Another thing, what about the hole in the ozone layer?
There's no empirical data showing that ever occurred before the industrial revolution.
Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions
Sort:
Apr 27, 2015
0
#83
robbie_1969 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
robbie_1969 wrote:
No more or less of a logical fallacy than an appeal to inappropriate authority.
Where has an appeal to an inappropriate authority been made? please cite the reference.
National Geographic
You don't think that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies can measure and keep accurate records of that data? or that United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not comprised of those who are adequately qualified in their respective field? No? then don't be silly, Your assertion of appeal to an inappropriate authority makes NO SENSE and will be dismissed.
The longtime head of the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, was an economist, railway engineer, and politician. Hmmm
The temperature databases used as evidence, by NASA and other organizations, are now being reviewed for methodological corruption.
"Garbage in, garbage out."
Apr 27, 2015
0
#84
As a follower of this forum , and no expert on anything, Ill sum the story so far as follows.
Some folk think the earth is warming.
Some say its not.
Some say its mans fault its warming ( but not if its cooling.)
Some say action should be taken now. ( But only if its warming.)
...... And if anybody is to blame its some chap called Gore.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#85
now_and_zen wrote:
Why are the biggest deniers of global warming, funding the arguments against it the people who own and profit directly from the industries who create it, specifically Big Oil and fossile fuel industries and the billionaire Koch Brothers?
It is called the "search for scientific truth."
You don't think the global warming alarmists have a personal profit motivation?
Apr 27, 2015
0
#86
That's true, it's not like big oil has the juice to influence the debate more than a bunch of rag-tag ex-hippies.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
Why are the biggest deniers of global warming, funding the arguments against it the people who own and profit directly from the industries who create it, specifically Big Oil and fossile fuel industries and the billionaire Koch Brothers?
It is called the "search for scientific truth."
You don't think the global warming alarmists have a personal profit motivation?
I think the truth has a liberal bias.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#88
Syd_Arthur wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
Posting a Koch-brothers founded hit piece?
How about posting NASA's site: http://climate.nasa.gov
The vast majority of arguments against anthropogenic global warming have been thoroughly debunked. The main people opposing it are Big Oil and people like the Koch brothers who happen to be funding the top denier of global warming. So you wonder why we don't give much credit to the half-truths posted by the opponents of global warming?
So we should just risk everything and not do anything to reduce our contribution to it on the off chance that it might happen anyway? We have probably pushed it over the tipping point because as the ice caps melt (antarctica and greenland are melting fast), it exposes frozen dead organic material that will create more CO2, so after we screwed the pooch Koch-Cons will come along and say - see, it's happening by itself.
And why is it colder in some places? Well, if you blow warm air over an ice cube, what do you get? Cold air ... and melting ice.
Ad hominem attack, another logical fallacy
Gee, Jamie, where are you getting your definition of an ad hominem attack?
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Where are Wolfchick, AlCervix and theGlob? (names have been changed to protect the misinformed). We need more liberals to fight the losing logic battle with their massaged data and emotional, irrational feelings for MotherE and Love4BIGgov.
btw nice job Jamie. Nothing to add other than you go girl> Smartest person in the room.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#90
And NASA is well known for it's anti-conservative stance when it comes to collecting impartial data about earth's biosphere, and space, too...just like they faked the Moon landing.
The longtime head of the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, was an economist, railway engineer, and politician. Hmmm
The temperature databases used as evidence, by NASA and other organizations, are now being reviewed for methodological corruption.
"Garbage in, garbage out."
Being reviewed for methodical corruption? Where is your evidence that they have produced unsound data or are not experts in their respective fields? And because someone was an economist, politician or railway engineer in no way reflects on the actual validity of the entire organisations capacity to take scientific measurements and record that data. Its not even relevant, simply another rather transparent attack on the person rather than the organisations capacity to gather accurate scientific data. Ad hominem much?
More bull than even more Texan longhorns. You fail AGAIN. Neeeeeext!
kaynight wrote:
The Buckie is kicking in to your brain robbie.
I dont drink Buckie my logically challenged friend, although I have visited the Abbey during my younger days. It was closed so I had to make do with licking the gift shop window instead.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#93
robbie_1969 wrote:
The longtime head of the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, was an economist, railway engineer, and politician. Hmmm
The temperature databases used as evidence, by NASA and other organizations, are now being reviewed for methodological corruption.
"Garbage in, garbage out."
Being reviewed for methodical corruption? Where is your evidence that they have produced unsound data or are not experts in their respective fields? And because someone was an economist, politician or railway engineer in no way reflects on the actual validity of the entire organisations capacity to take scientific measurements and record that data. Its not even relevant, simply another rather transparent attack on the person rather than the organisations capacity to gather accurate scientific data. Ad hominem much?
More bull than even more Texan longhorns. You fail AGAIN. Neeeeeext!
http://www.cato.org/blog/clear-case-selective-data-usage-us-national-climate-assessment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-fumbles-data-handling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/ipcc-climate-report_n_3957766.html
JamieDelarosa wrote:
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Well at least you admit they're true.
Koch Brothers are funding global warming deniers; that's a fact. They are billionaires. That's also a fact. Neocons, like BushCo - best friends Big Oil ever saw. Condaleeza Rice even had an oil tanker named after her. They're pejoratives only because the truth of the matter is ugly.
now_and_zen wrote:
Posting a Koch-brothers founded hit piece?
How about posting NASA's site: http://climate.nasa.gov
The vast majority of arguments against anthropogenic global warming have been thoroughly debunked. The main people opposing it are Big Oil and people like the Koch brothers who happen to be funding the top denier of global warming. So you wonder why we don't give much credit to the half-truths posted by the opponents of global warming?
So we should just risk everything and not do anything to reduce our contribution to it on the off chance that it might happen anyway? We have probably pushed it over the tipping point because as the ice caps melt (antarctica and greenland are melting fast), it exposes frozen dead organic material that will create more CO2, so after we screwed the pooch Koch-Cons will come along and say - see, it's happening by itself.
And why is it colder in some places? Well, if you blow warm air over an ice cube, what do you get? Cold air ... and melting ice.
Do you have specific evidence that "the Koch brothers and Big Oil" (these are always cited) are funding "the top denier of global warning." Some specifics would help. A hyperlink?? Fingerpointing doesn't really help unless there is data supporting it. Not saying it isn't true either. I think we should be moving away from fossil fuels regardless; there are enough reasons apart from global warming.
http://www.cato.org/blog/clear-case-selective-data-usage-us-national-climate-assessment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-fumbles-data-handling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/ipcc-climate-report_n_3957766.html
None of those noobs are either experts in climate change nor are they qualified to make any statement with regard to the validity or otherwise of scientific data. Now that really is an excellent example of appeal to an inappropriate authority. I really should thankyou! Whatsupwiththat.com? It should be whatsupdoc.com Bwahahaha!
Apr 27, 2015
0
#97
now_and_zen wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Well at least you admit they're true.
Koch Brothers are funding global warming deniers; that's a fact. They are billionaires. That's also a fact. Neocons, like BushCo - best friends Big Oil ever saw. Condaleeza Rice even had an oil tanker named after her. They're pejoratives only because the truth of the matter is ugly.
I was giving examples of ad homs. Boogie men. Scarey things.
No admission at all.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Well at least you admit they're true.
Koch Brothers are funding global warming deniers; that's a fact. They are billionaires. That's also a fact. Neocons, like BushCo - best friends Big Oil ever saw. Condaleeza Rice even had an oil tanker named after her. They're pejoratives only because the truth of the matter is ugly.
I was giving examples of ad homs. Boogie men. Scarey things.
No admission at all.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#99
robbie_1969 wrote:
http://www.cato.org/blog/clear-case-selective-data-usage-us-national-climate-assessment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-fumbles-data-handling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/26/inquiry-launched-into-global-temperature-data-integrity/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/ipcc-climate-report_n_3957766.html
None of those noobs are either experts in climate change nor are they qualified to make any statement with regard to the validity or otherwise of scientific data. Now that really is an excellent example of appeal to an inappropriate authority. I really should thankyou! Whatsupwiththat.com? It should be whatsupdoc.com Bwahahaha!
I need only point out that the walls of feigned academic integrity are crumbling.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Well at least you admit they're true.
Koch Brothers are funding global warming deniers; that's a fact. They are billionaires. That's also a fact. Neocons, like BushCo - best friends Big Oil ever saw. Condaleeza Rice even had an oil tanker named after her. They're pejoratives only because the truth of the matter is ugly.
I was giving examples of ad homs. Boogie men. Scarey things.
No admission at all.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You said "tried and true". Do you not even know what your own words mean? Just because you're afraid of the Bogeyman doesn't mean these people aren't seriously championing global warming deniers specifically because they have huge economic investments in the commodities and technologies that cause global warming. That's just a fact. Divert from it all you want. It doesn't matter how many times anyone mentions that the Koch Brothers fund global warming deniers, it's still a fact that they do, it's still a fact that their motivation is profit, and it's still a fact that it's very bad for the planet and people living on it.
Posting a Koch-brothers founded hit piece?
How about posting NASA's site: http://climate.nasa.gov
The vast majority of arguments against anthropogenic global warming have been thoroughly debunked. The main people opposing it are Big Oil and people like the Koch brothers who happen to be funding the top denier of global warming. So you wonder why we don't give much credit to the half-truths posted by the opponents of global warming?
So we should just risk everything and not do anything to reduce our contribution to it on the off chance that it might happen anyway? We have probably pushed it over the tipping point because as the ice caps melt (antarctica and greenland are melting fast), it exposes frozen dead organic material that will create more CO2, so after we screwed the pooch Koch-Cons will come along and say - see, it's happening by itself.
And why is it colder in some places? Well, if you blow warm air over an ice cube, what do you get? Cold air ... and melting ice.
Ad hominem attack, another logical fallacy
Gee, Jamie, where are you getting your definition of an ad hominem attack?