Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 194

Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

  1. #11
    SmokinLowriderSS
    Aren't you afraid you'll hurt my feelings?
    Not in the slightest, no.
    Walk out in the world and make a decision on your own based on your own observations.
    This wonderfully scientific method led to the "comon knowledge" of the earth being flat, the sun revolving arround the earth, the "fact" that there were only 4 elememts that made up everything (Earth, Fire, Water, Air), Sorcery and Witchcraft, the "Martian Canals", the body containing 4 "humors" (Melancholy or Black Bile, Blood, Choler or Yellow Bile, and Phlegm) and "medicinal bloodletting" would restore balance to the "humors" and thus cure disease/mental and emotional illness/imbalance, etc, etc, etc.

  2. #12
    Nicked prop
    the issue is not whether or not the earth is warming. Without the aid and benefit of internal combustion engines, coal fired power plants, etc. Mars is warming as well. This issue is whether or not mankind's contribution to global warming is significant. Keep in mind, global warming and cooling have taken place long before man spewed his first hydrocarbon into the air. If one actually studies the science of global warming, rather than the emotion of global warming one can't help but conclude man does contribute to global warming, but on an insignificant level. Completely eliminating man from the face of the earth would not eliminate future climate change.

  3. #13
    SmokinLowriderSS
    First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
    Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
    Rory Coker, PhD.
    Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
    Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
    Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it
    Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
    Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
    culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
    Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
    Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
    Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
    exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
    Pseudoscience does not progress.
    Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
    misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
    Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
    Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
    sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
    Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
    theories that contradict what is known about nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
    methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
    Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
    Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
    Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
    In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."

  4. #14
    asch
    Walk out in the world and make a decision on your own based on your own observations.
    Umm.....That's the problem.
    Subjective observations and interpretations aren't what is needed. Rather, objective, factual evidence.
    What you're suggesting is everyone should just go out their front door and ON THEIR OWN, ignorant or otherwise, come to some conclusion about c02 emissions and it's effect.
    I don't see that Algore's predictions, suggestions, interpretations and presentation are any different from yours. Other than he has money to present it in a more sophisticated way.

  5. #15
    ULTRA26 # 1
    First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
    Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
    Rory Coker, PhD.
    Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
    Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
    Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it
    Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
    Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
    culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
    Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
    Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
    Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
    exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
    Pseudoscience does not progress.
    Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
    misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
    Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
    Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
    sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
    Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
    theories that contradict what is known about nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
    methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
    Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
    Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
    Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
    In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
    Smokin,
    This is exactly what I referred to in a previous post.
    "First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science".
    Pseudo: being apparently rather than actually as stated(Webster)
    Wouldn't this simple explanation have sufficed?

  6. #16
    SmokinLowriderSS
    Smokin,
    This is exactly what I referred to in a previous post.
    "First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science".
    Pseudo: being apparently rather than actually as stated(Webster)
    Wouldn't this simple explanation have sufficed?
    No.
    Simple enough for ya?

  7. #17
    SmokinLowriderSS
    First learn the difference between real science and Pseudo-Science.
    Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience (http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html)
    Rory Coker, PhD.
    Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
    Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
    Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it
    Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
    Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
    culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
    Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
    Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
    Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
    exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
    Pseudoscience does not progress.
    Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
    misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
    Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
    Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
    sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
    Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
    theories that contradict what is known about nature.
    Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
    methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
    Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
    Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
    Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
    Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
    In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
    Oh, and the bold ones, seem to apply VERY CLOSELY to the global warming issue, that was half of the point. :idea:
    I could have left out the others, but didn't wish to be accused of "picking" my data.

  8. #18
    ULTRA26 # 1
    No.
    Simple enough for ya?
    Matter of opinion I guess
    And yes

  9. #19
    SmokinLowriderSS
    Matter of opinion I guess
    For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe.
    Now, which direction it will take, is a matter of opinion.
    To clear up one more thing, I think your personal movements at conservation are fine, wonderful, great, there is nothing wrong with the idea, or the activity. The home mods you have done, the vehicles you have denied yourself, admirable and honorable.
    My issue is the force-feeding to you and I and others of an idea, pushed by simple fear-mongering of "save the planet for your children", which is nowhere near proven, which is entirely likely to be false, and, the steps some want to take will be both destructive to the economy in the short term and (depending on which fear-monger you listen to) pointless because "global warming" cannot be stopped, regardless of what we do.
    If you are conserving for the sake of conservation, great, more power to you.
    If you are conserving to stop "global warming", I believe time will prove you to have been mis-guided in your purpose.
    We shall both see.
    With the exception of the last line, the above is unsourceable, as it is purely Smokin's opinion, locatable from time to time on ***boat's and other message boards internet wide.

  10. #20
    ULTRA26 # 1
    For the moment, yes, and in less than 2 decades, it will be a matter of scientific fact I believe.
    Now, which direction it will take, is a matter of opinion.
    To clear up one more thing, I think your personal movements at conservation are fine, wonderful, great, there is nothing wrong with the idea, or the activity. The home mods you have done, the vehicles you have denied yourself, admirable and honorable.
    My issue is the force-feeding to you and I and others of an idea, pushed by simple fear-mongering of "save the planet for your children", which is nowhere near proven, which is entirely likely to be false, and, the steps some want to take will be both destructive to the economy in the short term and (depending on which fear-monger you listen to) pointless because "global warming" cannot be stopped, regardless of what we do.
    If you are conserving for the sake of conservation, great, more power to you.
    If you are conserving to stop "global warming", I believe time will prove you to have been mis-guided in your purpose.
    We shall both see.
    With the exception of the last line, the above is unsourceable, as it is purely Smokin's opinion, locatable from time to time on ***boat's and other message boards internet wide.
    Based on the evidence, I believe that global warming is a matter of fact today. Because some argue scientific theory to the contrary doesn't make it any less real in my view. I don't believe that the movement to slow negative atmospheric changes, is a selfish ploy or corporate scheme. Many believe that this issue is so big, that only something as powerful as the Govt can begin to create a fix. Then there are those like many of you in this forum who don't believe that the Govt should do anything except preach Christian morality and fight wars. An oxymoron isn't it?
    I see nothing but positive resulting from burring less fuel which is where reducing negative atmospheric changes begins. So why don't we all just get started? Because people like you characterize this issue as political, and call it left verses right and anything viewed as left must be contradicted at all costs.
    Isn't time to come down from our political soap boxin and start viewing things as right and wrong instead of right and left. Burning less fuel is the right thing to do and you are aware of this.

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By HM in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 167
    Last Post: 08-21-2007, 02:47 PM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By HM in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 11:16 PM
  3. Global Warming...
    By Jbb in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2007, 09:51 AM
  4. Global Warming...
    By Outnumbered in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-12-2007, 11:57 PM
  5. Before "Global Warming" came "Global Cooling"
    By SmokinLowriderSS in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-01-2005, 09:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •