Because climate change is not natural, must it therefore be bad?

Citizen Irrelevant writes:

This question, as stated here, omits the important & distinguishing adjective, "anthropogenic".  As this author submits this query, his question seems to me to be intentionally misleading.  In fact, as stated here, the issue is framed in a climate-denialist's common refrain, one that has been repeatedly debunked BY the world's leading experts on climate science.  I believe there is no fallacy here whatsoever, but a thinly-veiled attempt to rationalize and promote the agenda of climate change denialism.

Richard Aberdeen writes:
[To Citizen Irrelevant]

1. Climate change is happening, agreed.

2. Climate change has happened many times before. Agreed.

3. Climate change, whether natural or unnatural, depending on one’s definition, will continue until fossil fuels either run out or are replaced. Agreed.

4. The world will undoubtedly change as a result. There is absolutely no rational view that says the nations of the world will agree to cease use of fossil fuels anytime soon. Agreed.

Where do you find denial?

 

 

 

Citizen Irrelevant writes:
[To Daniel Barrett]

I find denialism implied in the omission of man-caused or anthropogenic climate change.

It is the most frequent tactic employed by denialists, who I understand prefer to be known more as 'skeptics'.  Which is still another tactic of climate change deniers.

And for the record, all those " Agreed" statements you included in your bullet points reply strike me as an example of circular reasoning ( as in who the heck is assumed to agree with your point?) , which strikes me here as an Appeal to Authority Fallacy, or the Because I Said So fallacy.  So finally we have a fallacy involved here.  Thank God.  I mean, this is a forum devoted to fallacious reasoning, after all...

LogicalPractitioner writes:
[To Citizen Irrelevant]

You’re just too brilliant for me buddy! You know what I mean without even asking. You know me because of some fuzzy group of so called deniers you fret about. Tell you what...have a wonderful day and enjoy yourself. You seem to have it all figured out. 

Richard Aberdeen writes:

Just yesterday, there were photographs of Antarctica showing how the ice melt this summer is greater than at any previous time and, the temperature is warmer that at any time in the recorded past.  If the ice in Antarctica were to melt, it would raise the global ocean level about 60 meters (nearly 200 feet and no, that is not an exaggeration). 

Probably most rational people would consider that to be a "bad" thing, in particular if they live anywhere on or near the coast or in lower elevations, such as the entire state of Florida, for example.  Then again, the Donald Trumps of this world and the rest of the jackasses who deny that mass polluting the atmosphere matters, are not necessarily rational people.

Notwithstanding, even if human caused pollution is somehow beneficial to the planet, according to the World Health Organization, more people die annually from human caused pollution than from traffic accidents, cancer, heart disease, malaria or anything else other than natural death.

Probably most rational people would consider that to be a "bad" thing, in particular if they live anywhere on or near the coast or in lower elevations, such as the entire state of Florida, for example.  Then again, the Donald Trumps of this world and the rest of the jackasses who deny that mass polluting the atmosphere matters, are not necessarily rational people.

Richard Aberdeen writes:

One would hope to find rationality on this site. Words like probably, most, etc., kinda weak. Name-calling in place of a rational argument? The bastion of the intellectually vacant. Did you actually pass this course? Up to now, I felt this was a respectful, thoughtful group. Please refrain from replying unless you can do better.

LogicalPractitioner writes:

I am interested in better understanding the definition of the words "natural" and "unnatural" in the context of this claim. 

For instance, the conversion of solar irradiation by Carbon Dioxide into infrared radiation and the traping thereof is called the Greenhouse effect.  This is a natual process regardless of what generated the CO2. 

The problem today is that mankind is burning fossil fuel and producing CO2 at a rate that pushes our climate into a different state.  Adding increasing amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere increases its heat traping efficiency promoting the warming of our planet. 

Yes, planetary warming has occurred many times in the past.  But, during those times there were no complex societies around.  Now, the changes occurring are happening so quickly that all life on this planet is unable to adapt to the changing climate.  This is NOT bad...  Instead, it is a clear problem for all life on this planet!

LogicalPractitioner writes:
[To LogicalPractitioner]

First, thank you for a well stated and reasoned question sir! Your last point first, I concede that, if scientific projections hold true, most of the planet will either suffer or be destroyed. So, is this bad? Is this natural? Bad for humans no doubt. In the short term. Some will survive, as there were survivors of Black Plague, etc. Natural? It depends. If humans ate to be considered as part of what is natural, and I would argue they should be, then whether this round of climate change is human caused or not, it is happening, and...it is moot. It is and no doubt will continue to happen. Per that 97% of infallible scientists, it IS happening AND it is not likely the nations of the globe can agree in time to stop it. That is a fact. 
The true “deniers” are those who refuse to acknowledge that first, it is GOING to happen, and second, that there is something for us to do about it. I would simply argue, there is not. Rather, the rational thing to do at this point is not to point blame or politicize, but instead to prepare...physically, and spiritually. Many will not make it, and that may in fact be both a natural and a good thing.

Bryan writes:

[To Daniel Barrett]

Humans being natural doesn't make everything which humans do natural. Natural means not made or caused by humankind, if you have another definition you would need to state it to allow a response in context.

Bryan writes:
[To Bryan]

You’re so cute when you get emotional! Everything’s gonna be alright love. Your government will take good care of you and make those scary carbons go away! Just wait and see. Then wait some more. Oh, then some more.

You go away now. Just be happy. And stop typing. Your life will be better.

account no longer exists writes:

“If you can’t conclude that these changes would be bad, then you don’t belong in this discussion”. 

Your statement sums up the attitude you display throughout your scattered answer. It was scientists who shared the lack of ability to rationalize who claimed 97% sure that the earth was flat and burned those who disagreed. But thanks for sharing.

Climate change IS happening. Nations will NEVER agree as to what to do about it. The good news is that billions of irrational thinkers will suddenly disappear. The rational thinkers will remain, having been prepared for the reality at hand, and the world will be a better place. That is natural, rational, and good.

account no longer exists writes:

An assumption is made that “climate change” is solely the result of human activity which is not accurate or proven. Our extremely limited understanding of climate history tells us that sudden changes occurred many many times that brought catastrophic results to the earth...see dinosaurs. Was this a bad thing? Was it “natural” or not? Bad for the dinosaurs, for sure, yet still natural if defined as you assert: caused by Humans. 

Bryan writes:
[To Daniel Barrett]

It depends on how you define climate change, if you mean the resulting effects that humans have made burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests, and creating huge herds of methane belching cows, then yes, by definition it means exactly that. If you mean the contributing factors to the climate then there are other things, but they have been massively skewed, or indeed countered, by the above.

There is a consensus of 97% of climate scientists that humans are responsible. You might have extremely limited understanding of climate, but these people do not, and just saying they do doesn't make it true. 

The meteor strike didn't wipe out the majority of the dinosaurs via climate change, it did so by blocking out the sun and preventing vegetation from growing. Even if you were to count that as climate change, it doesn't somehow negate the fact that co2 and methane production have increased, while co2 reducing forestation has declined. These things are understood.

Was a meteor strike a bad thing for the dinosaurs? Yes obviously, but they didn't cause it. 

Caused by humans is literally the opposite of natural. 

Michael Hurst writes:
[To Daniel Barrett]

This is a climate denier talking point that is full of so many fantasies that it is clearly dishonest. Climate change in the past occurred over hundreds or thousands of years. The current global warming trend has occurred over about 100, with temperatures rising at an increasing rate. In economics we have a saying, "nature does not make leaps". A change of the magnitude we see now does not happen naturally over such a short time frame.

I started going through Bo's list of fallacies, and here is as small sample of all the fallacies this point of view applies: Appeal to Coincidence, Ad Hoc Rescue, Appeal to Self-Evident Truth, Appeal to Pigheadedness, Alleged Certainty, Appeal to Complexity, Argument by Selective Reading, Argument From Ignorance, Base Rate Fallacy - I'm only to the Bs, and I'm getting worn out so I'm stopping here. If anybody else wants to add to this list, please do.

Your "theory" is not only false, it is not only based on a whole series of logical fallacies, it is disingenuous. It has been proven false beyond any doubt to all but the most recalcitrant of AGW deniers. It is the oldest of the denial rhetoric, and this is rarely proposed anymore, even among "skeptics". Wake up and join the sentient world.

Emiel writes:

An assumption is made that “climate change” is solely the result of human activity which is not accurate or proven.

Nobody here is claiming that it is solely caused by humans. But according to a very large body of evidence from all over the world does support the theory that humans have a large hand in it. Yes most of the processes involved in anthropogenic climate change were also likely involved in climate change in the past. However, stating that something happened in the past and therefore is not largely caused by humans now is fallacious. Ozone holes likely also happened in the past, but still chemicals produced by humans are the cause of the holes we see now, which is very strongly supported by most of the evidence. As is the case with the significant increase in CO2, methane and other GHG and linked with a similar significant increase in temperature. There are many supporting lines of evidence converging on GHG, AGW and the many human fingerprints on it. 

 

see dinosaurs. Was this a bad thing? Was it “natural” or not? Bad for the dinosaurs, for sure, yet still natural if defined as you assert: caused by Humans. 

This is actually a weak analogy and a red herring. Natural processes can be caused by humans. Planting a tree is natural but humans also cause the placing and food for these trees. Evolution is natural, but humans can also select for traits and cause selection. Mutations are natural, humans, however, can also cause these. The growth of stem cells is natural, humans, however, can also cause these. Fire is natural, however, humans can also cause a fire to happen. And so many more examples of natural phenomena that humans can cause. The historical argument is similarly weak. As something natural in the past can still be caused by the same processes which are now caused by humans, like the increase in GHG due to human-caused production, a decrease in uptake of GHG due to human-caused decrease in green landmass.

The burning of green mass is very natural and has happened in the past, but this in no way means that humans can't cause forests to burn now. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Emiel]

Climate change is real. Climate change will continue until the nations of the world all stop using fossil fuels. Maybe. We cannot prove that climate change will cease or continue. So in the meantime, why do you continue to both wring your hands AND contribute daily to the climate change you assert that you are causing?

Bryan writes:

[To Daniel Barrett]

Science doesn't involve proving things, only disproving. Climate change is a fact, and we don't need to "prove" that it can be prevented or mitigated to take actions to prevent or mitigate it. 

By your standard we shouldn't do anything ever because we can't prove that doing anything will have the desired effect. You can't prove that your car will start in the morning so why bother trying? You can't prove that your sports team is going to win, so why compete? You can't prove that you're real and awake, so why bother doing anything at all?

Your rhetoric about hand wringing and contributing aside, the actions required aren't at a personal level, and they aren't just stop doing things. They are to do things differently, to research alternatives, to offset the things we know are bad. No one person can unilaterally combat climate change, and that doesn't mean that governments shouldn't act to do so. They need to give the directives and the funding. 

 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Bryan]

How does it feel for you to know you are contributing to a horrible death for yourself, your family, and your progeny (hopefully there will be none) each and every time you drive your car, purchase food and clothing, and virtually every thing you do? We all KNOW the climate is changing. We all KNOW it is human caused...yet neither you or anyone else, in this country or any other, will EVER give up your car. ITS OVER! You likely will not survive. A rational being would plan accordingly. An irrational being would just keep on doing what they do and HOPE some government or someone else will save them. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

Bryan writes:

[To Daniel Barrett]

So that's an appeal to emotion and ad hominem and red herring all pulled directly out of your ass. 

You know nothing about me and your personal attack has nothing whatsoever to do with logical fallacies, and appears to be some weird religious rant, none of which is relevant to whether governments meet their targets in an effort to reduce the causes of climate change.

If I say that it's not in the power of individuals to combat climate change, how exactly does making assumptions about what I do personally counter this? It would appear that you simply didn't like my answer and, not having a counterargument, you resort to attacking me. I'm sorry, I don't care about your petty little fit, I'm more interested in whether you can stick to the point and add something constructive, and you can't. 

Sorry to disappoint you but being vegetarian doesn't contribute to climate change, nor do many of the other things which I have no inclination to discuss with you. 

We all know that the climate is changing? Aside from that not being true, that wasn't what you asked. 

We all know it's human caused? That's simply not true, and isn't even consistent with your "question" in which you posited that it's natural. It would seem that your question wasn't genuine but rather a platform or artifice to inject your religious soapboxing. 

"in this country" what are you talking about? The internet isn't a country, and isn't restricted to a single country, though some Americans do seem to struggle with that concept. 

I'll never give up my car? Oh really? How did you come by this knowledge? Sorry but you fail in prophecy as much as you fail in argumentation. 

Bla bla irrelevant ranting about what a rational person would do about your prophecy of doom. Go post your garbage where someone cares and where it's relevant. 

Funny how you got all butthurt at Richard ranting about trump and yet, unlike you, he didn't attack anyone directly.