Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#8,752
#8,752
LouderVol said:
Except in this case there is no fallacy. The people being dismissive about the politicians were already dismissive about global warming. If anyone is presenting this fallacy, it's you making it to defend bad actors.

Right back to hyperbole, making personal attacks to draw attention away from the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Saying that politicians are wrong about climate change because they fail to act accordingly is a logical fallacy. I even posted a link with the form of the fallacy..

And I didn't personally attack anyone. You must have me confused with BigOrangeTrain.
 
#8,754
#8,754
Ashevolle said:
Textbook tu quoque fallacy. Personal choices don't affect the underlying veracity of the science.

If I claim that domestic violence is a problem in America but then get arrested for hitting my wife, that doesn't suddenly mean that domestic violence is not a problem just because I'm a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Again, posters here arent basing their anti global warming opinions on the politicians being hypocrites. So no fallacy.
 
#8,755
#8,755
Wafflestomper said:
Saying that politicians are wrong about climate change because they fail to act accordingly is a logical fallacy. I even posted a link with the form of the fallacy..

And I didn't personally attack anyone. You must have me confused with BigOrangeTrain.
Click to expand...
Posters dont think global warming is* wrong JUST because the politicians are hypocrites. Fallacy or no is irrelevant, and imo wrong.

Doesnt matter if you make a personal attack for hyperbole. You are attacking the messenger, not the message. The politicians are still hypocrits, the poster's point stands on that merit alone, as it is factual.So no fallacy.

It would only be a fallacy if they were a believer until the point the politicians became hypocrites. Or at least the posters became aware.

As a Catholic whose faith gets targeted due to the wrongs of people, I am well aware of this actual fallacy.

You are trying to make it this fallacy to take away from their message without actually addressing it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#8,756
#8,756
LouderVol said:
Posters dont think global warming is* wrong JUST because the politicians are hypocrites. Fallacy or no is irrelevant, and imo wrong.

Doesnt matter if you make a personal attack for hyperbole. You are attacking the messenger, not the message. The politicians are still hypocrits, the poster's point stands on that merit alone, as it is factual.So no fallacy.

It would only be a fallacy if they were a believer until the point the politicians became hypocrites. Or at least the posters became aware.

As a Catholic whose faith gets targeted due to the wrongs of people, I am well aware of this actual fallacy.

You are trying to make it this fallacy to take away from their message without actually addressing it
Click to expand...

The literal quote was: "And yes...lead by example or it is all BS."

The way I take that is if they don't believe in it enough to practice like it's true then it (climate change) is BS. OP is more than welcome to clarify, but if that's what he meant then it's a logical fallacy.

Pointing out that they're hypocrites, ironically, is attacking the messenger and not the message. Which is why tu quoque is a form of ad hominem.
 
#8,758
#8,758
Wafflestomper said:
The literal quote was: "And yes...lead by example or it is all BS."

The way I take that is if they don't believe in it enough to practice like it's true then it (climate change) is BS. OP is more than welcome to clarify, but if that's what he meant then it's a logical fallacy.

Pointing out that they're hypocrites, ironically, is attacking the messenger and not the message. Which is why tu quoque is a form of ad hominem.
Click to expand...
But what if everybody is full of it? Not just the politicians. I just can't care too much about the problem if all the communicators are in fantasyland. Every climate conversation ends with investment in wind and solar which are not viable power producers. They are so unreliable every watt needs backed up by natural gas which will run 70% of the time.

Look at the article above mine. Concludes with Costa Rica which is like 90% hydro, which 100% unattainable for everybody else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,759
#8,759
Weezy said:
But what if everybody is full of it? Not just the politicians. I just can't care too much about the problem if all the communicators are in fantasyland. Every climate conversation ends with investment in wind and solar which are not viable power producers. They are so unreliable every watt needs backed up by natural gas which will run 70% of the time.

Look at the article above mine. Concludes with Costa Rica which is like 90% hydro, which 100% unattainable for everybody else.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that we hear too much from politicians and pundits rather than scientific communications. People tend to cherry pick outlandish claims (e.g., we'll all be underwater in 12 years) and represent that as what the scientific research says, subsequently concluding that it's all a hoax or conspiracy. What's happening and what can be done about it are scientific matters; what we ought to do about it is a political matter.
 
#8,760
#8,760
Fun coupon VOL said:
More Than 70% of the Lower 48 Is Covered in Snow - Videos from The Weather Channel | weather.com
Click to expand...

You know the extreme cold in many parts of the world is obviously just one of those aberrations caused by global warming. I can't wait to hear the doomsday klan explain how it's just more proof that they are right.

I was behind a Leaf in traffic yesterday. A logo on the back proclaimed it to be a "Zero Emission" vehicle. Gotta love the hypocrisy of that claim, and the omission of the fact that there are emissions related to the electric power to run it, but it's the way climate change advocates roll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, Fun coupon VOL and Orangeburst
#8,762
#8,762
Wafflestomper said:
The literal quote was: "And yes...lead by example or it is all BS."

The way I take that is if they don't believe in it enough to practice like it's true then it (climate change) is BS. OP is more than welcome to clarify, but if that's what he meant then it's a logical fallacy.

Pointing out that they're hypocrites, ironically, is attacking the messenger and not the message. Which is why tu quoque is a form of ad hominem.
Click to expand...

I will reclarify...jeepers. BS was rhetorical to them not taking the issue seriously, hence hypocritical. The optics are horrible. Dont ask us to take it seriously if their deeds dont match their words. This is an issue that is said to end humankind as we currently know it at the expense of hundreds of trillions of dollars and livelihoods. If this was such a Earth changing situation, dont you think they should lead by example, which as Louder pointed out, and you have avoided answering?

And NO, I do not think you were attacking me, but have avoided answering the question.
 
#8,763
#8,763
AM64 said:
You know the extreme cold in many parts of the world is obviously just one of those aberrations caused by global warming. I can't wait to hear the doomsday klan explain how it's just more proof that they are right.

I was behind a Leaf in traffic yesterday. A logo on the back proclaimed it to be a "Zero Emission" vehicle. Gotta love the hypocrisy of that claim, and the omission of the fact that there are emissions related to the electric power to run it, but it's the way climate change advocates roll.
Click to expand...

Should of raked ur yard last fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,764
#8,764
Orangeburst said:
I will reclarify...jeepers. BS was rhetorical to them not taking the issue seriously, hence hypocritical. The optics are horrible. Dont ask us to take it seriously if their deeds dont match their words. This is an issue that is said to end humankind as we currently know it at the expense of hundreds of trillions of dollars and livelihoods. If this was such a Earth changing situation, dont you think they should lead by example, which as Louder pointed out, and you have avoided answering?

And NO, I do not think you were attacking me, but have avoided answering the question.
Click to expand...

You want me to confirm that they shouldn't be hypocrites? Haha. No, they shouldn't be hypocrites.

However, and I've said this before, listening to politicians and pundits on climate change is what we shouldn't be doing. We should be listening to the scientific literature on the topic. Otherwise, you'll end up thinking the world will be over in 12 years or that this is all a conspiracy.
 
#8,765
#8,765
Wafflestomper said:
You want me to confirm that they shouldn't be hypocrites? Haha. No, they shouldn't be hypocrites.

However, and I've said this before, listening to politicians and pundits on climate change is what we shouldn't be doing. We should be listening to the scientific literature on the topic. Otherwise, you'll end up thinking the world will be over in 12 years or that this is all a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Correct..I will not listen to lying hypocritical pols. Not my problem they cannot convey a "possible" truthful message.
And yet with every scientific analysis, I have yet to see anything that is unbiased that can confirm CC is man made. Nothing but theory and not worthy of the displacement and costs.
 
#8,768
#8,768
Orangeburst said:
Correct..I will not listen to lying hypocritical pols. Not my problem they cannot convey a "possible" truthful message.
And yet with every scientific analysis, I have yet to see anything that is unbiased that can confirm CC is man made. Nothing but theory and not worthy of the displacement and costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "unbiased." Scientific papers that don't take a position on a topic aren't exactly useful. Also, a scientific theory is the highest form of confirmation, so saying "nothing but theory" is pretty strange. Gravitation is also nothing but theory but I'm guessing it's mostly uncontroversial to you.
 
#8,769
#8,769
Wafflestomper said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "unbiased." Scientific papers that don't take a position on a topic aren't exactly useful. Also, a scientific theory is the highest form of confirmation, so saying "nothing but theory" is pretty strange. Gravitation is also nothing but theory but I'm guessing it's mostly uncontroversial to you.
Click to expand...

Then carry on. The world was flat at one time. Theory is not law.
 
#8,772
#8,772
Wafflestomper said:
So because the prevailing thought at one time was wrong that means (probably) it's wrong again here? When should we ever believe science then?
Click to expand...


Needs a lot more proof due to consequence. Like I said, the elite dont seem so concerned in their actions.
 
#8,774
#8,774
AM64 said:
You know the extreme cold in many parts of the world is obviously just one of those aberrations caused by global warming. I can't wait to hear the doomsday klan explain how it's just more proof that they are right.

I was behind a Leaf in traffic yesterday. A logo on the back proclaimed it to be a "Zero Emission" vehicle. Gotta love the hypocrisy of that claim, and the omission of the fact that there are emissions related to the electric power to run it, but it's the way climate change advocates roll.
Click to expand...
The flip side is how many of our fellow citizens don’t realize the mendacity of that logo.

Edit: if you google Green Hydrogen one of the top hits will bemoan the fact that 95% of world hydrogen production is still based on fossil fuels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#8,775
#8,775
allvol123 said:
Who isnt believing science? Theories are not scientific facts.
Click to expand...

You all don't even seem to know what a scientific theory is. It sounds like you think it falls below facts and laws in a hierarchy, but it's typically comprised of facts and laws. Gravitation is a scientific theory.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top