Finally a threat meter for us global warming people!

[MdKnightR]

I find it frightening how many people have been swayed by that movie, considering that it uses largely uses logical fallacies and rhetoric to back up its viewpoints.

 

You mean like a Michael Moore shockumentary?

 

Its interesting that you refer to what scientists on the other side of the debate have to say as "rhetoric" and "fallacy." I don't think that about scientists that believe in human affected global warming. I think there is enough contrary evidence for both sides to be convinced each is in the right. But saying that it is F-A-C-T is not true. There isn't enough empirical evidence to substantiate it as fact. I tend to believe that the jury is still out on the matter.

 

But, you still didn't answer one of my questions. Are you such an ardent environmentalist that you have foregone the consumption of animals as a food source? Afterall, animals are a very inefficient food source when you consider the tons of food and water they must be fed in order to produce a pound of food.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You mean like a Michael Moore shockumentary?

No, far from it. Moore uses mostly gags and shock tactics. Global Warming Swindle uses rhetoric such as 'oh, the climate has always been changing' (which is a frighteningly blatant strawman as no one is denying climate change - it's that the changes are currently happening too quickly and causing too many problems such as droughts and natural disasters that is worrisome); or 'humans can't change the troposphere, it's too big' (argument from incredulity akin to my old 'it's impossible to destroy a whole city with a single bomb' metaphor); 'there were vineyards in England/skating on the Thames' (way too narrow view, which disregards that large parts of the world already are, and in the future will, suffer greatly from global warming - speaking of England, it's currently suffering from catastrophic floods), and so on.

 

Wait, strike that, I'm watching the documentary again and it seems my memory was off. The amount of rhetoric, ad hominem and other fallacies is far lower than I remembered. I guess they stood out so much that they are what stuck.

 

Its interesting that you refer to what scientists on the other side of the debate have to say as "rhetoric" and "fallacy." I don't think that about scientists that believe in human affected global warming.

And the reason for that is probably that the scientists supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming don't rely on rhetoric and fallacies in the first place.

 

I think there is enough contrary evidence for both sides to be convinced each is in the right. But saying that it is F-A-C-T is not true. There isn't enough empirical evidence to substantiate it as fact. I tend to believe that the jury is still out on the matter.

Not more than evolution is not considered a fact by scientists. However, the amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming. The IPCC uses terms like 'virtually certain' and 'extremely likely' to describe their views - this is pretty much as close as they'll ever come to declaring that 'OK, this is a fact, case closed'. Ask a scientist if the Earth is round, he can't declare it a fact.

 

But, you still didn't answer one of my questions. Are you such an ardent environmentalist that you have foregone the consumption of animals as a food source? After all, animals are a very inefficient food source when you consider the tons of food and water they must be fed in order to produce a pound of food.

The reason I didn't answer it is that it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. This is another thing I've noticed from global warming-deniers: You all seem very, very interested in how much the rest of us are doing for the environment, and jump on every opportunity to discredit us as persons, rather than our arguments. What happened right after An Inconvenient Truth won not only one, but two Oscars? The right-wingers counterattacked not by shooting down the facts of the movie, but by accusing Al Gore of wasting power - as if this had any impact on his facts whatsoever. The Great Global Warming Swindle is one great example: It opens by telling you how these and those people are not scientists, how there's a political agenda behind the anti-global warming movement, and about how fear is being used as a tool.

 

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

 

As a side note, take a look at this thread. It's about An Inconvenient Truth and contains some points from both sides.

[Totenkopf]

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

 

It's ultimately a question of credibility, DE. Sort of like the UN Human Rights Commision having key members from states that are flagrant abusers of such rights. Or, perhaps more to your liking, the altar boy scandals w/in the Catholic Church. It basically boils down to practice what you preach. If you really believe the things you say about anthropogenic global warming, then you have no business flying around in private jets or using tons of energy to heat/cool your "home". If the proponents of a position don't live/lead by example, why should anyone believe they are really telling the truth. It also doesn't help appearances for people like Gore when he's buying carbon credits from himself, essentially granting himself the right to pollute, while chastising others and gulling them into buying credits from his firm, thus enriching himself. And the fact that the pic won 2 Oscars is irrelevant in establishing whether there's any truth to the documentary.

[Web Rider]

to completly ignore all this pointless Global Warming debate, we have something like this for Kern County(here in mid-california), but it only monitors the UV level and polllution level, which I might add, is worse than LA, for a city that doesn't top 400,000 people, thats scary.

[MdKnightR]

Again, someone beat me to the punch! Thanks Totenkopf!

 

Not at all. The old, and present, communist countries jail and abuse their offenders, they don't sit around on their computers sending angry death threats while cursing under their breath.

 

Okay, I'll give you that. Maybe not the communist response. Its more like the way that Pro-Life extremists terrorize abortion clinics and doctors.....answering sin with sin. Is that a better analogy?

 

 

Wait, strike that, I'm watching the documentary again and it seems my memory was off. The amount of rhetoric, ad hominem and other fallacies is far lower than I remembered.

 

Thanks for reviewing and being so honest!

 

 

And the reason for that is probably that the scientists supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming don't rely on rhetoric and fallacies in the first place.

 

Ah.......nope. You're really making a stretch for that one.

 

The reason I didn't answer it is that it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. This is another thing I've noticed from global warming-deniers: You all seem very, very interested in how much the rest of us are doing for the environment, and jump on every opportunity to discredit us as persons, rather than our arguments.....

 

....How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

 

As Totenkopf says, its a matter of "practice what you preach." I personally could care less whether you were a vegetarian or not. And your attempt to beat around the bush about it answered the question for you.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

As Totenkopf says, its a matter of "practice what you preach."

We went through this in the Senate already. Look, either something's true, or it isn't. To clarify, if two people state that the Earth is round, and one has a huge vested interest in doing so while the other is completely neutral, they're still both telling the truth.

 

And your attempt to beat around the bush about it answered the question for you.

You're welcome to think so:).

 

And the fact that the pic won 2 Oscars is irrelevant in establishing whether there's any truth to the documentary.

I didn't mean to say otherwise. The Oscar mention was to illustrate how good a reception the documentary was getting.

[stoffe]

Mod note: Reminder - Less of this and more about this please. Thank you.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

 

Er, what:confused:?

[Aash Li]

Umm... since you said Bush made the threat meter for terrorism, are you then admiting that the global warming nonsense meter is to scare people?

 

I see people whining about global warming all the time. But those with the loudest voices are sadly enough the ones that are contributing to this supposed calamity the most.

 

So, what are you doing to stop this "threat"?

 

Although if you really want to do something about warming the planet we should force a couple volcanoes to erupt, that will cool the planet down considerably. ^_^

 

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

 

Actually it is very relevant. As the other person said, its a matter of "pratice what you preach". How much credibility would you put in a religious figure if they told you not to drink to excess, not to have sex before marriage and not to abuse drugs, and then went out and did those very things? I would call them a hypocrite.

 

If youre so worried about the enviroment then you should start with yourself, rather than trying to force everyone else to change their ways. You lead by example not be dictate.

 

Look, either something's true, or it isn't. To clarify, if two people state that the Earth is round, and one has a huge vested interest in doing so while the other is completely neutral, they're still both telling the truth.

 

I think a better example would be one saying the earth is round, and the other flat... but I dunno as Galileo trying to get everyone to accept that the world isnt a giant pancake isnt quite the same as globalwarmingites trying to force their views on everyone. >_> But in the case of two people talking about the world being round, they have actual scientific proof that its round. As for global warming, I see no real proof anywhere that its happening. Besides a half of a degree over the last 100 years, when its already been documented that the solar system has cycles of warming and cooling...

 

And dont expect me to give out any sources because I dont keep a running bibliography. lol Thats what google is for. ;D

[MdKnightR]

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

 

Er, what:confused:?

 

I believe the proper term is

 

Oh, and Aash Li, as you can see in my previous posts, that is what I've been saying all along, but it hasn't done a lot of good to convince DE that he just might be wrong.

[Totenkopf]

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

 

Er, what:confused:?

 

So, are you trying to imply that the earth never had periods of massive flooding prior to the rise of man, or at least industrial era man? Where did all that flooding come from over 200 years ago (or even before that)?