too long to be an alternate headline, too clunky to be a line in a song, but roughly accurate
You are indeed using that argument.
Otherwise, what does prayer in school have to do with science of any kind? What about abortion? Separation of church and state? How about Israel or the Book of Revelations?
You don't like the outcomes, but that doesn't make them bad. It only means you don't want them. The only real issue you have here is climate change, and even if you had your way we'd be right where we are now.
smh
As I said, if it were an appeal to consequences, you could put my statements in the correct form.
You either can't do that (because you don't understand) or won't bother (laziness or some other reason).
I provided a list of right wing policies I thought met the criteria of being driven by religion. At no point did I explicitly or implicitly make a statement on the consequences which would be required for that.
Your assertion, your burden of proof. I am calling bull . Put up or STFU.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-30-2021 at 11:59 AM.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-consequences/
Knock yourself out. X is there, but Y is not, unless you want to strawman, and no where did I imply that any of the X's are either true or false because of the consequences.
I have given you the form, and the statements that you have mistakenly attributed to that fallacy. Make the square peg fit into the round hole.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-30-2021 at 11:57 AM. Reason: double post
[outline how that is, if you think it is true]
(crickets)
You suck at this. Really, really badly suck at it. Looks like you figured out, yet again, that you have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
You can infer what you want to from that.
Sure..
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
Where P is the scientific validity of the GOP and Q is separation of church and state
Rinse and repeat for most of your comments
What are you, 12? Act like somebody already.[outline how that is, if you think it is true]
(crickets)
You suck at this. Really, really badly suck at it. Looks like you figured out, yet again, that you have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
You can infer what you want to from that.
That is just... wow kind of dumb, or more than a little dishonest.
So you went right out and strawmanned my statement into claiming I was making statements on consequences.At no point did I explicitly or implicitly make a statement on the consequences which would be required for that.
Let me put it in a more basic form.
X, therefore Y.
The separation of church and state is a religious based policy. = X
A given group is not scientific if its policies are religious based policies. = Y
The right is pushing for the separation of church and state (X), therefore they are not scientific (Y).
That is what I meant, and that is what I said.
More explicitly:
The "scientific validity" of the GOP as a whole is completely independent of how ty or desirable the outcomes of their preferred policies are.
If you advocate for policies based on non-scientific principles, you are therefore not scientific. If a group advocates for policies that are non-scientific, that group is therefore not scientific.
Providing examples of non-scientific based policies does not make any claim of truth about underlying assertions.
You.
Dumb.
Ass.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-01-2021 at 07:11 AM.
maybe they can get prisoners to do it, if immigrant labor does not suffice or starts to get overly accustomed to breaks and sahde.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7ez...oric-heat-waveIn recent days, labor organizers have received reports of fruit pickers in the region suffering heat-related illnesses, which can include nausea, confusion, slurred speech, and unconsciousness. Many workers say their employers haven't set up tents for shade and require them to supply their own water. Meanwhile, children as young as 12 years old (which is legal due to the exclusion of agricultural workers from fundamental labor laws) and elderly workers in their 60s and 70s have been working in the cherry and blueberry fields in Washington and Oregon, labor organizers told Motherboard. Motherboard has also reviewed photo evidence of children working in cherry fields in recent days.
"There's no shade where I work," a cherry picker in Yakima County in Washington, where temperatures have exceeded 100 degrees for the past three days, told Motherboard on Monday in Spanish. Motherboard granted the worker anonymity because she feared retaliation from her employer. "A lot of people who don’t feel well keep working so as not to lose money for lunch or rent. People endure a lot to finish. They give more than they are able to."
If the right is pushing for separation of church and state, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letter to the Danbury Baptists?
How is the separation of church and state determined scientifically? Explain why these things are good or bad from a scientific standpoint. Also explain how science has anything to do with a political position on abortion. What does science say about the value of human life?
They finally get caught lying for money. Even Manchin was involved.
Undercover Exxon video reveals an anti-climate campaign.
A senior ExxonMobil lobbyist appears to have unwittingly revealed how the oil company uses its political muscle to undercut climate action.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/busin...coy/index.html
"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes," Keith McCoy, the Exxon (XOM) lobbyist, said during a covertly filmed job interview recorded by Greenpeace's UK investigative platform.
"Did we join some shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true," McCoy said in the video, which was published Wednesday by the UK's Channel 4. "But there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. we were looking out for our shareholders.”
The footage seems to corroborate what many suspected all along: Exxon's public support for climate solutions at times conflicts with its work behind the scenes.
The report from Channel 4 did not allege Exxon or its lobbyists did anything illegal. After all, plenty of major corporations use campaign donations to shape the laws in their favor.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods responded to the footage by saying the comments "in no way represent the company's position" on climate policy and its commitment to carbon pricing.
"We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials," Woods said in a statement. "They are entirely inconsistent with the way we expect our people to conduct themselves. We were shocked by these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change."
Woods, who became CEO in 2017 after Rex Tillerson stepped down from the helm of Exxon to become President Donald Trump's secretary of state, also said the individuals in the footage "were never involved" in developing the company's positions on the issues discussed.
'He is the kingmaker'
Yet during the video McCoy suggested he's very much involved in Exxon's efforts to influence key lawmakers. The Exxon lobbyist compared the influence campaign to fishing, where the company tries to "kind of reel them in."
"Because they're a captive audience. They know they need you and I need them," McCoy said.
McCoy identified 11 US senators he says are "crucial" to Exxon, singling out Senator Joe Manchin, the moderate Democrat from West Virginia, as particularly important.
My entire point was that the right side of the spectrum is vastly less rational than the left, mainly because many more policy decision/stances were based purely on religious beliefs.
That's it.
Many pseudo-scientific beliefs are based purely on religion in one way or another, e.g. flat-earth.
In the case of climate change the "anthropogenic dominance" school that says "God put this here for us to do as we see fit and controls everything, therefore we cannot really be changing the climate" means that evangelicals are much less likely to accept the scientific fact that we are rapidly causing global climate to shift.
Religion poisons everything, IMO. Once you start abdicating reason in one area, the next one becomes all the easier.
Once you make rational reasoning the enemy as many defenses of faith do, you hobble yourself.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods is ING LIAR
Exxon bribes politicians, Exxon finances rightwing hate media, stink tanks that excrete AGW-denying attacking climate scientists and campaigners, hires scientists to deny AGW, while calling the law enforcement to defend their gas/oil pipelines
Exxon and all the BigCarbon industries are criminal operations.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-01-2021 at 01:15 PM.
You need to show how abortion of an otherwise healthy pregnancy has a scientific explanation for being "good", that promotes better decision making than what the right is using. Otherwise you're taking your stance as the gold standard and measuring everything else as deviations.
Sure, religion poisons everything. We're right back to the fact that leaders on all sides of the isle profess religious beliefs.
Shocked!
Last edited by Ef-man; 07-01-2021 at 02:32 PM.
I was thinking you were deliberately mis-representing what I was saying.
Now, I am pretty sure you just don't understand it. Reading disability maybe?
That makes having a coherent conversation difficult.
So let's address your fallacy, because you keep re-stating it as if it is sound reasoning.
Sure. But they do not do so equivalently.We're right back to the fact that leaders on all sides of the isle profess religious beliefs.
The right is provably more religious.
Nor does the left base so much of their preferred policies on purely religious beliefs.
If you want to claim they are equivalent, you have committed a fallacy, and an easily provable one.
Are they equivalently religious? Yes or no. (You have already admitted they are not)
Leaving:
Does the left and the right equivalently base policies on religion? Yes or no.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-01-2021 at 03:52 PM.
Religion is inherently irrational/delusional. (P=Q)
Policies based on delusion are less likely to be sound. (Q=R)
Therefore policies based on religion are less likely to be sound. (P=R)
Q.E.D
The right bases far more of their policies on religion than the left. (Q1>Q2)
Therefore right wing policies are less likely to be sound than the left wing policies, all other things equal. (Q1=R1, Q2=R2, therefore R1>R2)
Q.E.D.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-01-2021 at 05:16 PM.
~one billion people depend on this snowmass
https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-...high-mountainsBy comparing the 1979-99 average snowmelt with the 1999-2019 average, the authors find a 16% decline in annual snow mel er across the region. This is mainly caused by increasing temperatures depleting snow reserves, the study says. However, it adds that changing precipitation patterns in the region also play a role in determining snow reserves.
The authors also assess future changes in snowmelt under a range of different emissions scenarios and “shared socioeconomic pathways” (SSPs). In the SSP1-1.9 scenario, which is broadly consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5C, snowmelt will decrease by a further 6% by the end of the century. However, a 40% drop is expected in the most pessimistic scenario – SSP5-8.5 – which would see global temperatures exceed 4C by the end of the century.
Wonder if that leads to lower levels for the mississipi in general, if anything similar portends for the rockies.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate...fic-northwest/
Just a week ago, the Pacific Northwest — a place normally known for its cool and wet climate — endured the most extraordinary heat wave ever observed there in modern times. Even seasoned meteorologists could not believe what they were seeing as seemingly impossible heat persisted day after day.
Portland, Oregon, climbed to 116 degrees, breaking an all-time record by an astonishing 9 degrees. Lytton, Canada, broke that nation's all-time record three days in a row, topping out at 121 degrees. The very next day, 90% of the town burned to the ground as over 100 wildfires scorched British Columbia. Officials say several hundred people were killed by the heat, and that number is expected to rise after assessments are complete.
The extremity of the heat wasn't just unusual — it would have been "virtually impossible without human-caused climate change," according to a new analysis by 27 climate scientists from the World Weather Attribution network. And the study warns, "As warming continues, it will become a lot less rare."
------------------------------------------------
DarrinS I pointed out to you over a decade ago, the evidence would become too hard to ignore.
Even for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ll-study-finds
Human activity such as such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change were a key factor in extreme precipitation events such as flooding and landslides around the world, a study has found.
In recent years, there have been numerous instances of flooding and landslides: extreme precipitation, an amount of rainfall or snowfall that exceeds what is normal for a given region, can be a cause of such events.
Natural variations in climate, such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Enso), affect precipitation. But attribution research studies, such as the latest modelling study, published on Tuesday in Nature Communications, work to better understand whether human actions impacting the climate, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes, contribute to the likelihood and severity of extreme events.
In the study, UCLA researchers looked at global climate records to examine whether anthropogenic influence – human-induced changes to the climate – had affected extreme precipitation. By examining multiple data sets of observed precipitation, the researchers were able to build a global picture, and found evidence of human activity affecting extreme precipitation in all of them.
“It is vital to identify the changes [to precipitation patterns] caused by human action, compared to the changes caused by natural climate variability,” explained lead researcher Gavin Madakumbura. “It allows us to manage water resources and plan adaption measures to changes driven by climate change.”
Up till now, work in this field has been restricted to countries, rather than applied globally. But the research team utilised machine learning to create a global data set.
Human-induced climate change is causing the Earth’s temperature to increase. Different mechanisms link warmer temperatures to extreme precipitation. “The dominant mechanism [driving extreme precipitation] for most regions around the world is that warmer air can hold more water vapour,” said Madakumbura. “This fuels storms.”
While there are regional differences, and some places are becoming drier, Met Office data shows that overall, intense rainfall is increasing globally, meaning the rainiest days of the year are getting wetter. Changes to rainfall extremes – the number of very heavy rainfall days – are also a problem. These short, intense periods of rainfall can lead to flash flooding, with devastating impacts on infrastructure and the environment.
“We are already observing a 1.2C warming compared to pre-industrial levels,” pointed out Dr Sihan Li, a senior research associate at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. She said: “If warming continues to increase, we will get more intense episodes of extreme precipitation, but also extreme drought events as well.”
Li said that while the machine-learning method used in the study was cutting edge, it currently did not allow for the attribution of individual factors that can influence precipitation extremes, such as anthropogenic aerosols, land-use change, or volcanic eruptions.
The method of machine learning used in the study learned from data alone. Madakumbura pointed out that in the future, “we can aid this learning by imposing climate physics in the algorithm, so it will not only learn whether the extreme precipitation has changed, but also the mechanisms, why it has changed”. “That’s the next step,” he said.
-----------------------------------
DarrinS It isn't just heat either. Consider Houstons 50 inches of rain.
Some doesn't age well, does it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
