Page 12 of 19

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:50
by Strategus
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

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 19:51
by Strategus
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.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 20:14
by DavidMaletsky
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.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 20:35
by Strategus
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.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 20:37
by Strategus
Too many assumptions. The word "significant", for example.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 20:40
by Strategus
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

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 20:47
by DavidMaletsky
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?

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:02
by Strategus
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.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:19
by DavidMaletsky
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.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 21:21
by DavidMaletsky
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.