oldephartte (oldephartte) wrote,
oldephartte
oldephartte

What arguments do climate change skeptics use to defend their position?

What arguments do climate change skeptics use to defend their position?

Alistair Riddoch, studied Philosophy & Ethics at York University

Q: What arguments do climate change skeptics use to defend their position?”

It is a logically flawed position, to make a claim, an assertion, and then thrust responsibility for disproving it on those that do not accept the claim, or assertion. It is called:

Burden of Proof Reversal.

If you claim God exists, and I do not believe you, it is not my job to prove he does not. God does not exist, unless you can prove otherwise.

If I claim roosters crowing make the Sun come up, unless you are willing to eliminate all roosters, can you “prove” otherwise?

Even the IPCC does not conclude that humans DO cause climate change. They suggest with “a high degree of confidence” that humans PROBABLY are causing climate change.


So I am going to commit a logic flaw. Ad Ignorantiam.

I am going to claim that we are too ignorant to be able to conclude that humans have, and are, causing significant and catastrophic alteration of Earth’s energy budget and resulting climate.

I claim you, and no other:


  • Can adequately explain the nature of gravity.

  • Can tell me how much energy a point of vacuum has.

  • Can tell me what physically exists, if anything.

  • Can tell me what reality is made of, quantum loops, quantum foam, pilot waves, bent space-time, vibrating multi-dimensional strings, particles popping into and out of existence, quasi-crystals. Or are we a simulation, or hologram.

  • Can tell me how many dimensions create existence.

  • Can tell me whether Dark Energy and Dark Matter exist, and how they affect matter, gravity, barometric pressure.


So. Now we are on level playing ground. I have not disproven significant and catastrophic human caused alteration of Earth’s energy budget and resulting climate. And you have not proven you or the Earth exist, physically.

So let’s have a quick chat about logic, politics, and human nature.

HUMAN NATURE

Would you agree with the statement: “Throughout history, humans have repeatedly demonstrated they believe their actions affect the weather, or the climate.”

I would suggest that they absolutely have.

There are a whack of invented deities and spirits, that can be prayed to, appealed to, honoured with statues, worshipped, danced for, made offerings to, who then will in return, if pleased and appeased, grace us with good climate. And whom, if angered, will use the weather to strike us down.

Rain dances, Thor the God of thunder, Ra and Quixocatl a couple of examples of Sun Gods. The list of Sky Deities is in the hundreds.

The Christian God. Did not he flood the Earth? The Great Deluge. The story of Noah’s Ark? Do not many countries celebrate Thanksgiving, where appreciation it shown to God for favourable growing season weather resulting in a bountiful harvest?

Studies suggest over half the population of the world believes in one deity or another. Deities believed to have control over the weather or climate.

I say, humans are predisposed to believe that they have some ability to influence the climate. Via deities, if nothing else. And have for thousands of years.

Human nature.

Any disagreement?

POLITICS

One might ask. If humans are not changing the climate, why do so many government funded scientists claim that we might, or are?

I would ask, what recommendations accompany such claims. Is this a pretty good list of what we humans are supposed to do, supposedly to “save the world”:


  • Buy more fuel efficient cars.

  • Penalize those that buy gas guzzlers,

  • Credit those who buy electric vehicles.

  • Better insulate our homes to make them more energy efficient.

  • Replace old appliances with newer, energy efficient models.

  • Support governments that invest in the development of Solar, Geothermal, Biofuel, and other renewable technologies.

  • Accept a price on carbon, increased taxation on fossil fuel use.

  • Accept utilities installing smart meters and switching us to time-of-day billing.

Is that a pretty good list of action items, to stop ourselves from changing the climate and “save the world”?

Because I find it a very odd coincidence, that those action items are EXACTLY the same as the action items announced by Jimmy Carter in 1977 in the US Energy Independence Plan.

But oh. His plan was not about “saving the world”. His plan was about reducing the US dependence on oil being imported from OPEC. OPEC was screwing the world with price increases. From $3 per barrel to $42 per barrel in less than a decade. Embargoes. Restricted production and shipping. The US and a bunch of other countries suffered oil and fuel shortages. Energy crises. Oil “shock events”. They were a big deal, especially in 1973, and 1979.

Carter’s plan, (which was about oil, and economics, and not about “saving the world” has within it all of the following action items. (You will recognize them, I am sure):


  • Buy more fuel efficient cars.

  • Penalize those that buy gas guzzlers,

  • Credit those who buy electric vehicles.

  • Better insulate our homes to make them more energy efficient.

  • Replace old appliances with newer, energy efficient models.

  • Support governments that invest in the development of Solar, Geothermal, Biofuel, and other renewable technologies.

  • Accept a price on carbon, increased taxation on fossil fuel use.

  • Accept utilities installing smart meters and switching us to time-of-day billing.

National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.

So I would ask. Do you think it is coincidence that every action item that is supposedly about “saving the world”, just happens, 41 years ago, to have been action items necessary to “save the US dollar”??

LOGIC

Put together what we do not know. With political motivation. Add in human nature.

I get reasonable and significant grounds for skepticism of government funded climate alarmist scientists.

And what do you get?



Alistair Riddoch, studied Philosophy & Ethics at York University

Q: What arguments do climate change skeptics use to defend their position?”

It is a logically flawed position, to make a claim, an assertion, and then thrust responsibility for disproving it on those that do not accept the claim, or assertion. It is called:

Burden of Proof Reversal.

If you claim God exists, and I do not believe you, it is not my job to prove he does not. God does not exist, unless you can prove otherwise.

If I claim roosters crowing make the Sun come up, unless you are willing to eliminate all roosters, can you “prove” otherwise?

Even the IPCC does not conclude that humans DO cause climate change. They suggest with “a high degree of confidence” that humans PROBABLY are causing climate change.


So I am going to commit a logic flaw. Ad Ignorantiam.

I am going to claim that we are too ignorant to be able to conclude that humans have, and are, causing significant and catastrophic alteration of Earth’s energy budget and resulting climate.

I claim you, and no other:


  • Can adequately explain the nature of gravity.

  • Can tell me how much energy a point of vacuum has.

  • Can tell me what physically exists, if anything.

  • Can tell me what reality is made of, quantum loops, quantum foam, pilot waves, bent space-time, vibrating multi-dimensional strings, particles popping into and out of existence, quasi-crystals. Or are we a simulation, or hologram.

  • Can tell me how many dimensions create existence.

  • Can tell me whether Dark Energy and Dark Matter exist, and how they affect matter, gravity, barometric pressure.


So. Now we are on level playing ground. I have not disproven significant and catastrophic human caused alteration of Earth’s energy budget and resulting climate. And you have not proven you or the Earth exist, physically.

So let’s have a quick chat about logic, politics, and human nature.

HUMAN NATURE

Would you agree with the statement: “Throughout history, humans have repeatedly demonstrated they believe their actions affect the weather, or the climate.”

I would suggest that they absolutely have.

There are a whack of invented deities and spirits, that can be prayed to, appealed to, honoured with statues, worshipped, danced for, made offerings to, who then will in return, if pleased and appeased, grace us with good climate. And whom, if angered, will use the weather to strike us down.

Rain dances, Thor the God of thunder, Ra and Quixocatl a couple of examples of Sun Gods. The list of Sky Deities is in the hundreds.

The Christian God. Did not he flood the Earth? The Great Deluge. The story of Noah’s Ark? Do not many countries celebrate Thanksgiving, where appreciation it shown to God for favourable growing season weather resulting in a bountiful harvest?

Studies suggest over half the population of the world believes in one deity or another. Deities believed to have control over the weather or climate.

I say, humans are predisposed to believe that they have some ability to influence the climate. Via deities, if nothing else. And have for thousands of years.

Human nature.

Any disagreement?

POLITICS

One might ask. If humans are not changing the climate, why do so many government funded scientists claim that we might, or are?

I would ask, what recommendations accompany such claims. Is this a pretty good list of what we humans are supposed to do, supposedly to “save the world”:


  • Buy more fuel efficient cars.

  • Penalize those that buy gas guzzlers,

  • Credit those who buy electric vehicles.

  • Better insulate our homes to make them more energy efficient.

  • Replace old appliances with newer, energy efficient models.

  • Support governments that invest in the development of Solar, Geothermal, Biofuel, and other renewable technologies.

  • Accept a price on carbon, increased taxation on fossil fuel use.

  • Accept utilities installing smart meters and switching us to time-of-day billing.

Is that a pretty good list of action items, to stop ourselves from changing the climate and “save the world”?

Because I find it a very odd coincidence, that those action items are EXACTLY the same as the action items announced by Jimmy Carter in 1977 in the US Energy Independence Plan.

But oh. His plan was not about “saving the world”. His plan was about reducing the US dependence on oil being imported from OPEC. OPEC was screwing the world with price increases. From $3 per barrel to $42 per barrel in less than a decade. Embargoes. Restricted production and shipping. The US and a bunch of other countries suffered oil and fuel shortages. Energy crises. Oil “shock events”. They were a big deal, especially in 1973, and 1979.

Carter’s plan, (which was about oil, and economics, and not about “saving the world” has within it all of the following action items. (You will recognize them, I am sure):


  • Buy more fuel efficient cars.

  • Penalize those that buy gas guzzlers,

  • Credit those who buy electric vehicles.

  • Better insulate our homes to make them more energy efficient.

  • Replace old appliances with newer, energy efficient models.

  • Support governments that invest in the development of Solar, Geothermal, Biofuel, and other renewable technologies.

  • Accept a price on carbon, increased taxation on fossil fuel use.

  • Accept utilities installing smart meters and switching us to time-of-day billing.

National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President's Program.

So I would ask. Do you think it is coincidence that every action item that is supposedly about “saving the world”, just happens, 41 years ago, to have been action items necessary to “save the US dollar”??

LOGIC

Put together what we do not know. With political motivation. Add in human nature.

I get reasonable and significant grounds for skepticism of government funded climate alarmist scientists.

And what do you get?

Tags: climate change, energy policy, false frame, politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments