And lets pretend that humans are causing it. How far are you willing to go to prevent or fix it? Would you spend $5000 a year out of your own pocket to help stop it? How about $10,000? $50,000? Would you give up electricity that's made by coal burning plants? Would you get rid of cars with internal combustion engines? Would you get rid of airplanes?
This relates to the people that want to save fish. They want to destroy all the dams in the world. Then we don't have a source of clean power. Would you be willing to do that? What about saving the spotted owls? Should we abandon logging and building houses to save the forest?
Unfortunately, to answer any of those questions we have to pretend that this thread isn't 100% intellectually dishonest.
Seriously, you want a debate about a subject, make some valid arguments. Then people will respond in kind.
But just serving up a mangled jumble of fallacies and non sequiturs (as you did here) is only going to get your thread trolled and your point of view mocked.
This thread was worthless before it even begun. Try a little harder next time.
Last edited by Dancing Mustard on Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
bedub1 wrote:Would you give up electricity that's made by coal burning plants?
Sure, let us get it from other resources.
bedub1 wrote:Would you get rid of cars with internal combustion engines?
Sure, let us get cars that get their energy other ways.
bedub1 wrote:Would you get rid of airplanes?
We have to reduce carbon emissions, not eliminate them completely, and getting rid of airplanes would not have as great an effect as other ways of reducing global warming.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Unfortunately, to answer any of those questions we have to pretend that this thread isn't 100% intellectually dishonest.
Seriously, you want a debate about a subject, make some valid arguments. Then people will respond in kind.
But just serving up a mangled jumble of fallacies and non sequiturs (as you did here) is only going to get your thread trolled and your point of view mocked.
This thread was worthless before it even begun. Try a little harder next time.
It's interesting, there have been two "this thread fails" posts, one semi-serious post (mine), and one serious post (Lyr's). So, of the four replies here, two are serious responses to "fallacies" (didn't really see any) and "non sequiturs" and two "troll" posts.
thegreekdog wrote:two are serious responses to "fallacies" (didn't really see any)
To find one, you need look no further than the thread's title.
Come on, don't play dumb on us.
To be honest, there could be any number of "fallacies." First, that global warming can be fixed. Second, third, and fourth, that getting rid of internal combustion engines, coal burning plants, and airplanes would fix global warming. Fifth, that people who want to save fish want to destory all the dams in the world (probably one of the two you, DM, are referring to). Sixth, that dams provide clean power (the second one you are referring to, I believe). And seventh, that abandoning logging and building houses saves forests.
In any event, determining that any of these seven (or more) things are fallacies would require a debate (which apparently we can't have).
I was extremely happy to pay 6.50 pounds earlier for 'green parking' earlier for parking up my car (which has been 'green-taxed' due to 'low emmisions' fees placed on to motors) to quickly nip into a shop on my way back home earlier to pick up some groceries.
I really feel that by paying an extortionate rate to park my car for basic means is going to completely wipe out all carbon emmisions, and that it is a totally just and honest way in order to combat erm.. global warming - yes, because the temperature in the uk this past few summers has been extremely moderate and I wish to stop this. I also hope that with my 10 minutes worth of parking fee, they also manage to find out how long the peice of string is, employ some extra egg-suckers (It's a 'green job' afterall) and of course, maintain the levels cacophonic violins I can hear in the background, emmited from every bleeding heart-string philharmonic.
thegreekdog wrote:To be honest, there could be any number of "fallacies." First, that global warming can be fixed. Second, third, and fourth, that getting rid of internal combustion engines, coal burning plants, and airplanes would fix global warming. Fifth, that people who want to save fish want to destory all the dams in the world (probably one of the two you, DM, are referring to). Sixth, that dams provide clean power (the second one you are referring to, I believe). And seventh, that abandoning logging and building houses saves forests.
In any event, determining that any of these seven (or more) things are fallacies would require a debate (which apparently we can't have).
I admire your commitment to attempting to bog down any objections in a scree of minor and spurious objections and sub-questions... but I was actually referring to the fallacies present in Bedub's proposed questions and the logic failure that was inherent in their formation.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Dancing Mustard wrote:I admire your commitment to attempting to bog down any objections in a scree of minor and spurious objections and sub-questions... but I was actually referring to the fallacies present in Bedub's proposed questions and the logic failure that was inherent in their formation.
I appear to be less enlightened than you as to what the fallacies present in the proposed questions are/were. Can you enlighten me? At this point, I'm unsure whether you take umbrage with the title of the thread, the unposed questions, or the actual facts (or all of the above).
Dancing Mustard wrote:Unfortunately, to answer any of those questions we have to pretend that this thread isn't 100% intellectually dishonest.
Seriously, you want a debate about a subject, make some valid arguments. Then people will respond in kind.
But just serving up a mangled jumble of fallacies and non sequiturs (as you did here) is only going to get your thread trolled and your point of view mocked.
This thread was worthless before it even begun. Try a little harder next time.
It's interesting, there have been two "this thread fails" posts, one semi-serious post (mine), and one serious post (Lyr's). So, of the four replies here, two are serious responses to "fallacies" (didn't really see any) and "non sequiturs" and two "troll" posts.
bedub1 wrote:Would you give up electricity that's made by coal burning plants?
Sure, let us get it from other resources.
bedub1 wrote:Would you get rid of cars with internal combustion engines?
Sure, let us get cars that get their energy other ways.
bedub1 wrote:Would you get rid of airplanes?
We have to reduce carbon emissions, not eliminate them completely, and getting rid of airplanes would not have as great an effect as other ways of reducing global warming.
Wow. Those are some great solutions. As well thought out(if not better) as those of the governments of the world. Although if your ultimate goal is to destroy the industrial economy of the west then I guess you don't actually need any solutions other than more taxes, regulations and bullshit trade agreements.
If you watch any of these shows on manmade global warming and see them as anything but propaganda then you are a fucking tool. If you, as a citizen of the west, lift one finger to further the 'cause' then you not only belong on the ash heap of history but, one of the present as well.
HapSmo19 wrote:Wow. Those are some great solutions. As well thought out(if not better) as those of the governments of the world. Although if your ultimate goal is to destroy the industrial economy of the west then I guess you don't actually need any solutions other than more taxes, regulations and bullshit trade agreements.
One does not need to destroy the industrial economy of the West. All one needs to do is rebuild it. So far, it has been built upon factories, trucks, and cars which release greenhouse gasses.
Why can one not rebuild the economy so its foundation is not based upon things that induce global warming?
Not to mention (that is, if one agrees that global warming is in effect) that one will have many more things to worry about than the economy if one does not do anything about global warming.
LYR wrote: Why can one not rebuild the economy so its foundation is not based upon things that induce global warming?
Why don't transplant surgeons remove the patients heart before the new one arrives?
LYR wrote:Not to mention (that is, if one agrees that global warming is in effect) that one will have many more things to worry about than the economy if one does not do anything about global warming.
Don't be a tool. China is going great-guns, unregulated and soon to be greater thanks to who? If you can't see the writing on the wall.......
The media is hyping it up. Going green is killing millions of jobs. Foolish people are buying into it, which I must say at one time until I did some research on it, I was to. 1000 years ago they cut down more trees and destroyed more then we ever could have imagined. They never replanted yet we had a mini ice age 500 years ago. Here's a nice little article that the media did not cover. Since the sun, and not carbon dioxide, is the principle driver of climate change, a dearth of sunspot activity would herald a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare and contributed to the onset of the Little Ice Age during which Europe and North America were hit by bitterly cold winters and the Thames river in London completely froze.
Long-time man-made global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that sunspots will all but vanish after 2015.
As we reported last week, the Armagh observatory, which has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years. predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.
“Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years….”Temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern,” concludes David Watt.
It means that LYR is too polite to point out your analogy of a organ transplant being performed before a donor organ is acquired is a stupid and worthless analogy. Nobody is saying shut everything down until we think of a better way to power civilization. Obviously you'd need the current energy sources and mechanisms to develop new ones. And that is actually happening right now to some degree - but there certainly could be more done. The idea is a gradual transition. Understand now?
