Further to “When You Scratch a Progressive, You Will Find a Fascist Underneath”

_{Barry Arrington

June 28, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Democrats’ platform committee says they have a “Final Draft To Advance Progressive Democratic Values.”

Among those progressive values, criminalizing scientific dissent. A plank calling for criminal prosecution of anyone who dissent’s from “the scientific reality of climate change” was adopted with unanimous consent. Progressives do not tolerate dissent even from calling for the persecution of dissenters.

UPDATE:

Predictably, progressives ( wd400 @ comment 3 and rhampton7 @ comment 12) come in and apologize for the brown shirts.

No, WD, it is not like the tobacco company cases at all. Those cases were civil cases in which the goal was a civil money judgment against companies that sold products that killed people. In this case the plank calls for criminal securities fraud investigations (notice the emphasis on misleading shareholders) against people who have harmed no one.

Both WD and R7 suggest that if the criminal defendants are ultimately found not guilty after spending millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours defending themselves, they will have nothing to complain about. Of course they are wrong. The investigation is itself a punishment, no matter the outcome.

The mere prospect of the having to defend against a criminal investigation for the crime of thinking differently will chill speech. You know, there was a time when you progressives championed free speech. Now you stomp on it. Well did you learn from Maud’dib:

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

Comments

KF: VS, climate is a moving avg of weather (33 years was the classic number) and will thus always change. It is the mean and variations of all the quantities which characterize weather. The issue is a thesis regarding anthropogenic domination of the change, and the further matter is closing the science and imposing a policy frame Not exactly, the plank does not close scientific inquiry, it merely requires corporate fiduciary responsibility to owners of the corporation. with questions here of the inherent limits of science methods and trend analysis as well as observations and proxies. And that is question,whether the correlation of a trend of increasing levels of carbon is causative to the increasing rate of increase in the mean temperature of the climate The posing of a platform plank that clearly proposes resort to lawfare is a development of grave concern in that light Only if one assumes that the science is unpersuasive and that corporations which profit from the release of carbon are honest brokers of the science to their shareholders. Without that assumption, to do otherwise would be a grave concern. . I would suggest that were the evidence as conclusive as is suggested by those who wish to close the science, an expose of the claims by AGW doubters matched to the decisive evidence should be decisive. KF "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” PS: On smoking, the issue is risk-enhancing factors as opposed to sufficient clusters that force an outcome. At what level does risk enhancing factors become causative? 100% ?velikovskys_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

PS: Relevant reading: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/18/is-attorneys-general-mischief-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/24/activists-admit-at-forum-theyve-been-working-with-ny-ag-on-climate-rico-campaign-for-over-a-year/ --> Also, cf concerns from the skeptical side regarding agendas at work: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/26/the-tangled-web-of-global-warming-activism/ PPS: Since there seems to be a push on sea level rise this too will be relevant: https://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/current-sea-level-rise/ Note this as a beginning (observe the claim 7"/ century overall): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/ --> illustrating the atmosphere relevant specifically to Exxon: http://energyindepth.org/national/massachusetts-ag-admits-to-preconceived-verdict-prior-to-launching-rico-climate-investigation/kairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

The rate of sea level rise is not constant, and exxon's research indicated that fossil fuel emissions were a factor in the changing climate. So if Exxon used its climate research to determine an increase that would effect planned oil platforms, and thought that risk significant enough to finance a change to its platforms, then you have a tacit admission of inherent financial risk and increased costs to its operations. On the other end, Exxon appears to have funded a campaign to deny the very thing being planned for. That strongly suggests Exxon withheld information from its shareholders, and may have actively tried to disinform them. This is all alleged, but as I said before, the evidence appears to be strong enough to warrant an investigation.rhampton7_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

RH7, sea levels have been rising since the last Ice age. If you scroll up you will see that climate is inherently a moving avg, the issue is the drivers and relative impacts, further conditioned by limitations of observations, proxies, simulations and projections. The closing of science now joined to threats of lawfare mark very serious escalations that should give reasonable people sobering pause. Especially in a highly ideologised and polarised atmosphere. In such an atmosphere, as has been pointed out already, in too many minds the case has been predetermined by loaded assumptions, foreclosing of issues that either science inherently cannot answer or the present and foreseeable state of the art cannot resolve, and projection of grave accusations. This is a road that we need to turn back from before we set off a conflagration. And, that is why I have pointed out that a lot more than science is going on here. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

The politics on both sides is disgusting, however there is a valid question of fraud; "ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, there’s nothing wrong with advocating for your own company. What you’re not allowed to do is commit fraud. You’re not allowed to have the best climate change science that you’re using to build — in your planning of offshore oil towers in the Arctic, where you have to take into account rising sea levels and the melting of the permafrost and things like that. If you’re using that internally, but what you’re putting out to the world, directly and through these climate denial organizations, is completely in conflict with that, that’s not OK." So if Exxon used its climate science research to account for rising sea levels when planning offshore oil towers and then denied climate change was occurring, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that Exxon withheld the financial risks to investors (gov. regulations, public pressure to diversify energy portfolio, competitive pressure from alternative energy companies, etc) if they were to publicly accept the reality of climate change (prior to 2006) I don't assume Exxon is guilty just because they are a corporation, nor do I assume they innocent because they are on the wrong side of the AG group. I'm only interested if actual fraud was committed. And it seems to me that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.rhampton7_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

DS, there are influence factors of broadly causal nature that may amplify risks or promote or amplify or accelerate or broadly contribute to an effect, but are neither necessary [on/off enabling] nor sufficient [once a given cluster is present the effect always follows]. Not all smokers or even heavy smokers get cancer. It is possible for non smokers to get cancer. But smoking is reasonably strongly correlated with increased risks, likely in connexion with other factors [such as heredity, general condition, one's immune system etc, perhaps unknown ones] leading to a case of the final straw breaking the camel's back. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

KF, That doesn't sound unreasonable to me as far as it goes, but do you accept that smoking is a cause of cancer? You're not explicitly saying "yes", so I presume no?daveS_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

DS, I suggest smoking is an influence factor that amplifies risks but is neither sufficient nor necessary. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

SS, What you left off the better to wrench and project, is telling. KF PS: I clip with some emphasis:
Fascism can be reasonably defined (beyond its deserved bad reputation), as is hinted at above. It is a statist — thus socialist-leftist [cf Mussolini on the all-encompassing state and note, National Socialist German Labour Party] — form of political messianism that holds up a Ni[e]tzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. [--> spell that, Will to power] There may be designated enemies and scapegoats highlighted as a focus of resentment and rage. Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back, so that state control substitutes subtly for confiscation . . . where control is in fact implicit ownership.
Contrast your cite:
a statist — thus socialist-leftist [--> note patently deliberate, suppressed exclusion of material information here] — form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law.[--> next omission is noted by ellipsis but is again material, scapegoating of targetted enemies, a key to the hostile mindset being cultivated] … Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back [--> again clipped without notice omitting material information on just how corporations are co-opted and reduced to subtle state ownership by domineering control]
kairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

In # 29, Dean_from_Ohio wrote;
I guess I didn’t think I had to spell it out, but my definition of Progressivism is my definition of fascism.
Sorry, Dean, but you’ll always have to spell out personal, idiosyncratic positions. If progressivism is fascism, why do you use both terms? Only to emphasize your disapproval? I still suspect you’re just using fascism as a meaningless expletive. #29, 30, and 31, Dean and KF piled on, “defining” fascism as
“... idolatrous, statist, anti-human, anti-reality ...” “a statist — thus socialist-leftist — form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in “unprecedented” crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. ... Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back,” “fascism sought [totalitarian] control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. ... fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. ... fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.” “Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. ... Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.”
Since we’re into quoting Musselini (which is appropriate) why leave out what Musselini said fascism is: the marriage of the State and the Corporation. Good lord, this sounds like the platform of the GOP, but without the weasel words. All this is very different from the progressivism I am acquainted with. Where is this progressive “superman/messiah”? or progressives colluding with corporations? I’m not aware of any progressive who is really “idolatrous”, “anti-human”, or “anti-reality”. That also sounds more like the GOP; whose idols are money and guns. (Not that there’s anything wrong with money or guns; they just should not be worshipped or valued more that lives.) And then there is this from #31:
“Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.”
This clearly distinguishes progressivism from fascism. Progressivism is about interventionism and a regulated mixed economy. I’m glad some thought has now been given to what fascism means, but it strikes me that progressivism and fascism are shown to be quite different. sean s.sean samis_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

KF, As we were discussing causation recently, do you hold that it is incorrect to say that smoking is a cause of cancer?daveS_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

I can't help but chuckle at the average Atheist mindset. "We are insignificant on every level except for our power to destroy a planet." Sometimes I wonder if they have a mind at all.Andre_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

VS, really, now. The evidence is that the defining cases of fascism were self consciously socialistic in mindset and in behaviour -- and were seen as such by other socialists etc [e.g. I chose a 1930's rendering, "Labour" party for NSDAP], though specific variant approaches to say Lenin or Stalin were adopted: control the economy, don't confiscate it, striking deals with the cartels. Fascism is a type of socialism, tracing to a time when even conservatives thought in terms of the inexorable triumph of socialism and viewed themselves as standing against the tide. But we do not need to go off further and further on a definitionitis tangent. KF PS: The horses speaking . . . MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>>kairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

"word climate means change" Exactly, Andre. Not only does Climate Science fail to produce any evidence, it has basic conceptual problems. Andrewasauber_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Of course there is ample evidence of climate change the very word climate means change... Who is arguing about climate change?Andre_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

VS, climate is a moving avg of weather (33 years was the classic number) and will thus always change. The issue is a thesis regarding anthropogenic domination of the change, and the further matter is closing the science and imposing a policy frame, with questions here of the inherent limits of science methods and trend analysis as well as observations and proxies. The posing of a platform plank that clearly proposes resort to lawfare is a development of grave concern in that light. I would suggest that were the evidence as conclusive as is suggested by those who wish to close the science, an expose of the claims by AGW doubters matched to the decisive evidence should be decisive. KF PS: On smoking, the issue is risk-enhancing factors as opposed to sufficient clusters that force an outcome. PPS: Again, from the mouths of the horses: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>>kairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

KF: , it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. Sure you could but then logically neither Hilter or Mussolini were fascists.What counts is what you do,not how you frame your actions.velikovskys_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

velikovskys, Yer proggy friend said: "I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer" Evidence says not always true. His point needs to be restated for accuracy. Andrewasauber_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Andrew: Only progressives could turn a OP about the politicization of climate science into questions about my parents. Sorry ,Andrew but you brought up your parent's health as some sort of evidence. I was just examining your evidence.Isn't that what conservatives are doing when they challenge the scientific consensus politically? That’s how desperate people like you are to defend stupidity. Can’t relate, man. Not desperate at all, personally I think the plank is a quixotic gesture as many planks in platforms are. Oh, and my next door neighbor has been a smoker all his life, is currently a smoker, and doesn’t have cancer. I am glad for him, but just because the hammer falls on an empty chamber doesn't mean playing Russian roulette is not dangerous. "Smoking is estimated to increase the risk— For coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times For stroke by 2 to 4 times Of men developing lung cancer by 25 times Of women developing lung cancer by 25.7 times " There is plenty of evidence that is the scientific reality, just as there is an ever increasing amount of evidence of climate change.velikovskys_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

PS: Just to give a little back-up, Sheldon Richman in Concise Enc of Econ and Liberty adds: >>Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics. Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism. Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely. To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >> Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler: MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography: >>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>> HITLER, per citation: >>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>> So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic.kairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

SS, The definitionitis game is old hat. Fascism can be reasonably defined (beyond its deserved bad reputation), as is hinted at above. It is a statist -- thus socialist-leftist [cf Mussolini on the all-encompassing state and note, National Socialist German Labour Party] -- form of political messianism that holds up a Nitzschean superman figure as rescuer of a perceived mass-based identity group in "unprecedented" crisis that calls for strong state power based measures of rescue that typically go beyond the rule of law. There may be designated enemies and scapegoats highlighted as a focus of resentment and rage. Often, fascists are smart enough to spot that entrenched institutions and businesses will be willing to strike deals that take the threat of harsh state action off their back, so that state control substitutes subtly for confiscation . . . where control is in fact implicit ownership. Of course, political messianism is a form of idolatry, demands the conscience and like all idolatries ultimately ends in ruin. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

This thread is defective from the start; nowhere is there any attempt to define ‘fascist’ as anything other than a euphemism for “bad person”. An actual waste of virtual ink. sean s.sean samis_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

velikovskys, Only progressives could turn a OP about the politicization of climate science into questions about my parents. That's how desperate people like you are to defend stupidity. Can't relate, man. Oh, and my next door neighbor has been a smoker all his life, is currently a smoker, and doesn't have cancer. Andrewasauber_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Andrew: My parents were smokers and neither has cancer. Were smokers? Why did they quit?velikovskys_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"I’m pretty sure it’s a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer" My parents were smokers and neither has cancer. This is what we are up against. People like WD40 who can't see any reality beyond their political memes. Andrewasauber_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

What is it about this topic that makes people lose their minds so readily. The question for any investigaton would amount "did directors have evidence for the likely impacts of fossil fuels on climate, which they knowingly witheld". It's not about wether director though climate change was not real. I did have to laugh at this though
Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a “scientific reality”? Aren’t all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what “reality” is?
I'm pretty sure it's a scientific reality that smoking causes cancer, no?wd400_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Can the same charge of "fraud" be leveled against all those who warn of catastrophic outcomes only to see the predicted apocalypse never come to pass? Quite obviously, it isn't fraudulent to be wrong about scientific claims. At least not if you are on the politically correct side of the argument in any case.Phinehas_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

"when Russia, China, the US and EU actually agree on something" ...isn't science. It's something you'd say when you are trying to convince somebody, but have no evidence to present. Andrewasauber_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

wd400 said:
The investigations they are taking about follow the model used by the US against Tobacco companies. To succeed they’d need to show the fossil fuel companies knew very well that emissions would lead to climate change, but deceived shareholders and the public by not sharing this information.
What do you think this means in any practical sense, we400? The plank asserts that "climate change" is a <strong.scientific reality, and that to misinform (ie, disagree with that "scientific reality") shareholders is fraud. Therefore, to disagree and to tell your shareholders that you disagree that human activity significantly affects the climate is to commit fraud. What else can it mean? Do you think it means that you can disagree, tell your shareholders that you disagree, as long as you admit to them that what you disagree with is a scientific reality? How silly would that be? Furthermore, what does it mean to claim something is a "scientific reality"? Aren't all scientific models provisional in nature? Since when did science become a method for establishing what "reality" is?William J Murray_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @17: When I first started contributing to online forums and blogs I would make a lot of assertions that I knew nothing of any consequence about. After a couple of particularly embarrassing exchanges where something I said was clearly demonstrated to be untrue, I realized I needed to only make arguments about things I actually knew something about and to educate myself about what constituted a sound logical argument. I'm not a climatologist nor do I have the scientific background necessary to evaluate any evidence for or against the assertion that humans are contributing significantly to any supposed change in climate. I would imagine you are in the same boat. Your argument seems to be that if there appears to be a consensus about the validity of a claim, then to take a position in opposition to that claim makes one a "denier" or "unhinged" or "irrational". This makes virtually every current accepted scientific theory or fact the result of the persistence of what was, at the time, irrational, unhinged deniers. Arguments which are appeals to popularity or authority, made without any real capacity to judge the merits of a proposition, logically amount to nothing more than rhetorical pleading on behalf of one's ideology/worldview.William J Murray_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply