Global Warming

“anyways, i thought criticizing the source was a fallacy, hmmmmmmmmmmmm?”

“If you prove somebody is lying, that is not a fallacy. Criticizing them for just being them is.”

“ha ha ha!!!

FUEGO hits keep Trail Talk in the black!

yee haw!!”

“you have to take the same data that they had, come to a conclusion, and demonstrate it.

proving that someone is lying is not the same thing as disproving them”

“I imagine HPD and the rest will just wait for the "facts" from Faux...”

“[url]Climategate: Gore falsifies the record[/url]”

“They don`t care about facts from FAUX, its the short skirts that keep them mesmerized.

Those FAUX chicks could tell them that the world is flat and they would go to war over it.”

“proving that someone is lying is not the same thing as disproving them - crash bang

It IS in this case when the lie was confirmed by the source as a lie about the original argument that they made.”

“Administration Warns of `Command-and-Control` Regulation Over Emissions

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/”

“Skort shirts?

Blogs for news. Blaaaahgs.”

“Do you even know what command and control means in an environmental context?”

“"no, but Glenn Beck does and he`s always right!"”

“I love how in the first paragraph of Strats cut n paste (of course) they mention "hurt business." You know all the wing-nuts IMMEDIATELY get bent outta shape.

Itd be high-larious if the misinformation wasnt motivating the lunatic fringe so much.

Putting caps on pollution is baaaaadddd...”

“dey took our jobs! tukerrrrr juuuuuubs! derrrrrpa derrrrrrrrr!”

“Like gold, pollution is something you can see and touch---it should be as precious as gold.”

“It IS in this case

it is NOT in any case”

“Crash, this is almost like the famed Hillary health care bill...we later found out the numbers were faked, therefor the conclusions were faked.”

“how do you fake disappearing glaciers?”

“Yeah! I remember when the glaciers melted from this area. F`n no good polluting cavemen! They denied they were the cause too!”

“I`m just still trying to find the real SARDINE Thread.”

“Did you check behind the fridge?”

“Just clicked on Sale s message....i have to agree sounds like a fishy subject to me.”

“...we later found out the numbers were faked, therefor the conclusions were faked

my understanding of this case is that the numbers were not faked as much as falsely reported. anyways, what is your point?

and i will save both of us typing by telling you that i am on your side of the global warming issue. im just taking issue with hpd's inconsistence when it comes to formal debate”

“HPD, "criticizing the source" and "proving that someone is lying" may not be EXACTLY the same thing, but they both fall under the heading of "making it about the person and not the topic", and are therefore fallacies in formal debate”

“Is dat a straw man or a deflection?”

“Crash I totally agree that there is climate change but I argue that we still have no real estimate of the actual impact of our activities in relationship to the SUN, and natural sources (Volcanos). I do not think the people pushing the economic destruction of our nation exhibit anymore than passing evidence of caring. Heck rather than take actions to lessen their footprint we see them engaging in the very practices they supposedly oppose.

Its kinda like a televangelist who doinks around on his wife.
last edited: 12/09/09 11:51:16 AM”

“xl, what part of "i agree with you so youre wasting your time debating the topic with me" do you not understand?”

“I do not think the people pushing the economic destruction of our nation exhibit anymore than passing evidence of caring.

Yes, the republicans wrecked the economy and still believe that selfishness is a virtue.

So what else is new?”

“LOL..good twist there MarkO.”

“http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/09/global-warming-caused-solar-radiation-argue-scientists/

More than 50 scientists, businessmen and lobby groups met to discuss alternative theories about global warming and climate change, reports the Telegraph. The paper highlights a few scientists, including Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

Svensmark said that the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable”

“more than 50!?!? Including a REAL professor? What was I thinking! This PROVES that global warming is a sham!”

“Read the article pepsi. The thing we are starting to see is Scientists who sell out to the popular theories for funding.”

“it's over 9000!”

““HPD, "criticizing the source" and "proving that someone is lying" may not be EXACTLY the same thing, but they both fall under the heading of "making it about the person and not the topic", and are therefore fallacies in formal debate”
crash bang
11:21:38 AM
12/09/09

Absolutely incorrect. If somebody lies about the data used to back up their point, and admits to lying (even indiscreetly), then the fact that they lied is absolutely fair game because their argument, by their own admission, is not a valid argument.

The reason arguing the person is a fallacy is because it does not address (does not support or discredit) their argument. In THIS case, it most certainly does.

The other aspect of this is the OTHER scientists who used the faulty data to build their hypothesis. Their arguments, by design, are now flawed. It is nothing personal and has nothing to do with what their favorite t.v. show is or who they voted for or where they eat dinner - it has to do with THEIR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS PROVEN TAINTED.


By YOUR wording, I have made this about the scientists on a personal level. Not true. I have only pointed to the fact that they lied. That is a valid argument.
last edited: 12/09/09 12:49:42 PM”

“well, of course they do. I`m not at all suggesting taking the scientific community for its word either. Anytime anybody has money to make (either directly or otherwise) by saying something, you should immediately take it with a grain of salt.

I`m far from sold on global warming, but when such a tremendous percentage of the scientific community does indeed believe in it, I`m inclined to lean in their favor. The fringe scientists who think otherwise very well may be on to something, but when science is concerned, I tend to stick with the popular scientific opinion because, funding and all, they are still scientists. Aside from that (and I`m not at all suggesting the end would justify the means), I`m all for a little more environmental responsibility...”

“What about when THOSE scientists (who believe in it), came to their conclusions by accepting data that has now been proven to be highly tainted (and covered up).”

“this HUGE scandal you keep repeating, did it involve ALL climate data? Or only some? In fact, did it involve enough data to even qualify as anything more than the smallest of pieces from only one single source?”

“this HUGE scandal you keep repeating, did it involve ALL climate data? Or only some?

It involved the part where it was "determined" that the earth has been warming. Something the author admits is not true, that the earth has been cooling.”

“s from only one single source?

It is THE source. THE source where temperature changes that are used to determine policy are kept.

Please, seriously, I know you said you are undetermined at this point. READ THE EMAILS. They are quite clear. I posted to one of them earlier somewhere on here.



PLUS, if the scientists admit to lying about ANY of it, shouldn't we become suspect of them?

Isn't that what a scientist would do? ... then become skeptical?


What happened to that aspect of science?”

“something one scientist in one university e-mailed constitutes the entirety of all evidence of global warming?”

“It is nothing personal and has nothing to do with what their favorite t.v. show is or who they voted for or where they eat dinner... by YOUR wording, I have made this about the scientists on a personal level

straw man. i never said that you made it personal. you did, however, make it about their actions

do you think you could submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, with your basic hypothesis as basically "they lied"? no. you couldnt. you would have to say "here is X data. based on Y reasoning, my conclusion is Z"

but for laymen such as you and me, it IS perfectly acceptable. unless youre going to start slinging about Logic 101 vocabulary terms and insist we all use formal logic, like you did yesterday when you protested (in i forget which thread) that we not make it about the person
last edited: 12/09/09 1:04:42 PM”

“crash - i'll break it down for you

they lied

they admit they lied

their conclusions were lies based on lies

all of that is FACT - as per THEIR emails

I claim they are wrong.

If you want to claim they are right, global warming is man-made and happening, even though they admit to making it up .... go right ahead.”

““HPD, "criticizing the source" and "proving that someone is lying" may not be EXACTLY the same thing, but they both fall under the heading of "making it about the person and not the topic", and are therefore fallacies in formal debate”
crash bang
11:21:38 AM
12/09/09

straw man. i never said that you made it personal. you did,
crash bang
1:03:21 PM
12/09/09”

“If you want to claim they are right, global warming is man-made and happening, even though they admit to making it up .... go right ahead

another straw man. as i already stated to xl, i already have the same opinion about global warming as you and him.

i guess my point is, as long as we are not in a formal debate, it is sometimes perfectly acceptable to make it about the person making the argument (as long as youre not making ad hominem attacks). it is fine here, and it is fine in the other thread”

“Who lied?

What did "they" lie about?

Be specific.

Prove it.

Please, show examples.”

“i guess my point is, as long as we are not in a formal debate, it is sometimes perfectly acceptable to make it about the person making the argument (as long as youre not making ad hominem attacks). it is fine here, and it is fine in the other thread”
crash bang
1:34:24 PM
12/09/09


Oh, no wonder this didn't make sense and we were going round and round. You were trying to trap me.

Now that I know what we're arguing about, why don't you tell me what you're referring to.”

“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html

Check out this list of Wall Street Journal OP-ED pieces on Global Warming”

“MarkO, I already posted an example earlier. Good morning.”

“why don't you tell me what you're referring to.�

i don't remember”