Why would the government be interested in perpetuating the myth of global warming?  More regulation means less profits for corporations and a smaller tax base for the government...take off your tin foil hat.

 

 

 

 

AFAICT I imagine it's about a lot of things, but the incentives are that it allows politicians to set themselves up as dragon slayers and creates a new line of cronies to both be fed and feed the political sphere.  The Climate Change Industrial Complex is a 1.5 Trillion dollar industry.

 

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm

 

 

 

Science needs funding, typically government grants don't have strings attached that try to steer the results of scientific studies.  Pure research still exists, and its contemptible to suggest that majority scientist somehow lack integrity to produce fair results on this issue.  Corporations put their money, not in the science  but in trying to curtail Agency regulation through notice-and-comment proceedings, and through the lobbying of legislatures.  

 

 

What I said is absolutely not contemptible.  It is however ridiculously naive to paint scientists as you have.  They are susceptible to incentives, peer pressure, politics, and protecting their own pet theories.  Peer review and publishing are also subject to bias and other problems.  

 

http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/fake_peer_review_scientific_journals_publish_fraudulent_plagiarized_or_nonsense.html

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/implicit-bias-still-hinders-minority-researchers/

 

 

Yes, all sorts of this.

 

 

 

I don't know.  what you quoted was simply circular reasoning, so I hadn't bothered with it.

 

 

 

The climate change argument reeks of the tobacco argument from the 60s and 70s. If there was a way to disprove man-made climate change, we'd already have the data in hand. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line in this debate. If a corporation could spend $10 billion - an ungodly amount - to disprove it, they would have done it years ago.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the current scientists are right, either. We constantly flub scientific discovery and circle the truth for years before we finally figure it out. I personally believe in man-made climate change but I try to keep an open mind about it. Science sometimes gets it wrong before they get it right.

But to accuse the scientists and government of rigging the game? No, man. You're just building a Reality Distortion Field, plugging your ears, and yelling "LALALALALALALA" at that point. This research has been going on for decades across dozens of disciplines and tens of thousands of scientists funded by both private organizations and dozens of independent countries. Are the Swedes corrupt, too? What about the Brits? The French? And the Germans, too? Well, ****... At that point, who isn't corrupt in your eyes? You have to toss Bill Gates in there as well. He obviously stands to gain a lot by funding climate research. What a jerk, that Bill Gates. He may be well on the way to eradicating polio but I just know he's screwing us on this climate thing.

There is no way to make the logic leap that energy producers - who stand to lose trillions - are benevolent about this subject while individual scientists - who stand to lose *maybe* a grant - are corrupt and intentionally skewing results.

It's sheer lunacy.

 

And that was mostly just a bunch of appeals to popularity/authority.  

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

You are obviously unaware that it's not only a grant dissenting climatologist risk losing, they risk losing their careers.  It's happened a number of times

 

What I think is sheer lunacy is the RICO prosecution of Exxon for the 'crime' of donating funds to groups that disagree with the 'consensus'.  That has a sort of McCarthyism written all over it. 

 

...

 

 

BTW, are you even familiar with what the oft quoted 97% consensus is derived from?  It's a fraud.

 

 

Edited June 12, 201610 yr by Steve J

Yeah, appealing to the "popular authority" when that authority literally spends their life studying the subject is a real logical fallacy.

 

Never mind that I said right there in the post that science sometimes gets it wrong.

 

I can post cute links to logical fallacies in your post but I won't because it's unproductive and boring. I suggest you do the same.

 

(BTW, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is only a fallacy when the quoted person is NOT actually an authority. If you're going to be smug with a response, at least try to get it right.)

 

Yeah, appealing to the "popular authority" when that authority literally spends their life studying the subject is a real logical fallacy.

Never mind that I said right there in the post that science sometimes gets it wrong.

I can post cute links to logical fallacies in your post but I won't because it's unproductive and boring. I suggest you do the same.

 

 

If I have logical fallacies in my post, please point them out.

 

 

 

(BTW, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is only a fallacy when the quoted person is NOT actually an authority. If you're going to be smug with a response, at least try to get it right.)

 

My response was not intended to be smug.  But you are completely wrong about that fallacy.

 

Okay, this is my last post on the subject but seriously, man... Did you even read the link you used to respond to me?

 

This is literally the first sentence:

 

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

Okay, this is my last post on the subject but seriously, man... Did you even read the link you used to respond to me?

This is literally the first sentence:

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

 

yes, I actually did read that.  And I agree you can't use this to dismiss experts out of hand.  But nor can you refer to a consensus and expect it to end a discussion on things.  

 

I have never 'dismissed' the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.  I think the consensus is flawed and am prepared to detail why that is.

Greenland ice melt record in 2015.

 

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/greenland-set-melt-records-2015-consistent-‘arctic-amplification’

 

Greenland ice melt record in 2015.

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/greenland-set-melt-records-2015-consistent-‘arctic-amplification’

Mother nature at work! The earth is so mysterious!

Holy hell. Really? Climate Change deniers are literally involved in the destruction of the species. We have to act NOW to help out the damage that is soon to be unleashed on us.

And . . . the appeal to authority fallacy is absolutely, positively about illegitimate authorities. We appeal to doctors, mechanics, etc. all of the time for their expertise. And it is justified to do so, with regard to their expertise.

 

And . . . the appeal to authority fallacy is absolutely, positively about illegitimate authorities. We appeal to doctors, mechanics, etc. all of the time for their expertise. And it is justified to do so, with regard to their expertise.

Heh, yes. If you apply that fallacy to actual experts, it puts you in the unenviable position of never being able to listen to another human being about anything, ever.

 

Heh, yes. If you apply that fallacy to actual experts, it puts you in the unenviable position of never being able to listen to another human being about anything, ever.

This does have its advantages in maintaining one's ideological outlook, on the other hand.

 

This does have its advantages in maintaining one's ideological outlook, on the other hand.

And goes far in explaining most of the baseball threads.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

May 2016 in the books. Another ho-hum record breaker at 1.7 degress F above the long-term average.

 

May 2016 in the books. Another ho-hum record breaker at 1.7 degress F above the long-term average.

Mother Nature, you so crazy! 

http://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/3747333+_0c13c00f7d4cede0e352d705e61685cf.jpg

Check out this one about climate change.

So, Nature is a pretty prestigious journal. This is just an abstract.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18307.html

Great article on the 7 biggest problems with science; I think many (if not all) of these problems are punctuated by the climate change "debate."

A very good and interesting representation.

 

http://xkcd.com/1732/

 

2016 was the hottest summer globally on record, beating the previous record (2015) by a fifth of a degree.

August marked the 16th straight record breaking month.

http://www.startribune.com/earth-smashes-yet-another-heat-record-16th-month-in-a-row/394158631/

...and 2016 wraps up with a global average temp .99 degrees above the "long term" average (1950-1981). The warmest year on record. Again.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Climate change is a hoax.

And of course, right on cue.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/the-white-house-websites-page-on-climate-change-just-disappeared.html

 

And of course, right on cue.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/the-white-house-websites-page-on-climate-change-just-disappeared.html

Sad.

Clearly a small sample size.

On a side note, I've always thought the way people try to move the country politically regarding climate change has been a fiasco.

 

First, there have been doom and gloom predictions that are easily checked and have not come true. Ruins credibility.

 

Second, there has been little effort to co-opt low hanging religious language and commands to care for the earth. Keeping at arms length potentially allies.

 

Third, not being expansive enough to being in conservative conservationists. Again, limiting the allies.

 

Fourth, and most important, the debate is happening on the wrong terrain. The debate is not whether or not it is happening, that is easy to "refute" and results in people banging theit heads against the wall with no progress. The goal posts need to move, the debate is what does the country need to do. A few easy, simple solutions wrapped into slogans.

The debate is what does the country need to do. A few easy, simple solutions wrapped into slogans.

Here's a start.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganstanley/2016/11/23/why-clean-energy-can-withstand-changing-political-winds/

 

Fourth, and most important, the debate is happening on the wrong terrain. The debate is not whether or not it is happening, that is easy to "refute" and results in people banging theit heads against the wall with no progress. The goal posts need to move, the debate is what does the country need to do. A few easy, simple solutions wrapped into slogans.

Have any suggestions? Seems like Obama tried framing clean energy into little packets of national security and independence but to no avail. Oil employed a lot of people 3-8 years ago and recapturing those jobs seem to be a bigger priority for folks, long term consequences be damned.

Have any suggestions? Seems like Obama tried framing clean energy into little packets of national security and independence but to no avail. Oil employed a lot of people 3-8 years ago and recapturing those jobs seem to be a bigger priority for folks, long term consequences be damned.

Because so many of those folks can't afford the costs of learning new and different skills. Maybe if education became more affordable...

I think jim's advice is pretty sound.  Everyone who agrees on the science already agrees, but advancing the position with science has only caused huge issues and deeper divides.  Perhaps we should try something else, something built more around conservationism and stewardship.

 

Because so many of those folks can't afford the costs of learning new and different skills. Maybe if education became more affordable...

Ideally sure, everyone on the fringe has the skills they need to adapt to a changing economy. I don't think affordability is the road block for many of them. 

Edited January 21, 20179 yr by Willihammer

And obviously I'm biased due to my profession, but I really think liberals/Dems make a mistake when they don't co-opt faith language and traditions for progressive causes.

 

Obviously won't work for all issues (ahem, abortion) but this issue strikes me as right in the wheelhouse.