Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

No, some probably do believe it, but not all. I'll just stick with the ones that aren't funded by the government, which ironically are the same ones that have done their own studies and have come to the conclusion that man made GW isn't real, or that our CF doesn't contribute enough to make a difference. This Earth has been going through these kinds of changes for billions of years without us. Heating, cooling, freezing, etc. It's on a warming trend because of natural occurrence, it doesn't take a roc...er, climate scientist to understand that. Since you're buying into it being your fault, we can sit back and laugh at each other because I assure you that I'm laughing just as hard at you. But since you're the reason for this, I wanna know what you're doing, personally, to combat it.

 

You need to realize that Vegas only argument is a logical fallacy. Vegas does not seem to understand what a logical fallacy is.

 

Some not all? The level that would be required for this conspiracy is overwhelming. EVERY SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD THAT TAKES A STAND ON AGW BELIEVES IN IT. Every single one. Organizations that contain and are run by nobel prize winning scientists.

I am doing exactly the same thing you are doing in the fight against Isis? You do think Isis is a problem....don't you?

 

More logical fallacy, not surprised. I would guess the answer to his question then would be nothing.

 

I also believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer since every medical agency in the world believes that.

Whoops! Logical fallacy. LOL

 

LOL, you just keep em rolling in. I would guess you just are not capable of learning much of anything since you have yet to understand what a logical fallacy is.

 

I don't think even the Koch brothers push that.

AGW denial is the best example of how lots of conservative beliefs are. They don't look bad on first glance but when you state them flat out they're just ****** SILLY.

 

skip.....logical fallacy.....skip....logical fallacy.....skip....logical fallacy. Broken record. LOL

 

Got to point them out on the very off chance that you could learn something. Don't worry, I am not holding my breath.

 

Nor do I, it seems. Could you explain the concept of a logical fallacy to us, and how Vegas' argument is one?

 

No, you can keep pouring your taxes into it and if I ever find out it's real, I'll start pouring mine into as well. I don't care about the speed of your hybrid, I have a 395HP truck to do things that you can't do in your hybrid. I'll keep my V8, you keep your speedy hybrid.

- - - Updated - - -

I know... Scientists believe it so it's true. Yet I'm called names if I believe the scientists in the same field that have different conclusions.

 

Dude, obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. Do you think the Nobel prizes mean anything in the way of credibility anymore?

ISIS and AGW have nothing to do with each other although Bernie Sanders thinks one caused the other's rise, no pun intended. I'm well prepared to fight ISIS if it shows up at my doorstep. AGW, in your opinion, is already on your doorstep. So I'll ask you one more time, what are you doing to combat AGW?

 

Are you saying you do not understand what a logical fallacy is?

First his Argumentum ad populum, this type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans")., second his Argument from Authority, an argument from authority may be fallacious if used to infer that the conclusion is certainly correct, if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position, if they are speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise or if they are not a true expert at all which is much of the case of unrelated organizations adopting a position on AGW or where they unilaterally adopt a position against the wishes of their members. Next the non sequiter where he believes that something totally unrelated is true that AGW must be true. So far all of his arguments are logical fallacies. He has yet to understand what one is.

 

he's combatting it by limiting YOUR freedoms and redistributing YOUR money, that's what she's doing

 

Actually, more and more big trucks and particularly buses are becoming hybrids, as train locomotives have been fully hybrid for a long time. It saves on the transmission, as electric engines start at their full torque,

 

Yeah....al I have is science on my side. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

When did I say it was at my doorstep? Is Isis a threat to americans? Are you an American? What are you PERSONALLY doing about it. The point should be obvious.

 

so if AGW isn't a threat, why are you suggesting we fight it then?


The question you avoided... what are you doing, personally, to save the planet from man? have you bought an electric car? do you ride your bike to work? Do you live in a 600 sq ft apart/house in order to save the environment from excessive heating and cooling and power consumption?


or do you just say "man needs to stop doing bad things" and then feel like you contributed to the cause. You post that phrase to facebook and you get 100 likes and feel you contributed. your morals are based on what's popular on social media but you have ZERO intention of actually doing anything.

 

Hahahahaha! Brilliant, another logical fallacy. I am sure you are incapable of learning much of anything..

 

Not by they way you were using it, no. You're supposed to state what logical fallacy you believe is being used and how it applies for clarity, I believe.

And, yes, you would be right if that was ALL the evidence for AGW. There is, however, literally a mountain of physical evidence for it and you are simply denying it all without even presenting a case for your belief beyond the fact that a mountain of evidence does not mean the proposition is proved as a certainty, (which is scientifically impossible)

To illustrate your idea better I always found Carl Sagan's statement about an early theory explaining Saturn's Rings to be most entertaining. "The theory was mathematically rigorous, scientifically elegant.....and wrong"

Yes, indeed, AGW COULD be wrong, and many, many scientists have worked very hard trying to prove it so. And just about all of them have, in the end, proved it even more.

What you are doing, I think, is called "selling the controversy". Science proves its statements only to greater or lesser degrees of probability and it does this through trying to prove them wrong. You are taking this ongoing process in regard to AGW not as simply calling the statement into question but as refuting the statement entirely. It's big among creationists.

To put it another way there ARE a very small number of scientists who occasionally maintain that the Law of Gravity COULD be wrong, but they are not jumping off buildings. You're proposing to ignore AGW is doing just about exactly that.

 

Or whatever happens might have happened like any natural weather event has happened over the last 100,000 years - with absolutely no influence by man. And it would have happened whether or not I gave the hoaxers all my money and control over my life.

So, I'll just keep all my money and control over my life and take my chances. I think they are no worse or better than if I listened to the hoaxers - the "greatest scientific minds" who have been proven to have manipulated data, had 20 years of predictions that didn't come true, and fabricated evidence to support their claims and their enablers in the political and climate religion classes.

 

You totally missed the point. If you think SOMEONE should go help those people after a hurricane I assume YOU will be going to do it PERSONALLY.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you gotten your haircut? Met with the recruiter? After you ship out be sure to stay in touch. You want to let us know what you are doing PERSONALLY to fight Isis. LOL

 

You are completely wrong. There is absolutely no evidence supporting AGW. AGW is predicated on computer models that are incapable of modelling the earth. If you ever read any of the papers, they never state categorically what would happen but user words like could or might based on an hypothesis which is basically only conjecture. Alarmists and environmentalists will because they have an agenda. A scientist like James Hansen may believe his catastrophic predictions but most scientists are not like Hansen and basically 100% of the predictions have been wrong to date. The models are not verifiable and the hypothesis could be wrong. In fact, the slowdown pretty much disproves the hypothesis since fully 1/3 of CO2 rise has happened during the slowdown. That was not supposed to happen according to the CO2 centric hypothesis.

 

You are of course exactly right. Is it possible AGW theory is wrong? Of course. But the mountains and mountains of evidence suggest that it is correct. He will continue to parrot "logical fallacy" and never present any evidence because it is all he has.

 

Evidence like global sea ice is above the mean?

 

To get the horsepower and torque that satisfies me, I'd have to go above my budget. I looked up the top 10 speediest hybrids and they range from an Acura to a Porsche, from 349 HP to 817 HP, and from $69,000 to $847,000. That's out of my budget though, and I found a Chevy Silverado Hybrid but 312 HP, I'd be horribly downgrading. But to reiterate my orifinal meaning, I meant trading in my V8 for a 121 HP Prius, and those are the ones they showed outrunning the police in the SB commercial that have been dramatically upgraded on HP. You gotta laugh.