Tobin wrote:First, I seriously doubt there will be any location that will be too hot for human habitation. If large dinosaurs lived all over the world at much higher average temperatures, it is unlikely that humans won't be able to. But let's for fun suppose that is a reality. It won't be a hundred years, but 300 or more years of global warming for that to occur and humans will be able to safely move in that amount of time. Also, the world's oceans aren't likely to expand much beyond the few centimeters they are currently expanding at. But again, we can assume the worst and let's suppose in over 300 years the oceans are several feet higher than they are now. Humans are more than capable of adapting to changing situations like that in that kind of time frame. Bear in mind that much of the infrastructure that exists now didn't exist 300 years ago.
The fact of the matter is there is global warming, but it isn't a major threat to human survival or even human civilization. The time frames involved (hundreds of years) are so large that any challenge can be easily overcome by human beings. There is certainly no reason to switch to much more expensive sources of energy without economic reasons to do so and there aren't any right now. The world is experiencing a glut in oil and natural gas and it is very inexpensive. We can continue to use these sources of energy for at least the next 100 years economically. After that, as oil reserves are depleted, then switching to more expensive energy sources may be warranted.
And we see him double down on a bunch of assertions without any facts. Just after Res goes into some detail with a number of sources. Tobin certainly gives a great example of intentional ignorance, but then the thread is more for those who want to learn something.
And "those who want to learn something" includes me. I think I have a pretty good general handle on climate science issues. But it's pretty educational to dive into some of the nitty gritty stuff. In responding to Tobin, I've done way more reading than I have typing. Fun!
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:And "those who want to learn something" includes me. I think I have a pretty good general handle on climate science issues. But it's pretty educational to dive into some of the nitty gritty stuff. In responding to Tobin, I've done way more reading than I have typing. Fun!
I meant you as well as myself. I also read some sources(not as much as you ) and learned a few things from them as well as from others.
Themis wrote:The man problem with tobin and many others is their willful ignorance of the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. He won't even look at the sources people have provided that go into detail about how it works.
Yes! He has actually, in effect, admitted that he won't even look at the evidence we have provided, despite having insisted that we provide it. When anyone provides any valid scientific evidence from highly qualified and reliable sources that conflicts with his views, he tries to pull the argumentum ad populum or argument from authority fallacy cards, while at the same time claiming the superiority of his own so called "common sense." There is very good reason to distrust arguments based on "common sense." Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.
He continues to demonstrate over and over again that he is a prime example of "backfire effect." Either that, or he is the incorrigible troll he has often been accused of being and who couldn't care less what the actual truth is. I still suspect that the latter is the more likely.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Themis wrote:The man problem with tobin and many others is their willful ignorance of the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. He won't even look at the sources people have provided that go into detail about how it works.
Yes! He has actually, in effect, admitted that he won't even look at the evidence we have provided, despite having insisted that we provide it. When anyone provides any valid scientific evidence from highly qualified and reliable sources that conflicts with his views, he tries to pull the argumentum ad populum or argument from authority fallacy cards, while at the same time claiming the superiority of his own so called "common sense." There is very good reason to distrust arguments based on "common sense." Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.
He continues to demonstrate over and over again that he is a prime example of "backfire effect." Either that, or he is the incorrigible troll he has often been accused of being and who couldn't care less what the actual truth is. I still suspect that the latter is the more likely.
He also misuses logical fallacies, but we could have an entire thread on that topic. Appealing to the consensus of scientists on a question within their area of expertise is not a fallacious appeal to authority or appeal to popularity.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
He also misuses logical fallacies, but we could have an entire thread on that topic. Appealing to the consensus of scientists on a question within their area of expertise is not a fallacious appeal to authority or appeal to popularity
Unless, of course, that consensus is contrary to Tobin's "common sense."
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:Yes! He has actually, in effect, admitted that he won't even look at the evidence we have provided, despite having insisted that we provide it. When anyone provides any valid scientific evidence from highly qualified and reliable sources that conflicts with his views, he tries to pull the argumentum ad populum or argument from authority fallacy cards, while at the same time claiming the superiority of his own so called "common sense." There is very good reason to distrust arguments based on "common sense." Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.
He continues to demonstrate over and over again that he is a prime example of "backfire effect." Either that, or he is the incorrigible troll he has often been accused of being and who couldn't care less what the actual truth is. I still suspect that the latter is the more likely.
What supposed "evidence" am I ignoring? Again, claims are cheap. Put up or shut up.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Gunnar wrote:Unless, of course, that consensus is contrary to Tobin's "common sense."
I think if anyone reasonable looks at what we've discussed without bias, they'll see Brad has ignored my points repeatedly and presented deceptive facts. For example, Brad was using world average temperatures to indicate that temperatures wouldn't be sufficient for higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere. I think when you get caught once trying to deceive people and it wasn't an honest mistake, you shouldn't be trusted whatsoever.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Gunnar wrote:Yes! He has actually, in effect, admitted that he won't even look at the evidence we have provided, despite having insisted that we provide it. When anyone provides any valid scientific evidence from highly qualified and reliable sources that conflicts with his views, he tries to pull the argumentum ad populum or argument from authority fallacy cards, while at the same time claiming the superiority of his own so called "common sense." There is very good reason to distrust arguments based on "common sense." Common sense is far more often wrong than most people are willing to admit. Common sense is what convinced people for most of history that the earth was flat and the motionless center of the universe.
He continues to demonstrate over and over again that he is a prime example of "backfire effect." Either that, or he is the incorrigible troll he has often been accused of being and who couldn't care less what the actual truth is. I still suspect that the latter is the more likely.
What supposed "evidence" am I ignoring? Again, claims are cheap. Put up or shut up.
When you have already as much as admitted that you have refused to look at the evidence we have already provided, why should we go to the trouble of providing it for you again? I don't think any reasonable person on this forum would agree with you that we have not provided any evidence. When we provide evidence you simply deny that it is evidence or ignore it. You're like someone staring at the sun at high noon on a cloudless day and insisting that it is night time.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:Unless, of course, that consensus is contrary to Tobin's "common sense."
I think if anyone reasonable looks at what we've discussed without bias, they'll see Brad has ignored my points repeatedly and presented deceptive facts. For example, Brad was using world average temperatures to indicate that temperatures wouldn't be sufficient for higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere. I think when you get caught once trying to deceive people and it wasn't an honest mistake, you shouldn't be trusted whatsoever.
Classic case of projection! The only one here guilty of deception and ignoring relevant points here is you!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
) and learned a few things from them as well as from others.