you identify many critical issues but then say that climate change is a hoax. This saddens me. So many people addressing state crimes feel obliged to say that global warming was made up by the globalists when it is so obvious that this was never the case
Those who fought to get the truth out about global warming, myself included, have been brutally punished
First of all , I did not write that climate change is a hoax. I wrote that they are painting "the situation more dire than it actually is." I'll deconstruct this for you, since you seem bent on some type of knee-jerk reaction. "More dire than it actually is" means that the situation is less dire than it's being characterized. In other words, there has been some climate change, but not what it's being hyped to be, for reasons that I explained. In addition to your logical fallacy (mischaracterizing what I wrote), apparently you did not read the links I posted. So, if you read them and still disagree, okay, but you need to post your facts that contradict the many facts contained in those articles. Opinions and beliefs have no standing in a debate.
thank you for taking the time to respond. There may be people who are painting the situation as more dire than it is,but I have not met anyone like that. Even Extinction Rebellion is very cautious when talking about the catastrophic sixth great extinction. We are on track to go beyond the Permian extinction event and that most likely means human extinction in less than five hundred years, maybe more lix sixty. I will not trouble you further, but I welcome a discussion on this topic with one and all. Respectfully
Thanks, Emanuel. My links include details on government manipulation of temperature data, which is one example of how actual temperature increases are being purposefully exaggerated. The fact that you have not met anyone doing this is anecdotal information, which is a logical fallacy. Again, you need to post facts, not your opinion. If you cannot follow the rules of debate, then this conversation is over.
Yes, this conversation is over. It is not that I cannot produce hundreds of scientific studies with data, I just do not want to flood this conversation on the essential issues. I was a professor for 25 years, and have headed 8 research projects on science and technology policy, and also written on climate issues as well. I think there is no doubt that I know how to present facts and engage in debate based on the scientific method. I did look at the materials that you present and they look rather doubtful. For me to go through and disprove them one by one would be tedious and perhaps impossible without a research budget. So we will have to stop here.
LOL! There you have it. You present no facts and refuse to look at those that I present, saying they look "doubtful." Attacking the source, rather than addressing what is presented in the genetic logical fallacy. Another logical fallacy is your use of appeal to authority. The letters after your name mean nothing. That is sum of your arguments--logical fallacies. Either present facts or go home.
Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History offers references concerning climate change and the collapse of biodiversity that are quite helpful for the average readers.
Elizabeth Kolbert’s book The Sixth Extinction, An Unnatural History, provides extensive footnotes and summarizes the primary issues for the great extinction and climate change well. I highly recommend.
you identify many critical issues but then say that climate change is a hoax. This saddens me. So many people addressing state crimes feel obliged to say that global warming was made up by the globalists when it is so obvious that this was never the case
Those who fought to get the truth out about global warming, myself included, have been brutally punished
First of all , I did not write that climate change is a hoax. I wrote that they are painting "the situation more dire than it actually is." I'll deconstruct this for you, since you seem bent on some type of knee-jerk reaction. "More dire than it actually is" means that the situation is less dire than it's being characterized. In other words, there has been some climate change, but not what it's being hyped to be, for reasons that I explained. In addition to your logical fallacy (mischaracterizing what I wrote), apparently you did not read the links I posted. So, if you read them and still disagree, okay, but you need to post your facts that contradict the many facts contained in those articles. Opinions and beliefs have no standing in a debate.
thank you for taking the time to respond. There may be people who are painting the situation as more dire than it is,but I have not met anyone like that. Even Extinction Rebellion is very cautious when talking about the catastrophic sixth great extinction. We are on track to go beyond the Permian extinction event and that most likely means human extinction in less than five hundred years, maybe more lix sixty. I will not trouble you further, but I welcome a discussion on this topic with one and all. Respectfully
Thanks, Emanuel. My links include details on government manipulation of temperature data, which is one example of how actual temperature increases are being purposefully exaggerated. The fact that you have not met anyone doing this is anecdotal information, which is a logical fallacy. Again, you need to post facts, not your opinion. If you cannot follow the rules of debate, then this conversation is over.
Yes, this conversation is over. It is not that I cannot produce hundreds of scientific studies with data, I just do not want to flood this conversation on the essential issues. I was a professor for 25 years, and have headed 8 research projects on science and technology policy, and also written on climate issues as well. I think there is no doubt that I know how to present facts and engage in debate based on the scientific method. I did look at the materials that you present and they look rather doubtful. For me to go through and disprove them one by one would be tedious and perhaps impossible without a research budget. So we will have to stop here.
LOL! There you have it. You present no facts and refuse to look at those that I present, saying they look "doubtful." Attacking the source, rather than addressing what is presented in the genetic logical fallacy. Another logical fallacy is your use of appeal to authority. The letters after your name mean nothing. That is sum of your arguments--logical fallacies. Either present facts or go home.
Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History offers references concerning climate change and the collapse of biodiversity that are quite helpful for the average readers.
my response has disappeared
Elizabeth Kolbert’s book The Sixth Extinction, An Unnatural History, provides extensive footnotes and summarizes the primary issues for the great extinction and climate change well. I highly recommend.