Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The appalling ignorance of the rightwing denialist camp on threads like this does not inspire hope. The Dumbing Down of America is deliberate, calculated, and targeted for reasons such as "plausible deniability", even though disputing obvious science and consensus on the research behind it is not plausible to thinking people.
Deliberately muddying the waters by dismissing 97% of actual climate science only works on stupid people, and those behind it, a consortium of business types, many in the fossil fuel industry, the most lucrative industry on earth, who make trillions every year through polluting the planet, are laughing all the way to the bank.
Keep 'em stupid and make them believe Al Gore and the Democrats are behind it in an attempt to take money from them. Better yet, tell them that a bunch of emails were fabricated and that it is all part of one giant, global conspiracy, thereby appealing to both their paranoia and ignorance at the same time.
As long as they remain in the bubble, they can be convinced their eyes are lying.
With overwhelming evidence that both happened/are happening, one in Europe during WWII and the other ongoing, how is it that people can deny the existence of either? Surely there are equal parts ignorance at work, but isn't ideology the key component at work here, making the denial of both essentially dependent on the indoctrination of both groups of non-believers?
Even though the topics share little in the way of similarity, the groups who refuse to acknowledge reality and remain resolute in the face of the evidence surely share a mindset that allows this denial fertile grounds to grow and be carefully cultivated by various propaganda organs, be it far rightwing extremist websites/publications, or FOX News.
Your entire post is committing the begging the question logical fallacy by simply discounting that there is any evidence that human cause climate change is adversely affecting anything. You cannot simply assume that as a given without being intellectually dishonest. Shouting down climate change deniers or arbitrary declarations that climate change is settled science does not prove the anti climate change arguments are wrong.
Also, a significant point is that not only do the topics share little in the way of similarity but the ramifications share little in the way of similarity. Supporting the idea that the holocaust happened does not usually lead to violating peoples' rights (at least in this country). The same cannot be said of climate change. Those who support the idea of climate change almost invariably go on to advocate restrictive new legislation that would radically curtail economic activity and personal freedoms. It goes far far beyond simply discussing whether a particular event in history happened or not.
Your entire post is committing the begging the question logical fallacy by simply discounting that there is any evidence that human cause climate change is adversely affecting anything. You cannot simply assume that as a given without being intellectually dishonest. Shouting down climate change deniers or arbitrary declarations that climate change is settled science does not prove the anti climate change arguments are wrong.
I've not read any convincing arguments that counter the volumes of scientific research available from climate scientists. Do you know why? Because there isn't any. The science is largely settled, you can quibble as to the degree, or even the severity, but the science is not really in dispute, except for the denialist camp, who for various reasons continue to shriek that the earth is flat.
To think that human caused climate change is possibly not having any adverse effect would be tantamount to saying the Holocaust was just one big misunderstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Also, a significant point is that not only do the topics share little in the way of similarity but the ramifications share little in the way of similarity. Supporting the idea that the holocaust happened does not usually lead to violating peoples' rights (at least in this country). The same cannot be said of climate change. Those who support the idea of climate change almost invariably go on to advocate restrictive new legislation that would radically curtail economic activity and personal freedoms. It goes far far beyond simply discussing whether a particular event in history happened or not.
So now your argument (and many in your camp) is one of "economic freedom". Okay, fine, you can have that position. But it will not, and it cannot, dispute the science of climate change, which is not in dispute amongst thinking people. You are merely outlining your reason (higher costs, less freedom to pollute, etc.) why you won't support any actions to curtail trashing the planet, which really is far more indicative of why people say they don't believe in science: They are selfish, consumptive, and only care about themselves.
I've not read any convincing arguments that counter the volumes of scientific research available from climate scientists. Do you know why? Because there isn't any. The science is largely settled, you can quibble as to the degree, or even the severity, but the science is not really in dispute, except for the denialist camp, who for various reasons continue to shriek that the earth is flat.
To think that human caused climate change is possibly not having any adverse effect would be tantamount to saying the Holocaust was just one big misunderstanding.
So now your argument (and many in your camp) is one of "economic freedom". Okay, fine, you can have that position. But it will not, and it cannot, dispute the science of climate change, which is not in dispute amongst thinking people. You are merely outlining your reason (higher costs, less freedom to pollute, etc.) why you won't support any actions to curtail trashing the planet, which really is far more indicative of why people say they don't believe in science: They are selfish, consumptive, and only care about themselves.
Fair enough.
I'm not disputing climate change odanny. I'm disputing your comparison. Your question was not "Is climate change happening?" your question was "Are climate change deniers the equivalent of Holocaust deniers"?
I'm not saying whether climate change is happening or not happening. I'm just saying no the deniers are not equivalent.
....... Those who support the idea of climate change almost invariably go on to advocate restrictive new legislation that would radically curtail economic activity and personal freedoms. It goes far far beyond simply discussing whether a particular event in history happened or not.
Actually ignoring climate change and its ramifications is what will cause untold economic damage --- look at the billions that Sandy will cost the U.S.
When confronted with arguments about climate change, my standard response is to answer with the following:
"Is it more likely that the highly calibrated equipment used by extremely well-educated scientists and engineers around the world has led them down the wrong path; that they have made every calculation in error, that every hypothesis which has netted fruitful results was interpreted incorrectly, and that in order to save face (or for other nefarious purposes) they have intentionally lied about virtually every one of their findings? Or is it more likely that the few dissenting scientists (and those not really in the know - politicians, fellow forum members, etc...) have not only garnered some grand insight into all of the mistakes and errors by 97-98% of the worlds' climatologists, but have tapped into a vast conspiracy network which will ultimately bring down the face of science and its' methodologies, and will thereby debunk the roughly 26,000 papers this "conspiracy network" has posited in favor of the reality of climate change?"
It could be possible that everything the overwhelming majority of the scientific community knows about climate change is factually incorrect and that climatologists the world over have made grievous mistakes, countless errors, and they are working together to cover all that up. But, I find that scenario far less likely than the concept that someone on this forum, some politician, and some select few dissenting scientists (who may or may not be climatologists) happen to know better, have had the ability to perform a meta-analysis on all the data, and can make a solid case with their own empirically reviewed works to usurp virtually the entire scientific community.
Admittedly, I wish I knew more about the science of climate change but I just seem to find it so droll and boring. Because of that, if pressed for an answer, I'm going to have to side with modern test equipment, the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community, and the exhaustive research done on the topic. Who knows? I could be misplacing my trust entirely but I think most logical people would consider my error on the safe side of things.
When confronted with arguments about climate change, my standard response is to answer with the following:
"Is it more likely that the highly calibrated equipment used by extremely well-educated scientists and engineers around the world has led them down the wrong path; that they have made every calculation in error, that every hypothesis which has netted fruitful results was interpreted incorrectly, and that in order to save face (or for other nefarious purposes) they have intentionally lied about virtually every one of their findings? Or is it more likely that the few dissenting scientists (and those not really in the know - politicians, fellow forum members, etc...) have not only garnered some grand insight into all of the mistakes and errors by 97-98% of the worlds' climatologists, but have tapped into a vast conspiracy network which will ultimately bring down the face of science and its' methodologies, and will thereby debunk the roughly 26,000 papers this "conspiracy network" has posited in favor of the reality of climate change?"
It could be possible that everything the overwhelming majority of the scientific community knows about climate change is factually incorrect and that climatologists the world over have made grievous mistakes, countless errors, and they are working together to cover all that up. But, I find that scenario far less likely than the concept that the someone on this forum, some politician, and some select few dissenting scientists (who may or may not be climatologists) happen to know better, have had the ability to perform a meta-analysis on all the data, and can make a solid case with their own empirically reviewed works to usurp virtually the entire scientific community.
Admittedly, I wish I knew more about the science of climate change but I just seem to find it so droll and boring. Because of that, if pressed for an answer, I'm going to have to side with modern test equipment, the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community, and the exhaustive research done on the topic. Who knows? I could be misplacing my trust entirely but I think most logical people would consider my error on the safe side of things.
Been there, tried that.
The most common responses I get from flat earthers are
"The scientists are either socialists or have been bought off by socialists, Breitbart.com/Fox News/Limbaugh/Beck, told me so"
or
"The earth is changing because of God's will (the rapture)"
I'm not joking either
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
