This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.
What if Climate Change is Real?
Great video!
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is, as the speaker said, that we often experience cold weather in southern latitudes or here in my area near Duluth Minnesota, where we haven't got a big problem with industrial pollution, so most days, we leave home and gaze at very blue and clear sunny skies, so we just can't wrap our minds around the fact that the climate is changing. We don't realize that we are really just a small part of worldwide averages, and long term trends. So we become the victims of deniers who exploit our lack of knowledge by emphasising our short term or regional weather, instead of the long term manifestations of AGW climate change? And since Co2 is colorless, it can still result in trapping atmospheric heat, even though it's not visibly obscuring our skies or blocking sunlight like volcanic eruptions do.
My area is particularly lucky since we haven't seen super-hot temperatures for quite a while, and although our winters may not be as cold as they were, we still receive some pretty cold winters. We are at the northern edges of tornado Alley and thus have been spared powerful tornadoes, and have never witnessed hurricanes wreak havoc like they do in so many other places. Since we are very near to the largest freshwater lake in the world, that lake often has a cooling effect in the summer. However, like other Americans, we do watch the news and, it is becoming more and more apparent that we are not experiencing our grandparents, or even our parent's weather anymore. So, gradually we find it becoming less "convenient" to deny huma caused climate change, and instead, we are now consider the very question posed by the lecturer, of "what if global warming is for real.?"
It's very encouraging that in a State like Texas, with such a conservative political climate, the actual environment is conducive to promoting the development of wind and solar energy--likewise, Minnesota can become a leading force in wind energy, and is in fact, slowly growing its green energy industry.
So again, the problem lies in educating the public by making them aware of just how wrong deniers are--especially in the ways that they try to gloss over the significance of very real data, and in the ways they encourage us to forget looking into some very real and very solid scientific facts.
Just like cigarettes companies, denier don't even have to fully establish any alternative explanations---they just have to create an inkling of doubt that foolishly encourages us to talk about the real problems over and over again-- while essentially ignoring the nose on our faces. However I do hope that deniers eventually assume the burden of proof, and decide not to just make claims to the contrary. Bogus scientists, and special interests have it all wrong--they are the ones proposing explanations which are not born out in facts--so its up to them to prove their case, not for scientists to be forced into defending ton of solid and very real evidence, over and over and over again!
Motive intent logical fallacy: "It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are."
ReplyDeleteDid you watch it?
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear any you refute any of the science in that video.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZuKrKO-VY
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand the point - what you stated is a motive intent logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThis video proves everything I have said about you. Virtually every statement you make is completely false. You have rejected science and the facts and replaced them with this fantasy world where you get to make things up.
ReplyDeleteThe ocean has been much more acidic in the past and this has been devastating to life. In fact, the Great Dying at the end of the Permian killed over 90% of all life in the oceans. The marine die-off is believed to have been caused by ocean acidification.
http://www.livescience.com/50440-ocean-acidification-killer-permian-extinction.html
Here is just one more reference on ocean acidification. There are many more and they are easy to find with a simple search:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519111031.htm
But, the problem with these facts is that they don't fit into your world views - your lies and deceit - so you ignore them. I keep saying, if you bothered to read the real science, you wouldn't be a denier anymore.
Keep up the lies, your fossil fuel masters love you for it.
I'm afraid not, Tom. When you take corrupt money for the purpose of doing corrupt things, people have a right to know that. Motive is most definitely a consideration when someone, such as you, is engaged in the industry of lies and deceit. It is particularly true when you turn around and accuse climate scientists of producing results merely to assure their funding continues. So, by your logic (failure!), questioning your source of funding is not valid, but questioning the source of funding for others is perfectly reasonable.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of a logical failure, Tom, you are making a whopper of one. But, of course, that is your trade.
You are defending logical fallacies with logical fallacies. Geez, I hope you didn't do this in class.
ReplyDeleteYou write "When you take corrupt money for the purpose of doing corrupt things" Chris, that also is a motive intent logical fallacy, not to mention ridiculous, unless you are trying to convince us that you are a mind reader. Ommm.
You then commit the straw man logical fallacy by saying, "you turn around and accuse climate scientists of producing results merely to assure their funding continues," which of course I have never done.
.
Your arguments are so fallacious I cannot believe you are even willing to put them into print where they can come back to haunt you. Yes, motive is most certainly a factor. It is such a factor it is a major consideration in legal cases and is a determining factor in trials. If it was such a logical failure, it would have been banned long ago. The very fact that motive is not only allowed, but this has been strengthened over the centuries, illustrates the point that motive is a critical consideration. So, once again, tell us you are not being bribed by accepting money from the fossil fuel industry. I notice you refuse to answer and that provides all of the evidence any logical person needs. You are corrupt and your arguments are nothing but lies, deceit, falsehoods and false arguments to defend your funding source.
ReplyDeleteCould you please just answer a direct question with a direct answer---what science in the video do you refute? When you refuse to answer, it makes your possible motives for lying stick out like a sore thumb.
ReplyDeleteThen are we right to assume that many of your colleagues, are motivated by money and that you freely acknowledge that fact, even though you personally you deny it? The point is, how can AGW deniers criticize scientist for attributing false motives to them, and then turn around and do the same with well educated and knowledgeable Climate scientists---applying a double standard is never fair, and anyway, you have ever made it clear that you DON'T consider the motives of legitimate climate scientists as being corrupt. So do you actually mean that their research is actually based on a sincere desire to report the findings of that research, and not to misrepresent the actual urgency of climate change?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be DEFENDING the entire legitimacy of your arguments with a mere reliance on semantics, while CONDEMNING the legitimacy of climate scientists for supporting their views of by pointing out facts? So again a simple question is in order---do you believe those who assert man's role in global warming only do so for ulterior motives, (such a money) while your own motives are genuinely sincere---or not? Even if you claim you have never said so, could you just affirm that you really agree that climate scientists are only motivated by money, prestige, power, etc? If you tell us how you feel we can avoid any uncertainty about your actual beliefs. Otherwise most of your remarks can simply be attributed to mere semantics!
You don't seem to understand the point - what Chris stated is a motive intent logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you are the one that doesn't understand the point. Your statement is invalid. No matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true and you will still be a paid fossil fuel shill.
ReplyDeleteWell, since I have repeatedly shown your claim to be without merit, you are either a liar or stupid. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteI'm the one that isn't a paid shill, so that makes me the honest one in this conversation. It's easy to see why you have rejected science with your lack of ability to engage in logic. Interesting you had to resort to character assassination instead of just coming out and telling us you don't take money from the fossil fuel industry. What does that say about you?
ReplyDeleteImagine, Christopher Keating accusing me of character assassination. Looking at your repeated attacks, mind reading my supposed motivations, funding, etc. and my lack of attacks on your motivations, funding, etc., no sane person would support such a silly idea.
ReplyDeleteQuestioning someone's motives is not character assassination. That is a valid question and something that should always be asked in any situation. So, why aren't you interested in discussing your motive, Tom? As for my funding, I have none. I pay for everything out of my own pocket. All you had to do is ask.
ReplyDeleteQuestioning someone's motives IS character assassination since the implication is that they are acting in accordance with financial or philosophical motivations, not in accordance with what they believe to be true. In other words, you are accusing them of being dishonest.
ReplyDeleteDid you just seriously say that? Tell me something, have been questioning Hilary Clinton's motives after her charity took money from people that were looking to her to do business? Or, how about George Stephanopoulos? I'm sure you are quick to criticize these two for their motives, but you think its character assassination for anyone to question yours. The main reason it is valid to question your motives is because your science is so bad. In fact, it is so bad it can't be considered science at all. So, why do you say it? There has to be a reason. Of course, if you're paid by the fossil fuel industry to say it, then it all makes sense, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd, certainly, what you are trying to do is to throw out a strawman to get the conversation off your invalid science. Didn't work, you just brought us right back to the main issue. You have rejected science and are putting out falsehoods. Can you say anything that is logically or scientifically correct? I don't think so.
You say, "if you're paid by the fossil fuel industry to say it." Are you now finally admitting you don't, and can't, know who donates to ICSC (not that it would make any difference)?
ReplyDelete