OK you man-made climate change gurus, educate me...

Post Reply New Topic

Congratulations on attaining your degree, Walrus.

I believe you put forth excellent arguments for climate change.

Are you going for your Master's in the same field?

I hope Walrus doesn't still think I'm an intellectual lightweight LOL

(I'm just kidding....)

I am not defending Epstein...
I don't even know who he is...
But you are missing something here...
Using what he said above to supply context:

He is not making an argument against man-made climate change...
He is making a critical analysis into the claim: '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree'
If you can definitively refute his claims through evidence please do so...
Casting aspersions, even if one is aspergers, doesn't hit the mark...

As I said, I don't know the man from a bar of soap, but I have seen this sort of argument elsewhere...

Some of you guys have a talent for missing the point...
Some of you guys give the impression you think I am a man-made climate change skeptic...
Some of you guys don't seem to understand the principles of critical thinking...
And some of you guys don't understand my desire is to get a greater understanding of a subject I am not well versed in...

"Read my lips":
I am interested in understanding the arguments on both sides...
I am interested in understanding what the premise is in the first place...
Intimidatitive attitudes only impede rational discussion...
Emotive arguments destroy a person's objectivity by definition...

I am puzzled why some people take things so personally...

I am happy to continue the discussion here, however, as I mentioned elsewhere, had I realised another thread on the subject was created two days earlier than mine, I wouldn't have started this one...

Phew!
Chill out, guys...

Your thread is insultingly condescending so I don't know why I'm responding. Oh right, I crunch satellite data for a living. There you go.

Science is not a belief system, it's a REAL SYSTEM. Belief systems lack calibrated instrumentation & scientists do not disagree on which book contains the truth. Your average scientist recommends reading as much as you can.

Your belief system is a planetary death cult based on tacky displays of grandeur & nothing more. Good day.

This is rather intellectually dishonest of you, when you know you created this thread and its insulting title to provoke just the sort of reaction you're getting.

"Gee, you go around poking people and they get pissed off and tell you to stop poking people. I am puzzled why some people take things so personally...I just want to have a rational discussion about how people react to being poked while poking people to get a reaction out of them."

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

I don't know a whole lot about climate change tbh, but I do just think having a caring attitude towards the natural world is sensible. It looks after us, let's look after it.

... but... it's not. Nature (and that term is problematic in itself) is not looking out for us.
In the words of Slavoj Zizek: "can you even imagine the mega-catastrophe that needed to happen for oil to exist in the first place?"

trees & plants give us air to breath, vegetables and fruit give us healthy food to eat

We are not any better than these things, we simply live alongside them and benefit massively from them. I think it is nice to look out for nature in return.

"Denier" is a misnomer because there are many who are called such who don't deny climate change. They just don't have an alarmist imminent doomsday view of it.

The term "denier" is used by many if not most as another demeaning label liberalism likes to paste on people wholesale. It might as well be a made up word like "climaphobe".

Last edited by EzraS on 07 Mar 2019, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nature can kill a lot of people if we're disrespectful towards the planet.

trees and plants don't give us air to breath. they fart it out. vegetables and fruit don't give us healthy food - they are the plant's body or its offspring - none of these things are doing this for our benefit - we just evolved alongside them in a partly symbiotic, partly parasitic relationship.
Nothing is here for us. There are things without which we wouldn't be here, and there are in turn things we don't require directly, but the plants we require live off.
It's not about being nice to "nature". "nature" itself is a romantic idea, - that there could be this thing that's separate from humans. But we're enmeshed with other organisms, billions of which live inside our bodies, which we coevolved with. we are part of an ecosystem, and we are ecosystemsourselves. destroying this would be simply suicidal.
and if that were to occur, things would go on without humans.

Not intentionally, but we certainly benefit from it, and I shall continue to do my part in being kind to it.

Setting up a debate in which only one side is required to justify its position is not the neutral, rational seeking of evidence which is claimed. The apparent lack of interest in the counter arguments, nor why people might hold them, implies that there is no genuine interest in critically assessing the affirmative arguments, nor why those are held. This is typically known as a "show trial", and is as manipulative of the people who agree with the position which Pepe claims to hold as it is of anyone else who takes part. I am heartened by the fact that so few commenters have risen to the bait.

In anticipation of the response which I have no doubt this will trigger...

Those who doubt the scientific consensus have more reason to justify their arguments than those who agree with it...

- Counter arguments are generally based around the concept that the scientific consensus is flawed due to; making claims without sufficient evidence, cherry-picking or tampering with the evidence, misinterpretation (possibly wilful) of the evidence, and/or nefarious collusion. Those are very serious allegations, and as such, require robust evidence to back them up.

- People who believe in a consensus have the luxury of being able to walk away knowing that their point of view remains dominant regardless of the objections of the minority. Being dismissed in this way is inherent to being a dissenter of any kind. When you are fighting a consensus, is is incumbent upon you to be especially convincing, otherwise your cause is lost, regardless of whether this is "fair" or not.

- The number of governments, commercial interests, and citizens (of the world, not just the USA!) in agreement with the scientific consensus has been steadily rising ever since the issue became a political hot potato. The strategies and tactics used by "sceptics" (including attempting to redefine the word "sceptic") have obviously not been very effective, yet they continue to employ them. If they are truly committed to correcting misconceptions, rather than cheap point-scoring, ego-polishing, and/or winding people up on forums, they might want to think about changing their strategy. Hint: implying that people are "sheeple" generally just makes them ignore you for being rude, whether or not they are truly dogmatists.

Banned for claiming I am no better than a cauliflower.

Very few can explain "climate change", because it's based on complex statistical models.

They use statistical pattern modeling (forecasting) based on historical data.
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models

These models contain numerous variable and interaction assumptions that may or may not be true in the future.