Originally Posted by jimenato

Interesting stuff here on the difference between a scientific view and a deniers view. The scientist is Julia Sligo the Met Office's chief scientist. and the denier is Nigel Lawson - not a scientist.

What he says (my emphasis)

.

What she says



So she has said, quite reasonably, that we can't be sure but it looks very much like it could be true but he says "there is no proof" - as if she has said that there is.

It is one of my old friends the Straw Man Argument. He has, by implication, said that she has said there is 'proof' when she has said no such thing. He has done this as it easier to counter his created point than her actual one.

Cheap trick in my opinion.

He repeats the fallacy ...



He then makes an assertion...



Which is, of course, not true. There is loads of evidence but what there isn't is cast-iron proof.

Deniers often use this strategy of fallacy, spin and obfuscation rather than stick to the science.

Sources

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ing?CMP=twt_fd

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084625

Originally Posted by jojojojojo

It was the ozone layer when I was a kid in the 70s - it had a hole in it that was letting our heat escape. that was due to using aerosols or something. We had to act fast to close that hole or by the year 2000 the UK would be colder than the arctic - it was a fact! I remember learning about it at school!!

Now theres an idea, lets get some of those CFC gases and see if we can make the hole appear again to let out all of that nasty CO2 - problem solved lol!!! - altho without CO2 and heat, plants wont grow and therefore wont make oxygen

Jo xxx

Originally Posted by mfh

Interesting thread, especially for those who don't have an opinion either way (i.e me).

However one thing I did notice, is that most of the *snide* insults came from those who believe in Global warming, whereas J2, Jo Jo and me me managed to post contributions without casting doubt on other posters intelligence or telling people they are speaking out of their arse etc.

Oh and I'm still not convinced one way or another

Originally Posted by mfh

Interesting thread, especially for those who don't have an opinion either way (i.e me).

However one thing I did notice, is that most of the *snide* insults came from those who believe in Global warming, whereas J2, Jo Jo and me me managed to post contributions without casting doubt on other posters intelligence or telling people they are speaking out of their arse etc.

Oh and I'm still not convinced one way or another

Originally Posted by mfh

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence, but the evidence and proof is in the thread so go and reread.

Having said that, perhaps you don't want to reread it as it might make you a bit uncomfortable to reread you Holocaust comment

Originally Posted by mfh

LOL I was wondering if your reply would be insulting in some way and given your track record I was not disappointed.

Actually now I come to think about it your reply was not really insulting but a bit stupid as we all know how Google works and it's not so difficult to find definitions of analogy.

FWIW the only person on the side of Jo Jo et al. dishing out insults was the guy from the Italy forum, who managed to tear you (among others) to shreds.

Originally Posted by IamStu

A quote would be nice.

Originally Posted by jimenato

Yes - I agree. I guess he means garbatellamike who tried (humorously) to get a rise out of me but got caught out. It was quite fun.

I confess I have expressed some frustration at times during this thread but really... some of the misinformation and plainly wrong things being said... it is difficult sometimes when you are trying to have a proper discussion and people are just posting garbage, very frustrating.

Originally Posted by baldilocks

Jo, I think that is the most stupid and inane comment that has ever exited from your fundamental orifice. That is one of the problems with having your head buried the sand the only place for any utterances is the opening that is uppermost.