Climate Change Deniers and Apologists sinking together.

[_Amore]

Let's count the cognitive distortions in the OP and posse.
-Global labeling
-Jumping to conclusions
-polarized thinking
-Overgeneralization
-Blaming
-Always being right

by the way, Waterdog, I respect how reasonable you are approaching this topic. It's never black or white and there's often more going on than how pervasive media focuses.

As for my part in this - I've asked you only to back up your '4 billion dollars' figure at this point.

Do you have anything for us?

Too lazy to type a few keys and look it up yourself?
Fine:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4100,d.cGU

For just ONE YEAR... in the name of "Weather Change": $19,781,000,000!
And now I ask you to justify this expenditure - that it's not more needed in other ways.
What good has come? How are we almost $20,000,000,000 better off?
Answer: We're not.
This ridiculous spending is BS that you and others fall for.

Getting back to the OP...
This thread has majorly backfired - the intention of putting down your old cult in support of a new more ridiculous liberal cult is illogically immature and loaded with cognitive distortions.
I don't understand why you hate cults - yet adhere to insane cult-like ideologies - just because everyone you want praise from is going along with it.

At least some on this board have the backbone to THINK for themselves instead of have their thinking done for them.

[_canpakes]

Too lazy to type a few keys and look it up yourself?
Fine:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 4100,d.cGU

For just ONE YEAR... in the name of "Weather Change": $19,781,000,000!

Thanks for making this easy, as you are linking to the exact document that I linked to as the source to prove your claim wrong. Please see my prior post... Remember, your claim was, "This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, ", which is found to be a false claim by the very source that you (and I previously) linked to.

But, now you want to move the goalposts. OK. Now you want to talk about anything with any relation to climate change as being unnecessary. According to this document, that would include the following in the '20 billion dollar' catch-all figure:

• Climate Change Science. This category encompasses the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

• Clean Energy Technology. Clean Energy Technology incorporates a variety of technology research, development, and deployment activities – including voluntary partnerships and grant programs – that support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. This category comprises work on clean energy systems and sources such as geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, and emerging sources such as water power. It also includes programs or technologies or practices that help improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, such as building efficiency, more effective transmission or distribution of electricity, and vehicle technologies that improve engine efficiency or fuel economy.

• International Assistance. This category describes elements of a “whole of government” approach to mobilize a wide range of resources and make use of bilateral and multilateral assistance tools. The core budget includes resources for a coordinated set of programs designed to ensure an effective balance across the three pillars of the global climate effort: Adaptation, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Landscapes.

• Energy Tax Provisions. This category includes tax incentives for investments in certain energy technologies, and energy payments that can be used in lieu of certain tax credits. These incentives promote deployment of energy efficient or alternative energy technologies, which may help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Climate Change Adaptation, Preparedness, and Resilience. There are numerous efforts across the Federal Government for preparing and building resilience to the impacts of climate change on various critical sectors, institutions, and agency mission responsibilities. This concept is also known as “adaptation.” Led by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, and using risk management principles, agencies are working to ensure they can continue to perform their missions in the face of climate change. Successful preparedness efforts often involve integrating climate change considerations into existing agency programs, projects, and activities rather than establishing separate and distinct programs. This creates a challenge when attempting to fully account for all adaptation resources. While the Administration continues to develop
methodologies to account for a broader suite of adaptation programs across all critical sectors, an interim category, described further in section 6, summarizes certain activities at the Department of the Interior designed to promote preparedness and resilience. The activities at the Department of the Interior reflect interagency efforts to address key adaptation challenges that cut across the jurisdictions and missions of individual Federal agencies, and affect fresh water, oceans and coasts, and fish, wildlife and plants.

None of these are specifically directed towards and restricted to only affecting 'climate change'; they may address it as part of their purpose yet all have viable benefits that coincide with addressing some climate change concerns.

And now I ask you to justify this expenditure -

Nice attempt at redirection after you found out that your first claim is false.

I have a better idea - you can tell us specifically what is not justified and/or unnecessary, from within any of the categories and activities listed above, and why, since this is your new complaint.

You are certainly doing a good job of demonstrating Zadok's point - 'if at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts to a new (but just as faulty) argument'.

[_Gunnar]

For Amore:

What qualifications, expertise, experience and credibility do you bring to this discussion that even remotely compare to the listed qualifications and expertise of (for example) DrW?

[_cognitiveharmony]

Exactly. There was a time when climate change deniers weren't fractured with so many factions and positions but mounting evidence against a position will tend to do this. So this is yet another justification of the OP as LDS apologetics has taken this same route. Thanks for the nice illustration.

The exact opposite could just as reasonably be argued. Climate change models are in constant flux with about the only constant being the conclusion. You sound exactly like Richard Lindzen in the article I linked.

Not really, you would then need an apt analogy with evidences against, or criticisms of the church as also being in constant flux which is clearly not true. The evidences/criticisms of the church remain the same today as they always have, they are only added to and compounded.

[_Gunnar]

Nice attempt at redirection after you found out that your first claim is false.

I have a better idea - you can tell us specifically what is not justified and/or unnecessary, from within any of the categories and activities listed above, and why, since this is your new complaint.

You are certainly doing a good job of demonstrating Zadok's point - 'if at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts to a new (but just as faulty) argument'.

It is not terribly difficult even for a comparative dummy like me to see that that is exactly what Amore is doing. One has to wonder why.

She reminds me of a former acquaintance of mine who was constitutionally incapable of admitting to be in error on anything. He would stoutly maintain that he was right in the face of the most abundant and incontrovertible evidence against his position. If and when it finally dawned even on him that there was no way that he could possibly win the argument, he would either just change the subject or try to claim he never actually held his now discredited former position at all, and that he had been arguing the opposite of that all along, and that we had just misunderstood him.

[_canpakes]

Nice attempt at redirection after you found out that your first claim is false.

I have a better idea - you can tell us specifically what is not justified and/or unnecessary, from within any of the categories and activities listed above, and why, since this is your new complaint.

You are certainly doing a good job of demonstrating Zadok's point - 'if at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts to a new (but just as faulty) argument'.

It is not terribly difficult even for a comparative dummy like me to see that that is exactly what Amore is doing. One has to wonder why.

She reminds me of a former acquaintance of mine who was constitutionally incapable of admitting to be in error on anything. He would stoutly maintain that he was right in the face of the most abundant and incontrovertible evidence against his position. If and when it finally dawned even on him that there was no way that he could possibly win the argument, he would either just change the subject or try to claim he never actually held his now discredited former position at all, and that he had been arguing the opposite of that all along, and that we had just misunderstood him.

It is strange, considering that she makes this comment in her last post:

"At least some on this board have the backbone to THINK for themselves instead of have their thinking done for them."

Heck, I can't even see that Amore is reading her own sources, let alone doing any thinking about any of them.

[_Themis]

In the case of climate change deniers, I would think there would come a time, even if this time is yet in the future, when the most strident opponent would admit the evidence is overwhelming and they would be required to admit they were wrong, and start to work for a productive solution.

Most people know little of the subject which is evident in Amore's comments. They actually need enough people in their tribe to move change their position to change theirs. This actually is understandable from an evolutionary POV.

Change does happen slowly, but it doesn't help when there are major groups wanting to muddy the waters to protect their money flow, power, etc.

In the case of apologists, does the same thing happen? Does there come a time when the evidence is so overwhelming that they admit they were wrong?

Lots of members now see the church is not what it claims. There are examples of people who wrote articles for LDS apologia who no longer believe. I many cases it took years of knowing much of the evidence.

Because one is science, and the other is faith, does that alone excuse the apologist from recognizing and admitting their errors?

Not many are emotionally attached to science. This is a good thing and can help avoid being stuck believing things the evidence does not support. Emotion is vital to faith. People are heavily attached emotionally to their faith and beliefs which helps them to maintain their testimony no matter the evidence. The age of the earth and literal global flood are great examples. Why do so many still not accept the mountains of evidence showing a global flood could not have happened? I would say because they will not abandon what their tribe believes, and will even avoid learning anything about it. It's not until enough in the tribe change their views do they start to change. We can see this happening faster now with the church, while still being very dishonest, are admitting to certain facts they wouldn't have in the past.

[_Amore]

Canpakes,
The previous article underestimated, so if you were genuinely interested in truth you'd be more concerned with so much more money being spent in the name of "climate change" rather than trying to win brownie points with ad hominem attacks toward anyone who doesn't join your ideologies.


DrW,
Although I still disagree with you, I apologize for a rude comment I made earlier. I'm sure you earned your title in one way or another.

[_canpakes]

Canpakes,
The previous article underestimated, so if you were genuinely interested in truth you'd be more concerned with so much more money being spent in the name of "climate change" rather than trying to win brownie points with ad hominem attacks toward anyone who doesn't join your ideologies.

Unless 'brownie points' (however you want to define them) can get me a few dollars off of a great pizza, I have no use for them.

From Wikipedia, for simplicity's sake - argumentum ad hominem means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

1. I have not attacked your character, although I have expressed the sentiment that I do not believe that you are reading your cited sources very well.
2. I have freely attacked your argument, inasmuch as I asked for substantiation of your randomly-given research spending figure, which you were then not able to support.

I think that both of these statements are accurate, judging by our exchange so far.

And, I have no problem being 'concerned' about any number of things. I would ask you again, though, to show me what - in particular - concerns you from the categories and activities listed in the document that you linked.

[_honorentheos]

... if you were genuinely interested in truth you'd be more concerned with so much more money being spent in the name of "climate change" rather than trying to win brownie points with ad hominem attacks toward anyone who doesn't join your ideologies.

Good point. Even at today's recent low prices, with over 1600 billion (that's 1,600,000,000,000) barrels of proven oil reserves that's $80,000,000,000,000 that oil companies reliably have to make in the form of potential production.

You can read this Reuter's article that may shed a little light on the other side of this question - Global Oil Exploration nears $1 Trillon

I wonder what we could do with the dollars being spent on exploration if it were directed at developing renewables? But we probably won't find out given how the success of significantly reducing global oil demand means those proven reserves are never bought, and end up being as valuable as a Confederate nickel to the people most invested in ignoring the effects of burning those reserves. Far better to spend a trillion on the hope of finding a hundred billion worth (and shrinking) of new oil. That makes sense.