Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[Fife]

[jbird4049]

In other words, it's either going to be very bad or even worse.
We're screwed.
We did this to ourselves and we deserve it--whatever it may be, because...
SCIENCE!

Hey guys, maybe we should just live like it's a Renn Fair year-round?

So Ooky wrote a easy summation of just have complex climate change is, including the slipperyness of establishing what constitutes a problem, and the very bad consequences that it may cause.

The poster got snark.

Dealing with complexity that is the planet's requires thinking, dealing with uncertainty, the knowing that you may never have all the information needed to ensure the right choices.

So we might make the wrong choices, and fuck things even more than we already have. But we might not. We may even prevent the coming disaster. To shrug your shoulders and not do anything is also a choice.


I'm sorry to tell you this, but life is uncertainty. But I can suggest some comic books.

Anyways, I see some potential investment opportunities because when half of Florida disappears, or the Central Valley becomes a bigger, nicer version of the Salton Sea, there will be new beachfront properties to sell.



I just have buy ahead of time.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaev ... ntist.html

That's the second time I've read through "debunking" articles by that arrogant fuck. The majority of his counter-arguments are name-calling. It's probably personal because I debate folks who always think that nobody else can possibly understand or do what they do because, you know, special, but so far, other than shooting free-throws, the pride people put in their own exceptional abilities is hubris.

p.s. I've earmarked the actual salient facts he did mention, and look forward to counterpoints.
p.p.s. I've also never been convinced by consensus. It's not the same as Wisdom-Of-Crowds.

You aren't convinced by consensus (probably wise), but are convinced by the person who spent half a day googling climate change true? Less wise.

edit: lyss wyse, sorry

[Martin Hash]

You aren't convinced by consensus (probably wise), but are convinced by the person who spent half a day googling climate change true? Less wise.

I probably have a couple days into it this time around. Just this morning, I Googled all the skeptics who ARE Climate Change scientists. First thing I learned, it's NOT a 97% consensus. (There's a big lie right there). And it's not just a couple Nobel Laureate cranks, and handful of old PhD physicists, all of whom are stupid, uninformed, untrained contrarians. Could be Climate Change is the most difficult single thing ever to understand and only savants with training from God himself can understand, not just us lowly 3 doctorate idiots.

p.s. You know, I heard is was a 97% consensus that Hillary was going to win. Hands down. You're an idiot, racist, misogynist if you think otherwise.
p.p.s. I actually went to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" speech in person.
p.p.p.s. I actually went to Antarctica to hear PhD dissertation defenses about Climate Change.
p.p.p.p.s. I actually would like to plan for Climate Change: Wall first to keep out the Climate Change refugees, then using science to help.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I probably have a couple days into it this time around. Just this morning, I Googled all the skeptics who ARE Climate Change scientists. First thing I learned, it's NOT a 97% consensus. (There's a big lie right there). And it's not just a couple Nobel Laureate cranks, and handful of old PhD physicists, all of whom are stupid, uninformed, untrained contrarians. Could be Climate Change is the most difficult single thing ever to understand and only savants with training from God himself can understand, not just us lowly 3 doctorate idiots.

Couple of days? Well that puts you ahead of Giaever by a bit.

I don't think we need to set the bar quite as high as revelation from God Almighty (although I wouldn't put much stock in that anyway, having recently filled the spiritual hole in my life with Satanism, Hail Satan), but how many of your doctorates would be easily replaced by, lets say me, doing a couple days of good googling.

Now, odds are, even if you ain't smarter than me, you are certainly more studious, but I was just reading something interesting about the the hubris of someone believing in their exceptional abilities (like being able to debunk an entire field of science off pure gristle) from another forum poster who is pretty clever and has some really good points.

[Martin Hash]

I have enough hubris in my intellectual abilities to believe that when I hear convincing evidence, I'll be convinced.

Yesterday, a nobody-nothing (from England) was arguing with me about the consensus on Climate Change. Here's my response:
"If I dropped a ball from Pisa 100 times, and 99 times and it landed on the ground but once it flew upwards, does that prove or disprove the Law of Gravity?"

p.s. I liked that English guy well enough but, Jesus, he was debating science with me. Why does every Middle School science teacher on the planet think they know better'n me, let alone some unemployed finance guy.
p.p.s. I think the evidence is pointing toward Climate Change but it sure as hell isn't pointing towards what to do about it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"If I dropped a ball from Pisa 100 times, and 99 times and it landed on the ground but once it flew upwards, does that prove or disprove the Law of Gravity?"

Last week's Hanarchy would have probably called such an argument specious, but BEHOLD, no more.

If someone dropped a hundredth ball from Pisa and it flew upwards, I would immediately drop to my knees and petition such a powerful warlock to be allowed to study the occult at his (or her or zer) feet. Why? Because the theory of gravity is so robust, that such an event would never convince me that the whole edifice was unsound.

Incidentally, Adepts of my faith are able to control the elements through will alone. Perhaps we should consult them as to what should be done about global warming instead of these charlatan 'scientists.'

[Martin Hash]

Do you mean the Nobel Laureates, or the Princeton physicist PhDs, or the ones that want our necks in the socialist yolk?

p.s. Perhaps you mean the Climate Skeptic heading Trump's EPA transition team, Myron Ebell?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

All of 'em and their mothers.

Post fact baby, scientists have been made redundant. Pick from the aethers what you would like to call knowledge.

If the recommendations of the majority (percentage debatable) of climate scientists qualify as the unbearable yoke of socialism, and the alternative is praying that technology meets the demands of our planet becoming less hospitable to our existence; then ideology is taking the lead, and what the science says is irrelevant.

I have no offspring, and have no intention of cramping my rock n' roll lifestyle, so it is much the same to me whether or not humans can survive here in 100 years.

[Martin Hash]

I wouldn't do this for just anyone, Hana, but for you: