Thoughts on climate change?

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Do you have a source?

https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/green-new-deal-would-barely-change-earths-temperature-here-are-the#:~:text=Using%20the%20same,of%20the%20century.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20170228/105632/HHRG-115-SY18-Wstate-DayaratnaK-20170228.pdf

https://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

Bogan

@Dreamer ;   The part I wonder about is whether it is deliberate or not. Cognitive dissonance theory gives humans the ability to self justify and believe our own lies.

Cognitive dissonance might also explain the predilection of some members of every generation to act like chickenlittle, and believe that the sky is falling?     In the last 50 years, I myself has seen global cooling, the ozone layer, the millenium bug, peak oil, and the supposed inability of the human race to feed itself, and now global warming, all being used by charlatans to scare chickenlittle's and dreamers into modifying their behaviour to benefit the charlatans.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Starting to read your links. I noticed two of three are conserative.

@just_sayin

"The most consistent finding was that political opinions were most strongly related to climate change beliefs: more conservative thinkers denied that individuals could do anything."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36279814/

I've also heard that belief in free market and belief in climate change are inversely related.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;In the last 50 years, I myself has seen global cooling, the ozone layer, the millenium bug, peak oil, and the supposed inability of the human race to feed itself, and now global warming, all being used by charlatans

Well may be its like that down your way in Bogin Land but up here were sweeting like dogs because the mercury has never been so high in recorded history. So why dont you take a trip where I live and then to Greece and stand up on a soap box at a mall and then preach to every one that there all chicken littles and that the blacks are dum. Then tell them that all they need to do is use half of there brain so they can filter out the facts and believe the half truth baloney that you tell them. You never know they might end up knocking some sents into your head while there beeting the crap out of you. And why dont you name just one of those charlatans any way. because there are none charlatans at all because the people who tell us abot global warming tell us all the facts not just the half roasted facts that your half brain uses.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

I am familiar with conitive dissonance. Interestly, this phenoma can also been seen going back some years with smokers, and their self-justifications they give themselves when learning the high link between smoking and lung cancer, despite the abdundance of observable evidence placed in front them. But that is just one example of many. 

Furthermore, if we exclude the naivity part of the equation we are left with otherwise fairly intelligent and educated people that still continu to deny such things even though it's pretty much black and white now. These people interest me. 

Also, on another note, cogitive dissonance is a form of rationalization, and I often remember what Peter Boghosnian once said in his book 'How to have impossible conversations' which is that in his experience he has found that the more intelligent one is the much better they are at being able to rationalize things that are otherwise in direct conflict with reality. 

These individuals take a lot of work and if persuasion is your goal then that isn't going to work on a text based debate chat. However, if just pure debating is your goal then having an understanding of the way these types minds work will give you an edge in debating them with being able to anticipate their objectives. And at there is always the off chance there is some spectactor with an open mind watching. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Persuasion is my goal.

@ZeusAres42

One of my smoker friends get indignant and eye rolls when anyone talks about how smoking kills. I never heard of that book before, is it worth it to read? I am currently reading Mistakes were made but not by me by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

"The most consistent finding was that political opinions were most strongly related to climate change beliefs: more conservative thinkers denied that individuals could do anything."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36279814/
I've also heard that belief in free market and belief in climate change are inversely related.

You realize, you just dismissed an opinion you didn't agree with because you view me as conservative, right? You get that's not a rational response.  My views are very similar to William Nordhaus, professor for Yale's Department of Economics, former member of Jimmy Carter's economic board, and winner of the Nobel Prize for climate economics.  I guess that must give you some cognitive dissonance since he doesn't fit your stereotype.  

Nordhaus wrote in his book, The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World that Climate Change is real and that many so called solutions will only make the situation worse as they cost too much, ignore the impacts on the poor and developing nations, and are just politically motivated.  He lists dozens of ways to reduce CO2, maybe not the ones climate extremists, who want to harm the poor, want implemented. (I don't agree with his vat tax idea though - the purpose of the tax is to incentivize people switching to cleaner energy sources.  My view is people will naturally do this, if the costs for the cleaner energy sources come down - so the money is better spent on technology to help that happen than to punish the poor).

I also agree a lot with Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a liberal who has spent his life finding ways to address a wide range of problems in the world.  He too believes in climate change, but recognizes that if you throw away money on climate change with 'solutions' that don't fix the problem, that you make it impossible to address other pressing global issues which that money could help address.  I know this too causes some cognitive dissonance because you can't lump him in the 'mean ole conservative climate change deniers' group.  I've noted that you referenced how people choose to believe impossible things to continue holding their false beliefs in prior posts.  Will you be one of them too?

jack

Argument Topic: Thoughts on climate change?

@Cringe_Train

Hello C:

Man, it's hot..

excon

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hmmm, heard that Nordhaus says we should aim for 2C and then 3.5C that seems too high. Most agree 1.5C is an optimal target.

@just_sayin

"You realize, you just dismissed an opinion you didn't agree with because you view me as conservative, right?"

No, that's not it I am still determining if the contents of the link are misinformation or information. This is taking me awhile since this is a novel argument to me. Everything I read about climate change points to keep to 1.5C increase. I can't take Nordhaus seriously when he recommends over twice that.

We need to stick to to net zero emissions by 2050 by sticking to SSP1-1.9.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Proof that Nordhaus really does think the world community should aim for 3.5C.

"Yet, according to the 2018 Economics Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, these targets are economically suboptimal or unattainable and the world community should aim for 3.5 °C in 2100 instead."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0833-x

Nordhaus is using climate myth #38

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

just_sayin

@Dreamer

No, that's not it I am still determining if the contents of the link are misinformation or information. This is taking me awhile since this is a novel argument to me. Everything I read about climate change points to keep to 1.5C increase. I can't take Nordhaus seriously when he recommends over twice that.
We need to stick to to net zero emissions by 2050 by sticking to SSP1-1.9.

1.5 degree C is unrealistic.  Even extremist groups like the UN admit it isn't feasible:

"There’s “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” today, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) insisted in a new report, despite legally binding promises made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to prevent average temperatures rising by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels."

Also see

Artificial intelligence provides new evidence our planet will cross the global warming threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius within 10 to 15 years. Even with low emissions, we could see 2 C of warming. But a future with less warming remains within reach.

For many 3rd world countries the only way to get out of poverty is through increasing energy output.  That is inevitable and a good thing in that it will reduce the number of people who die from starvation.  Anyone telling you that 1.5 degree Celsius is a realistic goal is either uninformed or intentionally misleading you with an agenda that is not really about solving the problem.  

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@Bogan

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change. Global warming is here now, caused by humans, and the main driver is co2 from industrial activity. Most of the heat has gone into the ocean.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Human mind works in wonderous ways. For instance, it is well known that a claim repeated multiple times is seen as more truthful by default than a claim made once, even if in both cases the claim is completely empty and zero evidence is provided in its support. Here we see an example of a person citing the popular "97% consensus" claim based solely on him having run into it again and again, never wondering if, perhaps, the claim might be insubstantiated - or even downright nonsensical.

The latter is the case here. What exactly does it mean, "97% scientific consensus on climate change"? Does it mean that 97% of scientific papers published agree on absolutely everything pertaining to climate change? "Consensus on climate change" is a meaningless word salad. And if you actually bothered to look up the original source on which this popular claim is made, you would learn (assuming you are capable of understanding the original paper, which I highly doubt you are based on the reasoning ability you have demonstrated so far) that the claim has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to assert here.

People sometimes wonder how someone can seriously believe that, say, the Earth is flat, or that it is 6,000 years old... Yet it does not at all surprise them that people believe in something sounding slightly plausible based on exactly as much logic and evidence as those beliefs. Perhaps it is because the image of a person making the 6,000 years claim they have is that of a religious zealot yelling into the crowd about the impending apocalypse, while the image of a person making the 97% claim they have is that of an esteemed professor speaking at some intergovernmental panel. It is a bit unfortunate that many people give much more importance to these arbitrary heuristics than to sound reasoning, but that is how their minds work and nobody can change that.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Yet, according to the 2018 Economics Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, these targets are economically suboptimal or unattainable and the world community should aim for 3.5 °C in 2100 instead."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0833-x
Nordhaus is using climate myth #38
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

I am at a loss as to the meaning of climate myth #38. The link is about carbon pricing, which Nordhaus supports, as i mentioned earlier.  Could you use a few more of your own words to make your argument?  

What about Nordhaus' assessment that a 1.5 degree Celsius is implausible do you find wrong?   

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

What exactly is your argument regarding human induced climate change? Are you of the understanding that human induced climage change is a real thing or are you in opposition to this science? If the latter, then why, and what do you have to offer for your contention? Note: I am not interested in your opinions of peoples possible understanding of it. I am interested in what you understand about it and if in contrast then what evidence, sound reasoning and research do you have to back that up? 

So far, all you appear to have done is just assert that the people that are of the understanding that there is a such a thing are misinformed and they don't understand what they are reading for one reason or another. Merely asserting this and citing to your supposed credential while offering nothing to support anything to the contrary is not sound reasoning. Are we supposed just take your word for it? 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I find Nordhaus' assessment as nihilistic helplessness.

@just_sayin

The usual denier argument of despair that there is nothing we can do about climate change that it is simply too difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if we hit 2 degrees Celsius that Nordhaus would say 5C is a feasible goal. Then, when we hit 3.5C Nordhaus would probably say 8C is the optimal target and anything less would be implausible and economically disastrous.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The sooner we deal with climate change the better.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Strawmen burn especially well in a heated world

@Dreamer

The usual denier argument of despair that there is nothing we can do about climate change that it is simply too difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if we hit 2 degrees Celsius that Nordhaus would say 5C is a feasible goal. Then, when we hit 3.5C Nordhaus would probably say 8C is the optimal target and anything less would be implausible and economically disastrous.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The sooner we deal with climate change the better.

It is a strawman argument to claim that Nordhaus is making "the usual denier argument of despair".  He is not a global change denier and he does believe there are things that can be done.  He however, differs from what you are use to in that he is reasonable.  It seems to be that you are the true denier here.  You are advocating for 1.5 degree Celsius increase by 2100, even though credible experts, included the UN itself, will tell you that's implausible.  The reality is that if today we had 0 CO2 emissions around the world we would still see a 2 to 5.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures.  There is no 'prevention' of that reality, without some technological breakthrough.  You are the one in denial.  You want to push policies on poor people that will harm them and not change the global temperature enough to even notice.  

Nordhaus is basing his opinion upon both economic realities and the best global change research.  He recognizes the risks.  However he also recognizes the realities that you are denying.  Again, you get that Nordhaus won a Nobel Prize for his climate economic research, right?  A serious question for you, could it be that you are the one in denial?  Is the problem more serious than you have admitted?  Is it possible that there can't be a quick fix which you seem to cling to?  Which is more helpful in solving problems, your denial of them, or the truth?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is still a lot of hunger in the world.

@Bogan

"Almost one-in-ten people in the world do not get enough to eat

Hunger – also known as undernourishment – is defined as not consuming enough calories to maintain a normal, active, healthy life."

https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment?insight=poverty-is-defined-and-measured-in-different-ways#key-insights

"In 2020, wasting (low weight for height) affected 45.4 million or 6.7 per cent of children under 5 years of age."

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/

"There was a dramatic worsening of world hunger in 2020, the United Nations said today – much of it likely related to the fallout of COVID-19."

https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-un-report-pandemic-year-marked-by-spike-in-world-hunger

This is not chicken little. This is why science deniers are dangerous. Covid-19 lead to world hunger and climate change reduces arable land exasperating hunger.

"What effect does desertification on human health?

The potential impacts of desertification on health include:

• higher threats of malnutrition from reduced food and water supplies;" WHO

Climate change will lead to disruptions in food supply. Some areas will increase while other decrease in food productivity. Leading to local shortages.

https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

ZuesAres42 quote   What exactly is your argument regarding human induced climate change?

My argument is, that while it might be possible for humans to change the earths climate by pumping out CO2, nobody can prove it.   Plotting CO2 levels against global temperatures over the last 600 million years seem to indicate that CO2 has minimal or no affect on global temperatures.     There were times when C02 was rising and temps were falling, and vice versa.

My argument is it is simply a credible invention  by a bunch of One World Government dreamers, neo Marxists, public service empire builders, left wing teachers federations, self aggrandising publically funded scientists, vegans and other kooks, extreme green environmentalists, sensation seeking shock/horror media people, self interested corporations, and a now class of usually well off educated elitists, to whom virtue signalling and class identification is everything, to panic the public they all despise into finally accepting a totalitarian government of their own caste's worldview, to control the lives of The Great Unwashed, and to redistribute the wealth of the advanced nations to the dysfunctional nations which are largely populated by people with very low intellect.  

ZuesAres42  quote     Are you of the understanding that human induced climate change is a real thing or are you in opposition to this science?

The science has always said that the earth warms and cools every thousand years.    We are in yet another warming period which just happens to be right on schedule, and every climate “scientist” on planet earth knows it.

ZuesAres42.    If the latter, then why, and what do you have to offer for your contention?

Because I study history.    This warming period, for your information, is called The Modern warming Period.     1000 years ago, it was The Medieval Warming Period.     1000 years before that, it was the Roman Warming Period.   Before that, the Egyptian Warming Period, before that, the Minoan Warming Period.    Before that, the Sumerian Warming Period.    And guess what?    Neither the Medievals, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Minoans, nor the Sumerians, had coal fired power stations or motor cars.

ZuesAres42 quote    I am interested in what you understand about it……

What I “understand about it” is that the Alarmists have been making predictions, based upon their “expert” knowledge, which never eventuate.      And whenever the dates of their “end of times” come around and the polar ice caps don’t disappear, and London, New York, Amsterdam, and low lying coastal areas don’t sink beneath the waves, they just put their “end of times” dates back a decade or two.

Zuesares42. …….and if in contrast then what evidence, sound reasoning and research do you have to back that up? 

My evidence is that for 50 years I have seen these “end of times” movements come and go, so I am automatically skeptical of them.     It seems as if every generation spawns another bunch of charlatans who make themselves rich by scaring the Chickenlittles of this world into doom and gloom scenario that they have invented.

 On the “research” side, I previously had no idea about which side was right, and which side was wrong.    I very much leaned towards the alarmists because what they claimed was credible, and I have the greatest respect for science.     But with scientists themselves like Willie Soon claiming it was B-S, then what we had was a scientific difference of opinion.     So, I did what intelligent people are supposed to do.    I eliminated all bias and prejudice, turned on my critical analysis circuit, and started watching all of the pro and anti climate change video’s on youtube.    My considered opinion, was that the Alarmists were telling lies, and the Sceptics were telling the truth.

ZuesAres42     So far, all you appear to have done is just assert that the people that are of the understanding that there is a such a thing are misinformed and they don't understand what they are reading for one reason or another. Merely asserting this and citing to your supposed credential while offering nothing to support anything to the contrary is not sound reasoning. Are we supposed just take your word for it? 

No.    I just agree with President Eisenhower when he said in his farewell speech…..

President Eisenhower.  January 17, 1961.

 "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex."  " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

just_sayin

@Dreamer

This is why science deniers are dangerous.

Liberals are not just supporters of racist policies like Affirmative Action, they too are science deniers.  Here are but a few common anti-science views held by liberals:

1) Liberals often oppose GMOs.  However the science shows that they safe, liberals will falsely claim that they will cause infertility, premature aging and a host of other problems. Their anti-science is literally causing people to starve globally as GMO produced food can address much of the global food shortages.  

2) Liberals often deny the scientific fact that a human life begins at fertilization.  Because of their bloodlust to kill unborn babies, liberals deny the science of life.  They will seek to dehumanize the unborn child - quite literally.  I've seen many liberals deny this basic scientific fact and claim the unborn is just a zygote as if that were not a stage of development but instead another species in their unscientific minds.  They are committed to their politics more than their science.

3) Liberals often demonstrate anti-science fears that prevent us from building new nuclear reactors, which if you include Chernobyl and Fukushima, are still statically safer than solar.  That's right more people have died from solar panels falling on them than all the nuclear power accidents combined.  Nuclear reactors have been in operation for 70 years and newer technologies are even safer.  Yet liberals will not allow the building of an energy source that has demonstrated that it can meet our energy needs and has no emissions.  

4) Liberals often deny that their are two biological sexes.  Even worse they deny differences in men and woman's brains and  physiology, Their science denial has literally lead to them demeaning women, in that they can't define what a woman is.  Again.they are committed to their politics more than their science. 

5) Liberals oppose school choice, even though the research overwhelmingly shows it benefits not only the students who attend voucher schools, but public schools as well.   Liberals would rather let poor Black children remain chained in bad public schools than allow them to go to a good private school.  They are committed to their politics more than their science.

A few links for you to recognize how dangerous liberals science denial has been:

https://reason.com/2016/11/21/liberals-dont-really-love-fking-science/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/

https://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/john-stossel-the-anti-science-left/article_649db11c-8403-5a0e-80a8-1f510950861a.html

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-war-on-science

https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/123s-of-School-Choice-WEB-07-10-23.pdf

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I think we need to slow this argument down a little I am becoming confused.

Too much information to process at once. I accidentally conflated Nicholas Lorris and William Nordhaus. I thought Nordhaus wrote the Heritage article posted earlier, it was Lorris who wrote the Heritage piece.

Nicholas Lorris is definitely a denier in the entire nihilistic despair way. I am still making up my mind about Nordhaus. I may be the person in denial, that's why I ask experts or at the least a community of knowledge people. Many of which have more knowledge and experience than me.

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial

That's why when I get stuck or question whether I am correct or not, I ask for help. The edx denial 101 course is still free and the instructors still answer questions.

https://skepticalscience.com/denial101x-videos-and-references.html

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Nicholas Lorris is definitely a denier in the entire nihilistic despair way. I am still making up my mind about Nordhaus. I may be the person in denial, that's why I ask experts or at the least a community of knowledge people. Many of which have more knowledge and experience than me.

Nicolas Loris is not a climate change denier:  

“I do still think there’s plenty of disagreement on how much warming is man-made, how quickly the planet is warming, what a doubling of CO2 emissions will mean for global temperatures,” he said. “That’s not to say climate change isn’t happening or that man-made emissions aren’t playing a role. That’s obviously the case.” [2]

Bogan

@Dreamer

Hi Dreamer, I see that once again, you have tossed a bunch of links at me which is your substitute for a reasoned argument.   All you are doing is convincing me that you can not explain to yourself why you so passionately believe in anthropogenic global warming.     You can not verbalize your own beliefs.

Your links seem to be saying that everybody must believe in HIGW or we are all gunna starve to death?     YAWN.    Heard it all before.    I was a teenager 50 years ago and “scientists” were not only predicting global cooling, they were also claiming that with the exponential explosion of the human race’s populations, we were all going to starve to death.

Turn on your critical analysis circuit and try to understand that clever people are using fear to make you believe in something which benefits themselves.      “Just-sayin” hit it on the head when he displayed to you that although Liberals claim to be the ones who believe in Science, a lot of their ideology is unscientific.     I have already told you that I was once more in the Alarmist camp than the Sceptic camp because I have the greatest respect for science.     I do not expect scientists to lie to me.    But I know my history, and I know that whenever a noble organisation is considered beyond reproach, the greedy self seekers, who know how to game the system, will always rise to the top and take advantage of that.    Two historical examples of that are the church and today’s FBI leadership.

 Today we have “scientists” who claim that a man can become a woman simply by putting on a dress and saying he is a woman.   I watched a youtube vid where a Pathology professor claimed that pathologists can not tell the difference between a male and female skeleton, and his own class laughed him out of the class.    Some “scientist”.    Then there are the liberal pseudo sciences of Black Studies and Gender Studies which came up with all if this CRT and transgender cr-ap.

The world’s population has risen in my lifetime from 4.5 billion to today’s 8 billion.     All of that increase has come about within third world countries.     First world countries would have negative population growth if it was not for immigration.      Japan has no immigration and it’s population is declining.    Now it is China and south Korea moaning that their people are not breeding.    Prosperity means that you don’t need a large family to take care of mom and pop when they become elderly.    People can control their fertility, and they do.     Energy is critical to building and maintaining a first world economy.

My suppositions is, that you never thought this out before you became a wild eyed ideological zealot who thinks that climate sceptics are dangerous and should be .     You were brain washed into this belief, and belief is exactly what it is, by your teachers and peers.     You live in a Liberal bubble where you are expected to believe it.     Your peers tell you that Sceptics are id-iots and Alarmists are the intelligent ones who are supporting science.    And you don’t want your friends to think that you are an unscientific id-iot, do you?     

So, instead of taking an impartial approach and first figuring out which side was telling the truth, you took the Alarmist side because the Alarmist leaders have very cleverly put their position as being the cause of intelligent people who support science.     That was all they had to do, and you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

But there is a fly in the ointment.        You are beginning to realise that Alarmists are not stu-pid at all.    They have a case and they know how to present it.   They can easily dismiss all of the silly slogans and chants that the Alarmist leaders have implanted into your head.     All you can do is look up some website which is entitled something like “How to Debate Alarmists” where somebody else does your thinking for you.     All you can do is submit links, which, if you really do have brains, should be making you uncomfortable.

ZeusAres42

@Bogan

That's all very interesting but I was responding to @MayCaesar. This guy is portraying himself as someone that knows stuff the rest of us don't, and I kindly asked him what that is but he ignored. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I haven't read all your links but I do agree many liberals are deniers.

@just_sayin

Just from arguing on these boards with Dee and Nomenclature two liberals I've seen quite a bit of denial. Both denied global warming. Nomenclature is an antisemitic 9/11 truther.

Plenty of liberals believe conspiracy theories like chem-trails and anti-GMO. Post modernism is liberal and is the ultimate sour grapes of science denial. I'm not afraid to argue with another liberal let me know if you see one who is making denier statements.

This is a super long Atlantic article, I read the print version so there should only be small differences. In the print article there was a claim that some liberals go so far as to oppose all knowledge, not just science but knowledge itself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/

Barnardot

@Bogan ;All you are doing is convincing me that you can not explain to yourself why you so passionately believe in anthropogenic global warming.     You can not verbalize your own beliefs.

You keep on making the same straw men arguments to try and make people divert away from the argument. Your anthropogenic global warming dog mess has bees wax to do with nothing and trying to brush it off on other people is just dishonest because you know very well that the argument is about what is happening now and all the evidence is in and you know that to. Just trying to be a real he man bogin and ignoring every one but yourself and making excuses to do donuts in your Holdin pickup and burning rubber and gallons of gas just doesn't cut it in the reel world does it. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Oversimplification fallacy, Nicholas Lorris is a denier.

@just_sayin

There is many many ways to be a denier. Over two hundred ways to be a climate denier. One is hopelessness even if Lorris accepts that climate change exists. The ultimate goal of denial is delay climate change action.

As for Nordhaus he is not a denier at all, just nuanced. Very easy to mislabel him as a denier like an overactive immune system with autoimmune disorder.

"Nordhaus: This is not just a matter of rhetoric. It is fundamental. What we really want to do is raise the price of carbon emissions. If you can get it up to $100 a ton, you’re doing a good job." June 14, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/06/14/qa-william-nordhaus-interview-carbon-pricing/

Bogan

Another link Dreamer?     No thanks.    You could try thinking for yourself?    But I know that is too hard for you.  Thinking hurts.    Just keep cutting and pasting in the belief that this makes you one of the smart people.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

Too much information to process at once. I accidentally conflated Nicholas Lorris and William Nordhaus. I thought Nordhaus wrote the Heritage article posted earlier, it was Lorris who wrote the Heritage piece.

You keep making mistakes like this over and over because you do not take time to process that "too much information". Yet, despite constantly making such mistakes, you feel quite qualified to call others who disagree with you on virtually anything "deniers" and automatically dismiss their arguments. Do you not feel foolish doing so? Your claims change all the time as you learn that that piece you read yesterday and reposted did not say what you think it said. It is like you read the last thing that popped up on your feed and react to its keywords, then, when someone corrects you, you say, "Oh, whoops, sorry", yet your fundamental claims remain the same. It is like there is a sea of garbage around your island, and no matter how much garbage someone removes, you throw in at least as much more garbage, so its incredible amounts obscure your island which you claim is a tropical paradise, yet in reality is a forsaken pile of rocks.

I keep beating on the dead horse not because there is something special about you, Dreamer: you are not that interesting. Unfortunately, your approach is representative of the general approach taken by most of the media and the zealots it spawns routinely, leading to a lot of nonsense billions automatically take to be true without doing any verification whatsoever.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I corrected my own mistake before anyone else caught it.

@MayCaesar

Also, deniers' arguments tend to be confusing. The fact that I became confused shows more about the propaganda site the Heritage than about my character.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Dreamer said:

@Bogan

There is a 97% scientific consensus on climate change. Global warming is here now, caused by humans, and the main driver is co2 from industrial activity. Most of the heat has gone into the ocean.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Human mind works in wonderous ways. For instance, it is well known that a claim repeated multiple times is seen as more truthful by default than a claim made once, even if in both cases the claim is completely empty and zero evidence is provided in its support. Here we see an example of a person citing the popular "97% consensus" claim based solely on him having run into it again and again, never wondering if, perhaps, the claim might be insubstantiated - or even downright nonsensical.

The latter is the case here. What exactly does it mean, "97% scientific consensus on climate change"? Does it mean that 97% of scientific papers published agree on absolutely everything pertaining to climate change? "Consensus on climate change" is a meaningless word salad. And if you actually bothered to look up the original source on which this popular claim is made, you would learn (assuming you are capable of understanding the original paper, which I highly doubt you are based on the reasoning ability you have demonstrated so far) that the claim has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to assert here.

People sometimes wonder how someone can seriously believe that, say, the Earth is flat, or that it is 6,000 years old... Yet it does not at all surprise them that people believe in something sounding slightly plausible based on exactly as much logic and evidence as those beliefs. Perhaps it is because the image of a person making the 6,000 years claim they have is that of a religious zealot yelling into the crowd about the impending apocalypse, while the image of a person making the 97% claim they have is that of an esteemed professor speaking at some intergovernmental panel. It is a bit unfortunate that many people give much more importance to these arbitrary heuristics than to sound reasoning, but that is how their minds work and nobody can change that.

@Dreamer, I think May has me on mute. Anyway, just so you know, this argument of his does nothing to discredit the validity of what you just said where the statement also stands for itself. His whole argument here can boiled down to just nitpicking your supposed understanding of what science is. And quite frankly based on his absurd statements about consensus being meaningless word salad I wonder how much he actually understands about science himself. 

He Also does nothing to elaborate on what he means by this or even explain what consensus actually is which I don't think he does understand exactly. 

His last post was nothing more than false analogy. 

Bogan

Who conducted this poll among climate scientists?     Was it a secret ballot?     How many climate scientists were polled, or, what percentage of the world's climate scientists were polled?    The less the base number, the more unreliable the statistic.         Given that a 97% consensus on anything looks near impossible to me, my suspicion is that this 97% consensus is just as big a work of fiction as anthropogenic global warming itself.     I asked Dreamer to authenticate this, what UI think is propaganda, and he never came back with an answer.     Why therefore, should I not continue to think that the whole thing was spun up by some self aggrandizing climate scientist eager to get his snout in the public trough?    Probably with his front trotters as well?

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

Also, deniers' arguments tend to be confusing. The fact that I became confused shows more about the propaganda site the Heritage than about my character.

That is quite an outlook: that failings of your mind is the responsibility of those who supply you with claims and information that mislead you, rather than yours. Are you comfortable so easily conceding any agency and accepting others' power over your mind? Or maybe you have never fully acknowledged that agency and being lead by others is all that you are familiar with?

I have grown up living in 4 (!) different totalitarian regimes, regimes in which propaganda was not something you could find on a bunch of websites, but something that actively pursues you everywhere you go. You go to a classroom - you get bombarded with messages about your great nation. You turn on the TV - you see the Dear Leader looking at you menacingly and telling you that you are nothing but a cog in the machine.
Somehow that did not prevent me from thinking for myself. And you live in the world where 99% of knowledge from the entire history of humanity is available to you with a couple of clicks. That you cannot read and understand simple sentences when living in such an environment is no one's fault but yours.

Unfortunately, once again, your outlook is very common nowadays. We were naive, living in those hellholes and thinking, "Oh, people on the West definitely do not get brainwashed, do they? You cannot be brainwashed when you have 1,000 mainstream sources of information, rather than 1". Turns out, it does not matter how much freedom there is in the media space: people tend to be much more interested in shutting down their thinking and passively swallowing whatever their small and comfortable bubble offers them, than in constantly challenging their minds, learning something, growing and developing critical thinking. Totalitarian regimes give people what they want, and so do liberal democracies; the former just do it more in your face, while the latter gently nudge you there.

You systematically exhibit the standard tribal thinking by calling people disagreeing with you "deniers". It is easy to throw millions (billions?) of people into a bag and put this tag on it: then you do not have to grapple with the nuances and differences of opinions within that group; all you need to know is that they are the "deniers", therefore, whatever they say, they are all wrong by default.
Notice how I do not do the contrary: I do not put any labels on you. Your inability to reason and think critically, Dreamer, is your specific feature, and it is not shared among everyone who arrives at many of the same conclusions as you. Heck, one of my best friends is a professor believing that humanity will not survive till 2100 unless something drastic is done regarding humans' altering of the climate. Mind you, one minute of conversations with that professor gets me to grapple with more deep insights than the whole history of conversing with you - I struggle to think of anything you have ever said or reposted that would make me go even for a moment, "Hmm, I need to think how to respond to this".

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Its a well established fact that denier arguments are often incoherent.

@MayCaesar

"It’s easier to discredit an unreliable source than deconstruct a vague web
of beliefs. Ask for the sources, cast doubt on the motives behind them,
identify inconsistencies and highlight obvious falsehoods."

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/CommsFlyer-en.pdf

Have you ever tried arguing with a creationists? I have and nothing they said made sense. This wasn't a lack of intelligence or critical thinking. This was because the creationists offered a vague web of beliefs.

Only once I read pro-evolution arguments that deconstructed the creationist's argument could I understand what the creationist was saying.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Tin foil hat.

@Bogan

There is so many organization involved in climate change we would need a grand conspiracy that would be mathematically improbable if not impossible. You can easily find how the 97% consensus was formed on skepticalscience, crankyuncle, or denial101x course.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

just_sayin

@Dreamer @Bogan

There has been a lot of climate extremist talk blaming climate change on the latest heatwave.  But what are climatologists saying:

NASA: "Unprecedented" Underwater Volcanic Eruption Likely Responsible for Current Heat Waves

From the article:

However, in the case of the Tonga blast, the caldera was situated nearly 500 feet below the surface of the South Pacific Ocean, resulting in a muted particulate ash cloud, but a greatly enhanced vaporizing of the surrounding water, ejecting that vapor into the stratosphere where it will have the effect of trapping heat on the Earth's surface.
Measurements from the Microwave Limb Sounder on NASA's Aura satellite indicate the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere, where this "excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming."
This estimate, conducted in late 2022 has been recently revised upward from a 10% increase in stratospheric water vapor to a 30% increase by the European Space Agency. Water vapor is a well-recognized "greenhouse gas," whose heightened presence leads to higher surface temperatures, a mechanism much more powerful than the interaction of atmospheric CO2, as explained by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

It is most likely the latest heat wave was caused by the volcanic eruption and the El Nino effect.  This does not disprove climate change, but it does show the eagerness of climate extremists to blame any temperature change on global warming.  Their religious views on climate change, are more important to them than what the science is saying.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Even renowned climate alarmists don't believe the 98% consensus conclusion.  I hope you will watch this interview:

Judith Curry: How Climate “Science” Got Hijacked by Alarmists

Bogan

@Dreamer ;    There is so many organization involved in climate change we would need a grand conspiracy that would be mathematically improbable if not impossible. You can easily find how the 97% consensus was formed on skepticalscience, crankyuncle, or denial101x course.

Hey ma-a--a-te.    Unlike you, I did my homework first before I decided who was right, and who was telling porky pies.   .     Quite a lot of Alarmist sites on youtube repeated your claim of a "97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming", but one thing I noticed straight away was, not one of them bothered to authenticate that fact.    Nobody informed me who did the poll, when it was done, how it was conducted, or  how many climate scientists were polled.    That was just one thing that got my antennae up and made me wonder about the Alarmist point of view?        When I got onto the Denier sites, they were pointing out themselves with some hilarity that the Alarmists could not authenticate that claim.      That is why when you made the same claim, I knew I would stump you.    I knew that you could not validate your claim.     I had hoped that this might have stimulated some neuronal activity, and got wondering about whether what you are cutting and pasting "ain't necessarily so". 

You show all of the classic symptoms of a young person who is easy to fool.       You decided that the Alarmists must be right because you live in a liberal bubble where such an opinion is mandatory.     You have never looked at a Denier site because you have already prejudged them to be false, and so you need not bother to understand the other guys point of view.       That is why I am running rings around you.    I know my subject, I know your side of the debate, and I can formulate arguments by cross connecting concepts.    All you can do is cut and paste.

The lesson here is, everybody has prejudgements, mine was once more Alarmist than Denier.    But when trying to understand an important  contentious issue, you have to suppress your prejudgements and just look at the facts with an impartial eye, and come to your conclusion using critical thinking.    That is what intelligent people do.      You fell for the trap that the Alarmists set for you, which was that they convinced you that their side of the debate was the "intelligent" side, and your natural desire to display your intelligence led you to accept anything they told you.     So, they told you that there was a "97% consensus among climate scientists" and you just accepted it without even bothering to think about it.    They had you figured out, Dreamer, and you got played.    Don't feel too bad about that.    If you know anything about psychology, you would understand how that works on most people.   

If you are smart then start thinking smart.      Use this example of "97% consensus" to question whether you are being lied to.     Try and authenticate this claim that there is a "97% consensus among climate scientists."     If you can not do that, then at least start looking at this topic with a more impartial eye.     My advice to you, is keep looking at Alarmist sites if you want to, but for every one you look at, look at a Denier site as well.     You might just find that the arguments that the Alarmists submit are usually easily dismissed quite effectively by the Deniers, and that the Deniers have that quality I call "the ring of truth."

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

"It’s easier to discredit an unreliable source than deconstruct a vague web
of beliefs. Ask for the sources, cast doubt on the motives behind them,
identify inconsistencies and highlight obvious falsehoods."

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/CommsFlyer-en.pdf

Have you ever tried arguing with a creationists? I have and nothing they said made sense. This wasn't a lack of intelligence or critical thinking. This was because the creationists offered a vague web of beliefs.

Only once I read pro-evolution arguments that deconstructed the creationist's argument could I understand what the creationist was saying.

Good piece @Dreamer,

However, it won't matter how much evidence you show May. He seems to be hellbent at just hacking away at your supposed understanding of all the literature involved. 

Barnardot

@Bogan @Dreamer ;Quite a lot of Alarmist sites on youtube repeated your claim of a "97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming", but one thing I noticed straight away was, not one of them bothered to authenticate that fact.

Well Dreamer hes right you know because he did his research real well. Theres a website by the Bogan Authority on Bias Baloney Lies and Extremism. Any way this is the bench Mark on the true facts and I know because the founder of the site said so so it must be right. Except that there is a bit of a glitch on it because only half the facts appear on the screen but Im sure they will fix it.

For example it says that global warming happens every one 1000 years. But then the facts didnt show on the screen about all the global temperatures going up by more than 2 per % in 100 years and all the forests in Canada and USA and Greece and Hawaii are burning down. And it didnt come up on my page but may be it might on yours because I have to trade in my Commodore 64 soon. Because I couldn't see the facts about how all the factories and cars have made a zillion tons of CO2 that are making the earth even warmer. And you can be sure also that the founder of the site has proberly put in the bit about the Grate Barrier Reef because thats where all the bogans come from any way and there going to miss out on a heap of tourist dollars because what happened was that it grew and grew over 600 global warmings but over the past 40 years alone it has shrinked by a half for some odd reason.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

"It’s easier to discredit an unreliable source than deconstruct a vague web
of beliefs. Ask for the sources, cast doubt on the motives behind them,
identify inconsistencies and highlight obvious falsehoods."

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/CommsFlyer-en.pdf

Have you ever tried arguing with a creationists? I have and nothing they said made sense. This wasn't a lack of intelligence or critical thinking. This was because the creationists offered a vague web of beliefs.

Only once I read pro-evolution arguments that deconstructed the creationist's argument could I understand what the creationist was saying.

This only seems to be the case if you do not think for yourself and instead rely on others to tell you what to do (such as this flyer). I have argued with "creationists" quite a bit, and defeating them is a piece of cake. You just let them strangle themselves with their own rope by asking them clarifying questions and allowing them to arrive at a contradiction. Then you point that contradiction out, and all they have left to say is to accuse you of being a part of the conspiracy, at which point they are done. You do not need to know anything about evolution to find errors in their reasoning and point them out.

But that, again, is the problem: you engage in tribal thinking, and to you the only way to contest one tribe's position is by embracing another tribe's position. Your own thinking is absent, you just pick and choose from what you see on offer at the marketplace.

When you think for yourself, you quickly learn that it is much-much harder to make a good argument than to destroy a bad argument. The principle of burden of proof intrinsically forces the arguing party to do a better job than the disputing party in order to stay even: there is an infinity of ways to make a mistake in an argument, and exactly one way to not make a single one.
That is why you see that in science it takes people years to establish a new solid result, while it may take as little as a day to undermine a shaky one. And that is why here, on a debate website, you see me much more often pointing out errors in others' reasoning than declaring my own stance on something. I realize how well I must understand something in order to even form a defendable stance. I would be wary of making prescriptions for how to improve climate on Earth given how easy it would be to screw those up even if I was an expert in the field. It is not nearly as difficult to find a piece of an argument that does not follow from the assumptions stated, for which often you just need to think logically and not reference any external knowledge.

To you though making sweeping policy prescriptions based on your reading of a couple of lousy websites (and demonstrably consistently wrong reading at that) is not a problem at all. Maybe this is why you are having such a hard time arguing with people with ridiculous positions: when your own positions are shaky, you are not going to fare well against the competition.

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;   This only seems to be the case if you do not think for yourself and instead rely on others to tell you what to do (such as this flyer). I have argued with "creationists" quite a bit, and defeating them is a piece of cake. You just let them strangle themselves with their own rope by asking them clarifying questions and allowing them to arrive at a contradiction. Then you point that contradiction out, and all they have left to say is to accuse you of being a part of the conspiracy, at which point they are done. You do not need to know anything about evolution to find errors in their reasoning and point them out.

You do, tovarich?   I thought your usual dirty tactic was to attack the other guys position while never submitting your own?

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@MayCaesar ;   This only seems to be the case if you do not think for yourself and instead rely on others to tell you what to do (such as this flyer). I have argued with "creationists" quite a bit, and defeating them is a piece of cake. You just let them strangle themselves with their own rope by asking them clarifying questions and allowing them to arrive at a contradiction. Then you point that contradiction out, and all they have left to say is to accuse you of being a part of the conspiracy, at which point they are done. You do not need to know anything about evolution to find errors in their reasoning and point them out.

You do, tovarich?   I thought your usual dirty tactic was to attack the other guys position while never submitting your own.

@Bogan, that is definitely his tactic. Sadly this appears to be the case with him these days. If his attempts are trying to use some kind of street epistemology on this forum then to the trained eye he is doing a very bad job of it. Firstly, SE is supposed to be an innocent and reasonable form of inquiry much like the Socratic method. It has become abundantly clear to me these days where I have more of a clearer head than I had before when inebriated a lot, however, that these are not his motives. 

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

The dirty debating tactic of always attacking your opponents position, while never submitting a countervailing argument supporting your own, is  tactic which as a nimrod debater, I did not recognise.   It drove me nuts until I realised what my opponents were doing.     There are two ways of countering it.     The first is, when you realise that your opponent only ever attacks your position, but never justifies his own, simply demand that they do so.    This I demanded of MayCaesar in my debate about "Are Races Equal".    MayCaesar would only attack my position, which explained why I thought that races were not equal, but would not submit any explanation as to why he thought that they must be equal.    When they do this, it means that they can attack your reasoning but you can never attack theirs.    So I pointedly told him that I would not debate with him until he stopped playing dirty.     The SOB knows what he is doing.   

The second way is to just let your opponent keep attacking your position.     He can not keep attacking your position without slowly giving away his own reasoning, little by little.   You paint him into a corner by cutting and pasting every statement he makes where he has to justify his thinking on some salient point he is making.        This can take a lot of time, but eventually you get so many quotes from him where he inadvertently gives away his own reasoning, that he can not deny his position when you all at once throw his own numerous quotes back in his face.    That puts them back on their heels, but it has never stopped them from prevaricating forever.     The best tactic is to just do not debate with people whom use this dirty trick.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;  

That's one link Dreamer will never click on, just-sayin.     That could produce DOUBT, and since his whole self esteem system is built around thinking that he is smart because he believes in human produced climate change, then he will avoid it like the plague.   . Admitting that he was wrong would be a particularly unpleasant piece of crow to eat.     Thank you for that link.   I had one of the Climategate Emails I lost when my old computer hard drive burned out.     I can put that email back in my ammunition box.      For Dreamer I will post it up, maybe it might get him at the tipping point.

MayCaesar

Bogan said:

You do, tovarich?   I thought your usual dirty tactic was to attack the other guys position while never submitting your own?

That is a pretty big claim you made here... What is with your and Zeus' fixation on my little persona anyway? I am not even talking to either of you, yet you chime in almost every debate I participate in and insert a snarky remark about me. You do not have my leaked nudes hanging on your walls, do you? Please, not the one with the My Little Pony plushies. That one was reserved for my former mistress who regrettably turned out to be a Tom & Jerry girl.

Bogan

@MayCaesar ;    That is a pretty big claim you made here... 

It was an accurate claim.    I had judged that you had a brain, and I had hoped to have a good debate with you and cure you of whatever misconceptions you had about race.    But I soon figured out that you were an exponent of a dirty debating tactic I had seen before.     And as per usual, you refused to stop it when I politely asked you to do so.     Your total refusal to submit a countervailing argument against mine made me realise immediately that you knew exactly what you were doing and you were not going to stop,   So, I won't debate you.    But I can still amuse myself by giving you a kick, every now and again.    Trolls get no mercy from me.  

Barnardot

@Bogan @MayCaeser ZeusAres42 Dreamer But I soon figured out that you were an exponent of a dirty debating tactic I had seen before. 

Thats a good point that you pointed our because you see a lot of dirty tactics by people who are extreme so they cant help it . For example they use the half argument dirty tactic. Like for example saying something like blacks have less intelligence than whites. But they refuse to say or believe the argument that they got that way because the whites made them like that. 

And for example another example is trying to argue that climate change happens every one 1000 years any way. Then ignoring the argument about the facts that this climate change is different and hotter and the unarguable facts about CO2 and fossil fuels. And then you tell these people the evidence that the Grate Barrier Reef has disintegrated by 50% in 40 years compared with growing in 600 thousand years before that. So I reckon that using half arguments and not responding to the other half of the argument is an even dirtier tactic.

MayCaesar

@Bogan

That is a lot of fancy words to justify having the nude hanging on your wall. Just embrace your fetishes, man... We all have those.

Bogan

To Barnadot.   

CNN worldwide news.    

 By Tara Subramaniam, CNN

Published 5:43 AM EDT, Thu August 4, 2022

 

Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest amount of coral cover since the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) began monitoring 36 years ago, according to a report published Thursday.

An AIMS survey of 87 reefs found that between August 2021 and May 2022, average hard coral cover in the upper region and central areas of the reef increased by around one third.

Barnardot

@Bogan Well said and Between 1995 and 2017, 50% of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef died. According to Professor Terry Hughes of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, the 50% decline is widespread. It includes small, medium, and large corals in shallow and deep water.
So when you analize it in the end how many graphs have a straight line. But when you look at the hole picture a 50% drop over 22 years is significant and picking little knits out of little insignificant research doesn’t really mean any thing at all don’t you reckon