Philosophy Now Forum

You sound like a crazy person right now philx, which isn't helping your credibility for climate change.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:38 pm You sound like a crazy person right now philx, which isn't helping your credibility for climate change.

Appearances can be deceiving. You haven't laid a foundation for your assertion and you're not clear what I'm supposed to be crazy about.

PhilX

You give off this impression of being seriously paranoid. You also told me to 'watch what you say about McDonalds' in the other thread, as though there's this overwatching force looming into this obscure philosophy forum.

It's weird the way a certain type of idiot gets all defensive about McDonald's, as if they are unpaid bodyguards protecting a precious and beloved pet. You have to wonder what goes on in their heads (or perhaps they were dropped on them as babies).

Flash,

I agree: there's not a soul here qualified to assess the subject.

Some of us, however, are leery about just relying on those who are (supposedly) qualified (especially when these qualified folks can't agree amongst themselves about final outcomes, or models that should be used to determine outcomes).

Google, as you will, 'worst case climate scenario unlikely'.

"Global warming"

Meh...we'll weather it.

#

"Gun ownership by the everyman"

Nope. Only if you want one. If you don't, then don't

#

"Abortion"

Abort away! And pay for it yourself.

#

"smoking (does it or does it not kill you)"

Safe to say: it ain't good for you (I say this as a dedicated tobacco addict).

#

"homosexuality (is it nature or nurture)"

Neurologic aberration.

#

"women (are they really human?)"

Yes.

#

"The Sun and the Moon (why they rise in the east and set in the west?)"

Consult your orbital mechanics.

#

"What holds the middle?"

The middle of a doughnut is absence, defined by the doughnut; the middle of a slice of bread is held by, defined by, the surrounding bread.

#

"Are certain rocks edible?"

You can eat 'em, but can you digest 'em?

#

"Why should I not get off of this tree and walk to get that piece of meat a lion left behind?"

Depends where the lion is at the time (or, how many shotgun shells you got in the tube).

#

"Should I eat this apple, or not?"

If it belongs to you: eat the HELL outta that apple.

"You deny the climate science based on your ideological beliefs"

More like I don't give a (sufficient) fuck (to sanction cripplin' industry).

Henry: Your claim that you are merely being skeptical is pure bullshit. If 98% of structural engineers told you that a bridge would collapse if you tried driving across it, would you drive across the bridge? Doubtful. If 98% of aerospace engineers told you that a plane would crash if you were to ride in it as a passenger, would you get on the plane for a flight? Doubtful. If 98% of physicians told you that taking some drug would kill you, would you take the drug? Doubtful. Yet, when 98% of climate scientists tell you climate is changing, dangerously so, solely due to human activity, all of a sudden you claim that you are not going to be gullible?

You seriously believe that you have uncovered information on social media, largely produce by Big Oil, that climate scientists have overlooked? You sure you want to claim you are not the gullible one here for denying science?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:58 pm "You deny the climate science based on your ideological beliefs"

More like I don't give a (sufficient) fuck (to sanction cripplin' industry).

Right. Industry will keep going with no people. Some people actually do 'give a fuck' about having a habitable planet.

"Your claim that you are merely being skeptical is pure bullshit."

Phil is the skeptic. Me, I flat out don't think human industry is driving the climate. But, if it is, we'll figure out how to solve the problem (and it won't be by goin' backwards).

#

"If 98% of structural engineers told you that a bridge would collapse if you tried driving across it, would you drive across the bridge? Doubtful."

No, I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't have reason to doubt the engineers. Declaring a bridge unsafe is hard to turn into a politi-cultural instrument. Doubtful all bridge-building would cease cuz one is found to be unsafe.

#

"If 98% of aerospace engineers told you that a plane would crash if you were to ride in it as a passenger, would you get on the plane for a flight? Doubtful."

ditto

#

"If 98% of physicians told you that taking some drug would kill you, would you take the drug? Doubtful."

ditto

#

Yet, when 98% of climate scientists tell you climate is changing, dangerously so, solely due to human activity, all of a sudden you claim that you are not going to be gullible?

Where did I say diddly about my not bein' gullible?

#

"You seriously believe that you have uncovered information on social media, largely produce by Big Oil, that climate scientists have overlooked?"

I don't do social media. I do read newspapers. Did you google what I suggested to Flash? What you'll find is not a disputing
of human-driven climate change, only a suggestion that worst case scenarios aren't likely (based on refined models, which are likely to continue to be refined, meaning conclusions are likely to continue to be adjusted, meaning the science ain't settled, meaning it's premature to hobble industry [which, in part, makes this lil conversation we're havin' possible]).

#

"You sure you want to claim you are not the gullible one here for denying science?

Science is fuckin' FANTASTIC. Scientists, however, are just human beings (who can be wrong, who can be greedy, who can be weak, who can, I'm sorry to say, lie).

'98% of climate scientists': how many you reckon that is, Sci?

Henry: Your first comment just admitted you deny the science. That makes you a science-denier. What else could you be? What aspect of the science do you deny, and based on what? Do you deny that greenhouse gases absorb radiation? Do you deny that satellites have measured the radiation being absorbed? Do you deny that this absorption amounts to an increase of many Hiroshima-sized atom bombs going off daily? Do you deny that the increased carbon in the atmosphere comes from human activity, as determined by the isotopes found? Do you deny that the last time carbon levels were as high as they are now, ocean levels were significantly higher?

'You're a dee-niyah, so I don't have to address what you wrote, Henry...cuz you're a dee-niyah.'

Okeedoke.

Henry: I'll take that as an admission that while you deny the science, you don't even have a clue which part of climate science you are denying. That's true for every denier I've run across ---- they can never answer what part of the basic science they disagree with. It's as if science deniers never think anyone will ask them such questions.

And I'll take your refusal to address this...

"Did you google what I suggested to Flash? What you'll find is not a disputing of human-driven climate change, only a suggestion that worst case scenarios aren't likely (based on refined models, which are likely to continue to be refined, meaning conclusions are likely to continue to be adjusted, meaning the science ain't settled, meaning it's premature to hobble industry [which, in part, makes this lil conversation we're havin' possible])."

...as an admission by you that it's not really about 'science' but 'control', which is pretty typical of technocratic types ('the science is settled, there's nuthin' more to talk about, now do what we tell you...blah, blah, blah').

There you go again, Henry, denying the science. First off, even the more conservative predictions of what will happen in the next 80 years are going to cause a great deal of harm. Even in 40 years. Secondly no one can know at this point whether the more severe predictions will be true, or the less severe ones will turn out to be true. Yet, if the more severe predictions turn out to be true, then the danger to the human race is even greater, so even assuming a lower chance for such an occurrence, when multiplied by its more significant danger, only a science-denier would ignore the danger.

The irony is that while you science-deniers claim that all the elite scientists in the world are conspiring together to create a wealth transfer, we will actually see a huge transfer of wealth by not addressing global climate change. The coastal areas are precisely where a lot of wealth is located, and it's all going to get wiped out in the not-too-distant future. If we were to actually try to stop the changes from happening, then that wealth would be largely preserved.