Climate Change Report

[Tgo01]

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

Yo momma wears combat boots!

[cwolff]

Yo momma wears combat boots!

HAHA!

I give up. I can't compete with that. Laughing too much.

[Jarvan]

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

Aka. Typical response from WB, Back and sometimes Cwolff.

[Ker_Thwap]

I didn't say a mass extinction event was imminent. I'm just pointing out that saying we've always survived climate change is as much a function of our history's specific range of climate change as it is our adaptability.

I know you didn't, you just posted a general principle without commentary. That's why I went with my funny reply. I hate it when I have to explain my funnies.

I'm also not suggesting the species will survive when the sun begins it's progression to a red dwarf, nor a half million degree sudden temperature change from a particularly pesky nuclear bomb. Somewhere between the 1/2 degree change and these extreme examples, we'll cope.

The more interesting questions to me, are more a combination of science, sociology and ethics. Just because mankind can survive something, doesn't mean it will be fun to do so. Look at the smog in China, that's got to suck to live in. Is the larger concern the immediate death of Chinese citizens by breathing, or the possible long term affect of that smog on the world climate? Do we, as concerned world citizens get a say in how that developing country chooses to behave, after we've already gone through our smoggy industrial revolution ourselves? Is it enough to give them friendly advice on how to better the environment, or should we bomb them into oblivion to keep them from ever polluting again? Maybe somewhere in the middle?

[Parkbandit]

If you honestly don't believe in it, then why are you doing anything?

Because I do believe that being good stewards of this planet is everyone's responsibility.

Well, that and I believe in another green movement:



I think the real question is: If you believe so blindly in man made global warming.. why aren't you doing more to combat it??

[Jarvan]

Because I do believe that being good stewards of this planet is everyone's responsibility.

Well, that and I believe in another green movement:



I think the real question is: If you believe so blindly in man made global warming.. why aren't you doing more to combat it??

I think the answer is because it costs to much to be green.

THEY don't want to pay it. They want the Government and Companies to pay it.

[Ker_Thwap]

Because I do believe that being good stewards of this planet is everyone's responsibility.

Well, that and I believe in another green movement:




I think the real question is: If you believe so blindly in man made global warming.. why aren't you doing more to combat it??

He is doing more, he's asking you to vote for his political party, to change your way of living, for you to pat him on the head and tell him how clever he is for buying that plastic packaging that says "organic" on it. If you'd just get on board with his slacktivism everything would be solved! Science made observations, therefore there's only HIS way to proceed.

[cwolff]

Because I do believe that being good stewards of this planet is everyone's responsibility.

Well, that and I believe in another green movement:



I think the real question is: If you believe so blindly in man made global warming.. why aren't you doing more to combat it??

Maybe I am already. Should we whip out our recycling bins and measure?

Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/,[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.

Well said.

If I honestly believed in man made global warming, I would do far more than I currently do... and I'm already doing more than most of the man made global warming crowd on this message board.

Are you personally fighting global warming or not? You believe in good stewardship and say you're doing more to combat climate change than most people then you also say that you don't believe in it. What is it? You believe in it or don't you? You think it requires attention or not? You've got a couple wires crossed somewhere, I'm just trying to help you get it sorted out.

[cwolff]

He is doing more, he's asking you to vote for his political party, to change your way of living, for you to pat him on the head and tell him how clever he is for buying that plastic packaging that says "organic" on it. If you'd just get on board with his slacktivism everything would be solved! Science made observations, therefore there's only HIS way to proceed.

For a guy who "fucking loves science" you sure don't seem to pay much attention to scientists. This isn't a political issue, unfortunately you keep looking at it in that context.

[Warriorbird]

Aka. Typical response from WB, Back and sometimes Cwolff.

More two wrongs make a right theory. This is incisive stuff.