Trying to understand a control freak sophist's psychology when he says that Global Warming is a hoax.

[repoman]

This may seem strange, but I think it may be useful to plumb the emotional madness of this dude. It may help with constructing arguments and laying out facts that show the reality of Global Warming that work better. Basically, AGW is such a simple topic (easily grounded in undergrad science) that if it was not charged with the emotions of our future, our current lifestyle and the dangers of not changing it would be considered boring.

Anyway here is the video with the lunatic, who uses so many logical fallacies I think he may have made up some new ones:



I think just watching 2-3 minutes will give a flavor of the game he is running either on purpose or subconsciously. He seems to need to a world changer.

one of the top comments:

Nearly 20 minutes of an extremely boring irrelevant analogy just to say that everyone is corruptible, therefore the vast majority of climate scientists might be lying (as if they could do that and no one would rat them out). I think I'll take their word for it and do what I can to protect the world from the ravages of climate change. You know, better safe than sorry.

 

[ronburgundy]

This may seem strange, but I think it may be useful to plumb the emotional madness of this dude. It may help with constructing arguments and laying out facts that show the reality of Global Warming that work better. Basically, AGW is such a simple topic (easily grounded in undergrad science) that if it was not charged with the emotions of our future, our current lifestyle and the dangers of not changing it would be considered boring.

Anyway here is the video with the lunatic, who uses so many logical fallacies I think he may have made up some new ones:



I think just watching 2-3 minutes will give a flavor of the game he is running either on purpose or subconsciously. He seems to need to a world changer.

one of the top comments:

Nearly 20 minutes of an extremely boring irrelevant analogy just to say that everyone is corruptible, therefore the vast majority of climate scientists might be lying (as if they could do that and no one would rat them out). I think I'll take their word for it and do what I can to protect the world from the ravages of climate change. You know, better safe than sorry.

It is true that all scientists are human and thus corruptible. However, that corruption is, if anything, more likely to favor scientists fraudulently denying climate change than agreeing with it. Corruption would only lead to a consensus supporting climate change if scientists were rewarded for not saying anything novel and just agreeing that what other scientists before them have said. But that is almost the exact opposite of how scientists are rewarded. The most famous, and rewarded scientists (both socially and financially) are those that have advanced arguments against the status quo among their colleagues at the time. Being a "yes man" will at best only get you a position of anonymous subservience working as a mediocre paid, unknown cog in the laboratory trenches. However, you cannot just be a contrarian because the rewards (at least within the scientific community but maybe not pop-culture) require that your assertions be supported with evidence. So, the more widely held the view you are opposing, the stronger the evidence you need to succeed by going against it. But while agreeing with the consensus carries less risk, it also carries little reward.