That doesn't mean human caused global warming is real
Exactly. It doesn't prove anything, which was the point. It doesn't even prove the activist is wrong. It literally is of no logical or rhetorical use.
But it doesn't disprove anything either.
The expert who is claiming you need to spend money to solve an issue the expert says is a dire issue, doesn't know the basic math regarding the very subject she is talking about .
You ok with your mechanic not knowing how an engine works but wants to charge you a lot of money to "fix" your working car?
Or about a doctor who is diagnosing you with diabetes when they do not know what a good fasting reading is or what insulin even is?
Are you ok with that? It doesn't mean she is wrong, it doesn't mean she is right, it means she doesn't know enough to comment on the matter.
Activist != expert
Unfortunately in today society we must have a reasonably turned BS detector.
The fact that she can't answer a simple question about a problem that she is claiming is a severe threat and demands that drastic action be taken to address it, means that she wasn't convinced to that standpoint by logic or reason.
She was propagandized into believing it at best, ir at worst is just hijacking a trendy cause to get votes and manipulate people.
Also, in a televised debate, it's best to have the some of the basic facts with you.
She could have spun her reply in many ways.
Addressing the amount produced, or something else. Or stating the effect by tonne or something. Not just percent composition.
It doesn't matter what she knows or doesn't know, or how she came to believe it. The thing (global warming in this case) is true or it's false regardless of any of those things. The tactic isn't rational debate. It's a subtle ad hominem. "This person here is an idiot, therefore their position cannot be true." Unfortunately that's a non-sequitur.
From the clip he doesn't deny climate change.
He was asking how much co2 is in the atmosphere currently, how much man made, and how much is Australia's share of manmade co2 emissions.
His point, that she was unable to address, seems to have been that Australias contribution to current co2 levels is immeasurable on a global scale and curtailing it would not cause any difference so why
Perhaps an ad hominem, but since the clip is cut part way through.
I have the impression that he was tring to make a point about Australians net contribution globally of CO2 vs how much of an impact the effort of reducing it would be on the population.
The fact that she didn't know, seems to have shut down a point she was trying to make and then became an attack on her later while he wss trying to finish his point.
(post is archived)