Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

You do realize, of course, that that 2 degree figure is a global average, right. That it is entirely likely that among the numbers included in arriving at that 2 degree global rise includes extremes at both ends that can, do, and likely WILL kill people. Right? What? You didn't know this? Huh.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that 2 degrees will kill anyone. In fact, it may prevent a lot of people from starving to death.

 

[Abraham3]

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

It is not an appeal to authority. And what would you make of Spiderman's PoV?

 

[bripat9643]

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations. And why wouldn't they? It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population. Welcome to the 21st century.

If our government grew in proportion to our population growth, then it should still be spending only 5% of our GDP. Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP. In fact, the development of computers should mean that the number of people required to manage the government should be smaller now than it was in the 19th Century.

 

[bripat9643]

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

It is not an appeal to authority. And what would you make of Spiderman's PoV?

It obviously is an appeal to author. PMS is implying the AGW wizards are right because they have PHDs.

Which PoV of Spiderman's is that?

 

[Abraham3]

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

It is not an appeal to authority. And what would you make of Spiderman's PoV?

It obviously is an appeal to author. PMS is implying the AGW wizards are right because they have PHDs.

Which PoV of Spiderman's is that?

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
*********************************
Since my argument is inductive, the people to whom I refer ARE experts in their field and there IS a consensus among them as to these points, my argument is sound.

Spiderman simply claims that a 2C temperature rise will do no significant harm. As far as I can tell, he has come to that conclusion based on his own, unrevealed reasoning. My question was whether you found that more acceptable or less acceptable than my "argument from authority".

 

[PMZ]

Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.

You claiming that something is true has no effect at all on what is true.

 

[orogenicman]

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

You do realize, of course, that that 2 degree figure is a global average, right. That it is entirely likely that among the numbers included in arriving at that 2 degree global rise includes extremes at both ends that can, do, and likely WILL kill people. Right? What? You didn't know this? Huh.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that 2 degrees will kill anyone. In fact, it may prevent a lot of people from starving to death.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that you actually read what I posted. Otherwise, I doubt that you would have stuck with your "2 degrees won't kill" mantra. Oh, and your claim that it "may prevent a lot of people from starving to death" is not supported by the evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations. And why wouldn't they? It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population. Welcome to the 21st century.

If our government grew in proportion to our population growth, then it should still be spending only 5% of our GDP.

According to who?

Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.

Considering that the government spends about 2 trillion dollars while we have a 12 trillion dollars economy (meaning that it spends roughly less than 17% of the GDP), I am going to have to call you on your bullshite claim.

 

[Spiderman]

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

You can't tell me what will happen can you?

No.

So why don't you find out exactly how much the sea will rise if the temp rises 2 degrees in the next hundred years then tell me how many people will die that would not have died if the temp did not rise at all.

Why do you assume that all these apocalyptic predictions are inevitable?

As i said I don't argue with the science but predictions of doom and gloom are not science.

 

[JWBooth]

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

Peer review...
Alchemy was once supported by peer review.

 

[Abraham3]

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

Peer review...
Alchemy was once supported by peer review.

Do you reject the scientific method? Do you reject all science? Do you enjoy your life in the woods eating small animals raw, that you have caught with your bare hands and wash down with water from mud puddles?

My apologies if your comment was intended for humor.

BTW, none of the 'peers' at that time were actually experts in their field, were they. And by what method have we progressed from alchemy to high temperature superconductors, making molecules on demand and protein folding supercomputers? Hmm.. That would be the scientific method... with peer review.

 

[PMZ]

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.

Peer review...
Alchemy was once supported by peer review.

Do you reject the scientific method? Do you reject all science? Do you enjoy your life in the woods eating small animals raw, that you have caught with your bare hands and wash down with water from mud puddles?

My apologies if your comment was intended for humor.

BTW, none of the 'peers' at that time were actually experts in their field, were they. And by what method have we progressed from alchemy to high temperature superconductors, making molecules on demand and protein folding supercomputers? Hmm.. That would be the scientific method... with peer review.

There have been several periods in human history when the forces of ignorance have captured the culture and replaced knowledge based progress. Most famously, the Dark Ages. They are always temporary but costly nevertheless.

These will be recorded in history as one of those times.

I think that the end of that tunnel is in sight though.

A majority of Americans now realize that ignorance per se is a minor inconvenience for our culture. Only ignorance pervasive enough to achieve political power is dangerous.

That is what always limits the damage. Political power based on ignorance is unsustainable.

While knowledge certainly encompasses many areas outside of science our growth in scientific knowledge has always been the best leading indicator of progress. It is the foundation for building a future based on solutions rather than beset by problems.

All of the current noise will pass and we will steadily move away from temporary to permanent, fuel and waste products free, abundant energy.

And a new climate that will have to be adapted to.

It would be good, but not necessary, if we could have that progress based on more certain projections and predictions, but certainly we've come this far based on cloudy visions of the future and done OK.

In the recent past, we've seen and learned that politics has been an obstacle to progress. Democracy allows us to solve that problem.

That's real freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

It is not an appeal to authority. And what would you make of Spiderman's PoV?

It obviously is an appeal to author. PMS is implying the AGW wizards are right because they have PHDs.

Which PoV of Spiderman's is that?

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
*********************************
Since my argument is inductive, the people to whom I refer ARE experts in their field and there IS a consensus among them as to these points, my argument is sound.

Spiderman simply claims that a 2C temperature rise will do no significant harm. As far as I can tell, he has come to that conclusion based on his own, unrevealed reasoning. My question was whether you found that more acceptable or less acceptable than my "argument from authority".

The appeal to authority is always wrong. Authorities can be wrong, so any claim that a proposition must be true because some authority says it's true is automatically false.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.
198.207.0.5 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK —Preceding

 

[bripat9643]

Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.

You claiming that something is true has no effect at all on what is true.

The same goes for the so-called "climate scientists," dipstick.

 

[bripat9643]

You do realize, of course, that that 2 degree figure is a global average, right. That it is entirely likely that among the numbers included in arriving at that 2 degree global rise includes extremes at both ends that can, do, and likely WILL kill people. Right? What? You didn't know this? Huh.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that 2 degrees will kill anyone. In fact, it may prevent a lot of people from starving to death.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that you actually read what I posted. Otherwise, I doubt that you would have stuck with your "2 degrees won't kill" mantra. Oh, and your claim that it "may prevent a lot of people from starving to death" is not supported by the evidence.

I obviously did read it. I simply noted that it was wrong.

Recorded history supports the contention that a warmer climate would be more conducive to support human life. The warmer periods of Earth's history were times of abundance when civilization flourished. Famine and drought were the main themes during the colder periods.

 

[bripat9643]

All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations. And why wouldn't they? It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population. Welcome to the 21st century.

If our government grew in proportion to our population growth, then it should still be spending only 5% of our GDP.

According to who?

According to any kid in grade school who can do simple ratios. Why should a larger population require the government to spend a larger proportion of the GDP?

Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.

Considering that the government spends about 2 trillion dollars while we have a 12 trillion dollars economy (meaning that it spends roughly less than 17% of the GDP), I am going to have to call you on your bullshite claim.

The federal government actually spends very close to $4 trillion, which comes to about 35% of GDP. State and local governments spend an additional 15%. The total comes to 50% of GDP.

 

[PMZ]

The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed. The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

What is the evidence that our government is ''gargantuan''?

Compared to what?

''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''.

Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country, our people, our Constitution, our government.

Exactly like the Taliban.

 

[bripat9643]

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

What is the evidence that our government is ''gargantuan''?

Compared to what?

Compared to our government before WW I.

''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''.

Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country, our people, our Constitution, our government.

Exactly like the Taliban.

Criticizing the government is the equivalent of being part of the Taliban?

Do you ever wonder why people think you're an idiot?

 

[PMZ]

Poor example.

You cannot tell me what will happen if the earth is 2 degrees C warmer. In fact that 2 degrees is in itself only a probability.

If as you say the doom and gloom propaganda are calculated "projections" then there should be calculations of where there will be droughts, how severe thy will be how many people will die etc

You cannot compare the warming predictions to a building cost calculation as they are not analogous at all.

Building cost projections takes known quantities of materials into account using pricing data from the past.

Saying that a 2 degree rise in temperature will result in X number of floods, Y number of droughts, Z number of people dead who wouldn't have died if the temp didn't rise etc is speculation.

Unless of course you want to show me the actual calculations for those things.

You continue to confuse climate and weather.

Climate change per se has no impact on humanity. Most of us would never notice it. Weather, and sea level, both of which are effects caused by AGW, depending on degree, will impose massive consequences on all of us. Why? We built civilization around the climate that we're changing from.

Weather is caused by the exchange of energy between water, land, life, ice and atmosphere. Now that we have trapped much more energy here, the weather will change in response. We can't predict weather decades in advance.

I am not confusing anything.

The argument is that if the earth is 2 degrees warmer there will be drought, flooding, "super storms" etc etc and all that will kill people that would not have died if the temp did not rise 2 degrees.

And you yourself just admitted that those things cannot be predicted.

That's been the entire point of my argument about these dubious apocalyptic predictions.

Do you disagree that we are unable to forecast weather years in advance?

What is your forecast that AGW is benign, based on? I say that it's based on, you hope that it's benign.

AGW is a trend. The IPCC, the only source of climate science on earth, says that depending on how the earth transitions from one energy state to another, and how mankind manages the transition to waste product free energy, the final warming, when we finally stop dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, will be between 2 and 12 degrees.

We have already seen the weather changes predicted as a response to energy increase and instability in the earth's systems.

The best example of the statistics that make the consequences of AGW certain, though the details are not predictable, are casinos. The least risky business that there is. They know at the end of a month or year exactly what percent of customers bets will kept by the house. Even though nobody has any idea on a given night what any particular game will do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations. And why wouldn't they? It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population. Welcome to the 21st century.

If our government grew in proportion to our population growth, then it should still be spending only 5% of our GDP.

According to who?

Government has grow far larger than that, and it now spends approximately 50% of our GDP.

Considering that the government spends about 2 trillion dollars while we have a 12 trillion dollars economy (meaning that it spends roughly less than 17% of the GDP), I am going to have to call you on your bullshite claim.

The last time the Federal government spent $2 trillion was FY 2002.
This year they'll spend about $3.7 trillion.
Of course when you include all levels of government, the total is much higher.