IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

[Oddball]

Any lurkers wanting to learn ways to tackle the skeptics take note. The great thing about analogies is they pin these guys down.

The fact is that climate skeptics generally put the climate subject in a special box where they invent their own special rules and logic to address it. They are often sensible people in other walks of life, but become raving buffoons when they go into climate skeptic mode, pulling out the oddest and weirdest logical contortions known to man.

The way to expose them is to break the confines of that box so they (and others) are forced to see their illogical arguments in light of subjects outside the box. In this case none of the skeptics are so mad as to dismiss the need for testing drugs before they are released. And therefore this is a fine anchor to compare their claims about CO2 against.

Anybody lurking wanting to learn ways to tackle the hoaxers take note. The great thing about analogies is they pin these guys down.

The analogy about drugs, as being currently invoked by the haoxer in question, is completely fallacious on numerous levels.

1) It begs the proving of a negative.
2) It claims the completely unquantifiable as unimpeachable scientific "given".
3) It uses this questionable "given" as a basis to use the entire planet as a suitable guinea pig.
4) It uses a foreign object (i.e. an opioid drug) placed into the body as a suitable analog for something that is entirely natural and elemental in the atmosphere (CO2).

Tell us, s0n, when do you get into high school?

 

[Oddball]

It's forcing them to prove that the medication does what it claims to do, without deleterious side-effects....That's proving a positive.

You lose, Buckwheat.

Yet you think forcing them to prove that CO2 emissions produce cheap energy without deleterious side-effects is proving a negative.

As I said your position is completely inconsistent.

CO2 isn't a foreign substance to the atmosphere, fool.

 

[daveman]

Again, very poor analogy. The only people affected by your non-analogous analogy are the drug company and the patients who take their drug.

The "solutions" advocated by AGW supporters will affect everyone.

I suggest you go find a different strategy. This one simply isn't working.

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.

You don't understand. We're arguing that CO2 is fundamentally safe because it is. It's up to you to prove that it's dangerous. Are you ever going to get around to that?

It's the AGW cult that's advocating economic solutions. I've proven that.

 

[RWatt]

The analogy about drugs, as being currently invoked by the haoxer in question, is completely fallacious on numerous levels.

1) It begs the proving of a negative.

Your argument would imply drug companies were having to prove a negative to comply with testing regulations.

2) It claims the completely unquantifiable as unimpeachable scientific "given".

Your argument implies we can't know the Sun warms the Earth unless we can quantify by how much. You confuse the quantitative with the qualitative.

3) It uses this questionable "given" as a basis to use the entire planet as a suitable guinea pig.

Well that's actually your move. Without adequate testing you are saying go ahead and take the drug, lift CO2 to 1000ppm if you will, and see what happens. You are the one using the entire planet as a guinea pig.

4) It uses a foreign object (i.e. an opioid drug) placed into the body as a suitable analog for something that is entirely natural and elemental in the atmosphere (CO2).

The CO2 rise is not natural and no historical example of it rising faster in the past is known.

You've been told several times that the issue is the rate of CO2 rise, not simply CO2 itself. Yet you insist on coming back to the latter because your argument is so weak you must avoid the former.

 

[RWatt]

Okay lets say the entire economy is banked on the drug company.

The argument doesn't change.

It's fundamentally dishonest to argue something is safe just because you think that will make an economic argument is easier. If you are worried about the economic impact of CO2 reductions then have the balls to actually go with that and not hide behind arguing the CO2 rise will be safe.

You don't understand. We're arguing that CO2 is fundamentally safe because it is. It's up to you to prove that it's dangerous. Are you ever going to get around to that?

"You don't understand", said the drug company, "we are arguing that the drug is fundamentally safe because it is. It's up to you to prove it's dangerous. Are you going to get around to that?"

"You haven't even tested a threefold increase in the dose so you can't conclude it is safe. It is up to you to test that to make sure there aren't adverse side effects", reply the public.

 

[skookerasbil]

Any lurkers wanting to learn ways to tackle the skeptics take note. The great thing about analogies is they pin these guys down.

The fact is that climate skeptics generally put the climate subject in a special box where they invent their own special rules and logic to address it. They are often sensible people in other walks of life, but become raving buffoons when they go into climate skeptic mode, pulling out the oddest and weirdest logical contortions known to man.

The way to expose them is to break the confines of that box so they (and others) are forced to see their illogical arguments in light of subjects outside the box. In this case none of the skeptics are so mad as to dismiss the need for testing drugs before they are released. And therefore this is a fine anchor to compare their claims about CO2 against.

Really s0n???

Then why is your side losing in epIc fAshIOn??!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( see "Predictions" thread)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any lurkers wanting to learn ways to tackle the skeptics take note. The great thing about analogies is they pin these guys down.

The fact is that climate skeptics generally put the climate subject in a special box where they invent their own special rules and logic to address it. They are often sensible people in other walks of life, but become raving buffoons when they go into climate skeptic mode, pulling out the oddest and weirdest logical contortions known to man.

The way to expose them is to break the confines of that box so they (and others) are forced to see their illogical arguments in light of subjects outside the box. In this case none of the skeptics are so mad as to dismiss the need for testing drugs before they are released. And therefore this is a fine anchor to compare their claims about CO2 against.

Excuse me, Warmer.

YOU are alleging that a 60PPM increase in the trace element CO2 does all these things.

Prove it!

 

[Oddball]

Your argument implies we can't know the Sun warms the Earth unless we can quantify by how much. You confuse the quantitative with the qualitative.

Wrong...The question here is HOW MUCH?

If you cannot quantify HOW MUCH the Sun warms the Earth, then you cannot, with scientific certainty, claim that it is the primary source of the phenomenon.

Well that's actually your move. Without adequate testing you are saying go ahead and take the drug, lift CO2 to 1000ppm if you will, and see what happens. You are the one using the entire planet as a guinea pig.

Without adequate testing and positive quantification of the results, all you've got is a popcorn fart.

The CO2 rise is not natural and no historical example of it rising faster in the past is known.

You've been told several times that the issue is the rate of CO2 rise, not simply CO2 itself. Yet you insist on coming back to the latter because your argument is so weak you must avoid the former.

Without positive quantification, you cannot credibly make that claim.

The best guesses have man's "contribution" to overall planetary CO2 release per annum at 3% of the total.

Also, claiming that it hasn't ever happened before does not, by extension, lend any proof positive to the claim that man's activities are to blame.

Now, run along back to class, sonny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your argument implies we can't know the Sun warms the Earth unless we can quantify by how much. You confuse the quantitative with the qualitative.

Wrong...The question here is HOW MUCH?

If you cannot quantify HOW MUCH the Sun warms the Earth, then you cannot, with scientific certainty, claim that it is the primary source of the phenomenon.

Well that's actually your move. Without adequate testing you are saying go ahead and take the drug, lift CO2 to 1000ppm if you will, and see what happens. You are the one using the entire planet as a guinea pig.

Without adequate testing and positive quantification of the results, all you've got is a popcorn fart.

The CO2 rise is not natural and no historical example of it rising faster in the past is known.

You've been told several times that the issue is the rate of CO2 rise, not simply CO2 itself. Yet you insist on coming back to the latter because your argument is so weak you must avoid the former.

Without positive quantification, you cannot credibly make that claim.

The best guesses have man's "contribution" to overall planetary CO2 release per annum at 3% of the total.

Also, claiming that it hasn't ever happened before does not, by extension, lend any proof positive the claim that man's activities are to blame.

Now, run along back to class, sonny.

The Warmers rely on the "just because we say so" method of "science"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thats why I say the additional CO2 comes from Dark Matter and the Ice Caps are "melting" due to Dark Energy.

I can't prove it either, but if I get 2 people to peer review it we have "Consensus" 3 people means the science is settled.

 

[skookerasbil]

January 4, 2011
Global Warming's New Marketing Campaign
Hank Campbell, Science 2.0

Environmental groups are concerned they have lost the trust of the public regarding global warming so they have taken to new marketing approaches. They started the last decade with runaway public interest and goodwill and ended it with scandals and black marks on the credibility of the climate field.

We started the last decade with an IPCC report that was the first to galvanize public attention on the issue of pollution and its warming effect - but ended it with a marketing video showing a teacher blowing up two students who didn't accept global warming, which didn't go over all that well with the public - apparently terrorism by teachers against minors and blood spraying everywhere doesn't have a lot to do with atmospheric science to those outside...


RealClearScience - Global Warming's New Marketing Campaign

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[daveman]

You don't understand. We're arguing that CO2 is fundamentally safe because it is. It's up to you to prove that it's dangerous. Are you ever going to get around to that?

"You don't understand", said the drug company, "we are arguing that the drug is fundamentally safe because it is. It's up to you to prove it's dangerous. Are you going to get around to that?"

"You haven't even tested a threefold increase in the dose so you can't conclude it is safe. It is up to you to test that to make sure there aren't adverse side effects", reply the public.

You're stuck on stupid.