3 ms·

They aren't my arguments. It is not about "fewer deaths from cold weather" but fewer deaths from extreme weather, the opposite claim of the OP and many media ou

They aren't my arguments. It is not about "fewer deaths from cold weather" but fewer deaths from extreme weather, the opposite claim of the OP and many media outlets of "accepted science" of climate change. It is not even a denialist position but the position of the IPPC, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies etc. My argument is using "climate change" as the reason one wants to protect from flooding is a logical fallacy. Obama's order mentioned in the OP wasn't "impact of flooding legislation" but "response to climate change legislation" and contained more than flood defences. Legislation to defend from changes to weather the climate change scientists say will not only not happen but reduce.

mannykannot 9y ago
It was your choice to use this particular argument in your post, where it is an amusing non-sequitur, regardless of whether it has any relevance in any other context.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  It is directly related. Temperature extremes drive weather events, such as hurricanes and therefore flooding. Less extremes = less flooding = less death
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Thank you for this fascinating look into how climate-change deniers fool themselves, beyond simply ignoring evidence they don't like. In your original claim (which is not the same as the one in your last post), you go from the specific issue (flooding) to a general one (extreme weather), introduce a point that may be relevant for one aspect of extreme weather but which has nothing to do with flooding (reduced deaths due to cold), and then switch back to the specific issue as if it somehow thereby became subject to the irrelevant argument. In your latest post, you have dropped this line of argument for one that gets no support from the IPCC report quote that you used in your original claim. It says there will be fewer extreme cold events, but also that there will be more high temperature events: we know the latter are more conducive to flooding. The quoted paragraph takes no position supporting the claim that there will be fewer temperature extremes overall, let alone that it will therefore led to fewer flooding events specifically (another case where you go from the general to the specific with no justification.) You appear to have mistaken an argument about the number of deaths overall for an argument about the number of extreme events overall, and then, in turn, mistaking that for an argument about the number and intensity of floods. In addition, your latest post is simple ignore-the-evidence denialism. In a single sentence, you dismiss decades of painstaking, quantitative, peer-reviewed research that leads to the expectation that the number of intense North Atlantic hurricanes (i.e. specifically those that are by far the biggest problem for the US) is very likely to increase. And sea-level rise is an established, measured fact (and one that contributes to the damage of coastal flooding), despite what all those latter-day King Cnuts [1] on the hill say. Finally, I find your attitude, that we should do nothing about flooding because to do so would challenge your delusions about climate change (and apparently also your opinion of Obama), to be distasteful, especially considering the distress it has just caused in and around Houston. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
    - PeachPlum 9y ago
      Enjoy https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_10155973144383968_2429428809021619842_o.png?oh=aa35014e9ab50f8cb29ada40d92694a2&oe=5A29A8DA https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_1015... You keep calling me a denialist, yet I am saying "climate change won't have the effects the media says, even though the IPCC says different" If I was a denialist I would be saying "there is no change" see the difference ?
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        In your previous posts, you were not saying what you now say you were saying, because of the faulty logic you employed, and the conclusions you drew from employing it. In fact, even your latest, considerably watered-down statement is ambiguous at best, unless you did really mean to say that the IPCC says that climate change will have the effects that the media says. One of your original claims was that it is right to roll back flood regulations simply because they were justified (in part) as a response to climate change. Putting aside the obvious point that it makes sense to plan for the future, that is moot anyway, because recent events in Houston, NY/NJ and New Orleans have demonstrated that there is a flooding problem right now, with the climate we have now. Your position puts ideology, and preserving the facade of an illusion, over pragmatism. All but the most dogmatic of climate change deniers have moved away from denying that it is happening at all, to denying that it will have negative consequences, or denying the evidence is good enough to predict anything, or... Eventually, the only thing left for them to deny will be that anything can be done about it, and by then they might finally be right, thanks in part to their efforts.

mannykannot 9y ago

It was your choice to use this particular argument in your post, where it is an amusing non-sequitur, regardless of whether it has any relevance in any other context.

PeachPlum 9y ago
It is directly related. Temperature extremes drive weather events, such as hurricanes and therefore flooding. Less extremes = less flooding = less death
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Thank you for this fascinating look into how climate-change deniers fool themselves, beyond simply ignoring evidence they don't like. In your original claim (which is not the same as the one in your last post), you go from the specific issue (flooding) to a general one (extreme weather), introduce a point that may be relevant for one aspect of extreme weather but which has nothing to do with flooding (reduced deaths due to cold), and then switch back to the specific issue as if it somehow thereby became subject to the irrelevant argument. In your latest post, you have dropped this line of argument for one that gets no support from the IPCC report quote that you used in your original claim. It says there will be fewer extreme cold events, but also that there will be more high temperature events: we know the latter are more conducive to flooding. The quoted paragraph takes no position supporting the claim that there will be fewer temperature extremes overall, let alone that it will therefore led to fewer flooding events specifically (another case where you go from the general to the specific with no justification.) You appear to have mistaken an argument about the number of deaths overall for an argument about the number of extreme events overall, and then, in turn, mistaking that for an argument about the number and intensity of floods. In addition, your latest post is simple ignore-the-evidence denialism. In a single sentence, you dismiss decades of painstaking, quantitative, peer-reviewed research that leads to the expectation that the number of intense North Atlantic hurricanes (i.e. specifically those that are by far the biggest problem for the US) is very likely to increase. And sea-level rise is an established, measured fact (and one that contributes to the damage of coastal flooding), despite what all those latter-day King Cnuts [1] on the hill say. Finally, I find your attitude, that we should do nothing about flooding because to do so would challenge your delusions about climate change (and apparently also your opinion of Obama), to be distasteful, especially considering the distress it has just caused in and around Houston. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    Enjoy https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_10155973144383968_2429428809021619842_o.png?oh=aa35014e9ab50f8cb29ada40d92694a2&oe=5A29A8DA https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21272815_1015... You keep calling me a denialist, yet I am saying "climate change won't have the effects the media says, even though the IPCC says different" If I was a denialist I would be saying "there is no change" see the difference ?
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      In your previous posts, you were not saying what you now say you were saying, because of the faulty logic you employed, and the conclusions you drew from employing it. In fact, even your latest, considerably watered-down statement is ambiguous at best, unless you did really mean to say that the IPCC says that climate change will have the effects that the media says. One of your original claims was that it is right to roll back flood regulations simply because they were justified (in part) as a response to climate change. Putting aside the obvious point that it makes sense to plan for the future, that is moot anyway, because recent events in Houston, NY/NJ and New Orleans have demonstrated that there is a flooding problem right now, with the climate we have now. Your position puts ideology, and preserving the facade of an illusion, over pragmatism. All but the most dogmatic of climate change deniers have moved away from denying that it is happening at all, to denying that it will have negative consequences, or denying the evidence is good enough to predict anything, or... Eventually, the only thing left for them to deny will be that anything can be done about it, and by then they might finally be right, thanks in part to their efforts.