General > General Technical Chat

heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.

<< < (64/67) > >>

RAPo:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 12, 2023, 02:39:45 pm ---...

basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of.  I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway.  You cannot find the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.

:palm:[/list]

--- End quote ---
And that's why we better call it climate beliefs. Everyone is entitled to her/his own beliefs, but comparing it to science (like the beta, philosophy and alpha sciences) is comparing apples and oranges

Nominal Animal:
It's also not the only field to be utterly fucked.  Human nutrition is another: sugars, fats, salts, artificial sweeteners, highly-refined ingredients like hydrogenated fats and modified starches...  it is pretty certain (from observing the results) that the most accurate models will be very, very different than what we believe about this now; and similarly, any nutritional recommendations not stemming from social, financial, political, and industry interests, and centered on individual health and well-being, would be utterly different to what we currently have.  (But it is near impossible to scientifically discover what that would be, because the entire field is so full of shit and no truly reliable data is available.)

snarkysparky:
What fascinates me is that otherwise intelligent people will take on ideas based on faulty logic when it comes to global warming.

They seem to have some very serious vested interest in it being false.  I agree it sure would be nice if we didn't have anything to worry about but it isn't the case.

So are these illogical conclusions based on sheer unconscious fear or on a semi conscious understanding of the financial ramifications to their own livelihood.
Or could it be based in religious mindset.  If you believe in a grand protector who won't let us harm ourselves then the whole issue seems irrelevant to them. But to admit religious motivation in an opinion is to draw fire for lack of reason.

The logical fallacies

Believing that others who are skeptical and voice doubt are in some way proof that doubt is valid.  There is nothing in untrained opinions that add anything to the discussion about the validity of the science.


Fallacy of composition.   Some isolated piece of data proves CO2 warming incorrect.   We had a cold winter in Georgia for example.

And my personal favorite.   "Climate is always changing".   I just have no idea what relevance this kind of statement brings.  Don't even know how that helps the cause of a denier.

"We can't stop it anyhow"   Absolutely true given human nature.  But I refuse to be such a coward as to hide the fact that we are shi**ing up our own house toward it's eventual destruction.

"BB other countries won't lower emission so why should we"   Well if the most prosperous country in the world will not go first in reducing emissions  then how can we expect poorer countries to self regulate. 

"We can't deny developing countries the right to industrialize".   And we should not.  They can use fossil fuel to better their standard of living without jumping into wasteful entertainment consumption.

Eh there are more but that probably enough

RAPo:

--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---Believing that others who are skeptical and voice doubt are in some way proof that doubt is valid.  There is nothing in untrained opinions that add anything to the discussion about the validity of the science.

--- End quote ---

that is not a fallacy, mutatis mutandis it is also true for the climate believers: " we are with many so we must be right"


--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---Fallacy of composition.   Some isolated piece of data proves CO2 warming incorrect.   We had a cold winter in Georgia for example.

--- End quote ---
In this isolated form yes, but the statement of climate believers: " today is the hottest month on record so the earth is warming up" is of the same order.


--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---And my personal favorite.   "Climate is always changing".   I just have no idea what relevance this kind of statement brings.  Don't even know how that helps the cause of a denier.

--- End quote ---
Well, the climate is always changing so the statement from climate believers is a tautology. A tautology is no reason for being just.


--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---"We can't stop it anyhow"   Absolutely true given human nature.  But I refuse to be such a coward as to hide the fact that we are shi**ing up our own house toward it's eventual destruction.

--- End quote ---
If it is true why spend this enormous amount of money and do we need the fear-mongering?
It is for instance pride to say the climate measures taken in the Netherlands are working to lower the global temperature by 0.0037C, not science.


--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---"BB other countries won't lower emission so why should we"   Well if the most prosperous country in the world will not go first in reducing emissions then how can we expect poorer countries to self regulate. 

--- End quote ---

Maybe does the term economy ring a bell?
One day after the above Dutch-mentioned measure was made public, China opened another coal mine. Guess what: no extra measures were taken by the government so the statement is nullified


--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm ---"We can't deny developing countries the right to industrialize".   And we should not.  They can use fossil fuel to better their standard of living without jumping into wasteful entertainment consumption.

--- End quote ---

An from Peterson shows that this is a questionable statement.

Well, couldn't the rich countries finance some extra nuclear plants and give the developing country the needed energy for free? It would imho be a better way to spend the climate billions.
Is the real question not "how do we de-industralize/de consume/ cut down the rich countries?

snarkysparky:
RAPo

The only arguments I am making is for accepting the truth.  Not stretching to the end of the Earth for weak arguments to deny what is accepted science.

Yes the economics of it are a mess.   We will never undertake the pain to limit emissions.   Lets just accept that we have set our house on fire and are unwilling to put it out. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod