Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jonewer

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Its worth listening to even though its a bit long. If his friends havent managed to poke holes in this then he doesnt have very clever friends.

Of course, the reason its a fallacy.... well substitute "giant martian space-dragons" for "climate change"

Great post. I frankly dont understand much but I know people that would know more. I will ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post. I frankly dont understand much but I know people that would know more. I will ask.

Basically its a false dichotomy - you are given two choices, one of which is obviously favourable. The reason this is a fallacy is because there are more than just the two choices. Pascal's Wager is a similar fallacy.

The best way to prove its nonsense is to substitute "global warming" by whatever other ridiculous but disaterous thing you can imagine - if you follow his logic it will always be best to take radical action against the threat - even if the threat is invisble pink space-dragons. Should we really spend trillions to defend earth against invisble pink space-dragons?

One thought experiment might be to substitiute "house price crash" for global warming..... should be spend trillions to prevent a house price crash, given that the worst case scenario would be the end of the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically its a false dichotomy - you are given two choices, one of which is obviously favourable. The reason this is a fallacy is because there are more than just the two choices. Pascal's Wager is a similar fallacy.

The best way to prove its nonsense is to substitute "global warming" by whatever other ridiculous but disaterous thing you can imagine - if you follow his logic it will always be best to take radical action against the threat - even if the threat is invisble pink space-dragons. Should we really spend trillions to defend earth against invisble pink space-dragons?

One thought experiment might be to substitiute "house price crash" for global warming..... should be spend trillions to prevent a house price crash, given that the worst case scenario would be the end of the world?

Al Gore summed up this point more succinctly:

Pointing to a set of scales:

"On one side of the scales you have bars of gold. Hmmm, just look at all that gold. I wanna get me some of that gold! On the other side of the scales you have THE ENTIRE PLANET!"

I can't be bothered to debate this, but the logical dichotomy as presented is flawless, not fallacious. You are confusing the consequences (a wide spectrum of possibilities) with the boundaries of what is possible (true or false). Where this all breaks down is that you cannot buy another planet if you break this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did no know the importance of the question did I. I thought it was easy. No it is not.

Let us say for metaphorical example, that a black man puts a gun at your head. What are you going to think, I'm dead.

Then the truth comes out, I saw you walking straight to death. I was going to negotiate with you, there was no time, I had absolutly no choice, in order to save you I had to stop you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a visitor to this thread, you are welcome, but I am only interested in postings from people that know what they are talking about. If you dont, f*** off.

Apart from that, what do you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!!!

Notice how there is NO CREDIBLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. All we're told is that the global temperature has increased by 0.6°C in the last century.

Some have postulated that Global warming is a result of increased solar activity and that there's little we can do about it.

CO2 has NEXT TO NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING. It represents about 300ppm of the atmosphere. Wikipedia claims that the theory behind so called "greenhouse gases" is that they absorb low frequency radiation from the Earth (as opposed to the higher energy and higher frequency radiation from the Sun) and redirect some of it back. But water vapour forms a much higher proportion of the atmosphere and is about the same as CO2 for this effect. Methane from cows is much worse than water vapour and CO2 and a single cow produces more of this than any car produces CO2. Furthermore, the graph that Al Gore is peddling when examined closely shows that CO2 FOLLOWS global warming by about 800~1000 years. In other words, global warming leads to increased foliage which produces more CO2.

So why the lie? Most probably to get us to consume less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.