02-12-2015, 09:47 PM
Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.
Re: Peter's post: with respect, "I'm a climate scientist" and "look who you're getting into bed with" are not really arguments. You could be 100% correct, in your claims but you're not exactly going to prove them like that. Your first comment is an appeal to authority and the second one is equally true from the other side of the argument. See:
Your comments about volcanic activity etc. are not really valid because Carlson and Corbett bot say that human activity does affect the climate. They would be crazy not to. What they are critiquing is the manipulated science (see the video) that is being used to support the AGW arguments and the wider agenda being implemented as a result of it. If you can legitimately critique the claims in the video--or other such claims of manipulation/selectivity--then I would certainly be interested to read that. I am open-minded about the subject.
Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?
Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.
The funny thing is, I am 100% on board with the idea of conservation and protecting the environment. When Peter says "Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven... WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS" I couldn't agree more. So we are effectively on the same team where that is concerned. We are just miles apart (or so it seems) on how this issue should be approached.
Re: Peter's post: with respect, "I'm a climate scientist" and "look who you're getting into bed with" are not really arguments. You could be 100% correct, in your claims but you're not exactly going to prove them like that. Your first comment is an appeal to authority and the second one is equally true from the other side of the argument. See:
Your comments about volcanic activity etc. are not really valid because Carlson and Corbett bot say that human activity does affect the climate. They would be crazy not to. What they are critiquing is the manipulated science (see the video) that is being used to support the AGW arguments and the wider agenda being implemented as a result of it. If you can legitimately critique the claims in the video--or other such claims of manipulation/selectivity--then I would certainly be interested to read that. I am open-minded about the subject.
Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?
Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.
The funny thing is, I am 100% on board with the idea of conservation and protecting the environment. When Peter says "Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven... WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS" I couldn't agree more. So we are effectively on the same team where that is concerned. We are just miles apart (or so it seems) on how this issue should be approached.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.â€
― Leo Tolstoy,
― Leo Tolstoy,