37 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Or you could post a rational argument that establishes a point with actual reasoning and links to evidence. Tossing around disparaging slogans is not useful to anybody nor does it convince anybody.

 

I guess when you claim that "we'll all be rooned" (said Hanrahan) by the financial cost of doing anything meaningful about climate change you have not considered the financial cost of doing nothing, such as catastrophic weather events like fires, floods, drought, increased hurricane and tornado strength, rising sea levels and forced migration. Have you considered any of that? Furthermore, have you considered that there is a financial offset in developing green technologies such as new jobs, as opposed to the coal industry losing jobs due to automation?

 

Have you considered the major cost savings created by solar and wind energy compared to fossil fuels? Continued development into these technologies has reduced the cost of energy by a lot. One of the major savings is that solar energy is produced locally and does not required huge costs of transmission. Have you considered the cost of cleaning up the waste left behind by coal fired power stations instead of just counting the raw cost of production? What about the enormous costs of transporting coal and oil which disappear with solar and wind energy?

I see you've edited your post which I responded to earlier.  So I'll take this opportunity to add:

 

One of the errors in rationale which it seems most "climate change" warriors make is to assume that if one does not believe in the doomsday prophesies of global disaster and human extinction (and other species, too) due to rising sea levels then one is also anti-taking-care-of-mother-earth.  It's a logical fallacy which often persists even when it's shoved directly in the face of a "climate change" warrior.

 

I grew up in an era when people would freely dump their garbage out of their car window as they were driving down the road.  I mechanically followed suit until the day I thought about what I was doing.  Then I stopped.  I've been a nature lover all of my life and have done more camping than most.  Myself and the people I camped with always carried our trash out and left the campground in pristine condition.  You needn't lecture me on taking steps to be a loving and thoughtful caretaker of Mother Earth.

As to automatically associating naturally occurring severe weather phenomenon with climate change then I have to say, "Stop the nonsense."  You've gone too far.  All that tells me is that "climate change" supporters have become blatantly disingenuous when they grasp at anything and everything that could even remotely be connected to "climate change."  Add some selective data points and insist with all the fervor one can muster, "See, the science says so."  When "climate change" disciples reach that level of madness I say they've gone over the edge.  And for a lot of them there's probably no point of return.  We've lost some potentially very good human beings.  Not to drugs, but to unhinged hysteria.

 

Some examples of flagrant and shameless overreach which I'll repost:

From MSN, Nov. 11, 2021 - Canadian Woman Clinically Diagnosed As Suffering From 'Climate Change' — A First In Medical History

ozimoron, please tell me if you believe in all seriousness in "climate change" as a valid diagnosis for an illness.  If you believe you will be the first poster in my almost 20 years on this forum whom I would put on ignore.

 

From Harvard.edu - Coronavirus, Climate Change, and the Environment A Conversation on COVID-19 with Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Director of Harvard Chan C-CHANGE

 

ozimoron, please tell me if you believe in all seriousness that "climate change" is a potential contributor to a pandemic.  If you believe you will be the first poster in my almost 20 years on this forum whom I would put on ignore.

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I see you've edited your post which I responded to earlier.  So I'll take this opportunity to add:

 

One of the errors in rationale which it seems most "climate change" warriors make is to assume that if one does not believe in the doomsday prophesies of global disaster and human extinction (and other species, too) due to rising sea levels then one is also anti-taking-care-of-mother-earth.  It's a logical fallacy which often persists even when it's shoved directly in the face of a "climate change" warrior.

Please provide a reasoned argument why it's a logical fallacy. All you have done is stated your opinion. If you can't argue based on facts then you have no argument.

9 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't believe in climate change but generating about half my electricity with solar panels is probably more than most climate alarmists will ever get around to doing.

No only is it commendable but it's also a point of envy for me.  I had the same dream back in 2006.  And the article is still up:

Inhabitat - Bio-Solar House, Soontorn Boonyatikam, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, Thai, green architecture, sustainable design, biosolal house

 

The opportunity never arose for me, though.
 

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Please provide a reasoned argument why it's a logical fallacy. All you have done is stated your opinion. If you can't argue based on facts then you have no argument.

Appeal to probability.

 

He's a climate change denier (premise)

He doesn't care about the earth (invalid conclusion)

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Please provide a reasoned argument why it's a logical fallacy. All you have done is stated your opinion. If you can't argue based on facts then you have no argument.

Your turn to answer questions I posed.

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

In your entire response you've not once addressed the financial aspects of "climate change."  Not once.  Why?

 

In your post which I responded to you had suggested various factors as being causes for climate science denialism.  Conspiracy was one of them.  Therefore common sense tells me that you must be in possession of beliefs which dissuade you from considering even the possibility of any nefarious intentions ($$$$$) having even the slightest influence on, what, uncorruptable science?  Else you would have entered some of your gained knowledge into the discussion to either confirm or deny outside-of-science influence.  Fair enough deduction?

"Similarly, implying I am gullible is argument ad hominem, which is a dishonest form of argument."

 

There isn't a one of us who hasn't been gullible about on thing or another at one time or another in our lives.  Just as there's no one alive, or has ever lived, who has never lied.  To point out, without judgement, when someone is gullible when they indeed are is not ad hominem.  It's accurately assessing reality.  To see a drunken sot passed out on a park bench and stating that he drinks too much would not be ad hominem or judgmental either.  Do you see the distinction?

To recap with a long-winded sentence:  You alluded to conspiracy being one of the reasons for climate science denialism, which means you dismiss the topic without any further consideration, let alone investigation, as to how it may affect or influence "climate change" in various ways, whereas I have done investigative work and found influence, which puts me in a favourable position to say that your out of hand dismissal of it, especially if your dismissal is due to sources in your life telling you, "nothing to see here - only conspiracy theory," indicates that you are indeed gullible.  You put your blind trust and belief in the mere words of others.

Hopefully you don't ignore the above in your next response . . . if there is a next response.

I applaud you for your education, for your many decades of experience, for the knowledge you've acquired, for your impartial objectivity.  Yet do not assume that everyone who lacks your specific education, your specific experience, your specific knowledge is therefore incapable of accurately deducing a situation.  There is more than one road which leads to Rome.  And definitions and explanations of albedo and clathrates are not required to exist on every road.

I, myself, lack all education.  As I looked back I was, in a sense, grateful for missing out on the experience of attending an institution of higher learning.  That gratefulness was derived from interacting with people who did go that route for from speaking to them it was apparent to me that they had learned more what to think than how to think.  Many were merely parrots.

 

I then had the thought that colleges and universities could also be "good" or "bad."  One could experience a vast expansion of knowledge while at the same time the potential existed to be merely indoctrinated.  The specific outcome for any given individual is, of course, wholly dependent on the individual.

 

My point of sharing this is just to warn against flying off and making erroneous assumptions that the lay person is incapable of gaining any truth for himself/herself.

And finally, you may be firm in your conclusions, comfortable with you data, sure of the outcomes and have concluded that the "science is settled."  I don't know but you may even be one who roots for the incarceration of all these dangerous climate deniers.  But the science is not settled.  And the climate alarmists have not been anointed by any God to be the only ones who can make that declaration.  Sorry.  But not sorry.

 

95% of scientists . . . LOL.  Don't think I'm a rube wholly ignorant about how that number was derived.

I am a scientist, not an economist. The financial costs of climate change are already with us, ask any insurance company. They don't concern me if they don't affect me. They call economics the dismal science for a reason.

 

It is incredible deniers like to cast themselves as victims. Scientific researchers are about 0.1% of the world population on average, from memory South Korea leads the world with 1.1%. We are hardly a majority shouting down a recalcitrant minority.

 

Research needs an open and inquiring mind. Laypeople can have open and enquiring minds too, their problem is they are not equipped with the necessary tools. For you to be asserting you know climate science is rubbish without any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics is like saying you can service a modern vehicle without any training.

 

Social media is rife with conspiracy theories. My most recent example is an anti-masker who represented himself as a viral immunologist. He did not even know the correct diameter of coronavirus, and proceeded to an experimental design which was totally erroneous. False prophets abound, anyone can make a video with an appropriate bookshelf behind them, claiming to be this and that. If you consider conspiracy theory is not a part of climate change denialism, I suggest a visit to Facebook.

 

I don't think I can accept a lack of education somehow makes one smarter than the average person, and more capable of perceiving truth. That's a bridge too far. My views are formed on the basis of data, training and experience. Nothing to do with belief.

 

What I do find depressing is the number of people who deny global warming exists, and claim so-called "alarmists" ( a useful pejorative ) are brainwashed. I have no doubt many of these people cheerfully send their children to Sunday School or madrassas, to be brainwashed into believing in an entity they can't see, hear, or feel.

 

 

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Appeal to probability.

 

He's a climate change denier (premise)

He doesn't care about the earth (invalid conclusion)

Why the confused look, ozimoron?  You asked me to provide a reasoned argument for why it's a logical fallacy and I did just that.

I've said it a number of times here.  You can't have a true debate, an exchange of ideas, if people refuse to admit when they've erred.  Why?  One cannot debate with dishonesty.  It is impossible.

Edit:

 

Here's an entire list of logical fallacies.

 

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Don't you understand that people die when there time is up?

 

If scientists save people from dying by inventing a vaccine, they will be struck by a thunderbold or be run over by a bus. 

Yes but Science extends Life and Improves odds of avoiding ,surviving & recovering from Illness or injury.

2 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Yes but Science extends Life and Improves odds of avoiding ,surviving & recovering from Illness or injury.

My point was it doesn't, life span is predermined. Well in Asian religion/philosophy, anyway.

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

Here's an entire list of logical fallacies.

 

 

 

While we are about it, here's a book which you might benefit from reading:

 

"Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless. It lists and dissects all the dishonest forms of argument.

Don't believe in sea level rise ?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2021/dec/29/our-house-was-gone-it-was-sea-and-sand-life-on-the-vanishing-coasts-in-pictures

7 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Topic is Science Beneficial  or not. Your persistent Deflection is Off Topic.

I was responding to a post by Tippaporn re fallacies. AFAIK fallacies and dishonest argument are part of the fabric of science.

 

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

My point was it doesn't, life span is predermined. Well in Asian religion/philosophy, anyway.

I am a bladder cancer survivor, first diagnosed in 2006. I have high blood pressure, controlled by medication.

IMO I would not be posting on this forum without the beneficial outcomes of medical science.

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am a bladder cancer survivor, first diagnosed in 2006. I have high blood pressure, controlled by medication.

IMO I would not be posting on this forum without the beneficial outcomes of medical science.

You know newer science about high blood pressure proved that you can regulate your blood pressure trough exercise and diet? Pills only do something about the symptoms not the cause. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780911/

 

Just another example how modern science can help us in our daily lifes, where we get a choice to continue as before, just take a pill, or do something about your lifestyle. 

 

However, some have high bloodpressure, and have legit reasons to use medications. Not my intention to provoke anyone. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Don't you understand that people die when there time is up?

 

If scientists save people from dying by inventing a vaccine, they will be struck by a thunderbold or be run over by a bus. 

Wow.  I congratulate you on your perceptiveness.  I doubt there is a single science poster with a 2x brain size here who would even have an inkling of the truth you just spoke.  

 

I would only add that when a person's time is up there isn't a doctor or drug or a medical procedure which could save him.

 

On 12/28/2021 at 11:27 PM, mikebike said:

I bet you cannot come up with a "fact" which is not in some way debatable. Just like a theory.

Theories are just theories....that's a fact.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

You know newer science about high blood pressure proved that you can regulate your blood pressure trough exercise and diet? Pills only do something about the symptoms not the cause. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6780911/

 

Just another example how modern science can help us in our daily lifes, where we get a choice to continue as before, just take a pill, or do something about your lifestyle. 

 

However, some have high bloodpressure, and have legit reasons to use medications. Not my intention to provoke anyone. 

 

 

My blood pressure is inherited. I daresay I am in the top 10% level of fitness for my age cohort. 20 minutes of stretching, 25 pushups, plus 10 minutes of cardio in the morning, 15 minutes cardio in the afternoon. Golf and swimming are extras.

I'll admit to enjoying food. Having said that, my BMI is below 30, and I can't see a diet of carrot juice and celery being an enjoyable lifestyle.

If a pill produced by science helps me to greater enjoyment of life, I'll take it, as long as it is legal. No doubt there are millions of Viagra and Cialis users who say the same.

Tonight on the news. 20 degrees celsius in Kodiak Alaska. That is 20 degrees higher than the previous record. Than the RECORD. I know it's lazy and unscientific to pick out such a statistic but gee 20 degrees higher than the record is fairly noteworthy. 

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Tonight on the news. 20 degrees celsius in Kodiak Alaska. That is 20 degrees higher than the previous record. Than the RECORD. I know it's lazy and unscientific to pick out such a statistic but gee 20 degrees higher than the record is fairly noteworthy. 

Anchorage recently recorded record high temps in the high 30's c. I believe it is caused by weakening jet stream which allows the winds to spill further south. At that time is it warmer in the arctic circle than below it.

Human Maximum Design Life scientifically assessed by geneticists as 120 years. Actual Average Life Expectancy tops out at 82 (male) and 88 (female) so extensively falling short due to genetics, illness, accident, intake abuse, pollution, lifestyle etc. 

 

Same geneticists say that 120 might be extendable out to 400 with natural or synthetic organ transplants or enhancements , but no longer.

 

 Cyborgs are coming if you are ultra wealthy……or cryofreeze….

 

 Beyond age 400 would need conciousness transfer to new body….

Science Beneficial ….or Not ? 

 

21 hours ago, Will B Good said:

Theories are just theories....that's a fact.

Quite Wrong. Evolution is Both.

27 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Quite Wrong. Evolution is Both.

The same thing is true of scientific theories: theories are made from facts, theories never become facts. Facts are the small, detailed observations that we make about the world. For example, “when I let go of this apple, it falls to the ground” would be a fact. Only when scientists start gathering many of these facts together can theories be built.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/theory-versus-fact

36 minutes ago, seedy said:

The same thing is true of scientific theories: theories are made from facts, theories never become facts. Facts are the small, detailed observations that we make about the world. For example, “when I let go of this apple, it falls to the ground” would be a fact. Only when scientists start gathering many of these facts together can theories be built.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/theory-versus-fact

Also Quite Wrong. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity are Overwhelmingly Proven Facts but also retain their prior status as Theories….before that Theories started as Hypothesis..

15 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Also Quite Wrong. Gravity, Evolution, Relativity are Overwhelmingly Proven Facts but also retain their prior status as Theories….before that Theories started as Hypothesis..

Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. ... The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory. First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star.

https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory

 

Somehow - call me crazy - the links I posted seem much more credible than ... Well, whatever it is that you are stating

On 12/30/2021 at 2:06 PM, ozimoron said:

It's not about what one person alone can do and you know that. It's what a collective will can do. In line with that I'm voting for political parties who will act.

 

The science is not settled but it is conclusive and it is unequivocal. There is no doubt that climate change is real and not a hoax and there is no doubt that it is caused by human activity. Until 1970 the Earths climate was net cooling. The balance was tipped in the early 70's. Anyone claiming that climate change is still debatable as being real or not or a problem or not is uninformed and likely convinced by conspiracy theories.

IMO there are 3 step changes which occurred on the way to where humanity is now. The first was the Industrial Revolution. The second was the development of personal transport, i.e. the automobile and aircraft. the third is a combination of factors, deforestation of the Amazon and other countries for profit and by overpopulation. Haiti apparently has the gold medal for the most deforested nation on Earth.

The other factor is the rise of China and India as major energy consumers since 1990, for their billions in population. That energy is mostly provided by burning fossil fuels.

Science can provide satisfactory solutions. With solar power, water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can be combined with nitrogen to produce ammonia, which can then be safely transported around the globe and converted back to clean fuel at its destination. The technologies already exist, it's a matter of market forces providing the funding to build the necessary infrastructure. Or there is the Sun Cable, a USD 22 billion project scheduled for completion in 2027, sending Australian solar power to Singapore.

Meantime, the rear-guard actions of the fossil fuel industry are no conspiracy theory. It is not an accident the Prime Minister's Department in Australia has about 90% of its staff with links to the coal and gas miners there, just as it is no accident scientific advice on environmental effects of mine development is overridden by venal politicians.

 

2 hours ago, seedy said:

Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. ... The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory. First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star.

https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory

 

Somehow - call me crazy - the links I posted seem much more credible than ... Well, whatever it is that you are stating

Right so we don’t know enough about Gravity to make it Fact…..all those space missions and satellites planned around a theory.got it now????

On 12/30/2021 at 9:22 AM, hotandsticky said:

 

 

I hope you never have/had a need for penicillin.

My goodness.  Another veiled suggestion that perhaps the person who holds an opinion different then yourself should just die if they don't embrace your viewpoint.

In the meanwhile fluoroquinolone antibiotics given out like candy by 'medical professionals' in Thailand without any conformed consent regarding adverse effects just about destroyed the tendons in my knees.  Now I know.  There is a US FDA black-box warning on these classes of antibiotics - but never mind that - just trust the experts and shut up!  That's pretty much the message nowadays.

You really need to take charge of your own health, educate yourself, and ask a lot of uncomfortable questions.

12 minutes ago, connda said:

In the meanwhile fluoroquinolone antibiotics given out like candy by 'medical professionals' in Thailand without any conformed consent regarding adverse effects just about destroyed the tendons in my knees.  Now I know.  There is a US FDA black-box warning on these classes of antibiotics - but never mind that - just trust the experts and shut up!  That's pretty much the message nowadays.

I always read about the side effects of drugs BEFORE I take them.

Cipro is extremely safe, if you cut out the exercise while you're on them, and pay attention to tendon pain.

10 hours ago, connda said:

My goodness.  Another veiled suggestion that perhaps the person who holds an opinion different then yourself should just die if they don't embrace your viewpoint.

In the meanwhile fluoroquinolone antibiotics given out like candy by 'medical professionals' in Thailand without any conformed consent regarding adverse effects just about destroyed the tendons in my knees.  Now I know.  There is a US FDA black-box warning on these classes of antibiotics - but never mind that - just trust the experts and shut up!  That's pretty much the message nowadays.

You really need to take charge of your own health, educate yourself, and ask a lot of uncomfortable questions.

I had a similar experience with prednisolone, short term memory loss and confusion.

My theory is doctors in Thailand are paid on the basis of how many drugs they can dispense, by the pharmaceutical industry.

I've noticed Thai doctors are uncomfortable with being questioned if they are male, except if they have had their medical training outside Thailand. Female doctors don't seem to mind.

When I get issued with a raft of medications here, I check on the internet for side effects, and also what each medication is supposed to achieve. I sometimes find one or two medications are completely unnecessary.

There is also the question of appropriate dosage. While I was in COVID quarantine, one of the medications was 1 mg of Valium, presumably to keep me placid. Which was probably a sub-clinical dose, as with a body mass of 90 kg about 5 mg would have been a minimum.

Science is mostly beneficial, but misapplied science can be lethal.

21 hours ago, seedy said:

The same thing is true of scientific theories: theories are made from facts, theories never become facts. Facts are the small, detailed observations that we make about the world. For example, “when I let go of this apple, it falls to the ground” would be a fact. Only when scientists start gathering many of these facts together can theories be built.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/theory-versus-fact

Weak argument with poor supporting link.