Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an argument Truthers and people who question moon landings use. There is a reason why authorities on any given subject do not give denialist the satisfaction of a 'debate'. It's because it is ultimately futile. They will deny no matter what and it gives them a platform.
What evidence has this dude provided anyway? All he says is that global warming is garbage. That's quite the argument.
I stated my experience on these boards and i stand by it
I have found the people who have me ignore do so because of their failure to be able to deal with facts. when presented with facts they first will attack you then ignore you because they can not deal with it.
I say there enough new ice to throw a Margarita party
That may be so. I am guilty of ignoring people from time to time, but it is usually after exhausted discussion where I respond and they dismiss. Then I use it more for cleaning up the garbage posts so I can see the more relevant discussion.
My biggest problem with that poster is the constant focus on fallacious positions. We know they are supposed "experts", but the problem is that their "expert" claims are not following scientific process and are conflicting with their positions. Many of the objections such as raw data conflicting with their adjusted data, statistical methods that are counter to statistical practice, manipulations that violate the process of explaining divergence properly and simple due diligence are not concepts beyond the scope of the "average Joe" as the poster likes to refer. Anyone with a basic intellectual ability to discern logically can question those specifics and the issues where there involves more science and mathematics, even a motivated introductory level person can understand the issues with the various discrepancies in the work.
Not only that, but a lot of the arguments being made against the AGW position actually come from other research (peer reviewed even /gasp) which has results that conflict with the AGW supportive findings.
Though these posters never wish to discuss past linking to an administrative summary fact sheet which is designed simply to promote a conclusive direction. I can't tell you how many times in these past threads to which I threw out the subjective discussion and simply posted raw data asking them questions as to why there are conflicts with their administrative summaries, why their methods can not be replicated, and how models somehow have precedence over observed data. The answer is always a dismissal, an appeal to authority, and then they begin attacking character trying to discredit you by trying to associate you with some devious motive and backing. What is really sad is when the scientists do it (Kevin Trenberth's recent presentation at the AMS).
That's an argument Truthers and people who question moon landings use. There is a reason why authorities on any given subject do not give denialist the satisfaction of a 'debate'. It's because it is ultimately futile. They will deny no matter what and it gives them a platform.
What evidence has this dude provided anyway? All he says is that global warming is garbage. That's quite the argument.
Notice some key words here from the talking point junkie?
First, he associates you with a "Truther". It is a trick to attempt to dismiss anything you say by categorizing you immediately as discredited by attempting to associate you with an irrational group.
Then, notice he jumps to the appeal to authority position, that is, you are not to question the authorities. Much like the inquisition, they are the chosen, and only through their divine understanding can truth be discerned. All contradictions in their claims can be disregarded as even when they are wrong, they are right.
Also note again the word use "Denialist", which is simply a pet word created again to attack credibility of the person they target. They associate you again with some radical group known to completely deny verifiable facts and because of the poor nature of this group, also target you as a position of disgust to which can be disregarded as they state there is no reasoning to be done with such groups because they are beyond rational discussion.
Then of course, his final statement is to use such an intellectual reference to another "dude" which may be a sign of his social maturity and because does not read anything supplied or take the initiative to educate himself on the people he discusses with, he takes the position of superiority as if somehow I have been irrational in my objections, of course disregarding the fact that my objections to his posts are the use of fallacious responses as his reasoning for assuming the knowledge and understand of those he is disregarding.
All in all, his responses are a common process of the internet activist who reads headlines and summary sheets and makes the assumption that because the agency making the claim is a government authority and there are people with PHD's behind their names proclaiming something, that they certainly could not be in error or could possibly let individual bias and political motive drive their work.
Though this is not surprising, as the poster stated they are not from the US and if I had to wager a guess, they are likely from a country to which government is always considered correct and due to their arrogance in their response, likely a politically motivated sheep arguing a position and point they have very little understanding of.
How much CO2 and SO2 is being emitted from those Pac-Rim volcanoes?
Not sure specifically, but there has been a lot of research suggesting they have a strong influence. so much, that they even adjust their models to try and account for their influence.
I am sure you can find some stuff out there as it comes up from time to time. Though it is not an area where I have spent much time reading in myself.
Whether you agree or not with man-made global warming, the logical thing to do is cut down on energy consumption. Ressources are not infinite. Oil alone is a huge headache for our wallet, security and our environment.
I want to point out some additional problems with your logic here .... 2/3 of the planet are stuck in third world conditions, primarily due to their lack of access to energy/electricity. Consequently, energy availability and usage should be increased, not decreased, if the goal were to advance living conditions. If your goal is ultimately population reduction, then reducing energy availability and usage would be a great tool to accomplish that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
There are only benefits to cut down on pollution.
Reducing pollution is OBVIOUSLY beneficial .... the fatal flaw in your logic here is mistaking CO2 as pollution. It is not ... it as vital to life on this planet as is oxygen .... and demanding a reduction in CO2 is likewise the same as demanding a reduction in oxygen. And that is ... how should I put it diplomatically? ... not very wise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
The only reason people oppose global warming is because they were told to by whatever reactionary media they're listening or watching. Or perhaps they don't want to feel guilty about their carbon foot print, while they sit in their car.
No ... you are missing the most important reason ... some people are impervious to brainwashing and realize when they are being blatantly lied to by scoundrels who simply want another reason to stick their hands in your pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
I don't own a car even though my GF and I have two kids and both have a business to operate. Not because we're hippies but because owning a car in an urban area makes no sense. It's expensive, it makes you lazy, it's stressful, it creates annoying noise pollution and yeah, it adds carbon emissions. Now since the majority of people live near urban areas, we would drastically reduce our emissions if people got off their big butts and organized their lives a little better and used public transit. Or a bike. It takes me 35 minutes to get to work on a bike in the summer. Commuting by car takes about 5 minute less. Is it really worth it to drive?
And how long does it take you to ride that bike to work in the winter? What about the person you fixes your plumbing? Should he ride his bike around, dragging his tools ... his parts ... ? The roofer to? The lawn guy? Or the other 70% who have kids to transport ... multiple places to do business each day ... do you see how ridiculously asinine making such ill conceived and broadly applied assumptions you are making?
Why not impose a rickshaw requirement? That's it ... a "clunkers for Rickshaw" program ..... I think there is a place for you in Obama's cabinet ... the US Department if Energy ... Rickshaw Division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
I encourage people to get rid of their cars all the time. If they don't, fine, I don't judge. But don't distort reality because you feel guilty.
I encourage people to use their heads for something other than a place to wear their baseball caps backwards.
Realize that BP has just, in one event, created more pollution and environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico than the TOTAL amounts created by modern industrial society has over the past 100 years.
Realize that the major corporations are the primary source of pollution around the world ... poisoning oceans, rivers and streams and the air, far more so than anything soccer moms diving SUVs could ever achieve.
Realize that CO2 is just as necessary for life as is oxygen ... and the more of it the better. The plants .... and the animals that rely on plants for life ... THANK YOU for your carbon footprint .... those plants breathe that CO2 you produce, and repay the favor by providing you the oxygen that you breathe.
But if you want to hold your breath ... and save the planet ... that's OK by me .... but if you don't mind, the rest of us would prefer to continue our mutually beneficial relationship we've had with the other plants and animals for hundreds of thousands of years.
That's an argument Truthers and people who question moon landings use. There is a reason why authorities on any given subject do not give denialist the satisfaction of a 'debate'. It's because it is ultimately futile. They will deny no matter what and it gives them a platform.
What evidence has this dude provided anyway? All he says is that global warming is garbage. That's quite the argument.
No, I think the argument is that MAN MADE global warming is garbage. And the proof of that is that the planet was warmer hundreds of thousands of years before Henry Ford created the Model T.
And guess what? The Ice caps are still there .... that's why scientists are able to look at ice core samples from hundreds of thousands of years ago.
The better definition of denial is when Al Gore is late to his global warming conference due to the late season arrival of a freaking blizzard, and people are outside bundled up in their parkas with their signs "Save the Earth form CO2" with ice sickles hanging off their you-know-whats.
I never claimed everyone should ride a bike or use public transportation. I come from a rural area. We ALL need a car over there. But most people live near urban areas and big number of those are office people or employees who use their employers equipment. Basically, all they have to carry is themselves.
These are the people, like myself, who need to lower their use of a car. It creates traffic, noise pollution, bad air quality, it's a financial burden for a lot of people, it uses up oil which is increasingly hard to extract...etc...etc...
Funny that when someone offers a simple and available solution that has almost only benefits, people mock it and chose to keep complaining.
I want to point out some additional problems with your logic here .... 2/3 of the planet are stuck in third world conditions, primarily due to their lack of access to energy/electricity. Consequently, energy availability and usage should be increased, not decreased, if the goal were to advance living conditions. If your goal is ultimately population reduction, then reducing energy availability and usage would be a great tool to accomplish that.
Reducing pollution is OBVIOUSLY beneficial .... the fatal flaw in your logic here is mistaking CO2 as pollution. It is not ... it as vital to life on this planet as is oxygen .... and demanding a reduction in CO2 is likewise the same as demanding a reduction in oxygen. And that is ... how should I put it diplomatically? ... not very wise?
No ... you are missing the most important reason ... some people are impervious to brainwashing and realize when they are being blatantly lied to by scoundrels who simply want another reason to stick their hands in your pocket.
And how long does it take you to ride that bike to work in the winter? What about the person you fixes your plumbing? Should he ride his bike around, dragging his tools ... his parts ... ? The roofer to? The lawn guy? Or the other 70% who have kids to transport ... multiple places to do business each day ... do you see how ridiculously asinine making such ill conceived and broadly applied assumptions you are making?
Why not impose a rickshaw requirement? That's it ... a "clunkers for Rickshaw" program ..... I think there is a place for you in Obama's cabinet ... the US Department if Energy ... Rickshaw Division.
I encourage people to use their heads for something other than a place to wear their baseball caps backwards.
Realize that BP has just, in one event, created more pollution and environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico than the TOTAL amounts created by modern industrial society has over the past 100 years.
Realize that the major corporations are the primary source of pollution around the world ... poisoning oceans, rivers and streams and the air, far more so than anything soccer moms diving SUVs could ever achieve.
Realize that CO2 is just as necessary for life as is oxygen ... and the more of it the better. The plants .... and the animals that rely on plants for life ... THANK YOU for your carbon footprint .... those plants breathe that CO2 you produce, and repay the favor by providing you the oxygen that you breathe.
But if you want to hold your breath ... and save the planet ... that's OK by me .... but if you don't mind, the rest of us would prefer to continue our mutually beneficial relationship we've had with the other plants and animals for hundreds of thousands of years.
Who are you talking to? Seems like a lot of "back walking" to try and explain the very things you affirm in your responses?
Seen many of them folks, this is their stance, you are an idiot, do as they say, they will not speak of the science other than to hit you in the head with their appeals to authority, the rest be damned.
This guy is a joke.
That is...
Unless sir activist would really like to discuss the issues with the science rather than making their arguments in the realms of anecdotal remedies? Didn't think so.. shut up! Sit down! The Dogma speaks and nobody would dare speak against the Dogma! *chuckle*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
