Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[a.kitman]

cool story bro

[MikeH]

Let's say a good father has two sons.

Two people come to them and tell them lies about their father. Both the liars back up each others stories. One son doesn't believe them. He has faith. The other son thinks it's reasonable to believe the two men, because there are two of them, and his father is only one. He is a fool.

If you have faith and not reason you are a fool, just as if you use reason and don't have faith you are a fool.

That's a terrible example. Both sons are morons.

If the son thinks it's reasonable to believe them even though they are lying, despite everything he knows about his father, he's a gullible idiot.

If the other son disbelieves them out of faith regardless of any evidence they might have, he's an idiot.

Let's say a good father has two sons.

Two people come to them and tell them true bad things about their father. Both the truth tellers back up each others stories. One son doesn't believe them. He has faith, and he is wrong. Let's hope nothing serious comes of it!

The other son thinks it's reasonable to believe the two men, because there are two of them, and his father is only one. He is a fool, because that's a really dumb reason to believe the truth. But this time he's correct.

[Kidlicious]

If the son thinks it's reasonable to believe them even though they are lying, despite everything he knows about his father, he's a gullible idiot.

Believing two people with the same story instead of one with a contradicting story is gullible? How so? You are attributing reason with what is faith. You're saying he should have faith in his father.

If the other son disbelieves them out of faith regardless of any evidence they might have, he's an idiot.

Witnesses are evidence.

Let's say a good father has two sons.

Two people come to them and tell them true bad things about their father. Both the truth tellers back up each others stories. One son doesn't believe them. He has faith, and he is wrong. Let's hope nothing serious comes of it!


The other son thinks it's reasonable to believe the two men, because there are two of them, and his father is only one. He is a fool, because that's a really dumb reason to believe the truth. But this time he's correct.

I don't know exactly how your justice system works. But in the US our justice system depends on testimony.

[MikeH]

Since when did this become a trial rather than sons judging what someone tells them about their father?

Let me re-read...

Nope, definitely nothing about a trial.


Even then, if a juror is deciding their verdict of a case based on their faith rather than evaluating the actual physical evidence, testimony and motivation of the witnesses, testimony of the accused (if available) that's terrifying and foolish.

It's a horrendously bad example.

[MikeH]

Believing two people with the same story instead of one with a contradicting story is gullible? How so? You are attributing reason with what is faith. You're saying he should have faith in his father.

You are ignoring the fact that the son isn't only going on what these men say, also his entire life experience and history of his relationship with his father. People evaluate what people tell them based on who the person telling them is. If they don't they are gullible morons. As I said.

[Theben]

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Pretty good site for dealing with climate skeptics.

[Caligastia]

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Pretty good site for dealing with climate skeptics.

Not really. It's way out of date and there's plenty of unanswered rebuttal on there as well.

[Kidlicious]

You are ignoring the fact that the son isn't only going on what these men say, also his entire life experience and history of his relationship with his father. People evaluate what people tell them based on who the person telling them is. If they don't they are gullible morons. As I said.

You're putting facts into the story that I intentionally left out. You're trying not to get the point.

[Jon Miller]

Now, continue believing.

Are you claiming that there is scientific facts/reasoning about the existence of God?

About morality?

A large portion of thinkers on these subjects would disagree with you (and those that would, would disagree with each other).

JM

[Wezil]

No, I'm saying don't let the absence of scientific facts/reasoning get in the way of a good fantasy.

[Theben]

Not really. It's way out of date and there's plenty of unanswered rebuttal on there as well.

So that means the OP is out-of-date since it answered most of those questions (maybe more, I didn't read the whole thing). Thanks for wasting our time.

[Caligastia]

So that means the OP is out-of-date since it answered most of those questions (maybe more, I didn't read the whole thing). Thanks for wasting our time.

Can you give me an example of a point in my OP that was properly addressed by the site you linked to?

[HalfLotus]

The IPCC's Pachauri, who by the way "has no background in environmental science", is gonna lose his job over these fiascos. He's being skewered in the media and abandoned by Greenpeace and his native country, India, because of the IPCC's very sloppy science, and his laughable claim the Himalayan glaciers would melt in just 25 years. A claim which True Believers lapped up like warm milk and added to their extensive repertoire of fear-mongering factoids - which usually start and end with some derivative of "OMFGWE'REALLGONNADIE!"

India to ‘pull out of IPCC’

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel prize-winning scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.

Greenpeace director tells IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri to stand down over glacier claim
...
“The IPCC needs to regain credibility. Is that going to happen with Pachauri [as chairman]? I don’t think so. We need someone held in high regard who has extremely good judgment and is seen by the global public as someone on their side."

The "someone on their side" comment is certainly a reference to Pachauri's decidedly not eco-friendly lifestyle.

[Straybow]

[Q=MikeH;5745403]You are using the propaganda phrase of "believers" to make it sound like people who are not deniers are doing so based purely on faith like religious people. Difference being, you don't need faith to 'believe' in AGW because the scientific evidence is there.[/Q] No, the "evidence" is highly subjectively interpreted and has not been available for honest review until recently. That review has revealed numerous irregularities, to the extent that could be legally fraudulent since they were used to obtain funding.

If you think it's wrong for me to use a phrase which you interpret to be propaganda, shouldn't you try to hold yourself to your own high standards?

Someone who denies the facts about AGW is a denier. They might think they are not a denier because they are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact.

To the same extent you're a "believer." Though you might not think of it as a subjective "belief," that doesn't change the fact that it is. Instead of recognizing that there are at least two scientifically legitimate positions you buttress your arguments by pointing to nebulous claims of authority (argumentum ad verecundiam, one of the classic material fallacies).

For me it isn't charged that way at all and it wasn't my intent. I'm glad other people see that but I don't think I can persuade you I'm not lying so *shrug*

Then you should have dropped it about 30 posts ago.

And I certainly find the idea that one could equate accepting a generally accepted scientific theory with religious belief at least a bit distasteful.

It isn't a "generally accepted theory." It is a supposition supported by cherry-picked data credulously accepted by experts who should know better and championed by a number of vociferous advocates to promote their own political careers.

[Straybow]

[Q=Caligastia;5746746]Can you give me an example of a point in my OP that was properly addressed by the site you linked to?[/Q]
Gah, I waded through the first section, all failed.
There is no evidence Argues evidence of warming, which is not the point of contention. Does not address anthropogenic causation, which is the point of contention.
One record year is not global warming NASA revised their data since the page was written (2005, by the looks of it). The hottest year is 1930-something and the '30s is the hottest ten year period.
The temperature record is simply unreliable See above.
One hundred years is not enough Down-plays the unreliability of proxy data and ignores the MWP.
Glaciers have always grown and receded Again, we have no data about recession rates and calving from the MWP. Hard to make claims without data.
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect Again, NASA has revised their data after recognizing this as a legitimate criticism.
Mauna Loa is a volcano Again fails to make any scientific connection between anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels and warming rates.
The scientists aren't even sure For a third time fails to point to hard evidence that CO2 levels rising in the twentieth century are the cause of global warming that started in the 19th century, and that repeats a pattern that occured in the medieval period (both periods with negligible anthropogenic CO2).