A New Means of Disinformation

Posted by rbroberg 3 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
36 comments | Share | Flag

The article attached would not be read by many Gulchers due to the assumed content. Perhaps it shouldn't. Still, I cannot help but be struck by the strangeness of the title itself. The particular article title is "Climate change made Louisiana's catastrophic floods much more likely". Now, setting aside even legitimate arguments against climate change, please take a closer look at the title itself. The claim is that a process made (past tense) a past event more probable. In the common usage, the words likely or probable tend to denote future events -- events such as economic growth or decline, Iranian adherence or revocation of nuclear agreements, rain or shine.

This is because the probability of a past event occurring is a unity. The probability of the Spanish Inquisition is 1. We know this as historical fact. The probability of a leaning tower leaning is 1. We open our eyes and see the angle that tower makes with the earth. And no one is going to bet on a coin toss that has already occurred.

Now, we can bet on the result of something that has happened under the guise that we just don't have all the information. But the truth is, either the spaceship made it to Pluto or did not. Betting on it won't affect the outcome. So it is with the example provided by the article. The application of probability to a past event, is, at best, gambling on a scientific process.

Climate change fallacies range across the spectrum. The particular argument reference in the article's title I would classify as Argument From Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis or Non Sequitur.

How would you classify this fallacy?

In summary, assigning a probability to a past event is a new means of disinformation. It relies on the concept of probability while destroying it's foundation. It is a stolen concept.
SOURCE URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/08/climate-change-louisiana-floods-increased-risk


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 1 month ago
    I agree, the wording of the article is somewhat inaccurate in itself, rbr.
    Propagandist looters have to find a dark cloud in every silver lining. They have admitted that warmer temps result in fewer hurricanes with less damages onshore. Lots of money saved via the lower damages that they neglect to trumpet.
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/the...
    So there may be a tradeoff in occasional heavy rains if this study doesn't prove to be as flawed as all the global warming rubbish before it..
    No link has been proven between man's actions and climate changes. Until that is proven, this is just one more irrelevent hypothesis.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 1 month ago
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
    This because of this. A fallacy of ancient Rome who got it from the ancient Greeks. Not new disinformation, but very astute to point it out. It is done so often that even rational people have come to accept it. It is combined with the NAZI mouthpiece Herr Goebbles (spelling?) who promulgated the Big Lie, that if you say it often enough people will begin to believe it as fact.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 1 month ago
      Herb, the combination is potent and troubling. Where I used to see "may" and "might" I'm forced to admit I've seen those words deleted from the (climate) argument. No coincidence this results from political climate. The climate claim grows ever grander. The big lie is getting fat.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 1 month ago
        It has taken on the aspects of a religion. To point out its falsity to the true believers is as bad as pointing out the falsities of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed to true believers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 1 month ago
    While it is not possible to manipulate reality by political edict it is possible to alter the perception of that reality. The reality of climate change is irrelevant to those that would use it as a political tool but when the end justifies the means honesty is the first casualty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 3 years, 1 month ago
    Maybe instead of always blaming citizens, they should first look at the natural disaster of the ppast, before industrialization. Then they should next examine the over 50 know weather control facilities, commercial and government, affecting the jet stream. That should be before the blame is put on citizens - unless control is really their real goal. Of course Hillary has vowed to make criminal any open debate and discussion over climate change, and to shut down internet discussion of oppoing ideas. I remember years ago, having lived in North Dakota, when very unusual flooding occurred. Eventually, Russia admitted they had been testing their version of our HAARP, and it went awry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnCaedan 3 years, 1 month ago
    I think it is post hoc, but with a post-modern corollary.

    "We don't need to assert certainty -- nothing is certain -- but AGW is so evil we are justified in only asserting post hoc possibility of likelihood. That's just as good as certainty."

    Or

    I have no proof that CG caused Louisiana, but the consensus will be happy with me if I extend their position "even if there's no proof, we have to blame CG because the Original Sin of AGW can and should be held to have caused any bad results. There is no limit to stretching the feasibility as far as possible, we have the moral duty to go for it."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 years, 1 month ago
    I think "non-testable hypothesis; however, this article hints at exactly what is obscured by the media and greenies about climate change:
    The basis of climate change is water vapor!

    ALL present climate models use significant feedback mechanisms for water vapor. Why, because CO2 itself is wholly inadequate to cause any global warming. The only way this works is with additional water vapor. That is the culprit. Their obfuscated argument is really that CO2 causes additional water vapor, which causes climate change. This doesn't grab people's attention, and it sounds less certain, so they hide this fact. I cannot believe how hard it was to figure this out as a lay person, even a technically oriented lay person. I still can't find the equilibrium equation I came across from a University of AZ class on the subject. There is a well-establish equation for the equilibrium temperature of a planet. It is first-order, but simple and pretty close. CO2 is NOT the first order culprit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 1 month ago
      The CO2 "problem" then would be countered because more and more water is being contained in the bodies of human beings as population increases, so of course, it must result in lower water vapor.
      (Yes, I am joking ;^) Makes as much sense as blaming humans for climate change. )
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 1 month ago
    Liberal progressives are crafty little buggers...they are the one's that confound our language, it's definitions and forever changing the connotations; attempting complex hegelian dialectic themes, so lame, that, if one just opens an eye, can see right through.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 1 month ago
      Yes, there is a host of stolen concepts out there. Stolen concepts appear to be "necessary" in order to make contradictory claims, but I have yet to understand what a Hegelian dialectic is. The best description I can muster is that it is this: observing a range in the degree of an attribute and then calling the extremes of that range "opposites".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 1 month ago
        Problem Reaction Solution. First a problem is created and designed to elicit a certain reaction out of the public. Then the people demand something be done about the problem and willingly accept the pre-planned New World Order solution; a solution that always involves actions or legislation that never would have passed under normal circumstances.

        And to do that, they elicit new connotations to words and concepts, usually the opposite of what we use in the original definition...after a while, it's difficult to discern exactly What they mean...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Enyway 3 years, 1 month ago
      Progressives are like engineers, they love to change things. Doesn't seem to matter that most of the changes aren't necessary and only make things more complicated. Aaahhh, the mind of man. Where have you gone? Galts Gulch, of course!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 1 month ago
        That's exactly the problem...progressives have no mind...they are only a brain in a body...that's why I call them "Humanoid" and usually they are parasitical in nature.

        If all of us with a mind left them to themselves...they would quickly devolve into animal like creatures constantly at war with themselves and others...Oh Wait!...they do that now!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years, 1 month ago
    I don't agree either but maybe our govt should consider William Shatner's( Star Trek fame) idea of a Flood Water Redistribution System. A nation wide pump-pipe system to pump flood waters to water retention basins to the drought stricken areas of the country.
    Very expensive but doable idea.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Enyway 3 years, 1 month ago
    I went through the comments and decided that this quote covers most of the comments I have read. So, I include it in the main section.

    "The art of politics is, searching for problems, finding them everywhere, diagnosing them incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

    Groucho Marx
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Enyway 3 years, 1 month ago
    Climate change is a constant cycle this planet goes through. This cycle is constantly moving forward, or backward, depending on whom is your source. This planet is nearly half a trillion years old. The dinosaurs were here for about 175 million years. That is small fraction of the life of this planet. Humans, by comparison, have been here for a smaller fraction than the dinosaurs. Say the time earth has been here is the size of a basket ball. The amount of time the dinosaurs lived here would be about the size of a marble making the time humans have been here about the size of an atom. You think this planet is worried about a few humans? Our future is in space and our goal should be conquering the space that separates us from the rest of the universe. We have a very, very few, million years to worry about and solve this problem. Let the idiots who worry about climate change worry about their lives, let the mind solve the more important problem.

    "Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run, these are the only people who count."

    Robert Hienlien
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo