Friday, January 18, 2013

Examining a Fake Skeptics' tricky Rhetorical Sleight of Hand

This fits under the heading of: Further Adventures In The Land Of Virtual Dialogue.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

This one started with a demand that I support my mention that 95% of scientists who are active in climatology support the consensus opinion regarding the root causes of current global warming and also the very real dangers of continuing our current rates of Greenhouse Gas injections into our thin life supporting atmosphere.

The original exchange inspired me to put together a list of many studies and reports that look into this question of "the scientific consensus" regarding global warming.  But, it didn't satisfy the gent and so the conversation continued . . .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC wrote:   
I've said what I got to say about that over here

Oh perhaps you'd find this interesting.
On Scientific Consensus
By David Barash ~ July 18, 2012

PS. Have you checked food commodity prices and such lately
or life along the New Jersey shore?  
{This relates to previous discussions where fake skeptics misdirect the "Global Warming's impact on agriculture" conversation with stories of the Green Revolution's past glories.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

fake skeptic writes:
Food prices along the Jersey shore are, even now, far lower than they would be without fossil fuel driven tractors, trucks and the like. 

In fact, without energy from fossil fuels, a much less severe storm would have been much more deadly, as less severe storms have been historically. Several deadlier hurricanes hit the NE coast of the U.S. in the twentieth century, and hurricanes in the nineteenth century typically killed more people by an order of magnitude, despite a far lower population density. Even if Sandy's unusual strength is entirely attributable to fossil fuel use (not), fossil fuel use undoubtedly saved more lives than it cost.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

CC wrote:  
Fake Skeptic Alert !
Notice how he pulled the rhetorical equivalent of a sleight of hand trick.  I'm talking about current trends and where they are taking our near future.  And this character, want's to give me another lesson in the history of progress.  Yes, yes and damit all yes, progress and the burning of fossil fuels has brought us more marvels and wonders and free time than most appreciate.

And a modest amount of alcohol is great for the spirit and intellect - but too much makes stupid, sick and dead.  Climatologists, and even me, appreciate the marvels of our age, but it's by-products are killing us!  

And it's looking more and more like we truly are sclerotic alcoholics ready to go to the grave rather than change habits.  And like I've said before, that's a fine and dandy choice for someone to make for themselves - but taking down the entire world as we know it... man that's a whole different thing.

{Mind you Earth itself is safe, it has hundreds, thousands and millions of years to repair the damage and create a new world.  But we little pea pick'n humans have created some very deep poop we're all going to get drug through.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Fake Skeptic Alert #2 !
Also, notice how this character engages in another rhetorical sleight of hand trick when he misdirects the discuss away from increasing hurricane strengths and increasing sea levels and talks about mortality rates... 

There are many good reasons why death rates have gone down, such as those wonderful computer models { that too many like to dismiss } that so accurately predicted the path and intensity - thus giving ample warming. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

As for your obsession with an exact "consensus percentage" - there will never ever be a survey that's big enough, detailed enough or exact enough to satisfy the fake skeptic.   

Thing is: it doesn't matter a hill of beans if the number is 93%-97% or 91%-99%.

Tell me Mr. Skydiver, risk lover, let's see you put on and jump with a parachute that has a 10% chance of failure.  How about getting into a jet that's got a 1 to 5% chance of falling apart at 35,000 feet?  Are you willing to do that?  I'll bet not.

But when it come to the future living conditions here on Earth you think somehow without an exact picture of every detail we should sit on our hands and not rattle the comfort zone of the powers that be, or the rest of us over coddled humans - and to hell with any concern for our children's future lives.

Here's that "scientific consensus" information for anyone with some honest curiosity.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 


The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

No comments: