Thoughts on climate change?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: At this point we need draconian measures to deal with climate change.

Five million people are dying a year from climate change. We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction. The oceans are acidifying.

Too much tolerance and freedom becomes callousness and indifference. Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt.

Dee

My thoughts are it's a thing, but as usual working class people are the ones who have to pay and bear the brunt of the costs.

Big business and governments constantly bleat on like the hypocrites they are by feigning concern for the planet,  yet in the meantime in my country they have been putting cycle lanes all over the country in a ridiculous attempt to get people to cycle to work ; on a fourteen mile stretch to the  city centre over here  one is lucky to see more than 6 cyclists using the lanes , the same applies all over the country , we just don't use them,  yet the government persists as if a country of 5 and a half million people were somehow totally responsible for global warming.

Anything to do with so called "innovations " to halt the problem are ridiculously overpriced and for a reason as this is a gravy train for the hand wringing hypocrites who feign concern for the planet while ripping of working class people.

They tell us buy electric cars yet refuse to make affordable ones , use solar energy while solar panels cost a fortune the clawback on your investment takes 20 to 30 years ,etc , etc.

I hear two faced clowns like Biden talking about his "grave concerns "for the planet while the USA is the second worst country for greenhouse emissions only beaten by China , yet we get the usual  typically two faced  arrogant American attitude where people like Biden lecture about his countries "concern " over these matters only because Americas appalling track record is under scrutiny.

ZeusAres42

Well no scientist (at least the honest ones) are are no lounger under the illusion that human induced climate change isn't a thing. 

However, among a lot of the media, political, or any other person with highly sought ideologies the argument often now is "it's not as bad as it is made out to be." This is such an irritating cliche I think this phrase should be added to the top banned phrases poster.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
Well no scientist (at least the honest ones) are no lounger under the illusion that human induced climate change isn't a thing. 

There still is no such thing by united state constitution as human induced climate change what there is held in united states constitution is human climate manipulation both political and scientific. These are the same scientist who do not understand the difference between natural numbers, rational numbers, and Integers yet?

(Meaning they have no clear idea or udnerstanding of time to establish time frames)

By the way the use of chemical ice-melting agents are the mathematical greatest contributor to climate manipulation currently taking place globally it also happens to be the greatest contributor to debt as it destroys federal highways and drainage infostructure faster than it can be repaired.

How does a Legal United State held above law create all women equal?

By calling them Presadera instead of a women, lady, Female, or Queen.

John_C_87

@Cringe_Cringe_Train said:

I'm curious

It's time to go.........

John_C_87

Dreamer said:

Five million people are dying a year from climate change.

Provided Global faulty engineering along with negligent mathematics is not to really blame and climate manipulation is just the means to transfer blame elsewhere?

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

Five million people are dying a year from climate change. We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction. The oceans are acidifying.

Too much tolerance and freedom becomes callousness and indifference. Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt.

Jailing people for expressing their opinion based on a proposal by a comedian... That is a pretty low dip, my friend. Especially in combination with these outstanding claims that, of course, do not have any support in the scientific literature and are only promoted by unqualified activists.

If you are willing to completely do away with the ideas of liberalism and make the government into a utopia builder using human bones as material, you would do well to set an example and send yourself to jail due to contradicting the ideas on climate of the previous group of the White House occupants.

But, of course, as all authoritarians, it is not objectivity and consistency you seek, but just elimination of the people who you personally dislike and do not want to hear from. Luckily for all of us (including you), most political systems nowadays feature prevention mechanisms not allowing people like this to exercise their ideas through political means.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: There is ample scientific support for the claims.

@MayCaesar

" do not have any support in the scientific literature and are only promoted by unqualified activists."

I am sorry, but your statement is incorrect.

Five million deaths:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-heatwaves-deaths-temperature-b1880153.html

Ocean acidification:

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

Sixth mass extinction:

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it

Dee

@Dreamer

Your cowardly thumbs down to my arguments demonstrate clearly you're only here to preach, at least attempt to debate instead of just preaching.

jack

Argument Topic: Thoughts on climate change?

Hello C:

It's time to STOP thinking and START acting.  We KNOW what we must do.  It's time to get on with it.  Yes, there's going to be worldwide disruptions if we DO, and BIGGER worldwide disruptions if we don't.

Fact is, oil is FINITE.. We WILL run out.  At some time in the future, we're gonna NEED a new energy source.  So, let's kill two birds with one stone and ACT, now!

excon

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

These do not constitute scientific literature. If you are familiar with a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that establishes the "five million deaths per year caused by climate change", feel free to link it here.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

There is ample scientific support for the claims.

I read your first link. Here's what it actually says:-

Over five million extra deaths each year could be due to abnormal hot and cold extremes caused by the ongoing climate crisis.

"Could be" means it is possible, and nothing more than that. It's speculation. 

If you read the whole article, then at the bottom one of the authors of the data contradicts the idea that climate change is causing 5 million deaths per year and actually argues that it may presently be reducing temperature related deaths:-

Based on the analysis, Mr Guo said global warming may “slightly reduce the number of temperature-related deaths, largely because of the lessening in cold-related mortality, however in the long-term, climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase (sic).”

Hence, this article absolutely does not evidence your claim that 5 million people are dying each year because of climate change.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The thumbs down just means disagree. Rather than say "I disagree" I hit the button and then make an argument.

@Dee

I am just disagreeing when I hit the thumbs down button. Then, I debate afterwards. I am surprised that people are still arguing over basic facts about climate change.

Ocean acidification is well established. I've know about it since at least 2017.

"The oceans are growing more acidic, and scientists think the change is happening faster than at any time in geologic history."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/critical-issues-ocean-acidification

I am not preaching if I am reiterating a well established scientific fact. This is the opposite of preaching.

Others have known about acidification since 2010 from the respected website on climate change skepticalscience.

"Ocean acidification Posted on 23 June 2010 by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg"

https://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acid.html

Scientists have known about ocean acidification and coral decline since 2007. Here's the problem it is 2023 and people are still denying it, slothful induction. Yet, I am the one being accused of preaching?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000711&type=printable

This is a peer reviewed article from 2007. Here is your evidence. People who deny this are 16 years behind the science.

Dreamer

@Nomenclature

You are stating myth 35

"Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response."

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

"In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported." GPWayne

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

A greater concern is understatement the number of deaths could be higher.

Dee

@Dreamer

Wait up my friend you never addressed even one of my responses to your assertions that's why I claim you're preaching ,your appeals to authority are  not a meaningful response to what I said ,so at least try to address what I actually said .in my last post






 

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

Five million people are dying a year from climate change. We are in the middle of the sixth great extinction. The oceans are acidifying.

Too much tolerance and freedom becomes callousness and indifference. Jail climate change denier leaders, the merchants of doubt.

Jailing deniers is a bit extreme. No one ever made someone change their view via brute force. Denialism will exist for some time. As for the deniers spreading of misinformation, either intentionally or not measures are already put in place to tackle this. For example, even some scientists are publicly exposed for falsifying information.

We shouldn't hate the deniers. I think we should try to understand them though. It's obviously the case that a lot of them are unaware; other ones are very aware but their political ideologies are in conflict with their scientific understanding (cognitive dissonance).

In fact, jailing and brute force will actually be self-defeating. Also, positive things are happening now anyway although it may not seem like it. There is less and less denial over several years. Oh and funnily enough there was a lot of denialism once regarding the idea that smoking causes lung cancer; the incidence of a causal link was discovered about a couple hundred years ago!

Denialism does lessen more and more each year, with people being more informed.

Seriously though for some time there is always going to be:

• Flat earthers
• Anti-vacination activists
• Evolution deniers
• People that believe the world is run by tiny secret lizard people
• Covid deniers
• Those that believe in demonic possession
• Those that believe in Alien abduction
• Those that
  
• Climate Change deniers

The list is endless. I believe the way forward is to arm people with awareness, critical thinking, etc. Preaching to these guys it's all nonsense and won't do anything but intensify their beliefs even more. Also, because of this it also makes it easier for some of those coming from academia (that are very aware of the science) but also acting in bad faith so as to reinforce these guys' beliefs even more. The latter is a bit more challenging (at least to reason with) but as for the former don't be an opponent; instead be a collaborator.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Okay, I got a bit overwhelmed. I didn't get a chance to address your arguments yet.

@Dee

'My thoughts are it's a thing, but as usual working class people are the ones who have to pay and bear the brunt of the costs." Dee

"

This is true either way. If we ignore climate change, the damage to the infrastructure will harm the working class people more. Having to drive on threadbare tires on pothole ridden roads is stressful. Dealing with climate change means net metering increasing costs of electricity.

That's why a package deal is ideal. More funding to help poor people and to lower co2 emissions. We can't have 1st world countries destroy 3rd world countries via excess co2. We need to help poor people in both 1st and 3rd world countries simultaneously.

"Big business and governments constantly bleat on like the hypocrites they are by feigning concern for the planet,  yet in the meantime in my country they have been putting cycle lanes all over the country in a ridiculous attempt to get people to cycle to work ; on a fourteen mile stretch to the  city centre over here  one is lucky to see more than 6 cyclists using the lanes , the same applies all over the country , we just don't use them,  yet the government persists as if a country of 5 and a half million people were somehow totally responsible for global warming." Dee

Anecdotal evidence, I don't know why people aren't using the bicycle lanes nor the numbers. My best guess is inertia. The car has had cultural dominance for so long that people have become accustomed to using cars. 

"Anything to do with so called "innovations " to halt the problem are ridiculously overpriced and for a reason as this is a gravy train for the hand wringing hypocrites who feign concern for the planet while ripping of working class people." Dee

I am upset also that electric cars for example are associated with super expensive cars like Telsa.

"They tell us buy electric cars yet refuse to make affordable ones , use solar energy while solar panels cost a fortune the clawback on your investment takes 20 to 30 years ,etc , etc." Dee

I agree about the car manufacturers refusing to make affordable cars. I recommend the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car for an in-depth analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?

 I also agree about solar panels costing too much for individual homes, more so in say 2010 then now. Solar panels are becoming more efficient.

"I hear two faced clowns like Biden talking about his "grave concerns "for the planet while the USA is the second worst country for greenhouse emissions only beaten by China , yet we get the usual  typically two faced  arrogant American attitude where people like Biden lecture about his countries "concern " over these matters only because Americas appalling track record is under scrutiny." Dee

I understand, that the working class can feel that they are preached down by rich elite liberal politicians. Yet, climate change hurts working class people. Look at all the working class people in New Orleans harmed by the Cat5 hurricane Katrina. Katrina would have been less intense probably only a Cat4 hurricane if not for climate change.

Air inequity harms the working class and Black Indigenous people of color BIPOC people more.

"A new EPA analysis released today shows that the most severe harms from climate change fall disproportionately upon underserved communities who are least able to prepare for, and recover from, heat waves, poor air quality, flooding, and other impacts.  EPA’s analysis indicates that racial and ethnic minority communities are particularly vulnerable to the greatest impacts of climate change."

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-report-shows-disproportionate-impacts-climate-change-socially-vulnerable

The dishonest alt-right pundits who make claims about serving the working class are only serving their selves. Dealing with climate change helps the working class more than the rich. We just need to strengthen the economic safety net to offset the costs.

 

MayCaesar

@Dreamer

Here is the paper the article you linked references:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

In the "Findings" section of the abstract we read the following:

Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related). There were 74 temperature-related excess deaths per 100 000 residents (95% eCI 60–87). The mortality burden varied geographically. Of all excess deaths, 2 617 322 (51·49%) occurred in Asia. Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess death rate and Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess death rate. From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global cold-related excess death ratio changed by −0·51 percentage points (95% eCI −0·61 to −0·42) and the global heat-related excess death ratio increased by 0·21 percentage points (0·13–0·31), leading to a net reduction in the overall ratio. The largest decline in overall excess death ratio occurred in South-eastern Asia, whereas excess death ratio fluctuated in Southern Asia and Europe.

The first number is what you were referencing. Notice how dramatically different it is from your claim: the paper states that ~5 million deaths per year were associated with non-optimal temperatures. What you, on the other hand, stated was this:

Five million people are dying a year from climate change.

You see, these 5 million deaths are your initial dataset, and in order to determine how many of those are caused by (rather than associated with) non-optimal temperatures, and how many occurrences of those non-optimal temperatures are caused by climate change, and (something that you left unspoken) how much of that climate change is caused by human activity, you have to perform rigorous data analysis and apply multiple cuts. That may easily reduce the number of deaths to a few dozen, and the confidence interval is going to be much-much wider, possibly crossing the zero point.

But why bother with these technicalities, right? Someone said that millions of people die from climate change, and that sounds pretty scary... As someone you upvoted here said, "It's time to STOP thinking and START acting.". Might as well be the motto.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Many valid points and a few I disagree with.

@ZeusAres42

Hi, ZeusAres42

I will first state I agree with much of what you said. Nice bullet points btw.

"Oh and funnily enough there was a lot of denialism once regarding the idea that smoking causes lung cancer; the incidence of a causal link was discovered about a couple hundred years ago!" ZeusAres42

Interesting, can you tell me more about the causal link please?

I agree that arming people with awareness and critical thinking will help. I disagree on one small point though, I don't think adding good information is enough. At some point we do need some sort of censorship.

Two cases in point, in 2014 the number of people who believed in Flat Earth Truth increased dramatically. Despite, massive awareness that the Earth is roughly Spherical in nature. In contrast, that critical thinking was increasing due to the New Atheist Movement and anti-quack efforts to interrupt anti-vaxxers.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62596798-fads-fakes-and-frauds

The second point is religion. If you read fads, fakes, and frauds book in the link above misinformation doesn't just disappear as time goes on. A lot of effort was taken by the New Atheist Movement to finally get Christianity to retreat.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-disinformation-dozen-spreading-anti-vaccine-messaging-on-social-media/

"(YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) who profit from the activity, traffic, and sharing."

"It takes only a short exposure to anti-vaccine messaging to create hesitancy." Scott Gavura

Scott Gavura thinks we need to do more than just arm people with awareness and critical thinking. Why not stop the disinformation at the source? Jail the top climate change deniers, the people doing the most harm.

Dreamer

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

You are stating myth 35

I'm what now? I literally illustrated to you that your own link doesn't support your claim. You're making bogus claims.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

I agree that arming people with awareness and critical thinking will help.

The way to do that isn't by making wildly speculative claims and pretending you're stating facts.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The journal timeframe was between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2019 that's twenty years or 100 million deaths from climate change.

@MayCaesar

Hi MayCaesar,

I don't claim to understand everything about graphs and peer reviewed articles. Deniers sometimes get really technical and/or just outright lie and use some fancy reason for why I am incorrect and they are correct. How much weight to put on correlation, versus association, and causal.

I do know that plausibility matters. There is a correlation between buying organic produce and autism. Yet, there is no plausible mechanism to connect these two. Out of sheer coincidence there can be a correlation. On the other hand, the link between smoking and lung cancer started out as correlation only.

I do know that it is plausible that people die from excess heat. Therefore, the idea of only a few dozen dying seems extremely unlikely. Heat stroke and dehydration are just two examples. Yes, increased warmth will decrease cold related deaths, but also a cherry picking fallacy. Heat related deaths caused by climate change are approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented.

Yet, overall climate change does more harm than good, this is well established. You are referring to climate myth #3.

"Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before" GPWayne

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Dreamer

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Climate scientists are more likely to under state the damage of climate change.

@Nomenclature

I lack the knowledge to know for sure whether I am correct or not about the five million deaths from climate change. If I really wanted to know the easiest and fastest way would be simply to ask a climate scientist. I've asked them questions before, they usually respond with 72 hours.

A more conservative estimate is 150,000 deaths annually.

"Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world"  June 17, 2009 Gordon Gould, Compton, CA

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-health/

To focus on the exact number is to miss the point. We need to act on climate change sooner rather than later.

"Global warming is dangerously close to spiralling out of control, a U.N. climate panel said in a landmark report Monday, warning the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not centuries, to come." Nina Chestney

and Andrea Januta

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/un-sounds-clarion-call-over-irreversible-climate-impacts-by-humans-2021-08-09/ ;

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

I don't claim to understand everything about graphs and peer reviewed articles. Deniers sometimes get really technical and/or just outright lie and use some fancy reason for why I am incorrect and they are correct. 

All of your posts are appeals to authority, so if you don't understand what the articles say that you're linking then you shouldn't be linking them. 

Nobody is denying or using fancy reasoning. They are attacking your claim that 5 million people are dying per year as a direct result of manmade climate change, because it isn't supported by the literature. You're using fear-based reasoning and then accusing other people of myths when they criticise the lack of evidential support for your argument.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

Hi MayCaesar,

I don't claim to understand everything about graphs and peer reviewed articles. Deniers sometimes get really technical and/or just outright lie and use some fancy reason for why I am incorrect and they are correct. How much weight to put on correlation, versus association, and causal.

I do know that plausibility matters. There is a correlation between buying organic produce and autism. Yet, there is no plausible mechanism to connect these two. Out of sheer coincidence there can be a correlation. On the other hand, the link between smoking and lung cancer started out as correlation only.

I do know that it is plausible that people die from excess heat. Therefore, the idea of only a few dozen dying seems extremely unlikely. Heat stroke and dehydration are just two examples. Yes, increased warmth will decrease cold related deaths, but also a cherry picking fallacy. Heat related deaths caused by climate change are approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented.

Yet, overall climate change does more harm than good, this is well established. You are referring to climate myth #3.

"Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like the aged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before" GPWayne

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

Dreamer

You do not need to understand everything in order to be able to trace the claim to its source and verify whether it is a match or not - and if it is not, to conclude that the claim is false and is not to be spread. It is not "deniers getting really technical", it is the most basic check anyone making any claim whatsoever based on someone else's words must do.

That people die from excess heat is very well documented. That five million people a year die from excess heat is a dubious hypothesis, and that five million people a year die from excess heat caused by climate change caused by human activity is a claim the absurdity of which is out of this world. "Cherry picking fallacy"? What I did was just the most basic consideration of the reasoning in question, and it fell flat on its face. If I were to seriously and thoroughly critique your argument, the analysis and the verdict would be much-much more damning.

The claim that "overall climate change does more harm than good" is not even testable, for "harm" and "good" are fundamentally subjective categories. You can establish certain metrics for them, but you cannot make such claims objectively.

Were all of this just your personal confusion, with you genuinely wanting to learn about these things, I would be very gentle with you. But you want to jail people for disagreeing with your extremely dubious reasoning, and in my estimation a proper response to your reasoning should be much-much harsher. I am being far nicer than anyone should be here.

Before calling someone a "denier" and calling for jailing them, make sure that you do not make the most elementary mistakes in establishing the alleged truth that the person denies.

Dreamer said:

A more conservative estimate is 150,000 deaths annually.

"Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world"  June 17, 2009 Gordon Gould, Compton, CA

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-health/

To focus on the exact number is to miss the point. We need to act on climate change sooner rather than later.

Outstanding. You just momentarily shrunk your estimate of the number of human casualties by a factor of 30+ and did not even blink - and said that focusing on the number is missing the point. The same article (which does not contain a reference to the paper it allegedly draws its conclusions from and does not mention the authors' names; I could not find the original paper and have to presume that it does not exist) has the following piece:

Besides killing people, global warming also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found.

The five million again... Sound familiar? Wait, what is this word: "illnesses"? That is not the same as "deaths", correct?

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

I lack the knowledge to know for sure whether I am correct or not about the five million deaths from climate change.

Then you shouldn't be making wild claims which you can't support or defend. That plays right into the hands of climate change deniers, who can then argue that, since you were wrong about one thing, you're therefore wrong about everything.

A more conservative estimate is 150,000 deaths annually.

No, a more conservative estimate is that you don't know. It's patently ridiculous to make claims like these because you have no comparison model (i.e. a world in which climate change isn't occurring). 

To focus on the exact number is to miss the point.

It was your claim. You were the one focused on the number.

You cannot accurately quantify how many, if any, deaths are being caused by manmade climate change. For starters, none of the studies you have linked have collected any data about how many lives are being saved by higher temperatures. Meaning warmer climates might be responsible for 150,000 deaths in one part of the world, while they are simultaneously responsible for saving 300,000 lives in other (i.e. colder) parts of the world. You don't even know if short-term climate fluctuations have any relationship to human activity at all.

Your appeals to fear are fallacious and misguided.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Now your accusing all my posts of being an appeal to authority? That's the Courtier's reply.

@Nomenclature

I am not sure if you mean all in this thread or off topic as in every single one of my posts including the ones about September 11th and conspiratorial thinking. We rely upon experts also known as specialists. We don't need to know exactly how a T.V. works to hit a button and turn the T.V. on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier's_reply

I've had religious people tell me I had to read the entire book of Mormons before I could talk about Christianity. Yes, more knowledge on the subject is always good. Yet, if we spend all our time learning and never acting that could be real bad. We don't need to read the entire book of Mormons to know the Mormon church has a problem with sex abuse.

"Extreme temperatures kill 5 million people a year with heat-related deaths rising, study finds"

Donna Lu and Lisa Cox

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/extreme-temperatures-kill-5-million-people-a-year-with-heat-related-deaths-rising-study-finds

Maybe I am wrong, but then so are others including Donna Lu and Lisa Cox. I haven't seen a retraction of this article and theguardian is decently credible. This is not wild speculation this is believing main stream media.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

 Now your accusing all my posts of being an appeal to authority? That's the Courtier's reply.

No it isn't the courtier's reply. I'm not accusing you of lacking the skills or knowledge required to have a valid opinion. I'm pointing out the factual reality that all of your posts are link drops which you attempt to use to validate an initial bunk and/or spurious claim. This is a perfect example, because you begin:-

That's the Courtier's reply.

Then dump a link which, when read, makes it abundantly clear that your claim is wrong:-

The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism

Even the link itself illustrates that there is disagreement about whether the courtier's reply is an actual fallacy, or whether referring to it is the fallacy:-

Critics of the idea that the courtier's reply is a real fallacy have called it the "Myers shuffle", implying calling someone out for an alleged courtier's reply is a kind of rhetorical dodge or trick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

Every one of your posts follows the exact same formula:-

A. Make bunk and/or spurious claim.

B. Drop link.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

I've had religious people tell me I had to read the entire book of Mormons before I could talk about Christianity. 

And I've had numerous people tell me I need to be a structural engineer before I can point out the self-evident fact that the WTC buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Then when I show them testimony from structural engineers they tell me they are fringe nutcases who don't understand structural engineering. I'm extremely familiar with the courtier's reply.

Barnardot

@Dreamer
Your got to remember that Adolf here has a habit of dictating to people and make straw men by making I agree with into you making a claim then accusing you of apeeling to authority when you didn't. Just wait until you get some of his real dishonest tricks like refusing to reply when he has been put into a corner or just being abusive to distract from the fact that he tries to make people believe things that he never backs. Look at the 911 baloney he put out and not once did he make an assertion but toed every one along by posting false links and videos. When you debate some one who is so exstream you debate some one who will use exstream dishonest ways.

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

Barnie, when I don't reply to your posts it's because they aren't legible and don't in any way reflect factual reality. Either one of these things is a deal-breaker, and the combination even more so. You're falsely accusing me of dishonesty, while just this morning you claimed you were on the Harvard debate team. Your trash posts are only worth reading for their comedy value.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;You're falsely accusing me of dishonesty, 

No Im not. 

Dishonesty 1

Professor Harrit evidenced that the main WTC buildings had been loaded with military grade TH3 or a simila....

You deliberately misled and misquoted because he was not allowed to give evidence at the hearing because was a lunatic extremist and committed suicide on a straight road...he evidenced baloney to a brick wall.

Dishonesty 2

Build a house of cards and flick away the row three quarters of the way up.

That is nothing to do with a simulation of a plane hitting a tower and also you were elusive because you refused to say whether you back such a test.

Dishonesty 3

The laws of physics don't change buddy. What the pancake theory did 

That is generic and does not apply to the argument and again you refused to say so or not. And you failed to mention that it was not the pancake theory alone it was in combination with the steel structure melting from high temperature burning fuel. 

Dishonesty 4

Are these eye-witnesses all wrong that there were bombs in the buildings which went off before the planes hit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlMXkWW_LM&ab_channel=sidneyoh

The only one that said ti was someone who was told by an exstreamist toilet cleaner that there was a bomb and she wouldn't know any way. Not one of the others said there was a bomb but said it sounded like a bomb. Also you posted a video of an explosion low down on the building that super imposed over the actual 911 video. That is more than dishonest it is total lies and deceiving

Dishonesty 5

Of course it's legit. It's televised news coverage of eye witness reports you total banana. 

It was not. It was news coverage that a confessed exstreamist Corbett took and doctored and edited to make every thing completely out of context. And the subject was Rodriguez who is also an anti government exstreamist who cleaned toilets and learned how to deceive people in his spare time so he could make money out of it. It was as legit as a peace of fools gold and only a total fool would believe such a trash.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature

Dishonesty 6
https://www.islamtimes.org/en/article/283184/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile

That is one of many links that you posted that are made by militants, untrue and totally not credible in the least bit.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Impossible expectations.

@Nomenclature

"No, a more conservative estimate is that you don't know. It's patently ridiculous to make claims like these because you have no comparison model (i.e. a world in which climate change isn't occurring). " Nomenclature

This is impossible expectations. Yes, we only have one world that is kind of the point. No second chances. While technically correct we do not have a control planet Earth this could be said for any scientific experiment.

A person can always demand more and better evidence. Therefore impossible expectations. What if we are wrong? What if we don't have enough data, and the number is higher than five million per year? This would a costly mistake if we didn't act, type two error false negative.

On the other hand if the numbers are lower this would be low cost mistake if we acted when we did not need to yet, type one error false positive.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature

I'm not avoiding any question. You claimed my link made no mention of bombs, that claim was patently false, and I demonstrated such. The problem here does not rest with me, it rests with you. It rests with your inability to climb over the wall of your own personal bias and look at things objectively.

You did avoid the question and you did not demonstrate one thing. The doctored video was pointed out to you many times that no body said there were bombs and you failed to list anyone who said there were bombs in the building. Instead you evaded the question and run the guilt trip so as to divert away from you. Very dishonest. And a lie since you avoided every single question since. For example do you believe that there were bombs in the building. You were asked that question 4 times and avoided it 4 times. The list goes on and on and were not even talking about your trick of being abusive and talking down to every one. You are the most dishonest lying controlling deceptive extreme person on this site and I have given more than enough proof to prove it. 

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

That is one of many links that you posted that are made by militants

It isn't made by militants you ignorant Islamophobic bigot. The data set referenced in the link is from a UK study conducted at the University of Kent, which was published in the Frontiers in Psychology journal:-

Results

Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

Which is precisely what the original link says:-

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
 
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

https://www.islamtimes.org/en/article/283184/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Do we really need peer reviewed articles for everything?

@MayCaesar

You are correct the scientific America article could have been cited better. Yet, even if there had been links to the peer reviewed articles may have been behind a paywall. Peer reviewed articles by their very nature are for other scientists.

Scientific America translates highly technical and difficult peer reviewed articles into everyday language. I think it is too easy to come to the wrong conclusion from peer reviewed articles for a layperson and the paywall factor. Many peer reviewed articles are very long. A good example is low impact journals that are supposedly peer reviewed or cherry picking a peer reviewed article.

This is just my opinion, but I usually use the easier to read articles. Scientific America is still a great source, way way better than say the heartland institute.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/

Yes, ideally peer reviewed articles would be better. Yet, that takes a lot of time. Finding a full text, not behind a paywall, scholarly peer reviewed article. Even then the Internet changes, so a link that used to work might not anymore.

A shortcut is to find an article that is easy to read and is well cited. Then, simply used the original peer reviewed articles. This is rare, which shows mainstream media could be doing a better job with their works cited.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

This is impossible expectations

It is not an "impossible expectation" that you are able to support the claims you make. If you can't support the claims you make, then don't make them. Your arguments are just so absurd. This is literally what arguing with you is like:-

You: If there was lightning storm today in Paris, 10,000 people would have been killed.

Me: But there's no way for you to know that because there was no lightning storm.

You: This is impossible expectations.

You're utterly ridiculous. Arguing with you is like trying to reason with a brick wall.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Impossible expectations is real. Just look at the crankyuncle website or take the denial101x course.

@Nomenclature

I find it far more likely that you and MayCaesar just simply misread or misunderstood the article with the five million deaths from climate change annually.

Wedmd, sciencedaily, bloomberg, theguardian, theindependent, upi, and more all have the same conclusion. Yes, all these sites could be wrong, but none of them are fringe like a questionable source either. 

As for impossible expectations. "

Impossible Expectations

Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science."

https://crankyuncle.com/a-history-of-flicc-the-5-techniques-of-science-denial/

Barnardot

@Nomenclature
You can keep on being abusive and talking down to people as much as you want and wriggle out of things out of context as you do. Every one has there opinion and every one likes an argument no matter how far feched or right or wrong but using dishonesty and lying is another thing. The fact is that you are a dishonest and a con descending manipulating exsteamist bully boy and it is proven weather you like it or not but I dont give a toss because your the one who has to live with it and deal with it.

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

You can keep on being abusive and talking down to people

I'm not being abusive. You completely disregarded a valid argument for the sole reason that it was published by the Islam Times, which you baselessly accused of militancy. That's bigotry. It's the actual textbook definition of bigotry. Hence, you are factually an ignorant Islamophobic bigot.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, zero co2 emissions as soon as possible.

More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University.

Plenty of other reasons to aim for zero co2 emissions.

"That is more than 50,000 premature deaths per year (in the US alone) and over $600 billion is cost to society" Steven Novella on August 31, 2022

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/02/deaths-from-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-than-thought/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/healthcare-costs-of-air-pollution/

Again, the five million deaths is probably an understatement. Especially if we modify the statement from caused by climate change to caused by the broader category of fossil fuel pollution. Fossil fuel pollution is the main driver of climate change.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

Impossible expectations is real. Just look at the crankyuncle website or take the denial101x course.

I truly wonder whether you can actually read plain English. Nobody is saying impossible expectations are not real. What I am trying to explain is that you are grossly and continuously misapplying concepts like "unreasonable expectations" to situations where they are not even remotely applicable. I haven't made any expectations of you or anybody else. I haven't asked you to do a thing. I simply explained that you can't prove a claim if the validity of your claim depends upon a comparative model that doesn't exist. How is that difficult for you to grasp?

Dee

@Dreamer

Dreamer 69 Pts - February 17

Argument Topic: Okay, I got a bit overwhelmed. I didn't get a chance to address your arguments yet.

'

***This is true either way. If we ignore climate change, the damage to the infrastructure will harm the working class people more. Having to drive on threadbare tires on pothole ridden roads is stressful. Dealing with climate change means net metering increasing costs of electricity.***

 

All you're doing is asserting this to be the case , please explain how you reach these conclusions?

***That's why a package deal is ideal. More funding to help poor people and to lower co2 emissions. We can't have 1st world countries destroy 3rd world countries via excess co2. We need to help poor people in both 1st and 3rd world countries simultaneously.***

Thats what I mean by preaching you're not saying how you're just saying what we should do

***Anecdotal evidence, I don't know why people aren't using the bicycle lanes nor the numbers. My best guess is inertia. The car has had cultural dominance for so long that people have become accustomed to using cars. 

***

No it's not "anecdotal evidence" don't be so dishonest as to make claims you cannot backup. " Your best guess" really?

Tell me this how practical is it for a man and his partner to cycle his kids to school and then cycle to work many miles away in lashing rain?l

*** I'm also upset also that electric cars for example are associated with super expensive cars like Telsa.

*** 

Right? So tell me how your upset in anyway addresses the obvious?

*** I agree about the car manufacturers refusing to make affordable cars. I recommend the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car for an in-depth analysis.

*** 

Why? What will that do?

 *** I also agree about solar panels costing too much for individual homes, more so in say 2010 then now. Solar panels are becoming more efficient.

***

You just keep making statements and ignoring what I'm saying, do you think more efficient solar panels are going to be somehow cheaper?

How are the working classes you keep claiming you care about to pay for electric cars and solar panels?

Solar panels cost a fortune and you're not profiting until the cost of the panels are paid off which is years, you sound exactly like the exploiterswho who want to fleece the working classes you're saying the very same things they say

*** I understand, that the working class can feel that they are preached down by rich elite liberal politicians.

*** 

"Can" ? You mean they do.

  *** Yet, climate change hurts working class people. Look at all the working class people in New Orleans harmed by the Cat5 hurricane Katrina. Katrina would have been less intense probably only a Cat4 hurricane if not for climate change.

***

So your solution is make them ride bycyles and buy solar panels they cannot afford?

***Air inequity harms the working class and Black Indigenous people of color BIPOC people more.

*** 

How So? Again all you're doing is preaching

***A new EPA analysis released today shows that the most

post severe harms from climate change fall disproportionately upon underserved communities who are least able to prepare for, and recover from, heat waves, poor air quality, flooding, and other impacts. EPA’s analysis indicates that racial and ethnic minority communities are particularly vulnerable to the greatest impacts of climate change."

***

Right , so you say and your solution is make poor people even poorer, right?

It's truly amazing to me that you preach to others like me from a green friendly country and you live ina country with the second highest carbon emissions in the world 

***https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-report-shows-disproportionate-impacts-climate-change-socially-vulnerable

The dishonest alt-right pundits who make claims about serving the working class are only serving their selves. Dealing with climate change helps the working class more than the rich. We just need to strengthen the economic safety net to offset the costs.*** 

 But your solutions are to make the working classes cycle to work and buy solar panels they cannot afford,right?

 

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, zero co2 emissions as soon as possible.

What a total load of trash. You're doing the exact same thing I criticised you for not even two hours ago.

A. Make bunk and/or spurious claim.

B. Drop link.

You make trash claims and then try to support them with namedrops and/or appeals to authority which, upon closer scrutiny, turn out to be nothing more than conjecture. The article you linked from the Harvard Gazette uses the word "estimate" seven times, not to mention that it's a study on air pollution, not "fossil fuel pollution". Fossil fuels are only one contributor to air pollution.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution

Here is a worldwide list of causes of death in 2019:-

https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death

Nowhere on that list is "fossil fuel pollution."

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hmmm, many of my claims I assumed to be common knowledge.

@Dee

Hi Dee,

In the US the infrastructure is in a lot of trouble. Both old and deteriorating let alone climate change. There is potholes everywhere where I live. Stop paying attention for less than second wham hit a pot hole and flat tire.

Considering how many people are poor or unhoused this really is a problem. Imagine not being able to afford new tires and having to push your tires to balding or threadbare year after year in a pothole ridden area. Or worse living in your car, I know several people who are living or lived in their car. This is what it is like for too many in the United States.

If you hit a pothole your home gets a flat tire. Climate change makes all this worse. Just the increased rainfall alone.

"Global warming is expected to exacerbate the pothole problem cities already face – especially n the northern Midwest." Katelyn Newman

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2019-07-22/us-cities-have-a-pothole-problem-global-warming-is-making-it-worse

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/10/science/climate-change-could-make-pothole-season-worse/

I guess we live in different countries and have different views of reality. Everyone complains about the potholes. I hit a pothole I couldn't see at about 5 miles per hour and now my radiator leaks a good amount, made a "whump sound." The undercarriage of my car, shock absorbers, and suspension is basically destroyed from potholes.

 One of my friends drives a jeep and thought hitting potholes was okay because his jeep was invincible. Until he got a huge mechanic bill when getting the car annually inspected. I don't know how it is in your country or even what country you live in. But here in the United States the working class lives in constant fear of potholes.

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

Dreamer

Dee

@Dreamer

Hi Dreamer ,you assumed that but what does commom knowledge even mean?

 In the US the infrastructure is in a lot of trouble. Both old and deteriorating let alone climate change. There is potholes everywhere where I live. Stop paying attention for less than second wham hit a pot hole and flat tire.

Considering how many people are poor or unhoused this really is a problem. Imagine not being able to afford new tires and having to push your tires to balding or threadbare year after year in a pothole ridden area. Or worse living in your car, I know several people who are living or lived in their car. This is what it is like for too many in the United States.

Right, but you still want people to cycle to work and pay for solar panels,right?

If you hit a pothole your home gets a flat tire. Climate change makes all this worse. Just the increased rainfall alone.

Yes you keep saying this , read what I said please you keep ignoring

OK thank you for replying but you haven't addressed even one thing I asked or said ,can you try?

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

You are correct the scientific America article could have been cited better. Yet, even if there had been links to the peer reviewed articles may have been behind a paywall. Peer reviewed articles by their very nature are for other scientists.

Scientific America translates highly technical and difficult peer reviewed articles into everyday language. I think it is too easy to come to the wrong conclusion from peer reviewed articles for a layperson and the paywall factor. Many peer reviewed articles are very long. A good example is low impact journals that are supposedly peer reviewed or cherry picking a peer reviewed article.

This is just my opinion, but I usually use the easier to read articles. Scientific America is still a great source, way way better than say the heartland institute.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/

Yes, ideally peer reviewed articles would be better. Yet, that takes a lot of time. Finding a full text, not behind a paywall, scholarly peer reviewed article. Even then the Internet changes, so a link that used to work might not anymore.

A shortcut is to find an article that is easy to read and is well cited. Then, simply used the original peer reviewed articles. This is rare, which shows mainstream media could be doing a better job with their works cited.

This is getting better and better. Now you are advocating for taking the words of newspaper publishers over the words of scientists in peer-reviewed articles because science is too hard. So this is how it works in the world in which your suggested policies are implemented:

1. A group of scientists publish a scientific article.
2. Some journalist misrepresents the findings of the article.
3. Scientists disagree with the misrepresentation.
4. Scientists go to jail for the disagreement.

Wonderful world that would be. The alternative interpretation of your suggestions would be that everyone who actually denies science should be jailed - which includes you, given what has happened in this thread. How many years in jail did you have in mind, 2 perhaps? Let us increase it by a factor of 30, to 60 years. What is it I hear, an objection? Come on, you focus too much on numbers.

The article you cited in support of your "five million deaths per year" claim had a direct link to the source paper which you could read in its entirety right there. Furthermore, the origin of the claim is in the abstract, and abstracts in scientific papers are always open to the public. You could literally click on the link and a few seconds later verify that the claim in the paper differs from the claim in the article.

Look, buddy, something being "easier" does not justify this kind of blunders. "Easy" and "true" are two very different things. If you want to jail people because their work is too hard for you to grasp, then you are a royal jackass.

On a general note, this happens every single time someone accuses me of being a "science denier" with respect to climate. I say, "Okay, let us look at the actual scientific literature". Most opponents back out right here and then under various excuses. The few who do agree to engage in a scientific dispute just cite random papers and say, "These papers support my claims". I read the papers, find the relevant passages that never align with the claims and point it out - and then they just call me a "denier" again and quit.
I have yet to run into anyone who I could have a sensible discussion on climate science with - yet there is no shortage of people willing to make outrageous claims and ridicule others for "not accepting science", even as they have no idea whatsoever what the science actually is.

ZeusAres42

Dreamer said:

@ZeusAres42

Hi, ZeusAres42

I will first state I agree with much of what you said. Nice bullet points btw.

"Oh and funnily enough there was a lot of denialism once regarding the idea that smoking causes lung cancer; the incidence of a causal link was discovered about a couple hundred years ago!" ZeusAres42

Interesting, can you tell me more about the causal link please?

I agree that arming people with awareness and critical thinking will help. I disagree on one small point though, I don't think adding good information is enough. At some point we do need some sort of censorship.

Two cases in point, in 2014 the number of people who believed in Flat Earth Truth increased dramatically. Despite, massive awareness that the Earth is roughly Spherical in nature. In contrast, that critical thinking was increasing due to the New Atheist Movement and anti-quack efforts to interrupt anti-vaxxers.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62596798-fads-fakes-and-frauds

The second point is religion. If you read fads, fakes, and frauds book in the link above misinformation doesn't just disappear as time goes on. A lot of effort was taken by the New Atheist Movement to finally get Christianity to retreat.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-disinformation-dozen-spreading-anti-vaccine-messaging-on-social-media/

"(YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) who profit from the activity, traffic, and sharing."

"It takes only a short exposure to anti-vaccine messaging to create hesitancy." Scott Gavura

Scott Gavura thinks we need to do more than just arm people with awareness and critical thinking. Why not stop the disinformation at the source? Jail the top climate change deniers, the people doing the most harm.

Dreamer

@Dreamer

I don't think there is such a thing as a "top climate change denier." When I myself use the term "climate change denial" I am doing it for simplicity. Equally, there are also people that I would call climate change alarmists and this is a term I use for simplicity. In any case, these are not some guys that are part of some Russian troll network that gets paid for spreading disinformation; of course, these guys need to get censored and do.

You're talking about jailing and punishing everyday normal people for having hardened views that are just different from yours but are well-intentioned people.  They are not spreading misinformation with the intention to spread it; they actually believe strongly in what they are communicating.

While I fully accept the scientific reality of the prevailing threat of anthropic global warming I will not yield to a policy prescription to deal with climate change denialism that is reminiscent of an extremist ideology. Jailing people here pust one on par with other extremists; for instance, In post 2014 people were getting decapitated because they didn't believe in a version of Allah!

I also use the phrase denialism loosely as to me this isn't exactly a binary topic where one is simply a denier or simply an accepter; the reality is that it's a bit more complicated than that.