When even the memes know what’s up...
@Blasphemy is Fun, The temperature
Can I just say, this isn't the scene where he says that line.
Cause the Earth would literally get cooler.
Its called climate change..
Ill upvote anyways though because it made me laugh.
Huurrrrr record cold snap global warming is a myth durrrr. In the meantime at THE SAME TIME the west coast was on fire and now the whole eastern half of the US is suffering a freak heat wave.
@ Heracles, and yet (where I live, virginia,) the Last time a record temperature was broken was July 15th 1954... so no there hasn't been any "global warming" and yes it is a myth. Look at all the records for temperatures in each state. There has been a record broken for lows and highs in almost 70 years for almost every state in the US.
And just like that it was done
Hard to combat something that isnt real
@tmo0792, like how the ozone hole wasnt our fault but when we stopped using the ozone killing chems it just magically fixed itself? We’re a big impact on earth
@Dexios S Divine, or looking at record temperatures for every state in the US for high and lows and a record hasn't been broken in almost 60-70 in almost every state
@Dexios S Divine, I think its funny how disagreeing with nearly proven sciences has become popular. It is concensus among the science community that climate change is real and a real issue.
@Dolorous Fvcking Edd, it was consensus among the scientific community that diseases were caused by "bad air" (the Miasmic Theory of Disease). So what?
Arguments from authority and from popularity are both fallacious. You just don't know the scruples or motives of the people collecting and interpreting the data.
It seems reasonable to assert that climate change exists and that it is both natural and anthropogenic to some extent, but it's totally unreasonable to expect an honest estimate of how much is anthropogenic and what it means for the world from a body that is known to have extreme in-group preference in regards to who can get funding and who can publish their findings.
@Dexios S Divine, that's correlation, what establishes causation?
@Doctor Krieger, and in an effort to combat miasma, hospitals were built with proper ventilation, and cleanliness was suddenly prioritised. Guess what? Infection rates dropped as a result. Just because the understanding of the pattern was wrong, it doesn't mean we can't interpret the pattern itself.
You appear to be a man of science, tell me, What is more likely: that the majority of the scientific community around the globe (most countries included) are entirely influenced by funding to the extent that they are publishing biased findings; or the minority (the most vocal of whom lies in one country in particular) is in fact biased?
The minority is always more likely to be incorrect. This is the beauty of science.
@BearInATopHat, in order to combat miasma they burned incense. At best, they isolated dead bodies and sometimes burned them. This was from the early 19th century. They didn't have the means to ventilate back then, nor did they know to sanitize. All they really knew was that having dead bodies around helped to spread diseases.
Also, making assumptions of truth based on popularity is fallacious. It's not science. It's not epistemologically sound. It's sophistry.
Finally, all of the incentive lies in making the issue of anthropogenic climate change seem as extreme as possible. That's how you get continued funding, that's how you get your data published, that's how you stay in the in-group and not have your career ruined. It's how politicians justify greater taxes and how they cudgel political opponents. When you speak of a majority, you speak of a majority of people who have overwhelming incentive to perpetuate a certain narrative. A majority of an exclusive in-group of scientists.
@BearInATopHat, no majority, no matter how large, is a substitute for reason and debate.
@Doctor Krieger, here’s a fun fact though, the cause doesn’t really matter, the effect does. Natural climate change can lead to an extinction level event, as we’ve seen over the course of Earth’s history. Maybe it’s folly, but trying to prevent that would probably be in everyone’s best interest...
@A Blunt Object, you're begging the question now. That's also fallacious.
What evidence do you have for a current extinction-level event? What evidence do you have that your proposed solutions would even have a noticeable impact on your assumed outcome? What even are your solutions for that matter?
@Doctor Krieger, what evidence do you have that the climate isn’t changing at a rapid rate, while the majority of the research is contradicting you? The problem is people would rather stick their heads in the sand than try to come up with solutions, and then frame that decision as debate. Let’s boil down to the end of this whole thing for a moment. If the side that is advocating doing something is wrong we waste some money, and if the side that’s advocating to do nothing is wrong the planet is irreparably damaged. Seems like an easy choice to me.
@A Blunt Object, I'm sorry, but you're making the claim here, I'm questioning it. You have the burden of evidence.
Also, again, your solutions? It's hard to judge if a response is proportionate to an issue, or if a response is even effective in regards to that issue, if you can't actually name the response that you're proposing.
Also, it's not just some money of unspecific source on the line. People pay for it through taxes. The economy reacts to regulation. There are people advocating to throw property rights and even basic human rights away for the sake of this issue. How far are you willing to go to prevent something you can't be certain of, but assume to be true out of fear?
@Doctor Krieger, see again you’re looking at this naively. Worrying more about your wallet than anything else. As for me personally I don’t have any A Blunt Object Trademarked Climate Solutions. I’m not a climate scientist, are you? Here’s the thing though there are many potential solutions out there, but as you may know until those are tested they’re just ideas. A refusal to even engage in scientific study is what I’m hearing from you, because unless it 100% solves everything right off the bat it’s a waste of time and resources. If that’s the case, your mind is made up and you’re not open to opposing ideas.
@A Blunt Object, no, the only thing I'm refusing is to act out of fear, as you suggest, rather than reason.
@Doctor Krieger, If you research "Nightingale Ward design" you'll see how proper ventilation (big windows and heaters to actively create air currents) became of key architectural concern when designing hospital wards from the 1850s onwards (check the date, I'm not sure off the top of my head). They improved cleanliness; if a festering bandage stinks, its giving off bad air, change it and remove it from the ward. This is standard practice nowadays to combat infection. The understanding was not quite there, but the result was still the same. Your argument is flawed there, sorry.
I agree, assuming something purely because its popular is risky. I assume in this case though based on the wealth of supporting evidence LINKING CO2 emissions to an increase in global temperature. Look up global temperatures since the industrial revolution, you'll see a correlation. Any opinions drawn from that are subjective, but data doesn't lie.
Finally, the argument you propose in the final paragraph...
@Doctor Krieger, you are acting out of fear. Fear for your wallet. The reasonable person would look at the data, and see that a significant change is occurring. Then that person would look for ways to positively influence said change. Doing nothing is a strategy, as I can watch my house burn while it’s on fire and claim it’s a natural cycle, but I’d much rather call the Fire Department and have them try some things to make it stop...
@Doctor Krieger, literally cuts both ways. Politicians want to get re-elected therefore they need to be popular and spout popular ideas. Science is about continuosly building upon our existing understanding. You need to stop treating your opinions as facts my friend. It makes you look ignorant.
Side note, you say the burden of evidence lies with us, yet you love to use the word fallacious (based upon a mistaken belief). So I ask you, what evidence do you have to support your opinion that we are in fact mistaken? Science is about providing an alternative explanation, not just saying "wrong." You sound worse than Trump.
I appreciate a debate though, I'm not meaning to offend, hope you understand this.
@Doctor Krieger, and if you’d like to downvote again here’s another comment for you. I would do the same if I started losing an argument...
@A Blunt Object, no need to be facetious my friend, he's entitled to his opinion. Have an upvote on me to balance it out x
@BearInATopHat, I explained the fallacies when I pointed them out.
@BearInATopHat, much obliged good sir and one on me as well!
@Doctor Krieger, i agree you explained them (quite well I might add), I'm asking for evidence to support your explanation. Otherwise all you have is an opinion...
@A Blunt Object, that's cute and intellectually bankrupt. You're being a total sophist right now.
You're begging the question again, by the way, in assuming that the data is accurate and that it is being properly interpreted.
@BearInATopHat, what evidence do I need for a fallacy beyond having a fallacy to point out?
@Doctor Krieger, I believe you are being the sophist sir, as you have exactly no evidence to support your arguments. I never once said you were wrong, I merely asked for a supported argument from you. In my eyes, your position in this debate is intellectually bankrupt, and nothing more is to be gained by continuing. I encourage you to go away from this and form your own opinions on the data presnted, instead of listening to Politicians.
Pleasure speaking to you, good afternoon.
@BearInATopHat, I didn't say "wrong", I said "in question", by the way. Science is nothing without epistemology. You can't just make assumptions based on what you're told.
@Doctor Krieger, personal attacks, that’s step 2 in the how do I get out of this losing argument playbook. You argue that the data is corrupt due to the influence of money, I guess there’s no money on the opposing side of this then...
@BearInATopHat, my arguments are logical ones. Don't start this "no you" bullshìt with me. Don't pretend like I'm not the one providing evidence either, I pointed out the fallacies and explained them. In a logical argument, that IS the evidence of a faulty argument.
@A Blunt Object, I argue that the data is in question. You're blatantly being dishonest now.
@A Blunt Object, there's no point, my brother in arms. This is one argument that cannot be settled like gentlemen, opinions are being spouted as fact, and ignorance has won this day. Do as I intend, and fly off majestically into the sunset, knowing you tried.
@Doctor Krieger, *cough* sophist *cough cough*
@BearInATopHat, is that all you have to say? That arguing with logic is sophistry? Do you even know what sophistry is?
@BearInATopHat, buzzwords. Fücking buzzword soup. You've not considered anything I've said, you just came to act like you won an argument and insult me. Complete and utter intellectual hackery.
@Doctor Krieger, sophist, noun; a person who reasons with clever but false arguments. I have a dictionary too you know. Using fancy words doesn't make you smart, sir. I'm done here, say what you like, you shall not get a response from me. ✌🏼
@Doctor Krieger, “the incentive lies in making the issue of anthropogenic climate change seem as extreme as possible. That’s how you get continued funding”. You brought the money into this, you forgot your own words, and then you call me dishonest. Sound argument my friend, but don’t worry people will continue to work to make this place better with or without you. Cheers and a Happy 4th to all!
@BearInATopHat, "using fancy words doesn't make you smart"? Is that your argument now?
By the way, to expand on that Google definition, sophistry is a school of debate originated in Ancient Greece that focused on winning arguments through rhetoric, not logic. It's tied inherently to logical fallacies, such as Blunt's begging the question, as they are the main means by which logic is bypassed.
@A Blunt Object, happy 4th of july!
@Doctor Krieger, PSA for today. Facts have this weird thing were no matter how much you argue you’ll still be wrong. I can believe the earth is flat, but it’s a fact that it’s round, and all I’m doing by perpetuating the lie is to sow ignorance and confusion. That’s not good for anyone, but hey if your life’s mission is to keep people in the dark that’s your business. Enjoy your holiday.
@Doctor Krieger, I dont really have an opinion on this, i like to stay away from arguments on funny pics.
But Doctor Krieger slaughtered Bearinatophat and A Blunt Object lmao
@Foreskin Ripper, I appreciate that another person appreciates the importance of epistemology. It makes me a lot less salty about this irksome exchange. Thank you.
@A Blunt Object, here's a really mindfücky thing that I want you to consider:
How do you know that the Earth is round? The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that it's roughly spherical (more of a weird blob, really), but by what means can you establish absolute certainty? Citing authority is fallacious. Authority can be wrong or dishonest. Even human perception is uncertain. By what can you assert absolute certainty, also known as "fact"?
Epistemology, the theory and study of knowledge, ultimately seeks to answer this question for anything we declare to "know".
We're not even talking about as complex metaphysical ideas as human perception being potentially flawed when we address the basis of your argument. Your argument fails the scrutiny of epistemological rigor on one of the most basic levels through the assumption that assertion is truth.
@Doctor Krieger, and you can be even more so seeing that you fail to back any of your claims with anything other than more of the same tired arguments. If you believe nothing is real then nothing is real to your perception. Seems like a sad existence, you have my pity...
@Doctor Krieger, The difficulty with that position is that it applies to anything, yet we need to actually do things instead of sitting around in first year intro to philosophy courses. We know the earth is round because it has been observed to be round, every test has been passed, and there is no evidence or valid argument to the contrary. We don't appeal to authority because there's no need.
Epistemology does not seek to answer any questions about anything we declare to know, it attempts to form a theory of knowledge in general. No serious philosopher or scientist questions specific propositions on epidemiological grounds because that's not what epistemology is for.
If you went to a scientific conference and started raising epistemological concerns, you would be laughed out of the room by every single person there, regardless of their views on any particular topic.
Epistemology is just the tripartite test. That's it. It isn't trippy or deep.
@A Blunt Object, just going to point out that your "fear of money" argument is a bit naive itself. Were not talking about chump change, to do anything that would have any impact would take a massive amount of money. That directly impacts people now, and would have a very negative effect.
And scientists have been wrong before. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then when all the apocalyptic warnings didnt happen it was called climate change
@Doctor Krieger, you know what else is a fallacy? Saying that because science has been wrong a few times we can't ever trust it again
@Oujosh29, this entire debate feels like Mac’s anti-evolution stance in It’s Always Sunny. “Science is wrong... SOMETIMES!”
@Blue Shirted Guy, hey, your back! Haven't seen you in forever. Happy 4th.
Yeah, the anti climate change side is grounded in not believing the science community. That's not completely baseless, science has changed. My main thing is how people want to try to fix it. Be a massive drain on our economy and lots of that money would go to foreign countries.
@Doctor Krieger, I feel its disingenuous of you to point out logical fallacies, and ask for the burden of proof to fall onto your opposer’s shoulder’s when you use them too. I’ve seen at least three comments in this thread give you solid evidence of how we took the notion of “miasmic theory of disease,” evolved it, and used it to help combat disease in hospitals, all the way from creating better, sterile equipment, to optimizing the entire architecture of the hospital building itself. You brushed all of that off. You claim that those who disagree with you are using “buzzwords,” to get their point across, but so far I’ve seen you do that very thing entirely. You just say that’s *insert fallacy here*” (while you go on with a fallacy of your own mind you, quite ironic). It’s disheartening, to say the least to watch you present an argument. Anytime someone tries to refute you, you claim you’re just being “logical,” as if you cannot be wrong for you believe yourself to be logical.
@Doctor Krieger, throughout your discussions you've repeatedly committed the fallacy fallacy. Simply pointing out that someone has committed a fallacy does not necessarily prove their claims to be incorrect. An appeal to authority in most debates between regular people is almost inevitable. By your standards nobody outside the realm of researchers would be able to argue. And also by your previous claims, if the researchers are in fact arguing, some hidden motive may lie with the majority. Occam's razor slices through the previous claim and completely undermines your question of "How do you know the Earth is round?" Skepticism is good and useful, but skepticism purely for skepticism's sake will only lead you down rabbit holes.
@Oujosh29, happy 4th to you and your family as well! I’ve just been swamped lately, but the holiday gave me some time to dive deeper into the comment section, haha. Also decided to stay out of the political stuff.
I see where you’re coming from. I just think that science changing or findings being further researched and proven false has become an excuse to disregard any near-scientific consensus that someone disagrees with for political reasons, such as climate change
I don't think climate change can be disputed. It has always been changing, it's the silly notion we are causing it. Scientistific consenscious used to be lead gas was perfectly safe. There used to be quite a few silly scientific notions. Most of this climate change nonsense is 100% about money like the absurd Paris Accord where rich counties pay the poor countries for promises and zero accountability if they just take the money and don't follow through. If they changed the word climate change to destruction of our environment then I wouldnt roll my eyes every time someone says we are causing climate change. We are absolutely destroying our environment and these greener technologies and solutions should be for improving the environment we live in not to try and stop something we have never had any power over.
@Donald Drumpf, to be fair, we should never fully trust anything, including science. Questioning everything is one of the best ways to get to the real truth. If we just accept everything “science” tells us (in quotes referring to science as its collective of scientists) then we do ourselves a disservice. Disclosure though, I know climate change is real (and has been for millennia), but I’m not sold on just how much of it is affected by humans in the here and now.
@Doctor Krieger, Look at it this way - all the stuff causing/blamed for climate change is also regarded as being bad for humans to breathe in. So even if climate change turned out to be non-existent, reducing the amount of crud we’re inhaling has got to be a good thing.
@Doctor Krieger, let's not do anything to help the earth and let it burn. Yay...
@tmo0792, you are part of the problem along with the 7 who upvoted you
@Foreskin Ripper, you're right. I feel absolutely "slaughtered". I was up all night crying because some guy spouted his opinion like fact, then some other guy did the exact same thing as the first guy in an effort to support him. It doesn't matter that the majority thinks, your words have really hurt me.
(JUST in case its over your head -which wouldn't surprise me- I've implemented a hint of sarcasm somewhere in my response, see if you can find where 😘)
@Doctor Krieger, But most theories in physics are considered to be true until they stop working. Once the theory has been proven to be flawed someone comes up with a new one based on what they know is true. Without theories and guess work humans wouldn't have ever advanced. You are completely right when you say you shouldn't believe something just because the majority believe it, but climate change IS happening there is enough evidence of that. The thing that's being debated is the cause. They know that in a controlled environment CO2 has an insulating effect on an atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels causes CO2 and other gases with a similar effect to be mixed into the atmosphere. The scientists are just connecting the dots based on what they know, but they could be wrong. if you think it's wrong it's not enough to just say "it's wrong" you have to give a reason and a better theory.
@eleven, what problem? Keep worrying about something that doesn't matter all your life and it will get you nothing. If "climate change" has been around for 1000 years then obviously it hasn't mattered to much.
@eleven, as a matter of fact the last time a heat record was broken in the state I live in (VA) was July 15th 1954.. so yeah sure "global warming" is a thing...I guess it's only a thing every 70 years
@tmo0792, don’t breed
@tmo0792, There is an important distinction to be made between weather and climate when discussing climate change, temperature records are a matter of weather which is a short term state of the atmosphere in an area, while climate deals with long term averages, so while temp records may not be broken, the average annual temperature can still trend upwards, which is what climate change deals with as it's all about long term environmental impact
@Robenstein, but the averages are still lower yearly than they have been in the last 80 years. If there was a significant problem it would be more like extreme differences throughout the year. January would have significantly higher or lower temps than normal like being -5 degrees when its normally 30 here on average and July being 130 when its normally 90 on average or something like 40 in July and 90 in January. The thing is though, the averages are no different than they were all that time ago.
@eleven, nice reply. I already have a nice kid and wife. Theres more to life than trolling and arguing with people on an app about stupid sh**. Good day to you sir
@Doctor Krieger, because something that happened more than 140 years ago when technology and even communication was extremely lacking is very relevant, right? Seriously, why are you even bringing up such an obviously irrelevant argument? They were even onto something, the germ theory of disease.
Your argument is similar to comparing ancient, home-made medicine with modern medication that is proven to work... because it was far from always effective back then, maybe modern medication is just bullsh*t as well, despite being proven in so many ways.
Well, won’t waste my time caring more about this crap. Your comments are hilarious, do you perhaps think you’re downvoted for no reason? Open your eyes, fool. You don’t even know what the words you use mean, like ”fallacious”. Perhaps you believe it makes you sound cool and learned? It really doesn’t when you’re not using them properly...
@Doctor Krieger, hahaha, yeah, keep on entertaining me, monkey. To think you actually believe your arguments are good and proper. You failed at that in your very first comment about the miasma theory, not to mention later on... for someone to point at other people and scream ”fallacy” and then provide arguments that couldn’t be more obviously fallacious... it’s just comedy gold.
@Doctor Krieger, actually, do YOU know what sophistry is? Well, obviously you won’t see it like sophistry since you believe everything you say are facts.
@Doctor Krieger, winning by rhetoric instead of logic pretty much means that you win by using a clever tongue rather than truth, it’s all about being a smooth speaker. But you’re not a clever or smooth speaker, so you don’t really fit into this category. Hahaha.
@Donald Drumpf, it’s amusing how he brought up ”science” from when the world was barely connected and there was no real ”science” to be had, nothing like our modern age where we can actually test these things. And they were even onto the theory of germs, so they weren’t truly wrong, they just couldn’t determine exactly what it was.
@Doctor Krieger, Then what is your interpretation of the data presented?
@BearInATopHat, doesn't matter how I interpret it if the data is in question to begin with. Any conclusion I come to wouldn't be epistemologically sound.
@Doctor Krieger, we are in an extinction event