3 ms·
False skepticism is a new concept for me. Still, I would like to thank you for a detailed answer. For me, an outsider to the science and politics of climate af
by cema 12y ago
False skepticism is a new concept for me.
Still, I would like to thank you for a detailed answer. For me, an outsider to the science and politics of climate affairs, it sheds light on one party of the argument. Perhaps the other party will have an equally eloquent exposition - I have not yet read all the comments in this thread.
- Daishiman 12y agoI don't know whether it was sarcastic or not, but to clarify: false skepticism is when FUD is cast around on the excuse that it is an attack on an institutional status quo. The reason why it is false is because real skepticism has a knack for rigorously questioning specific points in lines of evidence and proposing why established theories are cargo-culting their data. As you can see here, none of that is taking place. In fact, the entire article is a massive logical fallacy that implicitly tries to frame the IPCC's current policy proposals as some sort of extreme. If anything, the IPCC's report is extremely conservative, as it does not analyze the Black Swan events which include methan clathrates and the loss of effectiveness of carbon sinks, or the warming of the deep oceans. Thus, it frames the debate in a fallacious way. Actual skepticism has been well-served by the internal debates amongst climate scientists, and if you read the stuff by the emintent experts, you will see that they are shitting their pants in fear. When climate experts are seriously scared of the possibilities of total extinction, we should be listening, and at best, making thoughtful critiques. This,in contrast, is stinking bullshit.
- cema 12y agoLook, I appreciate your point, but shitting pants is not an argument. Not a scientific argument.