Sources Playing Down Climate Change

[thomas_t]

in reality global warming is the one who started this debate, they are the ones who first need to make their case.

This thread is about the sources people use to downplay climate change. Even if the whole discussion is led by those who say this is peoblem (see below):

... the "denier" side should not feel invited to fail to back their claims up by anything close to a decent source. Please try to back up what you say providing sources. Providing sources isn't rocket science.

again droughts are not global warming. There may be correlation, there may not be. [...]
is warming bad?

There is correlation - "Global warming has been affecting the severity of droughts worldwide since at least the beginning of the 20th century, new research has found." see here Global Warming Has Been Influencing Drought for a Century
German forests for instance, as my source in #37 pointed out, are in dire need of some more water! Not CO2.

I can help a little bit for you guys..... search google scholar.

you failed to name even one single source in this thread, so don't pretend to be helping anyone here on the subject level. I'm sure you will have to pay a price (Matthew 12:36) for your way of discussing a science issue here in this thread,

Thomas

 

[Neogaia777]

sorry I didn't read the full post earlier, again droughts are not global warming. There may be correlation, there may not be. Droughts can happen for a host of reasons. So a peer review proving that the droughts are because of a universal run away warming that is man caused, is key here. I can help a little bit for you guys..... search google scholar. They have a great data base of peer review content. There are many peer reviews on the warming of the planet, but I don't see many on the fact that man is causing it. So that again would have to be proven versus like I said a warming cycle caused by natural means. Again if weather goes in cycles, warm, cold, warmer, colder... then that is what mother nature does, who are you to say this is not just a reset so that winters are not too cold, or get too cold. Because cold winters people die just as much or more than warm summers. So again it's all relative, is warming bad? In a green house, plants thrive. Is increased vegetation due to increased co2 bad? That provides more oxygen. With more oxygen in the world, you heal over bruises cuts and other ailments twice or three times as fast, you probably live longer with more oxygen rich environments. Look up hyperbaric oxygen therapy for sources on how oxygen is healthy for our body, each cell needs it.

We are stripping and raping the earth severely, and in "every way", etc, and are quickly on our way into turning it into a barren, severely polluted and toxic, barren wasteland, etc... that is, if she doesn't "turn on us" first or before then, etc...

And your blind if you cannot see that...

God Bless!

 

[createdtoworship]

This thread is about the sources people use to downplay climate change. Even if the whole discussion is led by those who say this is peoblem (see below):
View attachment 271226

... the "denier" side should not feel invited to fail to back their claims up by anything close to a decent source. Please try to back up what you say providing sources. Providing sources isn't rocket science.

There is correlation - "Global warming has been affecting the severity of droughts worldwide since at least the beginning of the 20th century, new research has found." see here Global Warming Has Been Influencing Drought for a Century
German forests for instance, as my source in #37 pointed out, are in dire need of some more water! Not CO2.

you failed to name even one single source in this thread, so don't pretend to be helping anyone here on the subject level. I'm sure you will have to pay a price (Matthew 12:36) for your way of discussing a science issue here in this thread,

Thomas

sorry that article is not peer review. Again try google scholar, you may be suprised. But if you simply use unofficial sources you will never come to the true scientific definition of global warming. Lastly the peer review of arosals in the article show so solid tests done for how removal of aerosals was helpful. For instance without a data set of official before and after snapshots on a global basis, one can never know the direct affect of this said problem. Graphs seem to have been computer generated and not photographs or solid evidence. As computer algorithms are programmed and adjusted according to their inputs, so all of this is not evidence either for or against the problem of aerosals. I do agree that aerosals were creating a hole in the ozone but if anything that would remove green house gases not add to them. So again conflicting information on this topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

We are stripping and raping the earth severely, and in "every way", etc, and are quickly on our way into turning it into a barren, severely polluted and toxic, barren wasteland, etc... that is, if she doesn't "turn on us" first or before then, etc...

And your blind if you cannot see that...

God Bless!

this just sounds like a blanketed appeal to emotion. you cannot "rape" a plant. You cannot "rape" a tree. This is just using horrid real problems and trying to create an emotional tie to an unsupported common myth. (again since you cannot provide proof of alarmist global warming), I call it a myth. Just like chem trails are a myth. Just like flat earth science is a myth.

 

[Neogaia777]

this just sounds like a blanketed appeal to emotion. you cannot "rape" a plant. You cannot "rape" a tree. This is just using horrid real problems and trying to create an emotional tie to an unsupported common myth. (again since you cannot provide proof of alarmist global warming), I call it a myth. Just like chem trails are a myth. Just like flat earth science is a myth.

To rape is to violate, desecrate, etc, profane, etc, ruin, etc, but violate and desecrate, etc, and I think we are very much doing that very much so (to the earth and to our natural world, etc), and I think that if we don't change any of it, and start doing so "now", and "right now", etc, we will most certainly and definitely pay the price for it, etc, or at least our next generations will, etc...

God Bless!

 

[thomas_t]

sorry that article is not peer review.

My source cited a Nature article as source. That one was peer reviewed. Look Peer-review policy | Nature Research

 

[Neogaia777]

To rape is to violate, desecrate, etc, profane, etc, ruin, etc, but violate and desecrate, etc, and I think we are very much doing that very much so (to the earth and to our natural world, etc), and I think that if we don't change any of it, and start doing so "now", and "right now", etc, we will most certainly and definitely pay the price for it, etc, or at least our next generations will, etc...

God Bless!

Don't worry about it though, as I think the "overpopulation problem" will be "fixed" first before we "permanently do too much permanent damage", etc... "One way or another", etc...

God Bless!

 

[createdtoworship]

To rape is to violate, desecrate, etc, profane, etc, ruin, etc, but violate and desecrate, etc, and I think we are very much doing that very much so (to the earth and to our natural world, etc), and I think that if we don't change any of it, and start doing so "now", and "right now", etc, we will most certainly and definitely pay the price for it, etc, or at least our next generations will, etc...

God Bless!

Appeal to emotion:


Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true, or vice-versa.

above from wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

My source cited a Nature article as source. That one was peer reviewed. Look Peer-review policy | Nature Research

just repost the peer review link please so I can read it when I have time, but I fear it will fail for similiar reasons the other one failed. It's really hard to prove global weather patterns, simply because we cannot take enough samples of said anomaly to prove it exists.

 

[thomas_t]

just repost the peer review link please so I can read it when I have time

"The findings emerged from centuries of tree ring data"
My other postings didn't fail.

 

[Neogaia777]

Appeal to emotion:


Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true, or vice-versa.

above from wikipedia

Dead and beyond reaching and/or saving is the man who is no longer moved at all by emotion or passion anymore, etc...

You don't think God has emotions over what we are doing to the/His or our planet...?

It might be an appeal to emotion, but that does not make it "not true", etc, or a "fallacy" etc, which is just another word for "lie" etc, and I am not "lying", etc... If anything it is "you guys" and "your kind and types" that are "lying", etc...

If you just want the facts, the facts are that we are either, "greatly contributing to", or just "are", severely damaging our planet in "all kinds of ways", etc, ways that could maybe carry some maybe irreparable, and maybe unable to come back from, very bad consequences for us in the very near future, etc...

And that is a "fact", etc...

And I don't understand why people deny that "fact", etc...

And I still call it "rape", etc...

And I think God would or does too, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Appeal to emotion:


Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true, or vice-versa.

above from wikipedia

Not all arguments from passion are lies...

Sorry, but that's the thing that is just not true, and is the thing that is a "lie", etc...

"Fact is" were "raping" the planet, etc...

And that could come with maybe some pretty severe consequences and is "no lie", etc...

And none of any of this at all is a "lie", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Appeal to emotion:


Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true, or vice-versa.

above from wikipedia

What is an appeal to emotion or an argument from passion that is based on facts called?

Is it or are they still a "fallacy" or "lie", etc...?

Yes or No...?

Cause they do exist, and exist a lot everywhere, etc... Not "every single appeal to emotion" or "all arguments from a place of passion" are all "always lies" or are "always based on only lies", etc, there are a lot of them, "a lot of them", that are actually based on "facts", etc, like what I am doing or saying here, etc...

So I'll ask you again, "What is an appeal to emotion, or an argument from passion, that is based on, or can be backed up by, "facts" called, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Robban]

What is an appeal to emotion or an argument from passion that is based on facts called?

Is it or are they still a "fallacy" or "lie", etc...?

Yes or No...?

Cause they do exist, and exist a lot everywhere, etc... Not "every single appeal to emotion" or "all arguments from a place of passion" are all "always lies" or are "always based on only lies", etc, there are a lot of them, "a lot of them", that are actually based on "facts", etc, like what I am doing or saying here, etc...

So I'll ask you again, "What is an appeal to emotion, or an argument from passion, that is based on, or can be backed up by, "facts" called, etc...?

God Bless!

Waking up in the middle the night, cannot sleep.

So this person gets up and makes some coffee
turns on TV.
On the screen comes up images of starving children.

"Oh, my goodness what can I do, I can donate to
give them aid."
Then reaching out for the mug of coffee it is knocked over,
spilling out over the new sofa.

After almost an hour cleaning the sofa.

The images are gone from the TV screen and most often from the emotions.

Or what?

 

[Neogaia777]

Waking up in the middle the night, cannot sleep.

So this person gets up and makes some coffee
turns on TV.
On the screen comes up images of starving children.

"Oh, my goodness what can I do, I can donate to
give them aid."
Then reaching out for the mug of coffee it is knocked over,
spilling out over the new sofa.

After almost an hour cleaning the sofa.

The images are gone from the TV screen and most often from the emotions.

Or what?

I don't think I get what your trying to say?

But @createdtoworship was basically saying that because I was emotional is some sort of way, that my whole entire argument, or where I was arguing or coming from was a "lie", etc, but I think it is based on the "facts" of what we are doing to our earth, etc, and I think he was also saying that if any kind of argument contains any kind of emotional plea or appeal to any kind of emotions at all, then it must all be lies or all based on lies, etc, and I think that, "that", is a flat out lie, etc, or is not always the case at all, or all of the time, etc...?

Or that his saying so is a "fallacy", or logical fallacy, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Waking up in the middle the night, cannot sleep.

So this person gets up and makes some coffee
turns on TV.
On the screen comes up images of starving children.

"Oh, my goodness what can I do, I can donate to
give them aid."
Then reaching out for the mug of coffee it is knocked over,
spilling out over the new sofa.

After almost an hour cleaning the sofa.

The images are gone from the TV screen and most often from the emotions.

Or what?

I'm not seeing anything wrong or a lie here, so just what are you trying to get at here "exactly", etc...? Cause I'm failing to see how it apllies to what we are doing or saying here, etc...?

Anyway,

Are you saying there is no point cause it will just be forgotten, or what exactly...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Waking up in the middle the night, cannot sleep.

So this person gets up and makes some coffee
turns on TV.
On the screen comes up images of starving children.

"Oh, my goodness what can I do, I can donate to
give them aid."
Then reaching out for the mug of coffee it is knocked over,
spilling out over the new sofa.

After almost an hour cleaning the sofa.

The images are gone from the TV screen and most often from the emotions.

Or what?

I'm not trying to get people to "believe me" or "side with me" or whatever, just only based on the or my "supposed only emotional plea" or argument or whatever, but always encourage them to seek out the facts for themselves, etc. If there was an "emotional" part or aspect to it at all, etc, it was only for emphasis, and not trying to change or alter or distort the facts, etc...

And I already stated what I think the facts are, apart from my supposed only purely emotional only plea, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Robban]

I'm not seeing anything wrong or a lie here, so just what are you trying to get at here "exactly", etc...? Cause I'm failing to see how it apllies to what we are doing or saying here, etc...?

Anyway,

Are you saying there is no point cause it will just be forgotten, or what exactly...?

God Bless!

It was an example.

Try to picture it.

Give it a little time.

You have said we have to do something "Now" "Right now".

What exactly do you suggest over 7 billion are to do "Right now" ?

Seeing as you say "We"

 

[Neogaia777]

It was an example.

Try to picture it.

Give it a little time.

You have said we have to do something "Now" "Right now".

What exactly do you suggest over 7 billion are to do "Right now" ?

Seeing as you say "We"

First off stop all this complete and utter nonsense that this is not happening and/or going on "at all", etc...

Second evaluate the impact(s), and evaluate the impacts "honestly", and get together and figure out what we should or what we need to do, individually, collectively, or whatever, nationally, corporately, globally, etc, anyway, figure out what we should or what we need to do to take action to either lessen it or stop it from happening "now" or "right now", etc, but not say it's not happening or going on "at all", etc...

Cause that's just stupid and very, very foolish, etc... (That last part, etc)...

"No offense" to anyone though...

And then, "do it", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Robban]

First off stop all this complete and utter nonsense that this is not happening and/or going on "at all", etc...

Second evaluate the impact(s), and evaluate the impacts "honestly", and get together and figure out what we should or what we need to do, individually, collectively, or whatever, to take action to either lessen it or stop it from happening "now" or "right now", etc, but not say it's not happening or going on "at all", etc...

Cause that's just stupid and very, very foolish, etc... (That last part, etc)...

"No offense" to anyone though...

God Bless!

You cannot say what anyone should do then.

All you can do is try and give everyone a feeling of guilt.

No surprise there.