Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

winchry wrote:
Everyone except a few still don't believe the science. So why do you all come on board and help get some more concrete results.


Yeah everyone except a few thousand scientists, and certainly a few million Canadians...
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yeah everyone except a few thousand scientists, and certainly a few million Canadians


In reality all Canadians who care believe the Greenhouse gas effect. Only those interested in their own money or too busy to really look into the issue don't believe these days.
The envrionment is the #1 priority of Canadians. You think all of these people are wrong? Doubters have long since been shuned from the political scene and are objecting based on a whim. Only a handful of scientist our of thousands worldwide actually have a credible reason to suggest the greenhouse effect and climate change isn't real.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prejudicial language used in place of rational argument. Is that what they are teaching in schools these days? Since you obviously don't know, what you just did is called an "appeal to motive in place of support".

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

For future reference.

PS. Just in case you still don't get it Winchry; you are calling anyone who does not agree with you uncaring, greedy, and or ignorant and stupid. Whereas people who agree with you are automatically caring, generous, and intelligent people. Seriously, do you think that is any way to win friends and influence people?


Last edited by kwlafayette on Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

winchry wrote:
Doubters have long since been shuned from the political scene and are objecting based on a whim.

Actually, there is very little evidence that human activity has influenced climate change and many scientists are revising their positions, including some who were the first to sound the warning. More and more people are realizing that this is yet another manufactured crisis designed on the politics of scare tactics.

I really find folks like you amusing. You're absolutely willing to put blind faith in scientists, many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the sense of crisis because it increases their funding and sustains their research. PT Barnum described you perfectly.

-Mac
Cerebral Voter





Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whenever I hear that "the majority of people believe" something I automatically suspect the opposite of their belief to be worthy of consideration. So it is with anthropomorphic climate change. If it is even true that the majority of Canadians believe in it, then they do so purely because "everybody else believes it" and thereby relieve themselves of the burden of thinking it through for themselves.

I believe that climate change due to human activity is a dangerous and distracting myth. I am willing to accept that climate change due to solar activity is a credible idea. The last Ice Age was obviously not created, nor eliminated, by human activity. If our climate is changing due to solar changes that we cannot control, we had better start learning to adapt instead playing silly games trading carbon credits.

And if any Conservative government even thinks about introducing any kind of carbon credit system as has been rumoured here I'll turn my membership card in toute de suite.
Swift





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Winchry obviously does not know anything about the scientific method. All it takes is one scientist to destroy a theory. If one scientist finds a way to falsify a theory, that theory is false. Quite a few scientists feel they have found a way to falsify the global warming theory. The only way the global warming crowd can salvage their theory is to show that the science of these falsifications is in error. Have they done this? No! In fact they have not even tried to my knowledge. Instead they try to discredit the scientist, often with false accusatiopns. The two favorite accusations are they are funded by big oil, although being funded by big oil doesn't seem to discredit David Suzuki in their eyes, and secondly that they do not have a long list of published papers. The latter is certainly not true in some cases.

However even a complete lack of published papers does not mean that the science is invalid. A number of years ago a journal recieved four papers from a previously unpuplished scientist. Not only was this scientist unpublished, but he hadn't even been able to get a position as a lecturer at a University. The global warming fanatics would have you believe that this scientist could not have nothing worth even reading let alone publishing, his papers would be automatic garbage. Fortunately the editor of the journal did not have that attitude because the scientist was Albert Einstien, and the four papers were by far the most important papers ever published by any scientist in one year.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

winchry wrote:
Quote:
Yeah everyone except a few thousand scientists, and certainly a few million Canadians


In reality all Canadians who care believe the Greenhouse gas effect. Only those interested in their own money or too busy to really look into the issue don't believe these days.


I take serious issue with this comment. You're basically saying I don't care... moreover you're saying I'm incompetent or greedy.

I think you need to re-think your statement; I'm a true patriot, I love my country and care very much about the future of our people.
So much so, that I don't want to see our already eroding competitiveness get pulled down even more simply because of a whim.

I think that your position is ridiculous, but I don't think you don't care... I think you care very much; but that your choice on solutions is wrong.

Quote:
The envrionment is the #1 priority of Canadians


Yeah, what was that poll showing... I think it was that something like 17%(maybe 27%? I forget) of Canadians said it was their top priority. Meaning that the majority of Canadians did not in fact choose it as their priority.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consensus at wikipedia

Quote:
Interestingly, the peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.


I'll use something that leftists often throw at conservatives on this issue... hundreds of years ago there was a "consensus" that the world was flat.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Climate change Real

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB