3 ms·
Actually I believe the formal fallacy that makes climate skeptics sites unreliable is "Begging the question". Which isn't to say that climate & environmental s
by ticviking 11y ago
Actually I believe the formal fallacy that makes climate skeptics sites unreliable is "Begging the question".
Which isn't to say that climate & environmental science isn't a bit sick. It suffers from group-think and a pretty hefty anti-human bias.
They in general did not begin from "I do not like the implication of the carbon emission -> global warming hypothesis to my business model so I will not consider explanations that force me(or my patrons) to stop making money from fossil fuels"
- gadders 11y agoAgain, an incorrect assertion of the motives of climate change sceptics. I may as well say that pro-Climate Change people are not convinced about the science but like the side-effects it may have on global inequality.
- ticviking 11y agoTrue enough. That is my principal reason for opposing virtually every "Climate Change Solution" I see that has strongly re-distributive effects. That and the frankly anti-human bias of virtually all environmental scientists of my acquaintance. My point is that both are a valid critiques and should influence how you read the arguments made by both sides. I was mostly annoyed that you were calling skepticism for those biases slander instead of pointing out that both sides are biased, and thus we(as humans) are likely to fall for the side that our confirmation bias leads us to. Overall I'm convinced that warming is happening, and that human CO2 emissions are probably single largest cause of that. I'm also pretty well convinced that the impact of that warming is well below the alarmists views, and that we will move to renewables just as soon as it is efficient to do so.