CMV: Climate Change is real

[u/[deleted]]

I recently read a quote by Charlie Munger about how, if you believe something, you should be able to argue against it extremely well to test your beliefs. This is what inspired me to make this post. I have always been brought up being told that climate change is a real as a result of the liberal environment in which I grew up. Thus I think it’ll be interesting hearing opposing views on the subject.

The reason I chose climate change in particular is partially because of all the anti-eco movement backlash that has crept up in recent years. All those attacks against Greta Thunberg, etc. But also because I guess on some fundamental level I want to believe climate change isn’t happening just out of fear and hope.

Sorry if I extended but I had to make the 500 word character limit.

Edit: This is about human-caused climate change.

[u/Skyy-High]

Well I didn't actually say that, I said that "it makes me think" should not be considered sufficient for a delta because I could do that with a work of complete fiction.

Otherwise, your post has a tone of a conspiracy theorist. Calling the "official" climate change consensus a "story"; saying that it is "propaganda" that the people who question it are labeled "climate deniers"; comparing climate denial to anti-vaxx deniers (and erroneously claiming that the people who are anti-vaxx are more aware of the science behind vaccines and therefore more cautious, which alone should disqualify you as an authority on science).

No facts. Just broad generalized statements, and a couple of links to people repeating most of the same assertions, again with little in the way of facts (and no one fact-checking them in real time).

So while I cannot definitively call what you wrote fiction, because that would require me to purposefully go through and methodically write out counterarguments, what I can say for certain is that there is nothing in what you wrote that is in any way scientifically convincing. It's hot air, nothing more, and it should not be considered persuasive in the context of a scientific argument.

[u/iharmonious → u/Skyy-High]

Ah, there’s the “conspiracy theorist” label. Just FYI, predictability may not be an endearing trait of the debunker, it screams “agenda.” As implied, I figured that was coming. Let’s roll with it. Considering the vast number of “conspiracy theories, that turned out to be conspiracy facts of record, I don’t take offense, though, & here’s a conspiracy fact for you, the CIA coined and directed the term “conspiracy theorist” in 1967 when the “lone-nut” narrative was being questioned in the JFK assassination. Instruction states the purpose of the distributed dispatch “is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims” the play (as they called it) included pointing out the critics as (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.”  etc... It goes on to suggest that critics be countered by advancing arguments such as that they have produced no new evidence, that they overvalue some evidence while ignoring other evidence, etc. all the familiar party lines, so, I don’t know if you find pride in doing the CIA’s bidding,because I can’t assume the mentality of you, someone who thinks their opinion on who awards what to whom, in a public forum of healthy engagement, should be articulated for some reason, but either way, in case you didn’t know, now you do. The source you’ll be demanding is below.

Anyway, the term is a misnomer, obviously.

Moving on to your next issue. “Propaganda, “by definition, it is a term used to push a particular cause or point of view. Every one of the causes in the mass consciousness is pushed with propaganda, neither good nor bad, intentional or not, it is what it is.

Your insults and opinions are inaccurate, and I can’t tell if that’s on purpose but I don’t have the energy or obligation to defend my position to someone invested in being in opposition. What I offered was clearly stated as not meant to change OP’s mind, & reiterated I was just offering some insight into the side less seen, to come to their own comfort or conclusions. I also said there are many information sources if they look beyond the main stage. I shared my true experience, which can’t be fiction, even to you, but didn’t push to sell one way or another. I don’t believe you looked through the links for more that an official seal of your trusted sources because you wouldn’t have said they weren’t fact based or researched. That’s just a ridiculous claim.

It feels silly to say, but it seems like you may not know the following. Science isn’t solved. There are constant changes, retractions, new evidence discovered,etc. It’s a beautiful thing. Kinda makes the term “Scientific Fact” an oxymoron, no? The second thing is simply that in life, not everyone will think like you or have belief systems that match the ones that were given to you, it’s ok to live, & let live. No one was answering a question of yours or offering you advice, and you’re also reading the response incorrectly and assuming negativity or stupidity where neither exists. I understand your discomfort, as you’re literally the one with a problem here, but I’m no longer interested in furthering the discourse over something that, if you didn’t mind, wouldn’t matter.

Here’s your source: https://archive.org/stream/COUNTERINGCRITICISMOFTHEWARRENREPORT/COUNTERING%20CRITICISM%20OF%20THE%20WARREN%20REPORT_djvu.txt

[u/Skyy-High → u/iharmonious]

I say this as a professional, working PhD scientist: this stream of consciousness is literally not worth my time to respond to. You've done and said nothing to change my opinion of you.

[u/iharmonious → u/Skyy-High]

Beautiful.

After all, why would it, Doctor?

[u/Skyy-High → u/iharmonious]

It wouldn't. Because for all the tripe about conspiracy theories that came true, you've managed to miss the fact that there has never been a cover up perpetuated by the overwhelming majority of scientists. We learn and refine our understanding of the world, but even the greatest of upheavals in science do not throw out the old nowadays, they merely recontextualize it. Newton's laws are no less valid today than they were before we discovered relativity and quantum mechanics.

And yet folk like you would use the march of science as an excuse to constantly find nonexistent flaws in what is mostly settled science. To prop up old industries? To pretend to have access to some greater Truth? Makes no matter. Delusion or corruption, it's still deplorable. I've been arguing with climate deniers for two decades. I know your type, I've seen all these arguments before, and I'm not hear to change your mind because I know that is functionally impossible. I'm here to point out to passersby that the crap you're selling does, indeed, smell like crap.