no significant impact on climate change; at least, not unless they can show why all of the data that points to that conclusion is in error.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:29
by DavidMaletsky
Apologies, that should have read reductio ad absurdum two messages back. Blasted spellcheck

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:35
by DavidMaletsky
Oh, and as regards your attribution that I think climate discussions are worthless: I grew up in south Florida. Do you think it’s my preference to believe that my childhood home may well be underwater by the end of my life? Because I assure you, I don’t. I would love nothing more than to be convinced otherwise; but “I don’t believe all of the evidence in front of me” without rhyme or reason is not a convincing argument. PLEASE CONVINCE ME SCIENCE IS WRONG