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.
You know what this all comes down to? I mean REALLY comes down to?
I think it comes down to a few simple questions.
1. Do we need clean air?
2. Do we need clean water?
3. Do we need as clean as possible land to exist on?
4. Are we responsible for pollution outside our borders?
5. Do we control what other nations do or don't do?
If the answer to the first 3 questions are yes then as a nation we should do our best to cease polluting them as best as we can and clean up what messes we made in our ignorance and lack of caring in years past while also keeping in mind that people have to live,work and companies have to survive to provide jobs so people can do the above.
Should we phase out fossil fuels? Certainly, as soon as feasibly possible because they are unhealthy. Science,innovation and yes, greedy corporations are what will bring about the change off fossil fuels not by scaring people, claiming the sky is falling or taxing the populace to death.
I am sorry my friend. that just isn't true in climate science. they don't slip thru cracks. they affirm the preconceived end.
IF that is the case, and IF it is spread through that ENTIRE field, it won't last forever, because eventually reality will clash with the research and it will have to be revised. These kinds of things just take some time to shake out.
You know what this all comes down to? I mean REALLY comes down to?
I think it comes down to a few simple questions.
1. Do we need clean air?
2. Do we need clean water?
3. Do we need as clean as possible land to exist on?
4. Are we responsible for pollution outside our borders?
5. Do we control what other nations do or don't do?
If the answer to the first 3 questions are yes then as a nation we should do our best to cease polluting them as best as we can and clean up what messes we made in our ignorance and lack of caring in years past while also keeping in mind that people have to live,work and companies have to survive to provide jobs so people can do the above.
Should we phase out fossil fuels? Certainly, as soon as feasibly possible because they are unhealthy. Science,innovation and yes, greedy corporations are what will bring about the change off fossil fuels not by scaring people, claiming the sky is falling or taxing the populace to death.
I agree with this, it has never been my position to phase out fossil fuels without a viable economic alternative in place. I believe research into such alternatives is money well spent for a variety of reasons, only a few of them scientific. But I am not going to just blanket deny an entire field just because I don't like the political conclusions non scientists come up with for it, or because I don't like the politics of many people in that field. I am able to make a distinction between the idea that something is happening and the political conclusions of primarily laymen on what we should actually do about it.
I also recognize that a layperson and a scientist can look at the same data and come to vastly different conclusions. For example, IIRC it is estimated that we contribute 4% of the yearly CO2 ouput of the Earth ecosystem.
A non scientist looks at that number and might say: "4%? That is barely anything, told you we have nothing to do with climate change"
Whereas a scientist may look at that number and say: "You mean out of an ecosystem with millions upon millions of species, one single species is contributing 4% of the entire system output? That is massive!"
I agree with this, it has never been my position to phase out fossil fuels without a viable economic alternative in place. I believe research into such alternatives is money well spent for a variety of reasons, only a few of them scientific. But I am not going to just blanket deny an entire field just because I don't like the political conclusions non scientists come up with for it, or because I don't like the politics of many people in that field. I am able to make a distinction between the idea that something is happening and the political conclusions of primarily laymen on what we should actually do about it.
I also recognize that a layperson and a scientist can look at the same data and come to vastly different conclusions. For example, IIRC it is estimated that we contribute 4% of the yearly CO2 ouput of the Earth ecosystem.
A non scientist looks at that number and might say: "4%? That is barely anything, told you we have nothing to do with climate change"
Whereas a scientist may look at that number and say: "You mean out of an ecosystem with millions upon millions of species, one single species is contributing 4% of the entire system output? That is massive!"
It would seem to me that a smart President might either create an agency (the least preferable as it expands govt) or task an agency full of innovators/scientists like NASA to focus solely on replacing fossil fuels either by creating a new department or re-tasking an old one that's to be phased out AND in collaboration with the private sector where possible. This group would need to be transparent to the public, not hidden behind closed doors and super secret as these inventions affect the whole world and we have a right to see where our money is being spent AND hold those who spend it accountable.
When such fuels are perfected we should allow other nations to purchase the rights to use them by paying a portion of our development costs. The collaborating businesses would get license to monetize them for products sold to the public/transportation industry. The companies that collaborate would be paid on a non-profit basis while developing. In other words people like Elon Musk would NOT get rich or profit just off R/D grants alone. Their reward would come at the end.
What specifically is wrong with Wikkipedia's take?
Or are you just going to use the ad hominem fallacy to criticize the linked descriptions of other fallacies? Too funny!
What I find funny is how you are touting the benefits of peer review and robust science but then cite a source that literally anyone can edit at will and has a very poor reputation in academic circles.
It would seem to me that a smart President might either create an agency (the least preferable as it expands govt) or task an agency full of innovators/scientists like NASA to focus solely on replacing fossil fuels either by creating a new department or re-tasking an old one that's to be phased out AND in collaboration with the private sector where possible. This group would need to be transparent to the public, not hidden behind closed doors and super secret as these inventions affect the whole world.
When such fuels are perfected we should allow other nations to purchase the rights to use them by paying a portion of our development costs. The collaborating businesses would get license to monetize them for products sold to the public/transportation industry. The companies that collaborate would be paid on a non-profit basis while developing. In other words people like Elon Musk would NOT get rich or profit just off R/D grants alone. Their reward would come at the end.
I like it. The first country to come up with a truly viable solution will make $$$$$$$$ and also be in a more secure position that does not depend on the whims of the oil market. It would be worth it to just be able to put up a big middle finger to the middle east as well. I would say it would be significant enough to be the makings of the next generation of world superpowers.
What I find funny is how you are touting the benefits of peer review and robust science but then cite a source that literally anyone can edit at will and has a very poor reputation in academic circles.
This is not an academic debate forum, nor am I trying to write an academic paper.
I will take your deflection as a "No, I can't find anything wrong with their description, I just laughably wanted to attempt to use an ad-hominem to discredit the description of OTHER logical fallacies."
Here's an analogy to put this report, in the OP in perspective..
Imagine your doctor has FOR YEARS been telling you that you are facing an serious medical crisis. You dutifully follow his advice and then one day it's discovered that his data was "overstated" by quite alot and it's nearly impossible that the medical outcome he warned you of would come to pass.
Meanwhile he continues making more alarmist predictions, there is no evidence that any steps or checks were put into place to prevent such errors from occurring again in the future.
Do you continue seeing him? Do you continue to heed his advice? Wouldn't you demand some assurances that steps were put into place so that this does not happen again?
It's illustrative to put this in real world perspective sometimes! I know that I would lose my job over such errors or at the very least would have to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt how this would never happen again.
I don't see any parallels with the scientific community. It's more like "Move along! Nothing to see here!"
I like it. The first country to come up with a truly viable solution will make $$$$$$$$ and also be in a more secure position that does not depend on the whims of the oil market. It would be worth it to just be able to put up a big middle finger to the middle east as well. I would say it would be significant enough to be the makings of the next generation of world superpowers.
We could actually become independent of the world oil market with what we know and have now. LNG is plentiful,clean burning and would make a decent stepping stone to something developed later on. One has to wonder what the "real" hitch is in bringing it fully to market...
This is not an academic debate forum, nor am I trying to write an academic paper.
I will take your deflection as a "No, I can't find anything wrong with their description, I just laughably wanted to attempt to use an ad-hominem to discredit the description of OTHER logical fallacies."
Now that I find funny!
You can take it however you like but you are still wrong.
People say "97% consensus" as a way of bullying people with opposing viewpoints into submission.
"Gee 97% is such a BIG number...if THAT many people think X, then X must be true!!"
That is exactly how it is used nearly every time it's used. I might add it's an appeal to authority as well, another logical fallacy.
"Well scientists said so, so it MUST be true, they study this stuff for a living"
Well gee! They are also susceptible to politics, ego, dogma and self preservation like anyone else.
As I said, Billions of dollars yearly in research funding all predicated on alarmist outcomes is not a recipe for good science.
The only reason the 97% number is thrown around is to shut people up. It's an excuse to avoid debate.
You can cherry pick your definitions from site that allows anyone to edit and has a lousy reputation for that very reason but the fact remains. The 97% argument is a logical fallacy and used as a bullying tactic to intimidate opposing points of view into silence.
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.
