Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[hollodero]

(01-18-2017, 08:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Well first of all, there is no "truth" in what you outlined, but that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about the "truth" of logical or sequential assumptions that can be used to reach a policy implementation.  I may not be able to answer whether college should be free with anything more than my opinion, but if you can put together a series of assumptions (which can be backed up or "true"), which can build on each other to show why maybe this would be a good idea for the country then that is an informed opinion with some "truth" to it, vs. simply saying "college costs too much, therefore should be free".  Not that this is the argument being made, but I'm talking about the truth of claims which are then used to reach a policy decision (it seems to me that neither party really does a great deal of explaining how these claims are true).  

Good arguments are not "truths". Although I'm for free education, state expenses are a valid argument against free college. Whenever arguments are involved, I carry out my old virtual beam balance, try to attach the appropriate weight to all arguments (which is not 100% objective, of course not) on both sides, see where the balance leans for me and form my opinion. But it more or less stays an opinion.
That CC is true is not so much an "opinion" for me, like evolution is no opinion, or let's say gravity, to be polemic. But I see your follow-up, so that's just for mentioning the difference between preferrably nuanced debates vs. preferrably clear-cut black-and-white debates.

(01-18-2017, 08:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: As far as CC is concerned, I think you and I are in agreement, except for this:  I'm saying that since I'm not well versed on the subject, I don't know if there's a scientific consensus.  All your other arguments presuppose a scientific consensus and then pose a question of "do you believe?"  My point is if you show me that there's a scientific consensus (not saying that there isn't), then we can move towards the implementation side of discussion.  So, I, personally cannot say one way or another, unless this can be shown.  It's possible it's there, and I'm just too lazy to look for it.  I'm simply saying that if I am not able to get to that point, I would be voting for policy decisions simply based on faith, which I'd rather not do when it affects other people (especially even more than me).   There are certain other scientific principles I do not understand thoroughly, but take them for granted as they have been scientifically accepted by more or less everyone (things that I learn in school and College etc.).  Possibly this acceptance needs to become mainstream before I myself would be comfortable with voting for policy decisions, but even if that's not the case, I need to be convinced that there is a scientific consensus (Again, not saying that there isn't, but to my untrained eye there's a chance b.s. arguments can still look like valid counters).  I'll put it this way, if you can link up some articles which confirm a scientific consensus, I will consider it seriously.

Well, you're lazy then. :)
OK, let's start with claiming that 97% of climate scientists are on the side of CC is true. Around 3% are not. If that number defines a "consensus" for you, I don't know. There are people with scientific background that doubt the moon landing - still I'd say it's a "scientific consensus" that it wasn't staged by Stanley Kubrick. I think 97% is a sufficient amount of experts on one side of the topic.
There are of course prominient CC deniers, I remember that Fred Singer guy (because he was invited to Auistrian parliament once), Bjorn Lomborg, that former greenpeace head and then some. But to my knowledge there is not a single country or society that draws such a distinct picture of a still torn scientific community then the American one. The rest of the world more or less accepts CC (which here and always means "man-made CC") as true, apart from some populists and quite a lot of irrelevant uneducated people. I guess you see some debates in the US though where a sceptic and a believer argue and hence the picture of a lacking consensus is painted. If you want to picture the ratio corerectly, you would need a debate between one CC denier and 32 CC believers.
You asked me for links, and that's what's makes you lazy. It is easy to find these. I can show that 97% figure with one link or a hundred ones, Dill already did it, I just throw in one, two, three - if you need more, they will be on German :)

Additionally, what deniers (in my eyes) also fail to do is explaining why the already visible effects of CC occur if it's not CC. They often claim thing like "it's the sun" - which isn't true,  link. They say volcanoes overlay all human emissions (untrue), they claim it's a natural cycle (also untrue) and then some. Less and less flat-out deny that the visible effects are really there, but sure those are around as well. They claim sea levels are not rising (they do, link, link, inhabitants of Tuvalu and other pacific islands know that and take measuires, all kinds of people in all kinds of coastal regions take measures all over the world, even Donald Trump takes measures by applying dams to a coastal golf course of his). They claim there is no warming (there is, link, the whole hockey stick is out there on 10.000 sites), they claim glaciers do not melt (they do, link, and it also happens in my country and all over the world), they claim oceans don't get more acidic (they do, link - it's threatening ocean's food chains, and it's due to the additional CO2 they take, heuristically CO2 + H2O forms H2CO3 or carbonic acid, but that is NOT the most scientific explanation).
All of these denials can be debunked, because all of these things can actually be measured.

So, to close for now, many deniers now claim, ok there is some warming, but it's not all that bad, we can adapt. That is the one talking point I still accept as valid (although I do not agree, mostly because of the rist - and the oceans). This debate can be lead. Denying climate change, however, at this point starts to become treacherous. Just let me add this at the end: Deniers get paid. There are huge interest groups that still want to keep that narrative, they spend billions. When the denier's argument is "the CC scientists are greedy and invent CC so they can get money", it makes me mad to my bones. I mentioned already why, but still. The denial still has a huge lobby in your country (and as far as I know, ONLY in your country), your republican party being one of the lobbyists. Hence scientists are kept relevant which probably wouldn't be if the scientific world would do the evaluation of their works and findings (as they should). Voilá.