| Posted By |
|
|
| |
 |
Ashland, VA
Posts: 2938
Joined: Jan, 2006
|  offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#27] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:19:54 AM |  |  |
|
"Danger! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" 
|
| "This above all: to thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Rochester, New York
Posts: 4114
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
DeWitt, Mi
Posts: 3305
Joined: Jan, 2004
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#29] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:20:44 AM | | |
|
Hey Terry,
don't have to google "strawman arguement" but will google strawman argument. Good point.
Not so sure about your spelling correction, that may be a little on the harsh side and not always correct.
|
Les
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Ashland, VA
Posts: 2938
Joined: Jan, 2006
| offline
|
|
 The Green Fallacy
[#30] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:22:39 AM | | |
|
(Me too until recently.)
|
| "This above all: to thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
DeWitt, Mi
Posts: 3305
Joined: Jan, 2004
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#31] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:25:36 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by mgbinspect(Me too until recently.)
did either of you look it up? now I have to do it!
|
Les
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Collins, NY
Posts: 3142
Joined: Apr, 2008
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#34] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:32:14 AM | | |
|
Apparently advice is a close second, or maybe Terry intended to use the BBB's preferred spelling.
Just so no one accuses me of being a smart ass, I'd like to disclose that I spell checked this post, and made the requisite corrections.
Tom
|
Tom
http://clearcreekhomeinspection.com/
Life is tough enough as it is, it's tougher when your stupid. Don't do stupid things.
Dr Joe Lstiburek |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Bailey, CO
Posts: 158
Joined: May, 2005
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#35] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:37:26 AM | | |
|
Ya gotta love a good lively debate - pity it doesn't involve beer and cigars. That would make it a perfect debate.
Caoimhín
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Ashland, VA
Posts: 2938
Joined: Jan, 2006
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#37] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:48:36 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by LesQuote: Originally posted by mgbinspect(Me too until recently.) did either of you look it up? now I have to do it!
Lol.. well no, I just followed Chad's link, but I had noticed a few weeks ago, via my spell-checker that I had been spelling it wrong for too long.
However, according to Funk and Wagnals (formerly of Rowan and Martin's Laugh In fame), it is spelled " S U P E R S E D E " No other spelling in the dictionary apparently.
And, for the record, I'm not piling up on anyone, especially not Terry. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to him and glad to see someone found his button. 
|
| "This above all: to thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Bailey, CO
Posts: 158
Joined: May, 2005
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#38] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 09:56:40 AM | | |
|
Hi Terry –
Quote: Just answer the questions Caoimhín, I'll buy the first round of Cigars and Cognac at it's conclusion.
OK – but you won’t like it.
Quote: Please point out where Jim has been on the wrong side of the "objective facts" before. Objective is a very loose term - objective in whose view?
“Objective” is not a loose term. You are confusing “objective” with “subjective;” “subjective” describes that which is "loose" and open for interpretation. “Objective” is what the political Right uses to present arguments, “subjective” is the bailiwick of The Left, primarily since, as you point out in your post, they can’t tell the difference. The last sentence was, for example, subjective, but based on objective observations.
Quote: Not one credible scientist? Really? None at all?? It's just Hollywood, the Democratic Party and on "The Left"??? Really???? Not one educated "non-Hollywood" degreed person thinks there might be something to this?
Your post is a non sequitur since I don’t see anywhere where I or anyone else made the claims upon which your post is predicated. It is particularly ironic since your post really is a "straw man argument," unlike your mischaracterization of what constitutes a straw man argument. (That is actually a very funny faux pas.)
Quote: Please include, in a post in this thread, where Jim Morrison said that he thought, or stated, that Al Gore was a scientist.
Please include in a post on this thread where I or anyone else stated that Jim Morrison thought or stated that Al Gore was a scientist. You need to pay attention to details, Terry, and objectivity, not subjectively, read into the posts things that were not said.
Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com
(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
AMDG
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#39] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 10:07:40 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by Caoimhín P. ConnellQuote: First off, there is general (though not unanimous) agreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and human activity can affect it. Sorry Jim – You’re on the wrong side of objective facts (again).
You didn't answer the question Caoimhín
I specifically asked you to reference past posts/threads where, as you stated, that Jim was on the wrong side of the objective facts (again). Shouldn't be hard to do. If you accuse him of this you must have specific memory's/examples of this readily at hand.
We will start with this one first.
|
Terry
http://www.hlis.net
This space for let - please inquire within.
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#40] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 10:18:29 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by Caoimhín P. Connell I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
AMDG
This is from another one of your post Caoimhín:
Quote: Originally posted by Caoimhín P. Connell
"I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist."
By this statement you infer that Jim, somewhere along the line, made reference to Al Gore.
To the best of my recollection Jim never mentioned Al Gores name. Please show us where Jim had mentioned Al Gores name, in reference to "global warming" prior to "outing" him as an Al Gore lover.
If you can not show me/us where Jim used Al Gores name in this reference then it is truly a Strawman argument as stated prior.
|
Terry
http://www.hlis.net
This space for let - please inquire within.
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Collins, NY
Posts: 3142
Joined: Apr, 2008
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#42] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 10:52:44 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by Caoimhín P. ConnellHi Terry – Quote: Just answer the questions Caoimhín, I'll buy the first round of Cigars and Cognac at it's conclusion. OK – but you won’t like it. Quote: Please point out where Jim has been on the wrong side of the "objective facts" before. Objective is a very loose term - objective in whose view? “Objective” is not a loose term. You are confusing “objective” with “subjective;” “subjective” describes that which is "loose" and open for interpretation. “Objective” is what the political Right uses to present arguments, “subjective” is the bailiwick of The Left, primarily since, as you point out in your post, they can’t tell the difference. The last sentence was, for example, subjective, but based on objective observations.
No, I'll like it. You, however, didn't answer the question. Point to the examples where you disparaged Jim.
|
Terry
http://www.hlis.net
This space for let - please inquire within.
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Chicago, IL
Posts: 9506
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#43] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 11:06:51 AM | | |
|
OK, I've been parsing, sides are drawn, the poles clearly delineated between combatants. No one's budging, near as I can tell.
Do we need to go further?
|
Kurt in Chicago
"If I smell it, it goes in the report".............Phillip Smith...2012
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Chicago, IL
Posts: 9506
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#45] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 11:49:15 AM | | |
|
Come again......(?).....
|
Kurt in Chicago
"If I smell it, it goes in the report".............Phillip Smith...2012
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Kenmore, WA
Posts: 15394
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Needham, Massachusetts
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sep, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Sagamore Hills, Ohio
Posts: 3113
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Lexington, KY
Posts: 2538
Joined: Nov, 2004
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#49] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 3:25:08 PM | | |
|
So what does everyone think about cap-and-trade and health care reform?
Ummm, not really . . .
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Ashland, VA
Posts: 2938
Joined: Jan, 2006
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
sioux falls, sd
Posts: 16
Joined: Mar, 2009
| offline
|
|
The Green Fallacy
[#51] Posted: 02/16/2010 - 3:46:28 PM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by Caoimhín P. ConnellHello Greyboy! Quote: Even if your argument is right that climate change is false, its hard to believe that pumping tons and tons of carbon into the air we breath and depend on to live is a wise decision. Greyboy, Friend, it is a question of perspective. Let’s look at your post – it tells me that you are a very decent fellow and I laud your concern forthe Earth, but a little perspective may be warranted. Each time you exhale, your exhalation breath contains about 40,000 parts of CO2 per million parts of air (40,000 ppm). You exhale about 12 times per minute. Your exhalation breath is about 500 ml of air. That means that every minute, as a matter of just living, you exhale about 450 mg of CO2 into the atmosphere. OK – now imagine that the 6,803,042,109 of our brothers and sisters across the globe are doing the same thing – just breathing. That means that every MINUTE the average loading to the Earth’s atmosphere, contributed by humans doing nothing more than just breathing is about 3,100 metric tons every MINUTE of every day. That’s over 184 THOUSAND METRIC TONNES per hour and that’s just from humans breathing. And you are concerned about “…pumping tons and tons of carbon into the air we breath…”? Friend, our exhalation breath is higher in CO2 than the Earth’s atmosphere has ever been. I’m glad that you have been listening to Hollywood Stars and Al Gore, but that ain’t science, friend. So when you say “…its hard to believe that pumping tons and tons of carbon into the air we breath…” (sic) it tells me you are a very fine young man; but one who entirely lacks a sense of proportion. (I’m happy to oblige.) And guess what? Humans aren’t even very big carbon producers – now look at the masters of CO2 production – that’s right, the termites. Not to mention the cows, or the Bacteria or yeast… OMG! Now they’re HUGE CO2 producers… And don’t even get me started on those damned volcanoes… Look, “pollution” by definition, means that quantity of a parameter that is entered into a system, which exceeds the system’s ability to cope. OK – So what is the single largest “greenhouse gas”? CO2? Not by a long shot, Sunshine, in fact, it is water vapor and not CO2 at all. In fact, water vapor is vastly more significant than CO2 as a “green house” gas. Have you ever been to the ocean, and look out over the vast, endless expanse of ocean? Or ever pondered the fact that more than three fifths of this globe is covered with water? What do you suppose is happening at the surface of that water? I will tell you – it is evaporating. Do you propose to cover the oceans? Will your generation, jaded like mine about “thinning air” and “nuclear winters” and now “Global Warming” be the generation that is known for being the vanguard for passing global legislation to cover the vast expanses of ocean to prevent “Global Evaporation?” Good luck, mate. In the mean time, you would be better off understanding perspective, how big the world really is, how little control over it you have, and how easy it is to fall prey to mindless fear seeking a cause for which to live. Look, if you are advocating the stewardship of the Earth, then I’m all on-board. As a Catholic, my church has been advocating stewardship of the Earth and her resources for over 2,000 years. Catholics are the original “Conservationists.” This is old hat, friend. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com
(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
AMDG
I would not be so presumptuous to consider the burning of fossil fuels by 6.5 billion people over the last 100 or so years to be considered a natural process. I personally don't believe that the earth is made to endure such significant changes in such little time.
My COMMON SENSE tells me that you nor I know what could or couldn't happen because of these substantial fluctuations in the atmosphere of our earth, and, if we need not find out, than why test these waters? So you can say I told you so?
Who cares if some companies are getting rich over the GREEN movement? If it isn't them it's someone else. I bet you would argue that the sky is blue if someone told you it was, simply to feel self righteous in not going along with the "NORM".
Don't patronize me in saying I think Al Gore is a scientist or that I live my life in fear of climate change, nuclear winter, and thinning air? None of these positions I assumed.
What are you truly arguing for? The exponential increase of Co2 into the atmosphere, seriously? what is your agenda? To justify driving your 8 mpg truck or keeping your thermostat at 73? I don't get it.
I'm also interested to know how the catholics were the original conservationists. And catholicism hasn't been around for 2000 years yet sir.
Editor's note: Grayboy, I've had to spend some time cleaning up this post in order to get it so that readers are able to discern who is saying what. I've also broken up your response into paragraphs, added some spaces between sentences, added some capital letters and some punctuation where needed. I haven't completely cleaned it up but at least we can now figure out what you are saying. PLEASE, use the reply with quote box when you want to include someone's comments in your response, and help us - those how are reading your responses - to know what you are saying by taking some time to use some basic punctuation. Ed.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
