• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For The Deniers

are you begining to believe that the right has lied to you about man made global warming

  • yes

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • no

    Votes: 25 73.5%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
rickc said:
Are you begining to feel you were lied to about this man made global warming thing?
Click to expand...

What has the right said?

I am something of a social democrat so I don't know what this is supposed to be about and I know of only 2 deniers, the skeptics here consider them (or him) mad.

And as a follow up; do you know any science what so ever?
 
Posts 71-75 ..... the Intelligence Fallacy.
 
Quaestio said:
That's got nothing to do with earth sciences. But great. Just don't accept any science at all then. Why not try jumping off a tall building with no parachute because, you know, you just can't trust those physicists about gravity. They might be lying, and you could catch them out!

Apparently you are unaware that the overwhelming consilience of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is from many different lines of investigation across many different fields of science. It would be impossible to 'fake' it in some huge worldwide conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Check out this site and then maybe you'll feel as guilty about breathing, as I do for driving.

https://principia-scientific.org/human-co2-exhalation-whopping-40000-parts-per-million/

Regards,
CP
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems a list of factual inaccuracies often repeated to prop up and spread the mythology / narrative.

Even if one were to the accept legitimacy of the science, in part or in whole (seems the alarmists have this habit of taking the worst case scenario, doubling it and using it as a median measure or something - as has been reported), there is still the issue of the recommended solutions, which invariably include the fleecing of the prosperous Western nations and redistributing that wealth where the UN or the climate change supports want it to go.

Just ask the Yellow Jackets in France and President Macron on how well that flies, and rightfully so, frankly.
Click to expand...

Not to worry. The capitalist knows that earth and its atmosphere...are their profit centers.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Imagine where we would be today if people were heard saying "Sure people are big time liars know, but those scientists boy they tell it like it is fair and square, because that is what science is all about, that is what makes science great".






Food. For. Thought.
Click to expand...

For sure! That is why we don't sail over the horizon to unknown peril as you fall off the earth, the need to apply leeches to extract angry blood, cigarettes to calm anxious new mothers, and avoiding too fast a speed on a steam locomotive, which will cause your corpuscles to explode!. Don't you keep up with Science?
Regards,
CP
 
gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.

Try substantive reasoning next time...
Click to expand...

Once again, you get both the name and meaning of the Inverse fallacy wrong. The Inverse fallacy does not mean 'projection', and there is no such logical fallacy as an "Inversion fallacy". You parroted the term from Into the Night and he was wrong too.

Denying the Antecedent
(also known as: inverse error, inverse fallacy)

"Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true."

The format of the logical fallacy is:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

An example of the Inverse fallacy is:

If it's raining I will get wet
I'm not wet
Therefore it's not raining


Also, you are continually projecting your own flaws on to others, including your own logical fallacies.
 
gfm7175 said:
A colder body cannot warm an already warmer body. Heat does not flow backwards. Denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that as that would be really stupid, so your statement is inherently really stupid. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only about NET flow of heat, not individual flows of heat. A heat ‘flux’ is the net flow of energy that occurs spontaneously as a result of temperature differences. You don't appear to realize the fact that the energy from the sun is part of the NET flow of heat along with down-welling longwave radiation from 'greenhouse' gases.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the NET flow of thermal energy ( “heat”) goes from hot to cold without exception. The 2nd Law says nothing about the "individual" flows of energy, only the NET flow. So while “heat” can’t flow from cold to hot, radiated energy absolutely can and does.

Or perhaps you are seriously claiming that photons from a cooler body are somehow magickally intelligent and 'know' not to radiate in the direction of a warmer body? Or that photons radiated from a cooler body are not absorbed by a warmer body as the photons from a warmer body are absorbed by a cooler body? :shock:

You are talking about an imaginary second law of thermodynamics as well as an imaginary 'greenhouse' effect. Or rather you are mindlessly parroting Into the Night's nonsense claims. He's wrong too.

You both should try reading some freakin' textbooks on heat transfer and atmospheric physics. Or are you claiming they are all "wrong" too like Into the Night does?
 
gfm7175 said:
Argument of the Stone Fallacy...


Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically Bigotry... I am not interested in your bigotry...
Click to expand...

Argument of the Porcelain Throne fallacy.
 
gfm7175 said:
There is no "long established physics" of this... The "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, your imaginary strawman 'greenhouse' effect (which doesn't include energy from the sun) does not exist. Neither does your imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics - which seems to include magick 'intelligent' photons that 'know' not to radiate from a cooler body towards a warmer body and be absorbed by the warmer body. Once again, the REAL 2nd law of thermodynamics is about the NET flow of heat.

You and your sock-like mentor Into the Night are hilarious in your abject ignorance of basic science.
 
gfm7175 said:
Because it is a good tool to "control the masses" with...
Click to expand...
Baseless conspiracy ideation.

Global Warming is not science; It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument.
Click to expand...
Thank you for mindlessly parroting your sock-like mentor Into the Night almost verbatim. He's wrong too. I wonder if one day you'll wake up and be embarrassed that you mindlessly regurgitated his comments?

Plenty of people reject evolution for one reason or another...
Click to expand...
Usually ignorance and/or because they feel it threatens their religious beliefs.

Evolution is not science; it is a religion.

Global Warming is also a religion; one based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument.
Click to expand...
More appeals to stupidity and more mindless repetition of Into the Night's ignorant 'buzzword' nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Eriech said:
If you believe, really believe, act now. Stop breathing and polluting the planet with CO2.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's science. Belief isn't required. Gravity exists whether you believe in it or not.
 
Waddy said:
I think there is some merit to global warming, but the left has allowed the issue to become a marketing ploy. When an issue becomes more about how to make money off it than what the science really says, it becomes junk science. I see the same thing happening with "organic" agriculture. "Organic" is now a marketing term. It has virtually nothing to do with the purity and safety of the food you eat. What do you think "free range" chicken means? You have images of chickens roaming around the barnyard happily pecking away as nature intended.... it means the cage they live in 24/7 has a small window to the outside, open for at least an hour or so each day. Don't believe the hype. Those wonderful new blue light, short wave length LED bulbs you just converted all your lighting over to will prevent your body from making melatonin and eventually give you cateracts and macular degeneration. Keep the old incandescent lights and use a dimmer when you turn them on in the evening. Do a search for "night light" on your Windows 10 and use the blue light filter after 8PM. (Microsoft knows about the dangers of blue light and has provided a way to block it. Use "Night Light").
Click to expand...

Marketing what? What do light bulbs and organic chickens have to do with climate science?
 
concernedpuma said:
For sure! That is why we don't sail over the horizon to unknown peril as you fall off the earth, the need to apply leeches to extract angry blood, cigarettes to calm anxious new mothers, and avoiding too fast a speed on a steam locomotive, which will cause your corpuscles to explode!. Don't you keep up with Science?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Or believe that the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist - like the pseudoscience physics-denying cranks on the Principia Scientific crank magnet blog.
 
gfm7175 said:
Facts aren't universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all participants of any particular conversation. That's all facts are. Facts can be wrong and still be facts. "God exists" may or may not be a fact, depending upon the participants in the particular discussion at hand... Facts are used to speed up conversation.

There is nothing scientific about global warming. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Global Warming isn't falsifiable. It isn't even definable in a way which isn't a circular definition... It is a buzzword, and a religion based on a void argument.

Global Warming proponents are the real "science deniers" because they deny various laws of science, including the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzman law...
Click to expand...

Your misunderstanding of what constitutes a fact is truly stunning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So, all of these people are full of ****?

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glo...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.XCRcZxJlA1I

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
 
chuckiechan said:
I hate to use the word "lie", because it serves to prevent reasonable discussion, just as calling someone a "denier". Why not just tell them to shut up and go away?

There is a lot of misdirection and placing blame in the wrong places, and there are a lot of people making a lot of money off "global change". The global weather system is always changing and always will - even when it's 4000 degrees out side a few billion years in the future, and a few million years ago when glaciers where parked on what is now the Great Lakes.

The real issue is the redirection of money into "global change prevention". There is no "prevention". The USA is too small and there is no proof that man is the cause. If the glaciers were still covering the Great Lakes, would the global change people still be calling for stopping it? Probably. That does not mean in the spirit of being a good housekeeper we can't recycle and conserve resources, but blaming people and spending their money on preventing or mitigating a natural process is a waste of money.

The jobs created are paid for in money drained out of the economic system and are basically "make work". We have a lot of better areas to put "make work" to work where it will do some good.

BTW, the global change folks never want to tell me what the want the climate to be.

Let's not forget our termite friends:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...be-emitting-dangerous-amounts-of-1394135.html
Click to expand...

First, termites only contribute between 1 and 3 percent of all methane. Secondly, their mounds filter most of their emissions.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-termite-mound-filters-methaneand-greenhouse.html

Last but not least, the Independent picked up a lot of their information from a very questionable source called Ice Age Now, a very right wing science denying website.

Just pointing out how easy it is for non-science to work it's way into this issue.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
That's got nothing to do with earth sciences. But great. Just don't accept any science at all then. Why not try jumping off a tall building with no parachute because, you know, you just can't trust those physicists about gravity. They might be lying, and you could catch them out!

Apparently you are unaware that the overwhelming consilience of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is from many different lines of investigation across many different fields of science. It would be impossible to 'fake' it in some huge worldwide conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of that old story about a guy who jumped off a tall building, and as he passed each floor on his way down, he was heard shouting "So far, so good!"
 
Idiometer said:
Last but not least, the Independent picked up a lot of their information from a very questionable source called Ice Age Now, a very right wing science denying website.

Just pointing out how easy it is for non-science to work it's way into this issue.
Click to expand...

The Ice Age Now crank magnet blog is run by a nutty retired architect with no background or qualifications in any earth sciences fields. I crack up laughing when people use it as a 'source' and expect to be taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom