Climate Change

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 19:50

DavidMaletsky wrote:
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.

This is not logic
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 19:51

DavidMaletsky wrote: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

It will be under water. No debate on that one. Thankfully.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 26 Aug 2019, 20:14

P

A & B

Q & R

If A & Q then ~P

If B & R then ~P

Hence ~P

P = Humanity has had no significant impact on the environment

A = CO2 has a significant impact on the environment

B = Plastic has a significant impact on the environment

Q = Humanity has put a significant amount of CO2 into the environment

R = Humanity has put a significant amount of plastic into the environment

You saying “that isn’t logic” doesn’t make it so.
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 20:35

DavidMaletsky wrote:P

A & B

Q & R

If A & Q then ~P

If B & R then ~P

Hence ~P

P = Humanity has had no significant impact on the environment

A = CO2 has a significant impact on the environment

B = Plastic has a significant impact on the environment

Q = Humanity has put a significant amount of CO2 into the environment

R = Humanity has put a significant amount of plastic into the environment

You saying “that isn’t logic” doesn’t make it so.

It's just a load of letters. Doesn't prove anything.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 20:37

Too many assumptions. The word "significant", for example.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 20:40

Hereis another piece of "logic".

A Mankind is insignificant
B Mankind has had a significant impact on the emvironment
C A and B are mutually exclusive, therefore B cannot be true.

QED
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 26 Aug 2019, 20:47

Which of the premises I laid out are you disputing the truth value of exactly? Because your distaste for the term “significant” is not an argument.

Andbin your argument, where is the evidentiary basis for the claim that mankind is insignificant?
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

Re: Climate Change

Postby Strategus » 26 Aug 2019, 21:02

DavidMaletsky wrote:Which of the premises I laid out are you disputing the truth value of exactly? Because your distaste for the term “significant” is not an argument.

Andbin your argument, where is the evidentiary basis for the claim that mankind is insignificant?

You can't claim my challenge of the word significant is not valid. Itis up to you to prove what is significant, as you used the term.

Mankind has been on the planet for two million years out of a total history of 4.5 billion. I would say that is insignificant.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2889
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1619
All-game rating: 1660
Timezone: GMT

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 26 Aug 2019, 21:19

Plastics have been on the planet less than two centuries. Yet there is a swirling mass of them in the Pacific larger than Mexico; they have increasingly been discovered in the guts of sea life; microplastics have been discovered in both our food supply, and raining from the sky.

Also, if a loved one were to pass away, by your reasoning that would also be insignificant. In other words, time indices are not a necessary component of significance.
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

Re: Climate Change

Postby DavidMaletsky » 26 Aug 2019, 21:21

And I don’t have to prove anything about my usage of “significant” if the vast majority of my linguistic community, that is English speakers, share a common usage and understanding with me. It’s the statistical minority that has to demonstrate why their outlier usage of language obtains.
DavidMaletsky
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 11 Jun 2018, 19:05

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests