8 ms·

Yes, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I won't address an argument you don't make. >Also, if we granted your fourth point, it would be impossible

Yes, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I won't address an argument you don't make. >Also, if we granted your fourth point, it would be impossible to establish the first point; you can't say both things at the same time. Please elaborate. There isn't a formal fallacy here so I'm assuming you have some esoteric implicit "own". >Regarding point 2, if the "hot" models are accurate, then climate change is something that will effect us maybe one or two generations from now, if it isn't already (it's a little hard to tell whether we are in a particularly hot period right now and will regress to the mean). Even if you are completely selfish, anti-natalist, and atheist, you should probably still be concerned. They aren't. Anyways, again, if you're talking about immediate threats to your physical self, it's obvious that only a very deluded individual would rank "climate change" anywhere reasonable. The threat model is just laughable. It fails too many conspiracy sniff tests and reeks of the same psychology that enables doomsday cults (vague predictions that constantly fail and are re-made).

dnlzro 3y ago
I asked if you had watched the video because you didn't raise any specific objections to the evidence provided. I'm not going to restate everything said in the video, but if there's something specific you disagreed with, we could talk about it in more detail. I assume that by "slow burn," you mean to say that climate change takes place on a time scale that goes beyond just one or two decades. If that's true, then how can we possibly judge the accuracy of the newer "hot" models except by looking at how well they predict past climate data? And by that metric, some of them do just as well as the older, less "hot" models that we've been basing climate policy on for decades. Is there some other metric you're using to dismiss the new models? I hope it's clear why I think you're contradicting yourself, but maybe you have some other way of telling whether a climate model is accurate. I think there is some validity to what you say about risk assessment, and I have the general feeling that there is some real hysteria among younger generations w.r.t. climate change. There may be more pressing issues, but again, if it is the case that we can expect to see much hotter temperatures than previously predicted, then everyone, regardless of wealth or location, should be concerned for their own wellbeing in the near future.

dnlzro 3y ago

I asked if you had watched the video because you didn't raise any specific objections to the evidence provided. I'm not going to restate everything said in the video, but if there's something specific you disagreed with, we could talk about it in more detail. I assume that by "slow burn," you mean to say that climate change takes place on a time scale that goes beyond just one or two decades. If that's true, then how can we possibly judge the accuracy of the newer "hot" models except by looking at how well they predict past climate data? And by that metric, some of them do just as well as the older, less "hot" models that we've been basing climate policy on for decades. Is there some other metric you're using to dismiss the new models? I hope it's clear why I think you're contradicting yourself, but maybe you have some other way of telling whether a climate model is accurate. I think there is some validity to what you say about risk assessment, and I have the general feeling that there is some real hysteria among younger generations w.r.t. climate change. There may be more pressing issues, but again, if it is the case that we can expect to see much hotter temperatures than previously predicted, then everyone, regardless of wealth or location, should be concerned for their own wellbeing in the near future.