Page 3 of 7

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:39 am
by SageBrush
powersurge wrote: Isn't it amazing ...
Your post is a series of straw men and logical fallacy.

No rebuttal needed.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:34 am
by powersurge
SageBrush wrote:
powersurge wrote: Isn't it amazing ...
Your post is a series of straw men and logical fallacy.

No rebuttal needed.
I appreciate that you responded and tallied your difference of opinion to my post.

However, whenever there are challenges to the "climate change" ideology, I never hear facts included to the rebuttal... The truth is that no one actually knows anyone who is dying or having a life-changing event as a result of too much carbon in the air.

The best that anyone who believes in climate change can do is "believe" that the scientists they hear about (indirectly) are correct. Another term for "believing" in something they cannot prove is called "trust"... Or should I say.... FAITH.... Which is the term for a religion. I have my religion, I do not need carbon emissions to be an additional religion.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:18 am
by WetEV
powersurge wrote:The truth is that no one actually knows anyone who is dying or having a life-changing event as a result of too much carbon in the air.
Don't know anyone that lived in Paradise, eh?

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:34 pm
by roussir
powersurge wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
powersurge wrote: Isn't it amazing ...
Your post is a series of straw men and logical fallacy.

No rebuttal needed.
I appreciate that you responded and tallied your difference of opinion to my post.

However, whenever there are challenges to the "climate change" ideology, I never hear facts included to the rebuttal... The truth is that no one actually knows anyone who is dying or having a life-changing event as a result of too much carbon in the air.

The best that anyone who believes in climate change can do is "believe" that the scientists they hear about (indirectly) are correct. Another term for "believing" in something they cannot prove is called "trust"... Or should I say.... FAITH.... Which is the term for a religion. I have my religion, I do not need carbon emissions to be an additional religion.
It is a huge sleight of the hand, from trust to faith. I trust scientists, because they have verifiable evidence, repeatable results and self-correcting mechanism. Faith has nothing; you have nothing, besides rhetoric. Based on this faulty logic, you we take it on faith that the planet is round. This is an indication of a substantial gap in one's education.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:22 pm
by SageBrush
roussir wrote: It is a huge sleight of the hand, from trust to faith. I trust scientists, because they have verifiable evidence, repeatable results and self-correcting mechanism. Faith has nothing; you have nothing, besides rhetoric. Based on this faulty logic, you we take it on faith that the planet is round. This is an indication of a substantial gap in one's education.
Well said !

Since no one wants to discuss the OP I'll go off on a tangent and mention that not too long ago I asked myself and then my wife if either of us could reasonably prove to ourselves that the Earth is round (other than staring at photographs ;) )
Common sense and simple reasoning tells us that it is so but any attempt at rigor is not that easy. I realized that an overwhelming fraction of what we take as correct and true for the natural world has been fed to us as facts that we do not question and cannot prove. So what is a student of science and the scientific method to do ?

Well, I realized that we are recipients of what I think of as a chain of custody of science. A few really smart people figure things out and those ideas are vetted by a few other really smart people and the passage of time. These ideas slowly trickle down the pyramid until they reach us. So while we cannot vett them ourselves, we rely on rigorous observation, x-checks, application and the analysis of others who apply the scientific method.

As you say, it is not faith; but it is trust in a very tried and successful mechanism.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:00 pm
by GRA
SageBrush wrote:
roussir wrote: It is a huge sleight of the hand, from trust to faith. I trust scientists, because they have verifiable evidence, repeatable results and self-correcting mechanism. Faith has nothing; you have nothing, besides rhetoric. Based on this faulty logic, you we take it on faith that the planet is round. This is an indication of a substantial gap in one's education.
Well said !

Since no one wants to discuss the OP I'll go off on a tangent and mention that not too long ago I asked myself and then my wife if either of us could reasonably prove to ourselves that the Earth is round (other than staring at photographs ;) )

Common sense and simple reasoning tells us that it is so but any attempt at rigor is not that easy. I realized that an overwhelming fraction of what we take as correct and true for the natural world has been fed to us as facts that we do not question and cannot prove. So what is a student of science and the scientific method to do ?
It helps to live near an ocean. :D

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:42 pm
by Nubo
SageBrush wrote:...not too long ago I asked myself and then my wife if either of us could reasonably prove to ourselves that the Earth is round (other than staring at photographs ;) )
Common sense and simple reasoning tells us that it is so but any attempt at rigor is not that easy. I realized that an overwhelming fraction of what we take as correct and true for the natural world has been fed to us as facts that we do not question and cannot prove. So what is a student of science and the scientific method to do ?
Go 50 miles east and she goes 50 miles west. You both drive a measured stake into the ground, plumb, so that you have exactly 1 yard long above the ground. You both measure the shadow cast at the same time (length and direction). Wait an hour and repeat. Try it again but orient yourselves on a north-south line. The more data points you collect the clearer it will become that you're living on a ball. You can even calculate a reasonable diameter for that ball.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:08 pm
by SageBrush
powersurge wrote: I appreciate that you responded and tallied your difference of opinion to my post.
You misunderstand.

Your post is a pile of logic fallacies.

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:16 pm
by SageBrush
Nubo wrote: Go 50 miles east and she goes 50 miles west. You both drive a measured stake into the ground, plumb, so that you have exactly 1 yard long above the ground. You both measure the shadow cast at the same time (length and direction). Wait an hour and repeat. Try it again but orient yourselves on a north-south line. The more data points you collect the clearer it will become that you're living on a ball. You can even calculate a reasonable diameter for that ball.
You are starting with some assumptions about the sun, namely that it stays in the same place and that it far enough way to shine parallel light on to the earth.

A test with 3 people is a better argument, but how many people can come up with that on their own ?

Re: (Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:36 pm
by Nubo
SageBrush wrote:
Nubo wrote: Go 50 miles east and she goes 50 miles west. You both drive a measured stake into the ground, plumb, so that you have exactly 1 yard long above the ground. You both measure the shadow cast at the same time (length and direction). Wait an hour and repeat. Try it again but orient yourselves on a north-south line. The more data points you collect the clearer it will become that you're living on a ball. You can even calculate a reasonable diameter for that ball.
You are starting with some assumptions about the sun, namely that it stays in the same place and that it far enough way to shine parallel light on to the earth.
Most people have seen evidence of this.
Image
A test with 3 people is a better argument, but how many people can come up with that on their own ?
The Greeks did, thousands of years ago.