.gif)
Global Warming is a SCAM
category: general [glöplog]
eebliss:
This what?
This what?
Quote:
@Gloom let me help you
Oh good. You see, I was thinking about linking to the Wikipedia definition of "straw man argument", but I thought "Nah, that's redundant - he'll most likely head directly for Wikipedia and read up on it now that I mentioned it" - but apparently you didn't read the very thing you are trying to make a point with, so allow me to condense it for you in terms you might possibly understand:
The following statement by "Person B" is a strawman argument:
Quote:
Person A: "I am aware that Barack Obama might not have accomplished everything he promised in his first months in office, but that does not mean he will not do so in the time remaining of his term."
Person B: "How can you say the man failed and then claim he's a success? You're a twat!"
The following statement by "Person B" is not:
Quote:
Person A: "Global warming is a scam, and the science supports this!"
Person B: "<picture of a CareBear>"
Still not clear? Oh hell, I'll just quote Wikipedia since you obviously couldn't be bothered to read what was there:
Quote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
rtype: I'll try to be more entertaining in my mockery in the future, promise.
So what do you think about climategate?
and ahrem...
which is clearly an exaggeration of whatever my opinions may be, do you want the next one, O wise one?
Quote:
I always liked the "FUR IS MURDER!"-kind of argumentation
which is clearly an exaggeration of whatever my opinions may be, do you want the next one, O wise one?
which you in the same breath of air answer yourself. Perhaps the term i was looking for is pigeonholing? But it certainly looks like a bit of both.
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions from the United States of America
I don't know if climate-change (this thread have a wrong title) is a scam, but anyway I don't like pollution/deforestation so I hope some changes with COP15 Copenhague.
Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions from the United States of America
I don't know if climate-change (this thread have a wrong title) is a scam, but anyway I don't like pollution/deforestation so I hope some changes with COP15 Copenhague.
Oh there will be changes alright. None of those you wanted though.
eebliss, hacked emails between a few scientists is not enough to sink a solid science that have existed for decades. Had you been a climatologist for 3 decades, you'd have a different point of view. To assume so, you'd have to suppose that people that do science for a living are all evil, conspiring to... make us do good things. For no gain of their own. That makes it start to sound like any other pseudoscience-attacking-science phenomenon blown up by media.
Scientific papers and data are mostly very dry, dull, unemotional and objective - the exact opposite of Deniergater efforts. The only reason they get any attention at all is because papers and other media have no on-staff scientists to examine the truth/facts of what they publish, as they might have crime/economy/political experts. And why should they? Indiscriminate selection and presentation of what is deemed news make for much more excitement and heated debate!
I agree with the facts you listed above, and agree with making slow and sensible decisions that will turn the Earth-rape into a mere fucking her gently. Certainly, there are smarter solutions than taxing the shit out of the common people who as you say can't really change their individual effect on the climate substantially. But - taxes give politicians power.
However those emails are a fart in space, a storm in a teacup, blowing the whistle in a chicken farm.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A
Scientific papers and data are mostly very dry, dull, unemotional and objective - the exact opposite of Deniergater efforts. The only reason they get any attention at all is because papers and other media have no on-staff scientists to examine the truth/facts of what they publish, as they might have crime/economy/political experts. And why should they? Indiscriminate selection and presentation of what is deemed news make for much more excitement and heated debate!
I agree with the facts you listed above, and agree with making slow and sensible decisions that will turn the Earth-rape into a mere fucking her gently. Certainly, there are smarter solutions than taxing the shit out of the common people who as you say can't really change their individual effect on the climate substantially. But - taxes give politicians power.
However those emails are a fart in space, a storm in a teacup, blowing the whistle in a chicken farm.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A
well, that was interesting.
1
2
Pera: it's only wrong because they suddenly realized that when people's anal holes are freezing off (as mine is right now), they're not going to buy anything with the word "warming" in it.
you do like to look at graphs which you can't comprehend and scary dramatic satellite images with bold red splattered everywhere, dont you. does it makes you feel like an informed citizens?
how about if the graph read 1.6Mt, instead of the more dramatic looking figure of 1,600,000 tonne? Would that be less scary? How about if i told you that they have no idea how much C02 is naturally occurring up there (minus what we spew out) and that, in all likelihood, our net contribution is a small fraction of the whole.
does it seem a little less scary? or are you still scared and in a state of mind flux...primed and ready to accept any and every "solution" dished out to you by a bunch corrupt money grubbing elites?
you do like to look at graphs which you can't comprehend and scary dramatic satellite images with bold red splattered everywhere, dont you. does it makes you feel like an informed citizens?
how about if the graph read 1.6Mt, instead of the more dramatic looking figure of 1,600,000 tonne? Would that be less scary? How about if i told you that they have no idea how much C02 is naturally occurring up there (minus what we spew out) and that, in all likelihood, our net contribution is a small fraction of the whole.
does it seem a little less scary? or are you still scared and in a state of mind flux...primed and ready to accept any and every "solution" dished out to you by a bunch corrupt money grubbing elites?
3
well done confussed...very original
Quote:
hacked emails between a few scientists is not enough to sink a solid science that have existed for decades
True, the data is what is doing that.
the e-mails just confirm suspicions that it was a small inbred crowd of people who peer-reviewed each others papers and who had a rotten research ethics.
Deniersgate. I love the religious underpinnings of that word.
Or rather. The handling of it.
Deniergate is a response to the catchphrase "Climategate" invented by the opposition to make it soundbite-friendly and subversively suggest something major has been hidden, compare "Watergate"... you were unaware of this? Really.
rtype, One of the predictions of global warming data is that the climate will become more unpredictable and reach both extremes before it settles on "hug the AC" hot. you were unaware of this? Really.
eebliss, The emails confirm the suspicions of a large mass of people that don't follow climate research or science in general, but still think they can comment on research ethics, and know good science when they see it comply with their suspicions. "Easily swayed" is the phrase.
Jumping like puppies competing for the favor of the kennel visitor of the day, they sniff excitedly any dirt media has pooped in the diaper that is the six o'clock news until the fragrance becomes a part of their consciousness.
Haha, I gotta stop these analogies. :)
Religion has lied to people for millennia, but that kind of forcing lifestyle and a code of ethics on people is acceptable, apparently. Huh.
rtype, One of the predictions of global warming data is that the climate will become more unpredictable and reach both extremes before it settles on "hug the AC" hot. you were unaware of this? Really.
eebliss, The emails confirm the suspicions of a large mass of people that don't follow climate research or science in general, but still think they can comment on research ethics, and know good science when they see it comply with their suspicions. "Easily swayed" is the phrase.
Jumping like puppies competing for the favor of the kennel visitor of the day, they sniff excitedly any dirt media has pooped in the diaper that is the six o'clock news until the fragrance becomes a part of their consciousness.
Haha, I gotta stop these analogies. :)
Religion has lied to people for millennia, but that kind of forcing lifestyle and a code of ethics on people is acceptable, apparently. Huh.
Quote:
Religion has lied to people for millennia, but that kind of forcing lifestyle and a code of ethics on people is acceptable, apparently. Huh.
well, it worked for us elite ruling classes before, so let's have another go by introducing Gaia worship - huh? those thick cunthole masses never learn, so they'll buy the same shit all over again if we just change the perdy wrapping paper.
Not really an argument either way, but it is interesting to note how completely wrong the "scientific consensus" can be: 1975 global cooling predictions
And on the flipside: global cooling was never a consensus
Quote:
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
oh i love that bit. so THEY'RE the ones who meted it! and now they want to blame us. typical.
:P
Quote:
And on the flipside: global cooling was never a consensus
but then there doesn't seem to have been political and corporate financial motivation for it back in the 70s.
Quote:
“A major climatic change would force [the potential for] economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,”
I guess a few people caught on to that part later and now those research grants (dependant on maintaining the "problem") are just flooding in from all directions. no wonder there's suddenly a "consensus".
but despite all that: http://www.petitionproject.org/
don't worry, carbon dioxide is truly the breath of life
