LoneShaman
Member
A multi-generational scam going back over a century, right?
Nope, the scam began with Maurice Strong. Arrhenius thought it was a good thing. Going around in circles with you Laird, don't expect me to continue.
A multi-generational scam going back over a century, right?
Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).
I very much agree with Professor Lindzen's video, and I would urge everyone to listen to what he says. It gets to the heart of what is wrong with climate science, and it is spoken by a retiring expert in that field.Short enough for Laird to watch :)
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen On the Corruption of Climate Science
He also mentions Ike's prophetic warning in his farewell address that most definitely has come to pass.
Neither makes sense.Because I've already given climate change denial a decent hearing on several occasions, only to find that it misinformed rather than informed me. For example, some years back I watched one of the popular "skeptical" movies (maybe The Great Global Warming Swindle or something like that?), and it seemed compelling when I watched it (the good old "it's not about CO2, it's about the sun" argument), but then I did some post-viewing research and found that it badly misrepresented the facts. And I've seen, via various pundits breaking down "skeptic" lectures and claims, that this is typical for climate change denialists. So, now, I don't waste my time on that stuff.
Bear in mind, too, that it's very easy for you to sling out a few links or videos, but for me to then fact check and confirm/reject them takes several times as much time. Whilst I have a lot of spare time on my hands, that's not my preferred means of spending it, and I'm not prepared to get stuck in the role of "corrector in chief" in this thread, especially because, as I've already pointed out several times, I am not an expert in this field.
I've pointed out to you several times that the basic science behind global warming was known over a century ago. Are you suggesting that the scientists who developed that science back then were in on a multi-generational hoax?
As the RationalWiki article to which Alice linked points out in a graphic, of the two competing theories that (1) climate science is a hoax perpetrated by scientists/activists, or that (2) climate change denial is a hoax perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry, the latter easily and readily makes far more sense:
By all means, then, present - in your own words - the plausible scenario you have in mind when you say that "the scam began with Maurice Strong", bearing in mind that climate scientists agree in general on the science, and that thus, presumably, Maurice must have affected their view of the science. If it wasn't as directly as a conference call, then how on Earth did Maurice Strong get nine out of ten climate scientists to support scientific conclusions which are unjustified, especially given that he is not a scientist himself?
Oh, and, it's not a fallacy to appeal to the expertise of somebody who generally is an expert on the matter in contention in the course of deciding what to believe when one is not oneself an expert and has not the reasonable capacity to exercise any such expertise personally. See, for example, the page Appeal to Authority on the website "Logically Fallacious", noting in particular what it says about denialism and heuristics (emphases in the original):
Laird,I see. So, Maurice Strong got on a conference call with the collective climate science community, and nine out of ten of those in the conference said, "Yep, good scam, Maurice - we're in", and the other one in ten just forgot about the call.
I need a 'like x 1000' button to respond to your post.In the late modern times (post-WWII), the appeal to authority was very actively whitewashed, to make an impression that is only wrong if the authorities to whom one appeals are somehow "invalid" ("irrelevant", "illegitimate", etc.). Such whitewash is understandable, since late modernity are exactly the times when scientific enterprise started to wither and crumble, because of social factors such as bureaucratisation, commercialisation, ideologisation etc.
But if one looks in the pre-WWII literature - literature written in the golden age of science, when the bedrock of the fundamental knowledge on which the science stands up to this day were formed - one finds up the original notion that ALL appeal to ANY authority is fallacious in EVERY circumstance.
Just think, this notion was in use when science was flourishing. And compare it to the notion in use in the times when science is decaying.
And remember that science once arose as a rebellion against authority, as an insistence that knowledge is assessable to anyone who makes a careful and organised effort to obtain it, and has nothing to do with one's institutional status. Nowadays, this primary drive behind scientific endeavor was given up - if not to say, thrown away as garbage, with the "denialism" or "pseudoscience" brand burned on it - and the originally rejected appeal to authority was once again exalted, returned to its place in the pre-scientific epoch.
What we are living now, Laird, is a post-scientific age that, however, still tries to present itself as a "scientific" one - just like some barbarian chiefs after the fall of Roman Empire started to dress as Roman emperors, gathered Roman relics and texts, invited some old surviving members of Roman aristocracy to their circles etc. They called themselves "new Romans", but all these was just a play, a pretence. Rome was dead, and only in a thousand years, in the epoch of Renaissance, its legacy would be genuinely rediscovered. And even then, it would be a rethinking of the Roman legacy rather than its simple reanimation.
In the post-scientific age, the age than science institutions and science community is rotten to the core and no longer trustworthy, the really useful heruistics is the direct opposite to the one you think - never trust "credible experts" until/unless there is a really strong evidence, which you researched by yourself rather than simply found out in the institutional proclamations, to accept their statements in this one exact case.
Maybe, we will see the genuine scientific Renaissance one day - I hope we will. But, it will definitely come from outside the academic institutions, exactly from the "denialists" and "pseudoscientists" who are being banished from them; banished exactly for their attempt to keep the original spirit of science as free, anti-authoritarian search for the authentic knowledge alive.
I need a 'like x 1000' button to respond to your post.
David
Laird,
Why don't you take a short break to actually read some of what LS and others have written.
You seem to have a fixed view about this, but you maintain that by not actually engaging with anything anyone else is saying.
David
As the RationalWiki article to which Alice linked points out in a graphic, of the two competing theories that (1) climate science is a hoax perpetrated by scientists/activists, or that (2) climate change denial is a hoax perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry, the latter easily and readily makes far more sense:
On a positive note, increased Co2 levels a are "Greening" the planet.
Plant life is the great healer and purifier of the planet. True to their form, climate activists in the usual Orwellian double speak, will claim how this is actually a bad thing. No positive things are allowed only doom and gloom. Up is down, black is white, hot is cold.
The 'greenness' of this map is visually misleading. I just can't believe that Australia is as green as this map implies. This not a satellite image, it is a map coloured in to look green. CO2 may show great results when used as a 'forcing' agent in the confines of a greenhouse but that outcome doesn't necessarily apply in a worldwide sense where there are many other influential criteria, nor take into account any drawbacks as noted by Laird's qualifying comments in #1,173:According to the map the vast majority of Oz is maybe 15-50% greener at the time the satellite data was taken.
Vortex, as I posted the original Wiki-link, I think I can ask, are you saying -we at Skeptiko don't like Wikipedia (because they call psi-research 'pseudo-science') so if you like an article by (Ir)rationalWikipedia you're not welcome here (as some of us might hyperventilate)?Laird, friend. You have, indeed, surprised me. After I seen this graphic - taken from the super-reliable (Ir)Rational Wiki*, no less! - I was, for some time, literally out of words. And out of breath, too.
Well I was certainly speaking about something voluntary, but I guess it was blurring into something that you might call 'official capacity'. I want debates to be a real dialogue.David, I really hope that by ‘take a short break’ you mean voluntarily, and that you’re not acting in an official capacity?
Thanks.Your post is extremely patronising imo.
Fine, but I wrote to you privately, because I thought you might be going through a rough spell - not to be patronising.You probably wondered why I abruptly stopped communicating with you by PM? It was because, for the third time you had stated that ‘I feel there’s something bothering you’ despite my having twice previously denied that there was! You just couldn’t accept my point of view - so there just had to be something of a personal nature bothering me. What was bothering me was you!
I wasn't exactly complaining, but Laird simply appeals to the experts, ignoring the fact that LS and I were trying to show why that doesn't work. I have repeatedly tried to point out that Laird himself does not simply hand over to the 'experts' in areas such as consciousness, ψ, etc. - neither do you!I complained that you hadn’t read or watched what I’d presented as evidence. You replied “Yes you are right, I haven't read much of it.” Yet you complain about Laird doing the same.
Jim Smith presents propaganda non stop on the Trump Consciousness thread, but nothing is said about that - because you agree with him!
I think some self reflection is needed.
Well, I think that Jim rarely writes anything on his Trump-thread, he mostly posts opinionist propaganda 'placards' - these are not facts.Well I don't think what Jim writes can be called propaganda - most of it is facts.
Yes, you are wrong. I mean 'the cause' is the recovery and care of our planet Earth. It is the only cause really, despite your valid claims that the elite care nothing for her or us, because this is our home and we all should own and care for her collectively.I am wrong in saying this cause you speak of Is the solution by the UN, as in Agenda 2030?
Vortex, as I posted the original Wiki-link, I think I can ask, are you saying -we at Skeptiko don't like Wikipedia (because they call psi-research 'pseudo-science') so if you like an article by (Ir)rationalWikipedia you're not welcome here (as some of us might hyperventilate)?
Well they would say that, and are clearly neglecting to notice the three fingers pointing back. Such as that 90+% of the world's wealth is held by 1%; that one person owning a mansion with 7 bathrooms is conspicuously consumerist; and that the top 50 richest families only invest in each other (i.e. there is no 'trickle-down') It is because we (the middle-class) tend to consume what they don't want to promote, like fair-trade or organic products and political&social education. Why else do you think education is underfunded and maintained at an ignorant level of misinformation? The middle-class (or anyone well-educated) is liable to agitate for better working conditions, fair pay and care of the planet.It is because of the consumerism lifestyle. They say the middle class is the problem not because we can resist but because the middle class are destroying the planet.
Here we must disagree. So your argument may not be complicated, but it is hard to fathom..'The elite are using a non-existent problem, not caused by excessive fossil-fuel use to 'false-flag' further development of their existing intention for global-control'(?)There is no climate crisis.
Well, you have said she is "being manipulated" [Dict: 'Dupe'-a person who unwittingly serves a cause or another person. note:'cause' here being the elites' one of mass-control; I believe she has her own agenda that happens to coincide with the elites' late arrival on the climate scene, as they must surely realise she has a lot of public support] By extension you imply that anyone who supports her or a belief in AGW is also being 'duped'.I have never called Greta a sad little dupe, she is a child.
Well, it is complicated by your having two strands of argument -whether there is or is not climate change and what the implications are for elitist involvement in that, and contradicting yourself at times.It's really not complicated
You see, it is not about science at all, is it?