February 10, 2023
Logical Fallacy of the Climate Cult
Guy F. Beebe
Steven Yaskell adds:
Sh-t: I've studied e.g. Kevin Trenberth's papers and found - reading backwards from his statements refuting or critiquing "skeptic scientists" (doing boring things like using thermodynamics laws, as known, and conclusions/
Tim adds:
When the IPCC was first established I knew exactly it's purpose - to prove the assertion that human activity was wrecking the planet and that would require a fundamental change in civilization and our economic system. (This was to be run by an internationalist body which sought to empower itself - duh.)
The radicals made an assertion that was largely baseless, then went looking for evidence to "prove" what they had already determined was true.
The amazing thing is they had already been trying to do this with Global Cooling, but the cold period ended and so they figured they would have forty years to nail down Global Warming before the warming trend ended. I think they were surprised at the resistance from those of us who know better, but still they have made tremendous strides. EV's are one example. Nobody would be talking about them were it not for the acceptance of Climate Change dogma.
At any rate this is what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult Science; it has all the outward appearances of science but is really superstition. It starts with an article of faith and devises "proof" from that.
And, much like Medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the debate has become surreal as they find AGW lurking under every rug and in every couch cushion. But it's all fake and phony. I could just as easily prove the Earth's oceans were turning into lemonade as prove the planet was heating up from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (I mean, since they tell us the oceans are acidifying how hard would it be to take the logical next step and say it's turning to lemonade?)
Some no doubt believe this - and they do so because the Science ESTABLISHMENT tells them so, not because the science itself informs their thinking.
It compartmentalizes way too much too. The IPCC reports never look at astronomy, or geology, or any other discipline but climatology. Climatology is relatively new, an offshoot of meteorology (and most meteorologists surveyed disagreed with the alarmist view). So those who believe in this have something to gain by it - money from the governments of the world.
At any rate, climate change is a solution in search of a problem. It is only an issue because the media refuses to give both sides of the debate, and because there is huge amounts of money in it for think tanks, universities, and foundations which are funded with taxpayer dollars or by big corporations standing to profit from the seizure of the world economy.
Guys like Turdbreath, ur, Turnbreth, er. whatever may believe it, but it is a BELIEF and not a reasoned position. Many of them do not but know what side their bread is buttered.
This is much like Orson Wells' War of the Worlds scare, only it has gone on for a generation now.
You know,
the Catastrophic Climate Change Cult likes to claim to have "science"
on their side, and I've spent over thirty years pointing out the flaws
in their data, their analysis, and their complete lack of support for
the conclusions they've drawn, let alone their recommended "remedies".
I tend to forget that they don't even have logic on their side. All too
often, their arguments use the most basic of all logical fallacies,
"Begging the Question", wherein they assume their conclusion to be
true, and use that conclusion to make the argument allowing them to
reach that conclusion...ag
But every one of their arguments seems to fall prey to that particular fallacy. Logic is your friend, but not that of the Catastrophic Climate Cult.
Sh-t: I've studied e.g. Kevin Trenberth's papers and found - reading backwards from his statements refuting or critiquing "skeptic scientists" (doing boring things like using thermodynamics laws, as known, and conclusions/
Tim adds:
When the IPCC was first established I knew exactly it's purpose - to prove the assertion that human activity was wrecking the planet and that would require a fundamental change in civilization and our economic system. (This was to be run by an internationalist body which sought to empower itself - duh.)
The radicals made an assertion that was largely baseless, then went looking for evidence to "prove" what they had already determined was true.
The amazing thing is they had already been trying to do this with Global Cooling, but the cold period ended and so they figured they would have forty years to nail down Global Warming before the warming trend ended. I think they were surprised at the resistance from those of us who know better, but still they have made tremendous strides. EV's are one example. Nobody would be talking about them were it not for the acceptance of Climate Change dogma.
At any rate this is what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult Science; it has all the outward appearances of science but is really superstition. It starts with an article of faith and devises "proof" from that.
And, much like Medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the debate has become surreal as they find AGW lurking under every rug and in every couch cushion. But it's all fake and phony. I could just as easily prove the Earth's oceans were turning into lemonade as prove the planet was heating up from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (I mean, since they tell us the oceans are acidifying how hard would it be to take the logical next step and say it's turning to lemonade?)
Some no doubt believe this - and they do so because the Science ESTABLISHMENT tells them so, not because the science itself informs their thinking.
It compartmentalizes way too much too. The IPCC reports never look at astronomy, or geology, or any other discipline but climatology. Climatology is relatively new, an offshoot of meteorology (and most meteorologists surveyed disagreed with the alarmist view). So those who believe in this have something to gain by it - money from the governments of the world.
At any rate, climate change is a solution in search of a problem. It is only an issue because the media refuses to give both sides of the debate, and because there is huge amounts of money in it for think tanks, universities, and foundations which are funded with taxpayer dollars or by big corporations standing to profit from the seizure of the world economy.
Guys like Turdbreath, ur, Turnbreth, er. whatever may believe it, but it is a BELIEF and not a reasoned position. Many of them do not but know what side their bread is buttered.
This is much like Orson Wells' War of the Worlds scare, only it has gone on for a generation now.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:03 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 880 words, total size 6 kb.
1
According to Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" where he finds white people doing jobs white people dont do, bio-char will put an end to climate change debate as bio-char will remedy all the earths wounds. It has long been proven to reduce immensely cow flatulence the deadly gas that is warming earth to going on extra crispy.
Then there is the little matter of our Sun which did what I saw was a hurricane in flames in its Northern hemisphere. Quite the show. It may be the signal to further events that man has never observed before and its far reaching effects. More catastrophe from the most obvious source of catastrophe.
Posted by: Mike at February 10, 2023 12:32 PM (iI/c9)
2
Great points all Mike! Thanks!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at February 11, 2023 09:49 AM (y88ma)
3
You know, the Catastrophic Climate Change Cult likes to claim to have "science" on their side,
Posted by: Patek Philippe Replica at May 17, 2023 08:54 PM (SUYyh)
27kb generated in CPU 0.095, elapsed 0.2428 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2307 seconds, 191 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2307 seconds, 191 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
