Michael Huntherz
Well-Known Member
Apparent scientific illiteracy notwithstanding, your argument is based on a logical fallacy known as "appeal to tradition." Yours is formed something like this:The ozone hole is gonna kill us all. Before that it was drought. Now it's.....Lolololol...global warming.
Ultra scam. An attempt to tax the very air we breath. So when you go out and about today. Watch out for the ozone hole.
"They have done x in the past in cases a, b, and c, therefore they will do x in case d"
That's not really a defensible argument.
First of all, they is not a fungible, static group that can be identified with any precision.
Secondly, the value of x is not remotely equivalent across all of those scenarios.
Thirdly, all of those scenarios have caused measurable problems to varying degrees, as predicted by the science of the time. The hole in the ozone is real, we changed our laws and it improved. That's effective governance, bureaucracy can be a very good thing.The droughts I assume you are referring to were predicted in the 60's, but they didn't happen until the 90's - and they have been terrible ever since, ask California.
No scientist ever said a phrase like, "the science says x is going to kill us all, for sure, totally." - the news media does that shit, please don't conflate the two. A person's perception of a thing and the objective facts about that thing will always have some delta between them. Try to narrow that delta, it will help you gain a bit more clarity and discernment.
You have been disqualified from this round of The Rational Discussion Game, thanks for playing.
Last edited: