Wild Cobra Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439353 B G Armstrong, Z Chalabi, B Fenn, S Hajat, S Kovats, A Milojevic, P Wilkinson. Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. doi: 10.1136/jech.2009.093161 So if I read that correctly, the increase in mortality is 2.1% per degree. To me, this means if this summer was 2 degrees above baseline, the deaths are normally 11 to 16 less than the 540 to 760 number in the artcle. Does that sound right? Are we going to assign all this to antropogenic warming? How much is natural variations... This science is still not settled in that regard, is it!
iNow Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Now you're being intentionally obtuse. The article shows how heat waves relate to death. As the climate continues to warm, deaths will continue to increase, and those deaths accelerate after a certain threshold point. That's all true regardless of whether or not that warming is natural or caused by the actions of humankind. On another note, I encourage you to look at the related articles at the link. You will see that there are also other independent studies supporting the same conclusion. Edited October 26, 2014 by iNow
Arete Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 LOL... For just 2 degrees? How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable? If you have even the most rudimentary understanding of the climactic models you claim to have the expertise to be critiquing, you'd be thoroughly aware that a 2 degree average increase does not mean that every day of the year is 2 degrees warmer in every geographical location. Moreover, that the duration, geographical size, severity and frequency of hot weather events is predicted to increase. That's an extremely basic piece of critical understanding in the issue of climate change - you either know that and are being disingenuous in the above quoted post, or you don't and your previous commentary on climate models is unqualified. It's a rather obvious logical extension, that increased duration, size, severity and frequency of hot weather events will have an impact on pubic health. Without repeating an already lengthy discussion this article - http://jech.bmj.com/...13-202449.short models this impact on public health, taking into account decreased morality due to cold weather, and increased mortality due to hot weather, finding that, if the current IPCC predictions are right, the UK would see an increase of approximately 4,300 deaths due to hot weather events. Tim the Plumber is down to rebuking that simply through personal incredulity - after claiming a) people don't die in heat waves in the UK (despite this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave) b) People will just take their jumpers off (which could only influence the result of the paper if people did not already remove jumpers when it was hot) and c) That the fact that people tend to retire to warmer climates disproves it (no seriously, that argument was used). Do you really want to hitch yourself to that wagon? Also just a friendly tip. you may want to brush up a little on your understanding of logical fallacies. They refer to a specific set of arguments that rely on false premises. Everything you disagree with is not a logical fallacy, and arguments based on logical fallacies are not necessarily incorrect, just as those based on sound logic are not always true. Calling everything a fallacy regardless of whether your claim is legitimate or not may lead you to a "boy who cried wolf" position.
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 So if I read that correctly, the increase in mortality is 2.1% per degree. To me, this means if this summer was 2 degrees above baseline, the deaths are normally 11 to 16 less than the 540 to 760 number in the artcle. Does that sound right? Are we going to assign all this to antropogenic warming? How much is natural variations... This science is still not settled in that regard, is it! ! Moderator Note Wild Cobra, you need to start citing your own evidence to support your arguments, and stop ignoring the evidence others are providing. Denial alone is insufficient here. Contribute to the discussion, please. Preponderance of evidence after 21 pages will most likely result in closure of the thread if you don't. Report this modnote if you object, but please don't take the thread off-topic by responding to it.
Unity+ Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 The problem I face when approaching this issue is the amount of politics involved in this issue. When politics infects science, science becomes a construct of political propaganda more than an objective base point from which the problem can be approached. When it comes to climate change and the amount of scientific research done, it seems more and more propagated by political agendas rather than by pursuing the problem as "let us see if this has merit as a true problem" rather than "we have a conclusion, let's find evidence in support of it." I see this happening on both sides of the debate, and it makes me irk at much of the political tensions that arise from the debate. Instead of approaching skepticism in the light of curiosity, it is met with hostility. The same thing goes to the other side of the debate. It frustrates me how we have lowered our standards about the line between politics and science. This has been seen throughout history, where NAZI ideals infected the ideas of scientific endeavor. Is this similar to how the NAZI's portrayed science? Not completely. However, I think political biases can resort to biases in the research itself. This was definitely shown in how French nationalism lead to a misdirection in the persuit of discovery.
iNow Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Are you equally accepting of skepticism of evolution, relativity, and the moon landings? Why or why not?
Unity+ Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Are you equally accepting of skepticism of evolution, relativity, and the moon landings? Why or why not? Depends what you mean by "skepticism." If you are referring to denial ism, then that's a whole different topic left to the conspiracy theory buffs. Skepticism, but non-rejection, of research in scientific fields is healthy. Having rejection for such skepticism can lead to unnecessary, and unintentional, biases known as "Confirmation bias." Though the denialists are obviously guilty of this, so can we be. The Fallacy of composition can also be provided by the skeptical side of things. Does the rise of CO2 levels automatically a sign of a global catastrophe? Or is it something that naturally occurs as a part of the Earth's cycle? These kinds of questions can and should be asked about the particular issue. Simply rejecting these questions as valid makes the one rejecting these questions more guilty than those who completely deny the existence of climate change. I could list all fallacies that could arise from both sides of the debate. Holding scrutiny of one side with more/less skepticism can lead to biases when both should be approached from equal amounts of skepticism. And I think both you and me are guilty of this. Do I agree with one side or the other? Since I am not a leading expert in the field, I cannot make an expert opinion about the particular topic, however that does not mean I cannot approach the topic with equal amounts of skepticism that I hold to everything else, for if authority was the main argument then I think science would be completely filled with forms of bias. EDIT: And political agendas come in when one side becomes more scrutinized than the other. When the skepticism of one side of the debate not only looked down upon, but also becomes an enemy of political correctness. EDIT2: I also noticed that much of the evidence you link is from the SkepticalScience website. Though we can present this as valid evidence, I think there should be a diversity of the evidence's sources in order to provide a sense of unbias. Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Considering what the intentions of the site are, I think there can be discussion upon the credibility of the site. I also notice that the articles that challenge the merits of skepticism are not of scientific standing, even when there are arguments that can be made that do have upstanding credibility and evidence, whether they are in huge magnitudes can be left up to debate. I want to point out an interview with the one who is primary of the site: I think it’s very difficult to persuade people who already have their own minds firmly made up. In my studies on science communication, I’ve learnt a lot about how the human brain works – we base our beliefs as much on our values as on scientific evidence. So convincing staunch skeptics that humans are causing global warming is a tall order, I’ll admit. However, there is a much larger and more important group – the undecided people who are genuinely trying to understand what’s happening to our climate. For those people, it’s imperative that they’re made aware of the scientific realities of what’s happening to our climate. I think he takes the approach that could be considered biased in itself. I think we could debate his biases and how they could be impeding on the objective nature of his articles. I think this article could also bring some upon the skeptical side of things: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/john-cook-of-un-skepticalscience-admits-climate-change-denier-is-inaccurate-will-he-stop-name-calling/ The article explains the nature in which John Cook approaches skeptics, which can be seen as unprofessional. Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+ 1
iNow Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Skeptical science aggregates studies and each claim made is backed up with diverse peer reviewed citations. It would be inaccurate to suggest I've cited one source as if I'm excluding conflicting views. The point is that there are only conflicting views in the media and the public. The experts are aligned and have been for decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php EDIT: It's not about rejecting skepticism. It's about realizing that all skeptical questions have more than sufficiently been addressed at this point. Edited October 26, 2014 by iNow
Unity+ Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Skeptical science aggregates studies and each claim made is backed up with diverse peer reviewed citations. It would be inaccurate to suggest I've cited one source as if I'm excluding conflicting views. The point is that there are only conflicting views in the media and the public. The experts are aligned and have been for decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree The point is that there are only conflicting views in the media and the public. There is a disagreement between these two statements. And what I meant with providing more sources is provide both sides of the argument rather than focusing on one side of it. Provide evidence of the other side of the story. Also, here is something that might be interesting to note: Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by ExxonMobil).[255] In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy And I regress, there is also the possibility of such scandals(if true) occurring on the other side of the debate. Now, I find that a good source that looks at both sides of the argument is this one: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/climate-skeptic2.htm And here we reach the reason for the urgency -- and the passion -- behind the arguments on both sides of the climate change debate. Inaction risks future catastrophe. Hasty action may cause present calamity. This source appoaches BOTH sides of the debate instead of leaving a sense of brutal authority over those who may be skeptic about the issue. EDIT: EDIT: It's not about rejecting skepticism. It's about realizing that all skeptical questions have more than sufficiently been addressed at this point. With answered questions raise more and even more difficult questions to answer. You can argue that the other percentage of climate scientists have skepticism due to political factors, but assuming that would be a fallacy. Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+
iNow Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) And what I meant with providing more sources is provide both sides of the argument rather than focusing on one side of it. Provide evidence of the other side of the story.The point is that the other side of the story has been debunked for a very long time already. At some point, we recognize when an explanation is wrong and we stop sharing it as a valid alternative. I just don't understand the mindset like yours. If you visit 100 doctors and 97 of them tell you that you have cancer, are you going to begin treating the cancer or you going to believe the three doctors that tell you your symptoms are because you have too many purple crystals in your house? If 97 out of 100 inspectors tell you that the foundation of your house is cracked, are you going to take steps to repair the foundation or are you instead going to believe the three inspectors who tell you that the cracks were just an artistic addition put their for aesthetic reasons by the original builder? The other side of the story has had every opportunity to present the evidence for their conclusions and at every turn it's been demonstrated to be flawed, based on fallacy, or more commonly based on ignorance. You seem to believe that the current warming trend can be explained by natural factors. This is fine as a hypothesis, but you still have to determine what factors those are. It's not enough to simply say it's natural and move on. We know it cannot be explained by the activity of the sun. We know it cannot be explained by volcanic activity. We know it cannot be explained by the many other things that we know today happen naturally and affect our climate. Given this, you are left to demonstrate the mechanism that is causing the current warming trend through natural means. After decades of exploring this question, none have been identified. The most parsimonious explanation that aligns with the data is the fact that human activity is the primary forcing factor responsible for the current warming trend. At some point in this process, you are no longer being skeptical. Skeptical people still accept information when it is overwhelming consistent across independent observers and change their minds as a result. That is not what most laypeople do on this topic, though, including yourself right now. Most people ignore the overwhelming and well supported consensus in favor of their own preconceptions and incredulity. That is why the term deniers used so frequently. Too often, no amount of information will change some peoples minds even though the evidence gathered over decades by supporters and skeptics alike is so overwhelmingly in support of one side of the issue. . Edited October 26, 2014 by iNow 3
swansont Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc. Are you suggesting a regional thing is global? What is their summer max? Have you looked it up? I suggest you do... Seriously. Look it up. It's above 32 ºC, and people have died in heat waves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html Unless you're going to claim that making it even hotter will result in fewer deaths, you seem to be arguing a lost cause. As resorting to semantics would seem to indicate. So if I read that correctly, the increase in mortality is 2.1% per degree. To me, this means if this summer was 2 degrees above baseline, the deaths are normally 11 to 16 less than the 540 to 760 number in the artcle. Does that sound right? Are we going to assign all this to antropogenic warming? How much is natural variations... This science is still not settled in that regard, is it! Is this an admission that higher temperatures result in more deaths? i.e. are you still defending your original position or are you just moving the goalposts?
Tim the plumber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 It's above 32 ºC, and people have died in heat waves. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html The NHS (Health service, hospitals etc) in the UK has a policy of making sure all of it's beds are available during the winter as admissions go up in the cold weather. Lots of old people come in with cold related conditions. During the summer they are not at capacity. Elective surgery is often maximized during this period. More people die due to cold in the UK than from the very occasional heat wave which would not be considered at all unusual weather in say New York. Yes, there are some deaths due to heat but not many especially after you take out those which happen after 20 pints in the beer garden and a swim in the river. Northern France is not considered difficult to live in due to the heat of the place. Northern France is significantly warmer than 2 degrees above central England. Especially in the summer. Lots of Brits retire to France. Lots more to Spain. Not so many to Iceland. The reason I am a skeptic is due to the presence of papers and claims such as this (+2 degrees = lots of deaths) which is laughable. The public in England will laugh at such things. I understand that the paper has been careful to put in the caveat that this assumes no change in life style. Well, life style would change. It is things like this which color my perception of other claims coming from the ecco warrior types. As has been pointed out all these points have been refuted. Presumably that means that the idea that people from England retire to hot places has been refuted. If you can manage that in your own head you are capable of seeing the sky as pink whenever you want to.
Arete Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 If you can manage that in your own head you are capable of seeing the sky as pink whenever you want to. As it would appear.
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 It's true that France is generally warmer than the UK And, during heat waves more people die there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave So if global warming makes the UK more like France it will raise the number of deaths. What worries me most is that Tim and Wild Cobra think that these deaths are funny.
swansont Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 The NHS (Health service, hospitals etc) in the UK has a policy of making sure all of it's beds are available during the winter as admissions go up in the cold weather. Lots of old people come in with cold related conditions. During the summer they are not at capacity. Elective surgery is often maximized during this period. More people die due to cold in the UK than from the very occasional heat wave which would not be considered at all unusual weather in say New York. Yes, there are some deaths due to heat but not many especially after you take out those which happen after 20 pints in the beer garden and a swim in the river. Northern France is not considered difficult to live in due to the heat of the place. Northern France is significantly warmer than 2 degrees above central England. Especially in the summer. Lots of Brits retire to France. Lots more to Spain. Not so many to Iceland. The reason I am a skeptic is due to the presence of papers and claims such as this (+2 degrees = lots of deaths) which is laughable. The public in England will laugh at such things. I understand that the paper has been careful to put in the caveat that this assumes no change in life style. Well, life style would change. It is things like this which color my perception of other claims coming from the ecco warrior types. As has been pointed out all these points have been refuted. Presumably that means that the idea that people from England retire to hot places has been refuted. If you can manage that in your own head you are capable of seeing the sky as pink whenever you want to. If you move the goalposts, then indeed the goalposts will be in a different place. Changing the parameters does not render the original claim false.
Strange Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Presumably that means that the idea that people from England retire to hot places has been refuted. And a higher proportion of them will die from heat related deaths because of that; for example, roughly twice as many people died in Italy and Spain than in the UK in 2003 (despite those countries having a lower population). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths.html
Tim the plumber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) It's true that France is generally warmer than the UK And, during heat waves more people die there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave So if global warming makes the UK more like France it will raise the number of deaths. What worries me most is that Tim and Wild Cobra think that these deaths are funny. Not funny but there are more deaths from cold in the UK. I don't know which way around it is in France but I suspect that it is similar. In any case a warming of 2 degrees will not make the UK the same as France. It will still be cooler than France. It worries me that some people cannot understand such a simple idea. That they are so focused on their per-determined conclusion that any warming is BAD! And a higher proportion of them will die from heat related deaths because of that; for example, roughly twice as many people died in Italy and Spain than in the UK in 2003 (despite those countries having a lower population). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths.html And how many die in the UK from cold related causes? Population, in 2003, of UK 59.57M, Italy 57.6M, Spain 42.72M. https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=3zpNVI-wDe3H8gfrzIDQCA&gws_rd=ssl#q=population+of+uk Edited October 26, 2014 by Tim the plumber
Unity+ Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) You seem to believe that the current warming trend can be explained by natural factors. This is fine as a hypothesis, but you still have to determine what factors those are. It's not enough to simply say it's natural and move on. We know it cannot be explained by the activity of the sun. We know it cannot be explained by volcanic activity. We know it cannot be explained by the many other things that we know today happen naturally and affect our climate. Given this, you are left to demonstrate the mechanism that is causing the current warming trend through natural means. After decades of exploring this question, none have been identified. The most parsimonious explanation that aligns with the data is the fact that human activity is the primary forcing factor responsible for the current warming trend. At some point in this process, you are no longer being skeptical. Skeptical people still accept information when it is overwhelming consistent across independent observers and change their minds as a result. That is not what most laypeople do on this topic, though, including yourself right now. Most people ignore the overwhelming and well supported consensus in favor of their own preconceptions and incredulity. That is why the term deniers used so frequently. Too often, no amount of information will change some peoples minds even though the evidence gathered over decades by supporters and skeptics alike is so overwhelmingly in support of one side of the issue. I never said anything to say my point of view on the subject besides keeping healthy skepticism. In fact, I said in an earlier post "Though we know the denialists are guilty of the same thing." I am a promoter of healthy skepticism. That's why I sometimes go to the Speculation section and help the users do the calculations to see if they are actually going some where with their ideas. I would hope that some of them learn from the process of carrying out their ideas and applying the scientific method correctly. I just don't understand the mindset like yours. If you visit 100 doctors and 97 of them tell you that you have cancer, are you going to begin treating the cancer or you going to believe the three doctors that tell you your symptoms are because you have too many purple crystals in your house? If 97 out of 100 inspectors tell you that the foundation of your house is cracked, are you going to take steps to repair the foundation or are you instead going to believe the three inspectors who tell you that the cracks were just an artistic addition put their for aesthetic reasons by the original builder? You aren't understanding my point either. If 97% of doctors tell me I have cancer, I would be curious as to why only 97% of them caught something that seemed to obvious while the others did not. Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Not funny but there are more deaths from cold in the UK. I don't know which way around it is in France but I suspect that it is similar. In any case a warming of 2 degrees will not make the UK the same as France. It will still be cooler than France. It worries me that some people cannot understand such a simple idea. That they are so focused on their per-determined conclusion that any warming is BAD! And how many die in the UK from cold related causes? I can't readily find a paper on that, but lets take this (fairly widely reported) figure as an starting point http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/361382/20-000-pensioners-died-from-the-cold-last-winter Since the predicted effect of raised global temperatures is that British Winters will get colder and the Summers will get hotter, what point did you think you were raising?
Tim the plumber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 20,000 pensioners died from the cold last winter I can't readily find a paper on that, but lets take this (fairly widely reported) figure as an starting point http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/361382/20-000-pensioners-died-from-the-cold-last-winter Since the predicted effect of raised global temperatures is that British Winters will get colder and the Summers will get hotter, what point did you think you were raising? Since when has that been the predicted effect? Was the change in the prediction before or after the prediction that we would never see any more snowfall in the UK went wrong? The way the greenhouse absorption and emission of infrared light works is surely to increase night time temperatures more than anything else so why would that prediction be more plausible than the old one of not ever having snow in the UK again?
Strange Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Not funny but there are more deaths from cold in the UK. How is that even relevant? 1
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 Since when has that been the predicted effect? Was the change in the prediction before or after the prediction that we would never see any more snowfall in the UK went wrong? The way the greenhouse absorption and emission of infrared light works is surely to increase night time temperatures more than anything else so why would that prediction be more plausible than the old one of not ever having snow in the UK again? I'm not sure how old thye idea is, but it's old enough that they were making tv shows about it some years back http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x The weather is a heat engine, trapping more power into it will make it do more of the things it does. More extreme weather follows from that.
Wild Cobra Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 No, it's not much like ad hominem at all. Vanity publications are not peer-reviewed, which is relevant to credibility. Ad hominem is an attack that is irrelevant to the discussion, like saying someone is not to be trusted because they are of some ethnicity or religion, or some other description. That's not the case here. Avoiding peer review is germane to the issue. I went back through this thread looking for something else, and I missed this post before and need to address it. OK, you can find a vanity publication that doesn't peer review Therefore all vanity publications do not peer review... Isn't this a logical fallacy? If you actually go to the publisher’s web site: http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/ Look around, you will see they peer review. Maybe calling it a vanity site is wrong if all vanity sites do not peer review. Either way, it is a logical fallacy. What worries me most is that Tim and Wild Cobra think that these deaths are funny. You are wrong to assume that. I forget what words the article used, but I got the impression these were people on the last weeks or months of their lives anyway. I see it as a simple fact that the slightly warmer conditions was like the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. That their life just ended slightly sooner. Maybe I’m wrong, but even beyond that, what if most of this is natural? What if the primary anthropogenic caused rise in temperatures are due to the heat island effects? How do we combat that, without tearing down cities and restoring the natural landscape? I started this part of the thread by responding the idea that 2 degrees was less hospitable, and laughed because England would be a nicer place for most if the average year round temperature did rise 2 degrees. Then the goalpost was changed with these heat related deaths. Another post asks if I changed my mind. I think it was clear I agreed the 2.1% increase in deaths per degree was plausible. By the definitions alarmist, warmer, denier, skeptic, etc... I most closely fit the skeptic category. Why is it I am attacked in such rude manners by everyone? Is that conducive to good debating? I do not deny science. I do question the validity of many studies and conclusions, but that is not denial. I see more denial... denial of proper science... in those towing the consensus by using linked material they obviously don't comprehend. One very big logical fallacy... Appealing to authority! I like to be able to take a topic and explain my reasoning in my own words. Too often, I am asked to back up material that is simple basic science, then chastised for not sourcing my material. To me, that is like having to source 1 + 1 = 2! Get with it people. Learn the basics of these sciences if you are going to debate them. Learn things like what RE, GWP, etc actually represent. Stop appealing to authority!
Unity+ Posted October 26, 2014 Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) And the Gish Gallop continues... I don't really think it helps the debate when people resort to petty comments. By the definitions alarmist, warmer, denier, skeptic, etc... I most closely fit the skeptic category. Why is it I am attacked in such rude manners by everyone? Is that conducive to good debating? It's human nature to get angry when people seem to turn a blind eye to the evidence. However, I would agree putting skeptics and deniers in the same category is a misleading argument. I do not deny science. I do question the validity of many studies and conclusions, but that is not denial. I see more denial... denial of proper science... in those towing the consensus by using linked material they obviously don't comprehend. I would agree to a certain extent. One very big logical fallacy... Appealing to authority! I like to be able to take a topic and explain my reasoning in my own words. Too often, I am asked to back up material that is simple basic science, then chastised for not sourcing my material. Yes, the first is true. However, sometimes the most seemingly obvious pieces of logic actually may have more to describe. I am seeing a bias of where the sources come from, on both sides. Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+ 1
Recommended Posts