If this convinces a single person, kill yourself.

[Urederra]

For instance, in the 'glaciers' piece, they start out saying that 'several studies' have found that the ice sheets/glaciers are shrinking and that 'we're doomed'. BUT, 'other studies' have shown 'the opposite is true' . I mean No, wait they're serious....

Sheesh... they are using ACTUAL peer reviewed papers published in Science, a very prestigious scientific journal. Here are the links.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

One of the articles in 'Science' magazine that they ever so briefly allude to....erm, are these the so-called studies? (Usually they just use sympathetic to well payed 'scientists')

The same can be said about other studies. So, why you doubt about the professional ability and honour of the scientists only when they write articles you don't like?

Prove what wrong? They don't say anything.

Well, they say something, much more than the spoof video made by the owners of the webpage.

Its all slight of hand bull cr@p and you either have to really, really want to believe it because you've already formed a 'written in stone' opinion on the matter, or just be very naive, if you consider any of this legitimate.

ad hominem fallacy, you loose

For instance, they say in the 'glacier' add that the Greenland ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. This is total bull. Very specific parts, above specific elevations are what the article is referring to.

They don't say that the whole Greenland ice sheet is gettin thicker either. What they are denouncing is the bias of the media, that only publish one side of the story.

So, in answer, Urederra, no you can't necessarily say that what they claim is 'wrong', so to speak, but you can say they are speaking in a very disengenuine manner, with a specific goal to confuse the issue and give people like you hope. And a false sense of security when you debate the issue.

Yes, that is true, it is not science, it is politics, That is what I said in my first post 100 % politics, 0 % science. But, who started being biased? Who started politizing the issue? Al Gore or the global warming alarmists?

 

[VoodooAce]

Sheesh... they are using ACTUAL peer reviewed papers published in Science, a very prestigious scientific journal. Here are the links.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

Uh, found them. Both of them. They're, uh, the articles I referred to in my post. I did a search on the magazines site. It took a few to find each article because they're surrounded by many more articles about how the glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking.

The same can be said about other studies. So, why you doubt about the professional ability and honour of the scientists only when they write articles you don't like?

There are thousands of studies that show global warming to be real and, relatively, a very few that dispute it.....and many of these are, er, funded by polluters and they're political pals. When an overwhelming majority of scientists come up with one result, and a very small minority come up with another, I'm inclined to believe the many. But I have an open mind and my opinion isn't politically motivated. Its motivated by the fear that we're doing irreparable damage. Other people, on the other hand, are apparently willing to gamble with the planet's atmosphere and ecosystems while they argue about who should do what to fix this 'supposed' danger and how much money its going to cost us all.

ad hominem fallacy, you loose

No, I don't lose, because the add says, specifically, that 'the greenland ice sheet is growing'. And it isn't. Is it??? Again, as I already said, very small, specific areas, above certain elevations are growing. There is still a net loss. How can there be a net loss, yet it is still 'growing'. Sounds like republican economics. Is it slight of hand, or just blatant lies. Er, see below...

They don't say that the whole Greenland ice sheet is gettin thicker either. What they are denouncing is the bias of the media, that only publish one side of the story.

This is another of the tactics of which I speak. They don't specify at all which part or how much is growing. They just say 'its growing'. And it isn't. Overall, it is shrinking, as we all know. They just figure that throwing ambiguous statements like this out there, false as they are, are enough to reinforce the opinions of people like you that want very badly to believe them. So, as you can see, I win. Whatever it was we were playing. At least I'm sure that I didn't lose.

Yes, that is true, it is not science, it is politics, That is what I said in my first post 100 % politics, 0 % science. But, who started being biased? Who started politizing the issue? Al Gore or the global warming alarmists?

Yeah, its politics. But 0% science? Uh, you're pushing the credibility meter. Regardless, I'd rather play it safe because the consequences scare me. You'd rather gamble that its not really happening because it might not be happening and taking measures might cost you some $$. You say I'm an alarmist, I say you have your head in the sand and like what you see.

 

[Sims2789]

Basically, they're using populism by making left-wing groups out to be the "liberal elites" and they're oversimplifying science by making it seem that we have to choose between zero percent carbon dioxide, what liberals want, or more carbon dioxide which will help the environment, what soccer moms want.

This populism is also evidenced by the "Gore meter" and the "People meter" in the third video. Of course, since carbon dioxide helps the Earth, isn't Gore helping Mother Nature? But that doesn't matter; people will see him as a liberal elitist hypocrite anyway.

 

[Urederra]

Basically, they're using populism by making left-wing groups out to be the "liberal elites" and they're oversimplifying science by making it seem that we have to choose between zero percent carbon dioxide, what liberals want, or more carbon dioxide which will help the environment, what soccer moms want.

Where do they say that more carbon dioxide will help the environment?

What they say is CO2 is not the monster pictured by some people.

 

[C~G]

Where do they say that more carbon dioxide will help the environment?

No , they don't say that, but I guess "it lights up our lifes" sums it quite well.

What do you think it means?

It states more carbon dioxide means progression while trying to reduce it means regression.

 

[Narz]

God forbid people cut back. Carbon dioxide is your friend?!?! What a joke. As if the only side effect of the wanton waste of America is carbon dioxide anyway. Jesus! I would laugh but it's much more sad than funny.

 

[VoodooAce]

Where do they say that more carbon dioxide will help the environment?

What they say is CO2 is not the monster pictured by some people.

Well, if republicans can say that democrats not wanting to cut taxes for the rich is wanting to increase taxes, then he can say that republicans not wanting to reduce co2 in the environment means they want more of it.

 

[Urederra]

There are thousands of studies that show global warming to be real and, relatively, a very few that dispute it.....and many of these are, er, funded by polluters and they're political pals.

Can you prove it? .

When an overwhelming majority of scientists come up with one result, and a very small minority come up with another, I'm inclined to believe the many.

I tend to believe the facts.
There are millions (I also know how to exaggerate) of examples where the minority was right. Here are a few.

Disproval of the phlogisto theory.
Heliocentrism.
Continental drift.
Spontaneous generation.
Neural sinapsis.
Ether.

But I have an open mind and my opinion isn't politically motivated. Its motivated by the fear that we're doing irreparable damage. Other people, on the other hand, are apparently willing to gamble with the planet's atmosphere and ecosystems while they argue about who should do what to fix this 'supposed' danger and how much money its going to cost us all.

It is politically motivated, but you are failing to see it.

No, I don't lose, because the add says, specifically, that 'the greenland ice sheet is growing'. And it isn't. Is it??? Again, as I already said, very small, specific areas, above certain elevations are growing. There is still a net loss. How can there be a net loss, yet it is still 'growing'. Sounds like republican economics. Is it slight of hand, or just blatant lies. Er, see below...

Sigh... Ad hominem I'll quote, just in case.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy.

(You attack the people who believe there is a global warming alarmism biias in the media) Remember "the those who believe what the video say are naive or have their opinion written in stone"?

Yeah, its politics. But 0% science? Uh, you're pushing the credibility meter.

Well, there are a lot of things you are taken as proven while I am skeptic about. Such as the quantitative effect of CO2 levels on global temperatures. Or other factors appart from CO2 levels that might be modifying the weather, included some we might not know yet. Besides, weather has never been constant.

Regardless, I'd rather play it safe because the consequences scare me. You'd rather gamble that its not really happening because it might not be happening and taking measures might cost you some $$. You say I'm an alarmist, I say you have your head in the sand and like what you see.

OK, that is fine with me, If you want to stop consuming fossil fuel I am not going to force you to consume them. Go to work by bicycle (EDIT: Better, go on foot, since you don't know whether the bycicle you buy has been built with fossil fuels, I just hope you are not a taxi/bus driver ) warm your house with timber, and pay x times more for the electricity you consume to connect to CFC. But I expect the same treatment, don't force me to stop using fosil fuels.

 

[Red Stranger]

Ok the first two is a little iffy, but the last one makes a good point. If Al Gore is trying to convince us to change our lifestyles, he shouldn't be out there racking up millions of CO2 points.

PS. Aren't the stars and planets moving further and further apart due to dark matter. Isn't a way to retain heat a good thing for the planet?

 

[FriendlyFire]

I'd heard the Greenland sheet was getting thinner and the Antarctic sheet was getting thicker??

The Gulf stream shutting down already ?

 

[FriendlyFire]

I was simplifying somewhat. Pure nitrogen is lethal - and that's not just because of the lack of oxygen. If you try breathing into & out of a bag, you'll start to hyper-ventilate - you don't get that with pure nitrogen. I have heard breathing pure nitrogen is akin to being punched in the face - hard. You are knocked unconcious very quickly (Nitrogen is used to make an inert atmosphere in such things as gas processing - so nitrogen safety is very important).

[/threadjack]

IIRC each breath we draw in we only used some 10% of the breaths Oyxgen. But as oxygen becomes less and less the persentage of the air. Curently 27% higher nitrigon then in the past 60,000. The higher the percentage leaders to restripery problems.

 

[Odin2006]

The only "scientists" saying we arn't causing global warming are Big Oil lackeys.

 

[Urederra]

The only "scientists" saying we arn't causing global warming are Big Oil lackeys.

Yet another ad hominem fallacy. You lost.

I have explained that earlier in this thread.

 

[blackheart]

PS. Aren't the stars and planets moving further and further apart due to dark matter. Isn't a way to retain heat a good thing for the planet?

The effect of the universe expanding is debateable. The effect of what you said is also debateable. It might become an issue in a few billion years, but I doubt the sun is speedily moving away from us now. Bad science

 

[C~G]

Yet another ad hominem fallacy. You lost.

Could you please stop repeating that?

You seem to be more sensible poster than that comment let's everyone to think. Or does someone have to get that age-old ******** olympics pic here?

Humans do somehow affect the ecosystem and saying that carbon dioxide is only for good is as wrong as saying it's only bad.

People saying that burning up fossil fuels doesn't affect enviroment are simply insane or have lived in bubble for all their lives. What we don't know is what kind of changes it really does in long term. The effect can be minimal or massive. So it's gamble. We all know what is in stake here. But some people seem to be ready to play ball whatever is scientifically proven because it might affect their everyday life and make it more inconvient than before.

It's kind of concerning that people use children in commercials that favor behaviour that could change the enviroment to the direction which would render life quite more difficult than it is now for the children themselves.

I got shivers from those ads. It was like watching ads from Robocop.

 

[Urederra]

Could you please stop repeating that?

As long as people tries to insult instead of discussing the facts, I will appeal to the ad hominem fallacy.

You seem to be more sensible poster than that comment let's everyone to think. Or does someone have to get that age-old ******** olympics pic here?

I don't get the meaning of your last sentence. But it looks like ...

... yet another ad hominem attack...

Humans do somehow affect the ecosystem and saying that carbon dioxide is only for good is as wrong as saying it's only bad.

Agreed, but the main message of the ads is not that CO2 is only for good, but that the mainstream media says that it is only for bad. Specially the second ad, Note that they don't deny or hide the studies that claim glaciar melting, they denounce that the studies that say otherwise don't appear in mainstream media.

People saying that burning up fossil fuels doesn't affect enviroment are simply insane or have lived in bubble for all their lives.

ad hominem attack, ad hominen attack...

What we don't know is what kind of changes it really does in long term. The effect can be minimal or massive.

Agree with that.

So it's gamble. We all know what is in stake here. But some people seem to be ready to play ball whatever is scientifically proven because it might affect their everyday life and make it more inconvient than before.

Let's see. You are kind of contradicting yourself. What is cientifically proven? an effect you said can be minimal or massive? Do you want to dictate everybody's lifestyle without knowing whether the effect is minimal or massive?

It's kind of concerning that people use children in commercials that favor behaviour that could change the enviroment to the direction which would render life quite more difficult than it is now for the children themselves.

Well, global warming alarmists started using children in their arguments first. Is it OK for then to use children and not for the ones you don't like?

 

[JtheJackal]

Eating is good for you, you need food to survive. But some people want people to eat LESS!

 

[Urederra]

Eating is good for you, you need food to survive. But some people want people to eat LESS!

Well, it is kinda off-topic if you take it verbatim. So I guess it is an analogy. Let's play with the analogy then.

If some people want me to starve for duvious reasons, then they are going to have a problem with me.

People who force other people to do things against their will are called dictators.

 

[blackheart]

People who force other people to do things against their will are called dictators.

People who have the legal authority to do this are called politicians, police officers, doctors, etc.

 

[C~G]

As long as people tries to insult instead of discussing the facts, I will appeal to the ad hominem fallacy.

I don't get the meaning of your last sentence. But it looks like ...

... yet another ad hominem attack...

Only thing you are doing is that it makes you look stupid, so it doesn't help anyone. Just ignore if someone tries to insult you.

I mentioned the ******** pic because there is no point of trying to win any debate here.

Agreed, but the main message of the ads is not that CO2 is only for good, but that the mainstream media says that it is only for bad. Specially the second ad, Note that they don't deny or hide the studies that claim glaciar melting, they denounce that the studies that say otherwise don't appear in mainstream media.

That is partly true but you don't find those commercials being disturbing? They talk that living like we do now doesn't change anything and more is always better. But I guess it depends on viewpoint really.

ad hominem attack, ad hominen attack...

Look above and my statement stands. Or have you been lately working close to old coal plants? Probably not.
As said I'm not sure how much they affect but they do affect. If you deny that simple fact then the discussion is over because you do live in a bubble then.

Let's see. You are kind of contradicting yourself. What is cientifically proven? an effect you said can be minimal or massive? Do you want to dictate everybody's lifestyle without knowing whether the effect is minimal or massive?

So you are using now debate tactic of saying I'm contradicting myself.
Go ahead, it doesn't disturb me.
Scientifically can be proven many things but right now we don't know the effects in larger scale. I'm pointing out that some people seem to be ready to take risks and some people play it safe.

Well, global warming alarmists started using children in their arguments first. Is it OK for then to use children and not for the ones you don't like?

In sense that our behaviour might not affect our living conditions but of those children's conditions. What I would like to find is some kind of compromise between these two extremes. That is what sustained development is all about even though until these days it's been mostly phrase that everyone draws to discussion when they want to make impression like they would care about enviroment and about the future when it is just empty talk.

When it comes to enviroment and other things I usually say that you can be ignorant but don't play stupid.
If you want to take risk and think that our current way of living is good for the future, please keep doing that way but remember that your kids might have to carry the deed with them.

Media tries to raise concern over issues that might play factor in our lives and children's lives. The whole thing has become political one which has popularized and polarized the original serious issue.
So finding any real sense into this now is quite difficult. It's like trying to find needle in the haystack.