Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

Feel free to spend your own money, not mine. I'll spend the rest of my life fighting goosestepping morons like you who feel qualified to spend my money for me.

You contributed to the problem, we will hold you accountable for that. That’s how society works.

There is no "problem," moron. People are starting to wake up. When they finally understand the facts, people like you will be laughed out of town.

That is funny, given you have no facts.

 

[bripat9643]

You contributed to the problem, we will hold you accountable for that. That’s how society works.

There is no "problem," moron. People are starting to wake up. When they finally understand the facts, people like you will be laughed out of town.

That is funny, given you have no facts.

I have an abundance of facts. What we know is that much of what the AGW cult spews is propaganda, not facts.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no "problem," moron. People are starting to wake up. When they finally understand the facts, people like you will be laughed out of town.

That is funny, given you have no facts.

I have an abundance of facts. What we know is that much of what the AGW cult spews is propaganda, not facts.

Ever time I have followed up on a specific detail in your posts, it turns out to be complete nonsense. Perhaps you don't know what a "fact" is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.

Now that you've learned the difference between zero investment and record investment, will you make fewer stupid claims?

Will you keep saying we're running out of oil, now that you've seen we will soon outproduce Saudi Arabia?

Now that you've learned from someone better informed than you on those topics.

 

[PMZ]

Compared to our government before WW I.



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

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

No. Disrespecting our country, our people, our Constitution, our government is.

Disrespecting out government is as American as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July. I haven't disrespected our country, people or Constitution. Even if I had, that still wouldn't be the equivalent of being part of the Taliban. They are primitive ignorant religious zealots. That's what makes them dangerous, not "disrespecting" their country.

The AGW cult members are much closed to being the Taliban than skeptics are because belief in AGW is a cult, just like Islam.

I was brought up to support our country, government, people, Constitution, and culture. And if I found things that needed changing in any of them, to rely on democracy to bring them about.

It's revealing of your mindset that you see no difference between religion (the Taliban) and science (the IPCC). Same as the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.

 

[bripat9643]

That is funny, given you have no facts.

I have an abundance of facts. What we know is that much of what the AGW cult spews is propaganda, not facts.

Ever time I have followed up on a specific detail in your posts, it turns out to be complete nonsense. Perhaps you don't know what a "fact" is.

I think the only detail you proved wrong was whether the Norther Elephant seal was the only elephant seal, and that's a trivial detail. Of course, you harped on that for all you could get out of it.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Disrespecting our country, our people, our Constitution, our government is.

Disrespecting out government is as American as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July. I haven't disrespected our country, people or Constitution. Even if I had, that still wouldn't be the equivalent of being part of the Taliban. They are primitive ignorant religious zealots. That's what makes them dangerous, not "disrespecting" their country.

The AGW cult members are much closed to being the Taliban than skeptics are because belief in AGW is a cult, just like Islam.

I was brought up to support our country, government, people, Constitution, and culture. And if I found things that needed changing in any of them, to rely on democracy to bring them about.

The irony is that you accuse anyone who thinks the government needs changing of being a traitor or a member of the Taliban.

It's revealing of your mindset that you see no difference between religion (the Taliban) and science (the IPCC). Same as the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.

AGW isn't science. It's a con and a cult. Following the prescriptions of the AGW cult members will plunge us into a second dark age - literally.

 

[Abraham3]

It is not a fallacious argument by authority. The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.

 

[bripat9643]

It is not a fallacious argument by authority. The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.

Apparently you believe there a valid appeals to authority. There aren't. IF you claim proposition 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's exactly what PMS did. There are no "valid authorities" in matters of absolute truth.

 

[PMZ]

It is not a fallacious argument by authority. The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.

Apparently you believe there a valid appeals to authority. There aren't. IF you claim proposition 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's exactly what PMS did. There are no "valid authorities" in matters of absolute truth.

Who would you go to when you need an operation.

A plumber?

 

[Abraham3]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

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.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

 

[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

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.

People die all the time.

You cannot prove that people who would not have died will die if the temp rises two degrees

As I said before there will be winners and losers in the climate change scenario.

Some places will definitely be better off for a bit higher temp some won't.

It's not the apocalypse.

 

[Abraham3]

A certain number of people will die from heat in any given year. If you raise the temperature that number will increase. The additional deaths would be due to the increased temperature. A 2C increase in the world's average temperature WILL kill people. It will also cause some serious consequences along the lines of rising sea level, melting ice, lost drinking water supplies, lost irrigation water supplies, increased incidence of severe weather... but you knew all this. You just wanted to say something different and I suspect that nothing we show you in the way of supporting evidence will change what you say here. That would be too embarrassing. No one wants to admit they were wrong in public. So you'll just keep saying "it won't make a difference". I guess that makes talking with you a compete waste of time. Genug.

ps: people who, in a discussion of the natural sciences, demand proof of issues under discussion have clearly indicated that they have insufficient knowledge of science to hold up their end of the discussion.

 

[Abraham3]

Disrespecting out government is as American as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July. I haven't disrespected our country, people or Constitution. Even if I had, that still wouldn't be the equivalent of being part of the Taliban. They are primitive ignorant religious zealots. That's what makes them dangerous, not "disrespecting" their country.

The AGW cult members are much closed to being the Taliban than skeptics are because belief in AGW is a cult, just like Islam.

I was brought up to support our country, government, people, Constitution, and culture. And if I found things that needed changing in any of them, to rely on democracy to bring them about.

The irony is that you accuse anyone who thinks the government needs changing of being a traitor or a member of the Taliban.

It's revealing of your mindset that you see no difference between religion (the Taliban) and science (the IPCC). Same as the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages.

AGW isn't science. It's a con and a cult. Following the prescriptions of the AGW cult members will plunge us into a second dark age - literally.

You like the word "cult", Paddy. Could you tell us what you mean when you use the term? It's got a bit of a range. Do you simply mean a religion or do you mean an extremist religion or a religion with very few believers or do you mean a false religion whose leaders use devious means to maintain control of its adherents? Any of those? Something else?

 

[bripat9643]

It is not a fallacious argument by authority. The authors of the IPCC are indeed experts in their field and there is a consensus among them as to these very topics.

Apparently you believe there a valid appeals to authority. There aren't. IF you claim proposition 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's exactly what PMS did. There are no "valid authorities" in matters of absolute truth.

Who would you go to when you need an operation.

A plumber?

Choosing a professional to perform a service has nothing to do with determining whether an argument is logically correct.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

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.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

 

[PMZ]

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.

People die all the time.

You cannot prove that people who would not have died will die if the temp rises two degrees

As I said before there will be winners and losers in the climate change scenario.

Some places will definitely be better off for a bit higher temp some won't.

It's not the apocalypse.

You're one of the very few that I know who believe that we will be able to phase out carbon dumping rapidly enough to limit AGW to 2 degrees. Tell us your plan to do that.

 

[PMZ]

Apparently you believe there a valid appeals to authority. There aren't. IF you claim proposition 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's exactly what PMS did. There are no "valid authorities" in matters of absolute truth.

Who would you go to when you need an operation.

A plumber?

Choosing a professional to perform a service has nothing to do with determining whether an argument is logically correct.

Professionals in any field are the authorities in their field. You would claim that following your doctor's medical advice is appeal to authority. Or following your lawyers legal advice. The IPCC members and supporters are the professionals in climate science. You and I are very much amateurs.

 

[PMZ]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

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.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

A ridiculous statement. Scientists devote their entire lives to understanding the natural world.

 

[Abraham3]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

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.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.