CO2 levels too low?

[Austrian Economics]

There's a couple of logical fallacies in some of the arguments being stated here: the appeal to authority, as in the notion that many scientific organizations support the anthropogenic climate change thesis, so who should question their judgement.

Similar to argumentum ad majorum, or the notion that a thesis must be right if a lot of people believe it.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You might have to get more people involved and make it a group effort.

Look at that. Consider the selfless lengths some people will go to in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Farma, volunteering himself and his harem so we can all learn and advance science. Yet Chuck isn't even willing to read the climate records provided free of charge on a government website to help his anti science crusade.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We have centuries of historical precedent where the absolute authority of the consensus of the church was not to be questioned, at risk of death. Retarded human progress by unthinkable time. Now in 2020, we find ourselves back in the same dark ages.

There's a couple of logical fallacies in some of the arguments being stated here: the appeal to authority, as in the notion that many scientific organizations support the anthropogenic climate change thesis, so who should question their judgement.

Similar to argumentum ad majorum, or the notion that a thesis must be right if a lot of people believe it.

[Hamloc]

Here is what amazes me Chuck, during the pandemic we have reduced our consumption of fossil fuels by 30%, shut down 90% of our air travel, drastically reduced passenger vehicle usage, electricity usage has went down roughly 10% but environmentalists say it is just a drop in the bucket and not sustainable. So in your world Chuck, you call us flat earth earthers instead of telling how we realistically can reach net zero. For every megawatt of renewable electricity generation you need a megawatt of either hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel generation to create electricity when it is dark and calm. If shutting down half of our society is just a drop in the bucket what is your solution? In my opinion renewables are certainly not the answer and that is what environmentalists are fixated on, when they come out with a realistic and doable plan I will support it, until then my opinions won’t change!!

One other question Chuck, is there any place in the world where windmills and solar panels are manufactured where the sole source of energy used in their manufacture is wind and solar?!?!

Hmmm, Chuck you have almost a whole day to respond, nothing. Personally I think he hasn’t responded because one thing the pandemic has shown us is how valuable plastics are as an example for the necessary PPE, a necessary product of fossil fuels. Environmentalists keep preaching that the fossil fuel era is over but I don’t agree. And when it comes to so called renewable energy the majority of the world’s solar panels are manufactured in China, anyone with a brain would see that we are already to reliant on manufactured goods from China, do we want our energy production dependant on this country? Realistically I didn’t expect a response because he is more interesting on convincing us that we are the problem than in any practical solution!

[chuckChuck]

That's a lame stale argument that somehow climate science is like a religion. LMAO.

When you make statements like that you have obviously run out of facts and evidence to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus. Is the science that the earth round also a religious view? There are a few who still believe it is flat and it's a scientific conspiracy.

Science that supports medicine, technology and innovation is what has powered the modern world. Do you believe all the science that has delivered us to this point is like a religion?

It is science that proved evolution instead of creation. Although I am sure there are many right wing christian fundamentalists that still don't believe in evolution. Probably still some right here on sillyville.

Equating the scientific consensus on human caused climate change to a religion is absolute malarkey. Climate scientists build upon previous science and use peer review to challenge each other all the time. If your science is flawed then it will be challenged. Science and understanding evolves as knowledge and technology produces greater understanding. Science is not static nor perfect.

But you don't do your own dentistry or surgery do you? Maybe you do? Do you want an expert surgeon who has been trained properly? Or would the neighbor down the road be sufficient.

Who do you want doing climate science? Those who who have been trained and have the knowledge to understand it or the neighbor down the road who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate but has an opinion?

It's no surprise that most of the opposition to doing anything about climate change is also coming from people who are most likely to be skeptical of the science. Most of your opposition and skepticism is obviously politically based. Its the radical anti-science, anti-evidence and anti government fringe at work. Prone to conspiracy theories, its a fraud, a scam etc, etc..

Hardly anyone takes the climate change denial bullshit seriously. You sure don't hear any Canadian politicians like Moe, Ford, Kenney, Mckay or O'toole saying the science is flawed do you?

Give up! Nobody is listening!

[farmaholic]

Hardly anyone takes the climate change denial bullshit seriously. You sure don't hear any Canadian politicians like Moe, Ford, Kenney, Mckay or O'toole saying the science is flawed do you?

Give up! Nobody is listening!

Nope because politicians have mastered.the art of fence sitting and sometimes not even answering the questions asked. Broadway would be envious of the song and dance performances of politicians. In private they're good at gauging the mood and opinion of who they're talking to and with discretion telling them what they want to hear.

Ask Andrew Scheer about political suicide.

[fjlip]

And why wouldn't ALL fence sitting politicians/BILLIONAIRES, take the Taxpayers $$?

[Hamloc]

That's a lame stale argument that somehow climate science is like a religion. LMAO.

When you make statements like that you have obviously run out of facts and evidence to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus. Is the science that the earth round also a religious view? There are a few who still believe it is flat and it's a scientific conspiracy.

Science that supports medicine, technology and innovation is what has powered the modern world. Do you believe all the science that has delivered us to this point is like a religion?

It is science that proved evolution instead of creation. Although I am sure there are many right wing christian fundamentalists that still don't believe in evolution. Probably still some right here on sillyville.

Equating the scientific consensus on human caused climate change to a religion is absolute malarkey. Climate scientists build upon previous science and use peer review to challenge each other all the time. If your science is flawed then it will be challenged. Science and understanding evolves as knowledge and technology produces greater understanding. Science is not static nor perfect.

But you don't do your own dentistry or surgery do you? Maybe you do? Do you want an expert surgeon who has been trained properly? Or would the neighbor down the road be sufficient.

Who do you want doing climate science? Those who who have been trained and have the knowledge to understand it or the neighbor down the road who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate but has an opinion?

It's no surprise that most of the opposition to doing anything about climate change is also coming from people who are most likely to be skeptical of the science. Most of your opposition and skepticism is obviously politically based. Its the radical anti-science, anti-evidence and anti government fringe at work. Prone to conspiracy theories, its a fraud, a scam etc, etc..

Hardly anyone takes the climate change denial bullshit seriously. You sure don't hear any Canadian politicians like Moe, Ford, Kenney, Mckay or O'toole saying the science is flawed do you?

Give up! Nobody is listening!

Can you read?!?! I never said anything about climate change being a religion! What I asked is how in practical terms you see us reaching net zero. I wanted you to show me where in the world they are building solar panels and windmills with the sole energy source being wind and solar generated electricity. What I wanted was what you see as a practical plan, not computer models and cut and paste!!!

[Guest]

Can you read?!?! I never said anything about climate change being a religion! What I asked is how in practical terms you see us reaching net zero. I wanted you to show me where in the world they are building solar panels and windmills with the sole energy source being wind and solar generated electricity. What I wanted was what you see as a practical plan, not computer models and cut and paste!!!

he never reads , mind closed

[fjlip]

You have a CULTIST stumped...there is NO answer that is possible with out a total DESTRUCTION of society.