Jump to content

Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

I take it that logic is not your strong suit. lol.

Clearly not, as you have been soundly defeated in several other discussions we have had now. 

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, citing authoritative sources as reason for action is not fallacious. The "argument" is that if you go and see 10 doctors and they all tell you that your cholesterol is dangerously high and you better adjust your diet, you should adjust your damn diet. 

What if all 10 of them base their opinions on the same faulty presumptions? 

See, you are still doing it. Instead of focusing on the argument's merits, you say someone should listen because an authority told them so. I prefer to ask questions, understand, and be informed. 

Just like when all the so-called experts and organizations like the WHO told us not to wear masks at the start of the Pandemic. They lied to us. They told us that so they could protect the inventory of masks. They knew what they were doing and lied. 

Not me, I have enough intelligence to understand how an airborne virus spreads and that we still didn't have enough information at the time to simply rule out a need for masks. My family wore masks when all the experts/authorities were saying not to. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2024 at 8:27 AM, Nationalist said:

It absolutely does. There is no crisis. None of your vaunted "scientists" will go any further than to say "could be". And all of them are government funded.

Thus all this financial and infrastructure damage is caused by a massive lie told to scare people into acceptance of the damage being done.

Causing mass hysteria and convincing to public to acquiesce to inflicting suffering on themselves based on a lie...is EVIL!

The science is clear. You just choose to deny it. 
 

Our national defense would be far stronger if we took alternative energy much more seriously.  What allows Putin to fight Ukraine? Oil. What makes the Mideast unstable? Oil.  What money funds terrorism? Oil. 
 

What happens to the nation which can provide the most efficient energy production? Its manufacturing base grows.  All those Chinese factories need massive amounts of electricity and that costs money. We can build products cheaper if our electricity cost is lower.  And the cost of wind and sunshine is zero. And they aren’t the only ways to create infinite amounts of zero fuel cost electricity.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The science is clear. You just choose to deny it. 
 

Our national defense would be far stronger if we took alternative energy much more seriously.  What allows Putin to fight Ukraine? Oil. What makes the Mideast unstable? Oil.  What money funds terrorism? Oil. 
 

What happens to the nation which can provide the most efficient energy production? Its manufacturing base grows.  All those Chinese factories need massive amounts of electricity and that costs money. We can build products cheaper if our electricity cost is lower.  And the cost of wind and sunshine is zero. And they aren’t the only ways to create infinite amounts of zero fuel cost electricity.  
 

 

It's a LIE! The scientists themselves have said so. Their findings have been exaggerated and warped by politicians. There is no climate crisis.

I know that leaves you feeling naked and afraid but, you'll get over it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The science is clear. You just choose to deny it. 

The science is clear.... on what?

The science is only clear in as much as there is measured warming and humans contribute some part to that. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The science is clear. You just choose to deny it. 
 

The science is only clear 'till the day it is shown to be flawed. Then the new science is only clear 'till the day it is shown to be flawed, ad infinitum. That's how science works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, User said:

Clearly not, as you have been soundly defeated in several other discussions we have had now. 

Lol. The "chess with a pigeon" admonition has come home to roost. I should have known better.

Quote

What if all 10 of them base their opinions on the same faulty presumptions? 

See, you are still doing it. Instead of focusing on the argument's merits, you say someone should listen because an authority told them so. I prefer to ask questions, understand, and be informed. 

Just like when all the so-called experts and organizations like the WHO told us not to wear masks at the start of the Pandemic. They lied to us. They told us that so they could protect the inventory of masks. They knew what they were doing and lied. 

Not me, I have enough intelligence to understand how an airborne virus spreads and that we still didn't have enough information at the time to simply rule out a need for masks. My family wore masks when all the experts/authorities were saying not to. 

You are as far from being able to sufficiently understand climate science as you are from doing your own bloodwork or monitoring your own food supply. I don't mean that you'd be incapable of learning those things, but no one can become expert in all things, so we rely on the expertise of others--on knowledge gathered and shared--to make better decisions. We trust our doctors to help us make better decisions because they have training and expertise and specific knowledge. We trust engineers and our FDA monitors for the same reasons.

Relying on that expertise is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. That's a misapplication of the term. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it's an attempt to use an authoritative endorsement in lieu of a logical argument. It does not apply to invoking actual experts sharing actual knowledge of a subject. And it's certainly not fallacious when proposed actions are backed by an overwhelming scientific consensus. 

Now you can stick with your bogus claim--and ignore the FDA warnings about contaminated lettuce, or take up smoking, or drive a car with a recalled fuel pump because "Whadda those experts know?!?"? Or you can crack open a philosophy reference and brush up on what an appeal to authority actually means, and why it's a logically sound to rely on expert information and recommendations to make more informed decisions. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Legato said:

The science is only clear 'till the day it is shown to be flawed. Then the new science is only clear 'till the day it is shown to be flawed, ad infinitum. That's how science works.

Right! Tomorrow, maybe I’ll get in my car and it won’t work, because science was wrong and gasoline cannot burn!  
 

Here’s your problem: “I don’t want climate science to be right, because my “team” is against it.”

Your skull is a mile thick because no science could possibly change your mind.  A few years ago, New York City was stacking bodies into refrigerated trucks because so many were dying from Covid, and your “team” wanted to deny it.

So why play for Team Stupid? It’s the team that China and Russia are supporting, because Team Stupid makes Russia and China stronger. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Right! Tomorrow, maybe I’ll get in my car and it won’t work, because science was wrong and gasoline cannot burn!  
 

Here’s your problem: “I don’t want climate science to be right, because my “team” is against it.”

Your skull is a mile thick because no science could possibly change your mind.  A few years ago, New York City was stacking bodies into refrigerated trucks because so many were dying from Covid, and your “team” wanted to deny it.

So why play for Team Stupid? It’s the team that China and Russia are supporting, because Team Stupid makes Russia and China stronger. 

So...you don't understand who science works. all the other stuff you wrote qualifies as non-sequitur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Legato said:

So...you don't understand who science works. all the other stuff you wrote qualifies as non-sequitur.

I do understand how science works. 
I understand that gravity causes objects to fall down. They don’t fall up.  Science won’t suddenly change and cause things to fall up.  If you ignite gasoline it will burn, or perhaps explode.  That science will not change. 
 

Greenhouses trap heat. Scientifically proven. Ask any farmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are as far from being able to sufficiently understand climate science as you are from doing your own bloodwork or monitoring your own food supply.

Sufficiently understand?

That is subjective and meaningless. Sufficiently understand what exactly? See, you are still playing this argument from the authority game. 

No, I do not have to be an expert in all things climate science to have a well-educated, articulate, and well-thought-out position on the subject. Just like I don't have to be an expert at the mines where they get the graphite for a pencil, the forest where they harvest the lumber, the mills where they prepare the lumber, the paint, and the rubber etc... to be able to use a pencil and understand how it functions. 

This is the game you folks play. Perhaps it is because you know that you cannot hold down an intelligent conversation here, so all you can do is say buzzwords like "consensus!" because you have not put more thought into it than that. 

Guess what, I have. 

Mine is not an argument against all experts or their expertise. I am not here saying to ignore them all in everything, so your mockery about ignoring warnings is as misplaced as your fallacious reasoning with the illogical appeal to authority. 

I am the guy who would be questioning why precisely the "experts" want to give my wife a lobotomy. You are the guy who would shrug your shoulders, no questions asked, and go along with it because they are the experts, hell, even won a Nobel Prize! 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I do understand how science works. 
I understand that gravity causes objects to fall down. They don’t fall up.  Science won’t suddenly change and cause things to fall up.  If you ignite gasoline it will burn, or perhaps explode.  That science will not change. 
 

Greenhouses trap heat. Scientifically proven. Ask any farmer. 

Obviously not.

One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.

https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You seem to be confusing "authoritarian" with authoritative which was referenced.

You seem to be an id1ot. An id1ot with a fascist bent to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Government funded" scientists... how about having private fundings from Gates, Bezos and all the guys you love to hate people ? If you hate objectivity, then science is understandably the #1 enemy.

Correct. The science is clear. It's the political warping of that science that has just recently become clear.

The actual science says there is no crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2024 at 5:27 AM, Nationalist said:

It absolutely does. There is no crisis. None of your vaunted "scientists" will go any further than to say "could be". And all of them are government funded.

Thus all this financial and infrastructure damage is caused by a massive lie told to scare people into acceptance of the damage being done.

Causing mass hysteria and convincing to public to acquiesce to inflicting suffering on themselves based on a lie...is EVIL!

The covid hoax, the climate crisis hoax and the EV hoax are all just but three of the evil and satanic WEF globalist ilk plans that want us to eat bugs while they can still eat steak. Inflation and the high cost of everything is just more bullshit being created by the scumbags that control the creation of money and the manipulation in the stock markets.

JFK was assassinated by the globalist banksters because he wanted too pretty much get rid of the federal reserve. That just shows us all as to what power they have over our controlled politicians and what they can get away with. 

Right on. All this mass hysteria is all just the evil and satanic globalists trying to convince we the sheeple that there is a crisis everywhere going on in the world and only they will have the answer to fix their created crisis. 

Try and pay cash for everything that you buy, and above all, avoid a cashless society that those evil and satanic WEF globalists want to put on us all. If it happens, we will all be phkd. Just my opinion. 😇

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

I do understand how science works. 
I understand that gravity causes objects to fall down. They don’t fall up.  Science won’t suddenly change and cause things to fall up.  If you ignite gasoline it will burn, or perhaps explode.  That science will not change. 
 

Greenhouses trap heat. Scientifically proven. Ask any farmer. 

Bravo.

Gravity causes objects to fall toward its epicenter. On a planet that is generally perceived as down. But that is not always the case.

Gasoline will not ignite without oxygen. Many chemicals will, but gasoline...as far as I know...needs oxygen to ignite.

But you know...simple is best, right?

And it's simple minded fools...like yourself...who can't understand "science" so you boil it down to the level of a simpleton. This allows you to perpetuate lies.

FYI...it's the Gawd Damn greenhouse effect that allows for life on this planet.

Now either prove there's a climate crisis...or take your simple minded garbage and go lie elsewhere. 

We already know what the "scientists" say and what simpletons have done to their statements. 

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, User said:

Sufficiently understand?

That is subjective and meaningless. Sufficiently understand what exactly? See, you are still playing this argument from the authority game. 

No, I do not have to be an expert in all things climate science to have a well-educated, articulate, and well-thought-out position on the subject. Just like I don't have to be an expert at the mines where they get the graphite for a pencil, the forest where they harvest the lumber, the mills where they prepare the lumber, the paint, and the rubber etc... to be able to use a pencil and understand how it functions. 

This is the game you folks play. Perhaps it is because you know that you cannot hold down an intelligent conversation here, so all you can do is say buzzwords like "consensus!" because you have not put more thought into it than that. 

Guess what, I have. 

Mine is not an argument against all experts or their expertise. I am not here saying to ignore them all in everything, so your mockery about ignoring warnings is as misplaced as your fallacious reasoning with the illogical appeal to authority. 

I am the guy who would be questioning why precisely the "experts" want to give my wife a lobotomy. You are the guy who would shrug your shoulders, no questions asked, and go along with it because they are the experts, hell, even won a Nobel Prize! 

 

 

 

 

 

The barrier to holding an intelligent conversation here is posts like that. 

The barrier is going back and forth for several pages about a misapplied logical fallacy--the misunderstanding of which you could resolve just by opening a book or authoritative website. 

But oh noes, those things are written by authorities and you can't be bothered to believe them! And there's no such thing as truth or knowledge outside of the self so everyone's opinion about facts are equally valid and we can all drown in the pit of solipsism together! 

The only thing you can know for sure is that your wife--if she isn't a manifestation of your subconscious--shouldn't receive a lobotomy. And for once, I agree--if I'm not a manifestation of your subconscious--because it's so gross when couples get all matchy-matchy.

😵‍💫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Legato said:

Obviously not.

One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.

https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/

But it doesn’t work with fruitcakes saying “None of it is true because we might learn something different some day.” 
 

We have collected massive amounts of empirical data that temperatures are increasing globally because of manmade carbon emissions into the atmosphere.  Before that, we had overwhelming evidence that the release of CFC’s into the atmosphere was destroying the ozone layer.  Thankfully, the Dummy Party wasn’t well organized with their ridiculous lies, so we successfully banned CFC’s worldwide. 

Edited by Rebound
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

But it doesn’t work with fruitcakes saying “None of it is true because we might learn something different some day.” 
 

We have collected massive amounts of empirical data that temperatures are increasing globally because of manmade carbon emissions into the atmosphere.  Before that, we had overwhelming evidence that the release of CFC’s into the atmosphere was destroying the ozone layer.  Thankfully, the Dummy Party wasn’t well organized with their ridiculous lies, so we successfully banned CFC’s worldwide. 

Empirical date provided by "scientists" who provide only the data that their benefactors want to hear.

Climate change is a perpetual phenomena. You should be extremely worried if the climate stopped changing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

But oh noes, those things are written by authorities and you can't be bothered to believe them! And there's no such thing as truth or knowledge outside of the self so everyone's opinion about facts are equally valid and we can all drown in the pit of solipsism together! 

Well, since you didn't bother with my response to your silly game last time, here you go again:

Mine is not an argument against all experts or their expertise. I am not here saying to ignore them all in everything, so your mockery about ignoring warnings is as misplaced as your fallacious reasoning with the illogical appeal to authority. 

First, You must be interested in engaging honestly if you want to get to intelligently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We already know what the "scientists" say

We have to pay attention to what a variety of scientists say about it.  I know MH says he will only listen to "climate scientists" and only if they agree there is a "crisis" and automatically disregards other specialties.

Do you really think "climate scientists" are going to determine there isn't a crisis and LOSE THEIR FUNDING?

Of course not.

If they don't find a "crisis", they're out of a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, User said:

Well, since you didn't bother with my response to your silly game last time, here you go again:

Mine is not an argument against all experts or their expertise. I am not here saying to ignore them all in everything, so your mockery about ignoring warnings is as misplaced as your fallacious reasoning with the illogical appeal to authority. 

First, You must be interested in engaging honestly if you want to get to intelligently. 

Your response is dishonest twaddle. You want to play it both ways. You pretend to respect expertise when it's convenient, but when it contradicts your politics you pretend that we shouldn't put stock in the science. Pick a lane. Or better yet, let information dictate your politics rather than trying to have your politics dictate information. The latter doesn't work and you jus tend up looking foolish in the process.

And, again, relying on actual authority is not fallacious. Since you apparently refuse to educate yourself, here comes the airplane...

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quote

9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. 

 

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Quote

 Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. 

 

^^Oh noes! Authoritative sources that explicitly contradict your argument! What will you choose?

A. Learn something and STFU about "appeal to authority" 

B. Pretend we can't trust these authoritative sources, quadruple down on your misapplication of the term and dishonestly keep at it

 

Based on the past few pages, I have my guess, but every now and then someone surprises me by being decent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

We have to pay attention to what a variety of scientists say about it.  I know MH says he will only listen to "climate scientists" and only if they agree there is a "crisis" and automatically disregards other specialties.

Do you really think "climate scientists" are going to determine there isn't a crisis and LOSE THEIR FUNDING?

Of course not.

If they don't find a "crisis", they're out of a job.

That's nonsense. Studying the climate is the job, whatever it's doing and whyever it's happening. 

Do geologists need a crisis? Nope. Biologists? Nope. Archaeologists? Nope. The same is true of climatologists. The study is the job, not the findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...