My particular quoted post was about the leftish tendency to misuse "false equivalency".
Someone out their is training them for this. Alternet is one I've noticed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Still think it's an exaggeration?
- Thread starter MD
- Start date
Someone out their is training them for this. Alternet is one I've noticed.
Myth. Climate models are accurate and if anything to.conservative
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
N
No All your post does is distract from the topic. They are neither constructive nor informative.
There is disagreement on what to do and how but your post are not that.
Rublicen.org is a good example of that diversity
MD
qualiaphile
Right on, this is not a Right vs Left issue. This is something similar to nuclear proliferation, if left uncontrolled can lead to apocalyptic conditions.
Anyone who lives in the North will tell you that the winters have been getting milder and milder. This means the arctic will eventually melt and the permafrost will thaw. I'm not even talking about the methane in the permafrost, and the Clathrate Gun hypothesis. If that happens, we are looking at a very very dire future.
No, my explanatory post was necessitated by the "false equivalency" charge raised by another.
Pay attention....ya croquet play'n mint muncher!
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Global warming is a conspiracy theory, not a scientific argument.
its ironic because your post did exactly what it was complaining about. You 100% dismissed the false equivalency claim by calling it a leftish tactic with out considering why it was claimed and didn't even make a counter point.
No you really can't be on both sides of the topic because there is no middle ground. As an example the conservatives at repulicen are on the same side as me.
I would 100% support there action then sart campaign for more as I see thete platform as to little to late.
No denialism is the conspiracy. The science is clear.
You cant counter.a scientific argument with a political one and calling it a conspiracy is a cop out and unsubstantiated
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, affirmation is the conspiracy. The science is not clear.
It's a conspiracy to extort workers and taxpayers.
I cannot verify or see for myself the alleged "data" which allegedly supports global warming. What I can see for myself is that those who push this conspiracy do not lead by example (e.g. giving up their mansions for small houses, luxury gas guzzling cars for fuel efficient ones, or endless polluting airplane travel).
I live in an off the grid micro cabin.
if you haven't seen the evidence then you haven't looked.
Yes people can be hypocritical but the vast majority of that is bs strawmen crap that shows a lack of understanding of the issues and solutions.
Also none of that counters a scientific argument.
If you don't know what your talking about then why are you talking? You admit to being uniformed .
Also its not a partisan issue there are.conservative groups with conservative solutions
buddhist
Well-Known Member
That's nice. I'm referring mainly to the politicians who assert power and authority over me. I rather judge them by what they do, not by what they say or claim.
How are you more informed than I am? Have you personally verified all of the data for yourself?
It is a partisan issue. It's a combined liberal+conservative conspiracy theory against liberty.
Well I can't take my own samples or retest theres but I have looked at and studied the data confirming that the data does show whats being said as far as I can with in regards to my level of scientific literacy
You miss an important distinction here.
I dismissed the false claim of "false equivalency",
but I don't dismiss claims of AGW as such.
I objected to a rhetorical trick, & explained its nature.
Are you saying there is your side, & no other?
This would be hubris, especially without expertise on climate modelling.
Since I too lack such expertise, & I'm not wedded to the Al Gore view,
I can afford to look dispassionately at the many sides in this fight.
Emotion is leading people to certainty where there should be none,
& to bad 'solutions's to the problems.
Whuh?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I'm not questioning your analysis of the data, but as you've admitted, you cannot personally verify that the data itself you've received was accurate.
This really is giving me a rather bad attitude towards the whole issue.
I'm near 60 and don't have kids and live in Fortress America. Environmental disaster probably won't affect me. I have no dog in the fight really. When parents and young people and global leaders are so willing to take a "wait and see" attitude towards the future of the Family of Humanity, why should I care? Why should I recycle or worry about overfishing or conserve fossil fuel?
It is not my problem and the people whose problem it is just elected someone who claimed that climate change is a Chinese plot!
Tom
The data comes from multiple sources including; govermental, ngo , independent, and universities all of which gets verified. Multiple data points from multiple sources.
I see no reason to doubt it and have yet to see any one make a non political argument that it should be.
Again the data us from multiple public , private and international sources.
How do you propose we go about verifying it and what would convince you c.c is real .
I would need
buddhist
Well-Known Member
We haven't verified any of that alleged data for ourselves, have we?
I think my one argument I already brought up is persuasive - at least to me: I watch what they do, not what they say.
I haven't seen global warming for myself. You and others are the global warming conspiracy theorists here, and the burden of proof is on you to prove to me something contrary to what my own senses tells me.
I've seen it indirectly.
Reading Nat Geo (& even ignoring their advocacy) for decades, it's clear that climate change of the warming variety is pronounced the closer one is to the poles. And this very well could have long term feedback in this direction as the planet's albedo becomes lower (ie, less reflectivity). The major controversies I see are predicting the extent & pace of change, the extent the cause is by man's activities, & the most appropriate measures to mitigate & cope with it.
I'm 27 now and I can honestly say Climate Change casts quite a long shadow over how I see the future. I am going to be part of the first generation (in the developed world) that will experience it. Arguably many in the developing world are experiencing its effects already.
By the time I'm your age (60 in 2049) we'll practically know if we've exceeded the human capacity to adapt to the changes. Given the sheer inertia in response to this I look at the prospect with ever increasing horror. It's why I am so open to extreme and radical ideas because I know I can't look away from this. Unless we come up with some truly amazing technological breakthroughs that are rolled out on mass, the future I am going to be part of would probably be a disaster movie censored in the cinema. Failure really isn't an option but it's what we appear to be doing.
The winter this year in the UK has been really mild. It's more like Early Autumn as most of the leaves are still on the trees. The birds still haven't migrated or gone into hibernation (whatever). It's been very noticeable.
A few years ago, my parents and I went for a drive into the local market town. It started raining. But this sort of rain wasn't normal. It was extremely heavy. We sat in the car in the car park waiting for it to stop, exchanging glances with someone else stuck in their car. We were just sitting in this tiny metal box as gallons of water was falling out of the sky. It felt "small". We were almost arguing what to do as driving in it was impossible. When the rain stopped we decided just to head back home because there would be flash floods at the bottom of the hill where the shops are. Reading the news later, We were right. We took a diversion off the main road to get away from the clouds and get to clear open sky.
That's the first time the weather has ever frightened me as an adult. But this was "just" rain.