|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 16:01:51 GMT -4
As I've said, I've never seen Pluto. Just a dot on a paper. And as I've said, I ask the same question of you that I'd ask of someone who doesn't believe in Pluto. Why?
Why, Jason? It's not about why I believe. It is about why you don't believe. You want to cast belief in human-caused global warming as some kind of derangement or conspiracy, yet you offer absolutely nothing to back up your claim.
You started this thread. You show why I shouldn't believe in human-caused global warming. Give me your case, because so far all I see is wild claims with no support whatsoever.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 16:20:22 GMT -4
As I've said, I've never seen Pluto. Just a dot on a paper. And as I've said, I ask the same question of you that I'd ask of someone who doesn't believe in Pluto. Why? If all you were asking me to believe was that there might be some small planet out there called Pluto that can't have any conceivable impact on my own life then I would have no real problem giving you the benefit of the doubt. Sure, you've got a photo of something shinny out there. It could be a planet. Why not? It's no skin off my nose either way. Global Warming is not such an issue. Those who believe it are also seeking to impose measures on me that will change my lifestyle. If someone is going to ask me to spend my tax dollars and effort on their project, I feel I have a right to ask for the evidence that convinced them so I can evaluate it for myself rather than just taking their word at face value and handing over my wallet and car keys. I think I've made a very good case that this is a derangement to many people. How about the guy that believes the Loch Ness monster had been killed by global warming? How can anyone take that claim seriously? And as to why it's about why you believe, again I'm modeling this argument on your arguments about the existence of God. You didn't attempt to explain why you don't believe in God - your position was that it's basically self-evident that the existence of God is a claim that requires proof and that there was no reason to believe until you saw proof. I'm therefore taking the same stance with regards to human-caused Global Warming. If you don't like the argument you shouldn't use it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 16:32:29 GMT -4
Doing his best Ronald Reagan (again): Well, there you go again. There is no reason to think that an argument about the nature of an atmospheric phenomenon is going to take the same form as an argument about the nature of God. They are fundamentally different subjects. However, in the case of the existence of God, I have given you the basis of my argument, though you either didn't understand that I was applying it in a sweeping fashion or you did -- but chose to ignore it and continued to press the false claim that I said I would "prove there is no evidence for the existence of God," effectively short-circuiting any discussion by applying a ridiculous standard. In short, this argument is not that argument and it is (I believe) silly to think that they are the same kind of argument or that they should have the same form. In the case of this argument, you are taking a position against the great majority of scientists working in the area we are discussing. My question for you all along had been "why?" I'm not asking you to prove there is no evidence for human-caused global warming, I am merely asking you to factually support your position. Can you and will you do that?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 16:35:56 GMT -4
My question is, "where is the evidence for x?" Your response is, "all these scientists believe x, so why don't you believe x?" To which I respond, "so if enough people believe something then I should too? A lot of people believe y. Why don't you believe y then?" To which you reply, "y is totally different - there's no evidence for y." So I ask again, "then where is the evidence for x?"
And we start the whole cycle again.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 7, 2008 18:24:00 GMT -4
The world's scientists believe X to be true. You don't believe X to be true. Yet you don't offer any evidence as to why you do not believe X to be true. So you are not offering any factual reason for anyone to believe your non-position. This is several fallacies rolled into one. a) Appeal to Unamed Authority - Unspecified Scientists say it's true so therefore you should believe it. b) Appeal to Popularity - Most Scientists believe it, there for you should believe it also. c) Burden Shifting - It's not up to me to prove that people arer the cause of global warming because you haven't shown that Global warming isn't happening, so you should believe in it. Nice trifectia there.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 18:52:15 GMT -4
You have a nice trifecta going, too PW. I just don't want to be banned by expressing in words what it is.
Jason is making the claim here. He says that belief in human-caused global warming is like a religion. All I have asked all along is for him to explain his theory with facts, rather than hand waving.
That the great majority of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming is not in dispute. That you think I should name them all is ridiculous -- but not unexpected, given the level of argument you invariably bring.
I am not appealing to popularity, as I am not asking or requiring that Jason believe anything. I am asking him to support his claim.
I am not shifting the burden. The burden is with Jason, who made the initial claim. He needs to back up his claim if it is to be taken seriously. I can't shift the burden from myself when I have never carried it.
So thanks for adding nothing to the discussion. Right on target, as always.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 7, 2008 20:26:17 GMT -4
Okay, first off, can we get the meaning of the word "belief" straight? If someone has evidence for something, they don't have to believe in it--except in Bizarro World, where the word doesn't, apparently, mean that. Ergo, if a scientist has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is global warming, anthropogenic or not, that isn't belief.Which, of course, makes Jason's argument fall down from the start. But Jason lives in Bizarro World where dictionaries are, apparently, the root of logical fallacies. So. This lead-in, I'm afraid, makes you wrong, PW. This is an appeal to authority anyway--especially since quite a lot of scientific organizations have been named--but, in this case, it is an appeal to correct authority. If a whole bunch of climatologists have stated x thing about climatology, it's only reasonable to assume that they are correct, or at least that they know more on the subject than I or anyone else who isn't a climatologist.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 20:39:18 GMT -4
Okay, first off, can we get the meaning of the word "belief" straight? If someone has evidence for something, they don't have to believe in it--except in Bizarro World, where the word doesn't, apparently, mean that. Ergo, if a scientist has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is global warming, anthropogenic or not, that isn't belief.Except that it's no longer belief only for the scientist. For anyone relying on the word of the scientist it is still a belief. Wdmundt apparently can't produce any evidence that I can evaluate for myself - all he can do is say "trust these scientists." Well, following the same logic, if a theologian has studied the evidence for the existence of God and come to the conclusion that, in fact, He must exist, then is it still belief? And doesn't the theologian know more about the possible evidences for God's existence than any of us, who can't research it full time and don't have the research library he does? Why should we not take the theologian's word for it? If a whole bunch of theologians believe God exists then isn't it reasonable to assume they are correct, or at least know more about the subject than we, who are not theologians, do?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 20:50:56 GMT -4
No, it is not reasonable. From merriam-webster.com:
1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world 2 a: a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b: a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology> 3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
Theology presupposes the existence of God. It is not a study of whether or not God exists and only offers unfounded claims about the existence of God. Source scripture of theology can't be shown to be accurate or true, so theology is just guesswork.
Not the same as climate science at all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 21:00:06 GMT -4
Okay, so where is the evidence that humans are causing global warming that can be shown to be accurate or true? If there isn't any, then this theory of climate science is just as baseless as you are saying religion is. Where is the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 7, 2008 21:23:29 GMT -4
The burden of proof is on you. Go for it.
If I had some cockamamie theory that contradicted what a majority of the world's neuro-chemists say to be true, I'd sure want to have something to back up my claim.
So how about some facts to back up your claim?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 22:00:14 GMT -4
And round we go again.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 7, 2008 22:32:56 GMT -4
How about I just end it here? Neither of you will ever change your opinions, and you both agree you're going in circles. What is the point in continuing?
Jason, it appears to me that you have taken the stance of a conspiracy theorist. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't trust any scientific claims that we can't verify ourselves, and since none of us own a super computer capable of modeling the Earth's climate I guess we just have to assume the scientists are lying.
If a dozen electrical engineers told me that my house was wired in an unsafe way, I would take their word for it rather than wait for a fire to burn it down. I don't have the knowledge of proper wiring so I can't verify that it is unsafe, so at some point I have to choose to trust experts. I imagine there could be a grand conspiracy involving all of the electrical engineers of the world who just want people like me to spend money unnecessarily rewiring our homes, but should I gamble with my safety?
What is the worst that will happen if we follow the advice of the environmental scientists who are warning us now? We'll get cleaner air and water, and we'll be less dependent on fossil fuels. We need to make those changes even if global warming isn't a real concern.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 23:08:07 GMT -4
I'm saying that the claims of disaster made by climate scientists who believe in human caused global warming are extraordinary claims, and that if we are to act on those claims by spending billions of dollars and restricting industry with severe limits that we are justified to ask for some real demonstratable evidence that humans are in fact causing it and that the restrictions they wish to impose on us will really help.
No one on this forum has been able or willing to provide such evidence. Wdmundt continues to argue that it's out there, but he can't seem to produce any of it.
If the measures that Global Warming believers wanted to impose were inexpensive, easy to accomplish, or obviously beneficial, then I would have no problem with them. Sure, let's get hydrogen-burning cars and hybrids - as long as they are demonstratably better than what we have and we can afford them. Let's invest in sensible non-carbon producing alternate power generation technologies like air, water, solar, and nuclear. But let's not throw away the infrastructure we already have for something that isn't ready to use yet or will cost twice as much to build and maintain simply because we're afraid the old stuff might hurt us. Unfortunately the solutions that have been proposed are not obviously better than what we have, and are anything but inexpensive. Therefore we should be sure of what we're doing before we accept them.
The worst that can happen is that we'll spend billions of dollars and restrict our industry for no benefit at all. Our panic at our own shadow will mean that resources (and sizeable resources) are wasted while other more immediate problems go unsolved.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 7, 2008 23:10:58 GMT -4
And I was making a point that wdmundt accepts a double standard between climate science and religious knowledge. He'll believe the most outrageous claims of climate scientists without batting an eye, but if someone claims personal knowledge of God's existence he isn't worth listening to.
|
|