Talk:Global warming

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This Global warming related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Problems with §: “It has been hotter in the past so it is just cyclical”[edit]

“While it is true that there have been cyclical patterns of temperature changes throughout our planet's history, this does not mean that causes are unknown, unknowable, or all the same.”—I don’t believe that this sentence is well formed.

  • Let ‘L’ signify the formal Language of predicate Logic.
  • (While it is true that there have been cyclical patterns of temperature changes throughout our planet's history), (this does not mean\imply that causes are unknown, unknowable, or all the same.) The clauses inside the parentheses indicates separate truth-functional units. I have also eliminated the improper use of “mean” with the intended word ‘imply’. Hence, “does not mean” shall be interpreted as the denial of an implication.
  • first sentence within the parentheses is a statement, and hence, shall be signified in L by the statement letter ‘p’.
  • Implication, or logical consequence, is a concept of the metalanguage of L; and accordingly, the negation of implication is also part of the metalanguage.
  • Thus in the original sentence the denial of an implication is construed as occurring between a set containing ‘p’ and several other logical units as its thesis.
  • The second clause “((this does imply that causes are)unknown unknowable or all the same.)” actually consists of two statements: (1) this does imply that causes are unknown, and (2) this does imply that causes are unknownable—the former shall be signified by ‘q’ and the latter by ‘r’. It also consists of one second order unit “all are the same”, and since the second-order criterion ‘sameness’ or ‘indiscernibility’ which makes up Leibniz’s 2nd Law is fraught with problems, I shall replace it with the first-order criterion of identity (viz. ‘=‘). Hence ‘all are the same’\ ‘all are identical with one another’. This resolution however is quite problematic and does not afford of an easy paraphrase into L (at least in my current tired, unfocused state…).
  • This relation of implication shall occur, albeit meaninglessly, in L in the form of the conditional schema φ‘⊃’.ψ
  • where p is substituted for φ and ‘(q . r) (x)(x=x)’ is substituted as an instance of ψ| p ⊃((q.r) Nand (x)(x=x))
  • To assert the denial of an implication is, more precisely, to deny that the consequent of the conditional can be derived using finitely many application of the rules of inference.
  • According to the original sentence, under my interpretation, something from the first clause implies something about causes. So the sentence is claiming that the antecedent statement ‘p’ does not entail these predications of causes viz. that specific causes are “unknowable”, “unknown”, “all the same”.

This purported denialist argument, seems to me, to be incoherent: the denialist would have to harbour an unstated premise that allows them to infer from 'there have been cyclical patterns of temp change throughout the planet's history' to the conclusion 'the causes of the planet's temp changes are unknown or unknowable or all the same'; what any of this has to do with there inductive claim that there have been statisitical trends in the past where it has been even hotter than it is now, is opaque. Considering it is also unsourced, I suggest removing it.

LeucippusSalva veritate 01:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve Baker and GWPF (rebranded as NZW)[edit]

Recently GWPF rebranded itself, on further inspection to see if this could fit into anywhere as part of denialist conspiracy, I attempted to follow the money. It turns out that GWPF was apparently trying to hide its sources of income and revealed some other connections. Steve Baker is a trustee of the group, although no campaign donations to him are publicly known. He looks like a standard right-wing stooge (anti-human rights, Brexiteer, etc). According to most Guardian sources on their page they refused to give any information on their funding, and were grilled on that as hypocrites considering they kept on spreading lies about the climate movement. Possible corruption, but unfortunately no clear evidence of it, so I'm not sure it can be included. Interestingly though, investigating the sources on his emails seem to uncover an unpleasant sight. Michael Hitze, who launched the organization was so influential that he was apparently dining with David Cameron, is also a big philanthropist (for who exactly, does he benefit?), at least he has been very generous to conservatives.

Investigating further, it seems that the academic advisor tragically died in 2018. It was a great shame then, as he had contributed such wonderfully titled works as "Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility" for the IEA. Clearly, companies that have benefited from the societies in which they are located in have no moral responsibility to give back. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"What you can do" section?[edit]

Given that the tenor of this conversation is often focused around what can be done as individuals, I'm wondering if a section, or perhaps a new page, that aggregates and focuses on the efficacy of things like consumer activism (or inefficacy) and stuff like that. It's a pretty thorny subject. Maybe a page like that already exists; if it does, please point me in the direction! Monochroma (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Meat and climate change[edit] 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 09:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I advocate eating less meat as well as probably imposing measures for the production aspect, maybe tax meat the way we tax cigarettes. It's weird that Biden's simply inconvenient (IMO) AND NONEXISTENT suggestion that we should be eating like the equivalent of a burger in a month was met with so much baffling outrage by conservatives who also decided to cram a bunch of mutilated tortured formerly-sentient animal flesh down their moist bellowing gutter-dark throats. This is threatening a good time, why isn't Biden actually proposing a reduction on red meat consumption? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The environmental benefits from reducing meat production are pretty overwhelming. So are the animal welfare benefits. To say nothing of the health benefits for many people. We have the same debate in Spain.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
What do meat workers gain from this, though, since they ought to have their working conditions improved as well? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 09:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The “hockey stick” graph and its denialism deserves an inclusion here.[edit]

We already have some articles on it.

𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 06:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)