Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[its free real estate]

That doesn't sound at all like a scientific approach, that sounds like a religious and/or dogmatic approach.

'We have to trust the experts' is an obvious and overt appeal to authority.

This is antithetical to the scientific method.

It becomes more clear with every passing year that 'science' as parroted by the masses is very different to the scientific method.

What is the scientific method, according to you?

 

[Roylion]

That doesn't sound at all like a scientific approach, that sounds like a religious and/or dogmatic approach.

Rubbish.

Dogmatic: "inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true."

No scientist claims a position or principle is "undeniably true". Everything is science is falsifiable. Religious dogma is neither tested or falsifiable.

There are, of course, examples of when the scientific consensus proved to be wrong. In fact, this happens all the time – whenever evidence points in one direct but later new evidence reveals a different answer or (more likely) reveals a deeper reality. It is the nature of science that is constantly changes in response to new evidence, and so the consensus of opinion is a moving target.

'We have to trust the experts' is an obvious and overt appeal to authority.

It's about what the majority of experts in their respective scientific fields have concluded about a scientific question / phenomenon via the scientific method based on the available collected data / evidence to date. Empirical observations can be made at the "Do Background Research" or "Test with an experiment'.

As below.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

No scientist claims a position or principle is "undeniably true". Everything is science is falsifiable. Religious dogma is neither tested or falsifiable.

I'm not talking about the scientists, I'm talking about the believers, who have done no science whatsoever, but preach the gospel of AGW to others, due to their own faith in the scientists.

And of course the scientists are doing a job. Somebody has to pay them. And lo and behold, they are paid by the same governments who use the AGW boogeyman to justify yet more taxes.

But there's no way the scientists' opinions are affected by who pays them. No way. Scientists are holy, like clergy, know what I mean?

[Go on, resort to the 'consensus' argument and/ or the 'peer review' argument, which is no different in its fallacious nature to a Catholic pointing out that every clergyman from the seminary preaches the same story about Jesus]

 

[its free real estate]

And of course the scientists are doing a job. Somebody has to pay them. And lo and behold, they are paid by the same governments who use the AGW boogeyman to justify yet more taxes.

Pretty brain dead conspiracy this one.

You haven’t answered my question, what is the scientific method?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Pretty brain dead conspiracy this one.

People do as their paymasters tell them is a 'conspiracy theory' now?

What la-la land are you living in?

 

[its free real estate]

People do as their paymasters tell them is a 'conspiracy theory' now?

Yes.

If the government (sorry, ‘paymasters’) wanted to raise taxes, they’d just raise taxes.

What is the scientific method to you?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

If the government (sorry, ‘paymasters’) wanted to raise taxes, they’d just raise taxes.

You don't think they would come up with excuses for it?

Perhaps you never heard of the alcopops tax.

 

[its free real estate]

You don't think they would come up with excuses for it?

Perhaps you never heard of the alcopops tax.

What about the alcopops tax? It was a single tax levied on lolly water about 10 years ago, right? I suppose tobacco taxes count too - is the science behind the harms of cigarette smoking also unscientific?

For someone who goes on about the scientific method (what is that again?) you certainly don’t provide anything substantive.

 

[AM]

So the climate deniers say China is doing next to nothing.



But we are.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

What about the alcopops tax? It was a single tax levied on lolly water about 10 years ago, right?

Why did the government need to pretend they cared about teenage drinking (or that this tax would change drinking) if they can just pass taxes without excuses?

You feeble argument has been torpedoed and you know it.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

So the climate deniers say China is doing next to nothing.

Source: Greenpeace. Lol.

 

[Roylion]

I'm not talking about the scientists, I'm talking about the believers, who have done no science whatsoever, but preach the gospel of AGW to others, due to their own faith in the scientists.

Is this surprising? If they have "done no science" why wouldn't they take the experts word for it? Especially if there is a consensus from the experts. Upon what basis would they doubt what the experts have concluded?

And of course the scientists are doing a job. Somebody has to pay them. And lo and behold, they are paid by the same governments who use the AGW boogeyman to justify yet more taxes.

Please. A conspiracy? Are you alleging that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons? That the strong consensus that exists among scientists from a multitude of political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and cause of climate change is nothing more than a massive conspiracy? Virtually the entire scientific community is working to suppress the truth?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Is this surprising? If they have "done no science" why wouldn't they take the experts word for it? Especially if there is a consensus from the experts. Upon what basis would they doubt what the experts have concluded?

Of course they would. Just like any faith-based believers.

The christians have their clergy, the 'atheists' have their 'scientists', and both groups (like myriad others) merely parrot the mantras they are given by their authorities.

Not that I can judge. I used to parrot all of the mantras of 'Science'. Until I started looking into the evidence for myself.

 

[its free real estate]

Why did the government need to pretend they cared about teenage drinking (or that this tax would change drinking) if they can just pass taxes without excuses?

Because Rudd was a nanny statist and it was a half arsed attempt at a Pigovian tax.

Tell me, do you believe the science behind cigarette smoking being harmful or not?


Do you believe the statistics behind speeding and road collisions?

You feeble argument has been torpedoed and you know it.

You have a very high opinion of your own arguments.

 

[Roylion]

Of course they would. Just like any faith-based believers.

Luckily science itself is not based on faith. Unlike religion.

The christians have their clergy, the 'atheists' have their 'scientists', and both groups (like myriad others) merely parrot the mantras they are given by their authorities.

Christianity is based on faith. Science is based on the scientific method. Testable and falsifiable.

Not that I can judge. I used to parrot all of the mantras of 'Science'. Until I started looking into the evidence for myself.

And you have a background in science? What field of science are you expert in?

I'll ask again.

Are you alleging that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons? That the strong consensus that exists among scientists from a multitude of political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and cause of climate change is nothing more than a massive conspiracy? Virtually the entire scientific community is working to suppress the truth?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Luckily science itself is not based on faith. Unlike religion.

We have already established that you yourself endorse faith-based belief in scientists i.e. 'experts'.

After all, no regular person is going to sit there and read a 1,000-page IPCC report, are they?

So stop the charade. Your 'science' is merely faith-based belief in clergymen, just by a different name.

After all, the 'experts' don't simply do what their paymasters tell them to do. Men of science are holier than that, amirite?

 

[Roylion]

We have already established that you yourself endorse faith-based belief in scientists i.e. 'experts'.

So you agree that science is not based on faith. Unlike religion.

After all, no regular person is going to sit there and read a 1,000-page IPCC report, are they?

And you have? You seem to be suggesting that you're not a regular person to be able to offer an opinion on anthropogenic global warming. Seeing you've "started looking into the evidence" for yourself. As you appear to be suggesting that you're an expert, what is your conclusion? Why should I concur with your opinion over the agreed opinion of experts in their scientific fields?

So stop the charade. Your 'science' is merely faith-based belief in clergymen, just by a different name.

Luckily science is not based on faith. Unlike religion.

After all, the 'experts' don't simply do what their paymasters tell them to do. Men of science are holier than that, amirite?

I'll ask again

You have a background in science? What field of science are you expert in to be able to challenge the consensus of experts in theirr scientific fields?

Or do you have another agenda?

And I'll ask you for a third time.

Are you alleging that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons? That the strong consensus that exists among scientists from a multitude of political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and cause of climate change is nothing more than a massive conspiracy? Virtually the entire scientific community is working to suppress the truth?

 

[its free real estate]

We have already established that you yourself endorse faith-based belief in scientists i.e. 'experts'.

After all, no regular person is going to sit there and read a 1,000-page IPCC report, are they?

So stop the charade. Your 'science' is merely faith-based belief in clergymen, just by a different name.

After all, the 'experts' don't simply do what their paymasters tell them to do. Men of science are holier than that, amirite?

Which science do you think is rigorous enough to pass your definition of science?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

As you appear to be suggesting that you're an expert, what is your conclusion?

I'm definitely not claiming to be an 'expert'.

I didn't receive a specific piece of paper from a government-funded instititution to qualify me as an 'expert'.

And I don't receive government money to make claims that the government needs to tax people more money.

Hence not an 'expert'.

 

[Roylion]

I'm definitely not claiming to be an 'expert'.

So there's no basis on why I should take any notice of your doubts about the consensus of experts in their scientific fields in regards to anthropogenic global warming?

I didn't receive a specific piece of paper from a government-funded instititution to qualify me as an 'expert'.

Perhaps you should. Perhaps then I might take more genuine notice of what you have to say about anthropogenic global warming. Seeing you've "started looking into the evidence" for yourself, with limited scientific knowledge / qualifications.

And I don't receive government money to make claims that the government needs to tax people more money.

And I'll ask you for a fourth time.

Are you alleging that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons? That the strong consensus that exists among scientists from a multitude of political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and cause of climate change is nothing more than a massive conspiracy? Virtually the entire scientific community is working to suppress the truth?

Is this too difficult for you to answer?

Hence not an 'expert'.

Indeed.

 

[its free real estate]

I'm definitely not claiming to be an 'expert'.

I didn't receive a specific piece of paper from a government-funded instititution to qualify me as an 'expert'.

And I don't receive government money to make claims that the government needs to tax people more money.

Hence not an 'expert'.

What area of science do you research in, even if you aren’t an expert?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

So there's no basis on why I should take any notice of your doubts about the consensus of experts in their scientific fields in regards to anthropogenic global warming?

No, you should ignore me, and all other people who doubt the mantras, and you should maintain faith in your 'experts'

 

[Roylion]

No, you should ignore me, and all other people who doubt the mantras, and you should maintain faith in your 'experts'

So seeing you've "started looking into the evidence", are you alleging that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons? That the strong consensus that exists among scientists from a multitude of political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and cause of climate change is nothing more than a massive conspiracy? Virtually the entire scientific community is working to suppress the truth?

 

[its free real estate]

No, you should ignore me, and all other people who doubt the mantras, and you should maintain faith in your 'experts'

Why won’t you answer the simple question on what you regard as scientific? What do you think is valid, rigorous science, and why?

For someone who supposes he has strong convictions you are very timid.

 

[its free real estate]

Always funny how climate deniers make arguments with the same logical structure as troons and their enablers who say biological sex is a social construct.