The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Oh look, you're answering for freebeard. Did you two come to a consensus via Zerohedge and/or the comic strip anti-climate anti-scientist?

We both answered you He just did a better job in two fewer minutes.

The only comic strip anybody I can think of that we discuss is the 'catoonist' who is a willful contrarian. Whom we both agree and disagree with depending on his persuasive technique.

I don't know what zerohedge is, and the only "anti" thing I've ever looked up is antimatter.

My concern here is that it's forgivable to not know Tyler Durden's true identity, but Zero Hedge is source for a lot of news. I see they're rejiggered the front page since I last visited.

https://fortune.com › 2016 › 04 › 29 › zero-hedge-unmasked
Zero Hedge's Anonymous Authors Have Been Unmasked - Fortune
According to the report, Tyler Durden was actually three people: Lokey, Daniel Ivandjiiski, 37, the Bulgarian-born former analyst who was outed as the site's driving force back in 2009, and Tim...

[freebeard]

You guys have a 30-page anti-climate anti-science thread that you've woven on an environmental website. Have you considered taking up a more productive hobby, like needlepoint?

Perchance the problem is that you think this is an environmental website, when it is actually a productive hobby website.

I didn't appeal to an authority.

True in a sense. The appeal was to Wikipoedia.

Actually, it's the climate contrarians that use and abuse this logical fallacy by denying the scientific consensus, and by appealing to your climate experts.

This one makes my head hurt. Consensus versus experts?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I didn't appeal to an authority.

You appealed to wikipedia, which relies on dopes for information, so I concede your assertion that you did not appeal to authority. More precisely, you appealed to dopes. We can define the logical fallacy of appeal to dopes, if you insist.

it's the climate contrarians

Who are the climate contrarians and what are they contrary to? For the record, I do not deny that there are various climates, and they change over time due to a variety of factors. Rapid change causes more stress on species to adapt, in general.

that use and abuse this logical fallacy by denying the scientific consensus, and by appealing to your climate experts.

What specifically are you claiming consensus on? I acknowledge CO2 concentrations are increasing and a major factor is attributable to humans pursuing flourishing via utilization of stored fossil fuel energy. That has an impact on the various climates. Some of those impacts positively affect human interests, and some of them negatively impact human interests.

What specifically are you claiming?

To illuminate my personality a bit, someone could be actively hunting and shooting at me, and my instinct would not be to seek out which authority I should surrender all agency to in the hope that they will solve my dire problem. My instinct is that I will use every faculty under my control to solve the problem that besets me, and resist the temptation to surrender agency (liberty) to a faceless bureaucracy in the hope that they are the true salvation.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

- Michael Crichton

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Maybe you guys should hold a climate catastrophe contrarian conference. You could call it COPout23.



What on Earth?

We do, almost daily and no one invited you.
But if you want to return again and make your self look like a fool again, by all means. Most of us figured you wouldn't be back after last time.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We do, almost daily and no one invited you.
But if you want to return again and make your self look like a fool again, by all means. Most of us figured you wouldn't be back after last time.

If you've come to a consensus, then let those two know, because that was their first retort- that you guys haven't come to a consensus. It seems that you haven't followed the short discussion.

I wasn't aware that this is an invitation-only thread.

You're claiming that you "made a fool out of me" previously and that I ran away or something. I think that's you trying to assert things that aren't true, and trying to bolster something.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Perchance the problem is that you think this is an environmental website, when it is actually a productive hobby website.

Are you sure that you want to take the position that this isn't an environmental website?

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You appealed to wikipedia, which relies on dopes for information, so I concede your assertion that you did not appeal to authority. More precisely, you appealed to dopes. We can define the logical fallacy of appeal to dopes, if you insist.

Who are the climate contrarians and what are they contrary to? For the record, I do not deny that there are various climates, and they change over time due to a variety of factors. Rapid change causes more stress on species to adapt, in general.

What specifically are you claiming consensus on? I acknowledge CO2 concentrations are increasing and a major factor is attributable to humans pursuing flourishing via utilization of stored fossil fuel energy. That has an impact on the various climates. Some of those impacts positively affect human interests, and some of them negatively impact human interests.

What specifically are you claiming?

To illuminate my personality a bit, someone could be actively hunting and shooting at me, and my instinct would not be to seek out which authority I should surrender all agency to in the hope that they will solve my dire problem. My instinct is that I will use every faculty under my control to solve the problem that besets me, and resist the temptation to surrender agency (liberty) to a faceless bureaucracy in the hope that they are the true salvation.

- Michael Crichton

That's a lot of dancing around.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

If you've come to a consensus, then let those two know, because that was their first retort- that you guys haven't come to a consensus. It seems that you haven't followed the short discussion.

I wasn't aware that this is an invitation-only thread.

You're claiming that you "made a fool out of me" previously and that I ran away or something. I think that's you trying to assert things that aren't true, and trying to bolster something.

I didn't do anything.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Are you sure that you want to take the position that this isn't an environmental website?

Ecomodder.com:
Welcome to EcoModder.com, an automotive community where performance is judged by efficiency and economy rather than power and speed. EcoModders employ a combination of vehicle mods, driving techniques, and common sense to go as far as possible as inexpensively as possible. Reasons for becoming a member range from the economical to the ecological. More info about where EcoModding came from.

Nothing about being an environmental website.
This is what I'm talking about.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Ecomodder.com:
Welcome to EcoModder.com, an automotive community where performance is judged by efficiency and economy rather than power and speed. EcoModders employ a combination of vehicle mods, driving techniques, and common sense to go as far as possible as inexpensively as possible. Reasons for becoming a member range from the economical to the ecological. More info about where EcoModding came from.

Nothing about being an environmental website.
This is what I'm talking about.

So you are going to take the weak position that this isn't an environmental website. I'd like you guys to commit to an argument. Is that the consensus of the four or so climate contrarians?