your thoughts on this so called global warming propaganda

[Mao]

That said, there may be other good reasons to advocate it (local air quality, acid rain, etc.), but it doesn't mean we should play along with this bullshit just to get it installed. I'm mainly scared of global governance.

I agree, why should we follow what politics is asking us to do when there is nothing there to answer the question why? Asking of world order etc etc is beyond our scope as it is a trivial area but thinking rationally is within any functional humans capability. Saying that co2 is the known cause of global warming, saying that we should start worrying or else we will melt to death, saying that we should worry or else we will drown to death with the conveyor belt stopping, saying that we should install all these bs we have never heard of until a decade ago on our houses cars etc paying three, four times what they are worth is why clearly do not appreciate the governments attempt to have us blind folded.

will you also advocate to the same for research into cancer then? the media campaigns are also fear campaigns, but there is very little we can do about cancer other than to cut out the tumor and hope for the best. do you think trivialising that will help?
if the answer is no, then that is double-standardness.

fair enough, i may have attempted to attack lacoste hence using ad hominem, but as i said, global warming isn't all it is seen to be.

cancer isn't all it is seen to be. people die everyday.
would you say that?

[Mao]

TO 'hard': indeed you should apologise for not putting the links up. My points are realistic, clear and justified. You are just ignorant 'hard', now i know why your nicknamed that because your a pretender, a fake. I care where you got the info from because you could be some naive idiotic human being editing someone else's article and adding misleading information. No i did not decipher your infomation for an hour. i have a life that is not just cyber space like you 'hard'. i only mentioned the media attention because most ppl like you thinks its actually false.. your worthless hard, ignorant and weak.

your ad hominem is worse than his.

i suggest anyone who want to post comments like that to refrain themselves. it is not in the least constructive.

[Collin Li]

Mao, but the present state of the mainstream media advocates a stance on global warming which would promote all these unjustified arguments for global carbon regulations. That is harmful. Perhaps he should not go so far as to trivialise global warming itself (sure, the climate is changing), but he should simply be skeptical of the link between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature (as postulated).

Also, in response to your cancer point: that is not a valid analogy, as the motivation for those fear campaigns are to discourage smoking. That is a public health matter, because the clever (sarcasm) welfare system has externalised the costs of decisions that impact health, and hence the government must now spend money to try to fix this problem.

[hard]

Are you a scientist? It doesn't actually matter because what he presents are not scientific facts and empirical evidence. It only takes a logical mind to present valid challenges to the 'evidence.'

I didnt say that they are scientific facts and empirical evidence. Although some of the facts are indeed scientific, and most of the so called facts may be produced with no source what so-ever. It only takes a logical mind to think  that.

Note that I do not actually have a position on global warming. I believe the magnitude of it, if it is true, is small, which is why I see no real reason for global governance to take it into their own hands.

I am just picking apart the logical failures of the arguments in this thread (who happen to be global warming supporters for now). I would not go as far as to say that therefore there is no global warming. I would just say that it is unproven.

You contridict yourself in the first paragraph saying that you do not have a position in global warming when you indeed do; " I believe the magnitude of it, if it is true, is small"
You believe it is small.


Note: I didnt say that global warming is fake. I said how is it a scam. Is it or not?


TO 'hard': indeed you should apologise for not putting the links up. My points are realistic, clear and justified. You are just ignorant 'hard', now i know why your nicknamed that because your a pretender, a fake. I care where you got the info from because you could be some naive idiotic human being editing someone else's article and adding misleading information. No i did not decipher your infomation for an hour. i have a life that is not just cyber space like you 'hard'. i only mentioned the media attention because most ppl like you thinks its actually false.. your worthless hard, ignorant and weak.




lastly, is pollution the key indicator to global warming? this is a question not an argument.!!

lacoste what are you on about? honestly!

quote:
large volumes of ice melting from the antarctica region; strange unpredictable weather patterns especially in summer, this is not only in australia but around the entire world; unpredictable droughts.
yes, maybe some but not all governments may be devcieving the public. al gore i believe is not, maybe some exaggerations though. but the earth is in great danger.
the governments around the world are very irrational. US, wont even take the role as a developed country to even ratify the KYOTO protocol (too afraid of the consequences}{too afraid of india and china}
and China does not care about the environment to an appropriate extent; producing products so inefficiently. "



^ how is that justified? You are repeating what we already know, weather changes. Prove that all these are because of global warming, co2, human behaviour along and carbon offsets. Give me some statistics, some hard facts.
And why are you questioning my authority just because of my username which shos you worry too much about the cyber world.
And since when was forgetting to put links make me an idiotic human being. At least i provided credible points rather then rubbish about weather patterns that HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!.
no point attacking you anyway lacoste.

[Collin Li]

Note that I do not actually have a position on global warming. I believe the magnitude of it, if it is true, is small, which is why I see no real reason for global governance to take it into their own hands.

I am just picking apart the logical failures of the arguments in this thread (who happen to be global warming supporters for now). I would not go as far as to say that therefore there is no global warming. I would just say that it is unproven.

You contridict yourself in the first paragraph saying that you do not have a position in global warming when you indeed do; " I believe the magnitude of it, if it is true, is small"
You believe it is small.

I don't have a position on whether global warming is true or false. That is different to believing whether global warming is a large issue or a small issue (in terms of how much we can control), if it were true (conditional).

[Mao]

Mao, but the present state of the mainstream media advocates a stance on global warming which would promote all these unjustified arguments for global carbon regulations. That is harmful. Perhaps he should not go so far as to trivialise global warming itself (sure, the climate is changing), but he should simply destroy the link between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature (as postulated).

yes, that I think would be valid.

and yes, the cancer analogy is a little sketchy, but there are aspects that are relevant, even though the nature of the two cases are very different.

[Mao]

^ how is that justified? You are repeating what we already know, weather changes. Prove that all these are because of global warming, co2, human behaviour along and carbon offsets. Give me some statistics, some hard facts.
And why are you questioning my authority just because of my username which shos you worry too much about the cyber world.
And since when was forgetting to put links make me an idiotic human being. At least i provided credible points rather then rubbish about weather patterns that HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!.
no point attacking you anyway lacoste.

1. you are asking him to provide something you did not initially provide, and still has not [even though jcc has done so for you to some extent]

2. you are still employing ad hominem

3. I have seen data that suggest the climate change patterns this time is different to previous cycles for the last hundreds of thousands of years [though I cannot cite the sources right now]. and I do believe that is the case, hence the global urgency.

[hard]

The matter of the fact is global warming is real. Global warming as defined by wikipedia "is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation." My whole argument isn't suggesting that global warming is false, what I'm saying is that the way the government has over reacted, the actions it has taken and the bully tactics they use, e.g. we all going to die withing hundreds of years because we will drown/melt/freeze/burn/whatever you like!, is what i disbelieve in which is why i call it a propaganda. Changes in the temperature is a natural happening and can be offset by natural occurrences such as fire, the cows and other such factors. But no, when you watch the tv, you will see put solar power or the balloon with co2 emissions rising into the atmosphere. Who has proves that co2 causes such an effect. Scientists disclaim its large effect that the government claim it to be, so why do you keep neglecting the issue here.
It's always about money, power and controlling the subordinate authorities, i.e. people like you and me, to be afraid of them so they keep their dominance.

[Collin Li]

im stating what we know because some people think that its just natural. theres nothing wrong providing points. this forum is not just to present agruments.

What are you talking about?

and yes, the cancer analogy is a little sketchy, but there are aspects that are relevant, even though the nature of the two cases are very different.

I don't think there is anything that is relevant. A cancer awareness campaign wouldn't be justified for the reason that it is an "unsolved problem." You don't see ads that warn us about our inevitable death.

Hah, imagine this: "WARNING: We all die eventually."

[hard]

And Mao get over ad hominem because clearly you are also using it as you keep attacking me rather than the argument.

3. I have seen data that suggest the climate change patterns this time is different to previous cycles for the last hundreds of thousands of years [though I cannot cite the sources right now]. and I do believe that is the case, hence the global urgency.

So if you can't provide the sources then how is that credible? It's like hearsay, the courts don't allow it because it's invalid in its authenticity.

[costargh]

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

This to me sounds like a well respected body

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"

[Mao]

The matter of the fact is global warming is real. Global warming as defined by wikipedia "is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation." My whole argument isn't suggesting that global warming is false, what I'm saying is that the way the government has over reacted, the actions it has taken and the bully tactics they use, e.g. we all going to die withing hundreds of years because we will drown/melt/freeze/burn/whatever you like!, is what i disbelieve in which is why i call it a propaganda. Changes in the temperature is a natural happening and can be offset by natural occurrences such as fire, the cows and other such factors. But no, when you watch the tv, you will see put solar power or the balloon with co2 emissions rising into the atmosphere. Who has proves that co2 causes such an effect. Scientists disclaim its large effect that the government claim it to be, so why do you keep neglecting the issue here.
It's always about money, power and controlling the subordinate authorities, i.e. people like you and me, to be afraid of them so they keep their dominance.

my argument here is not that you are wrong, but your approach of trivialising the issue is not what I can embrace. that will be the opposite to seeking a solution for the current climate change.

and it's not always about money, power and controlling for me [at least]. I have some ideals that I will not give up, such as leaving a future for my children that is not as stuffed up as it is now

[Mao]

And Mao get over ad hominem because clearly you are also using it as you keep attacking me rather than the argument.

3. I have seen data that suggest the climate change patterns this time is different to previous cycles for the last hundreds of thousands of years [though I cannot cite the sources right now]. and I do believe that is the case, hence the global urgency.

So if you can't provide the sources then how is that credible? It's like hearsay, the courts don't allow it because it's invalid in its authenticity.

I am attacking your approach, not you. can you quote once where I have attacked you as a person?

and I know these statistics are credible because I have seen them, but that is only within my experience. you do not have to believe me, but my self-justifications are enough for myself.

[dcc]

Coincidence, or something more?

[Collin Li]

you do not have to believe me, but my self-justifications are enough for myself.

Then why did you bother to mention them in the first place?