A New Means of Disinformation
Posted by rbroberg 7 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Hear that, Mr. Sun? You big ole' meanie you!
(Yes, I am joking ;^) Makes as much sense as blaming humans for climate change. )
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...
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!
This is a real condition and people with this condition can function quite well. One might never notice otherwise.
Very expensive but doable idea.
"The art of politics is, searching for problems, finding them everywhere, diagnosing them incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
Groucho Marx
"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
Either that, or it was all Bush's fault. :-)