Sigh, the ad hominem attacks never stop coming from you do they? There are many other similar threads you already posted, but they are merely ad hominem attacks, nothing more.
These are not ad hominem's, at least get that correct.
They are pointing out the utter hypocrisies of these people. They are the ones asking of others to do what they will not. If they believe so strongly that global warming is here and is caused by the things THEY are doing then why don't THEY stop?
LOL. ad hominem - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Look at definition #2.
"attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. "
No I'm attacking THEIR argument since they don't even adhere to it.Note how you capitalized the word "THEY" twice? You're simply attacking the person behind the argument, and not the argument itself.
Climate change is a fact, that it will be warmer 100 years from now unless we do something drastic is not.Global Warming is a fact no matter how many times you attack the messenger.
Again, it's THEIR issue I am arguing, if they are going to urge us to do certain things then THEY should lead the way.Again, attack the issue, not the person. Try again.
Hitler isn't wrong when he says 2+2=4 because he was a immoral person.
Sigh, the ad hominem attacks never stop coming from you do they? There are many other similar threads you already posted, but they are merely ad hominem attacks, nothing more.
Attack the person all you want, the issue of Global Warming is still there.
Hitler isn't wrong when he says 2+2=4 because he was a immoral person.
Michael Jackson isn't wrong if he says the Earth revovles around the sun, despite his obsessions with young boys.
George Bush isn't wrong if he says Jessica Alba is hawt, even if he was the devil himself.
Just because you can attack thier person, doesn't make thier arguments any less valid.
Stop with the ad hominems, and address real issues.
"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."
Not attacking their character, it's their actions that are hypocritical and their actions are not irrelevant to the subject.
No I'm attacking THEIR argument since they don't even adhere to it.
Climate change is a fact, that it will be warmer 100 years from now unless we do something drastic is not.
Again, it's THEIR issue I am arguing, if they are going to urge us to do certain things then THEY should lead the way.
It's easy to see who the liars and hypocrites are in the global warming argument. Just follow the money. Who has the most to loose? Is it academics and scientists competing for research grants? Or oil companies who make hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
Gee, I wonder? Should we believe the overwhelming majority of respectable, accomplished scholars?
Or right wing oil company shills like Michael Crichton?
Wrong question. Who has the most to gain by hyping up catastrophic GW? How about scientist trying to get government grants and university money and write books and make movies?
That do not support the idea..............yeah until someone produces so hard core evidence.
Calling them names doesn't prove the science.
Wrong question. Who has the most to gain by hyping up catastrophic GW? How about scientist trying to get government grants and university money and write books and make movies?
Another typical example of neo-con debate(or at least what passes for such). Simply ignore and deny facts. Distort the truth. Resort to unrelated canards as a distraction. Vilify the messenger. Oh, and don't forget to define the agenda and all questions for everyone so neo-cons can constantly move the debate to the right. That way people can't even find the middle ground anymore. A crude Goebbles like tactic that has worked quite well for the right wing.
What's wrong with this? GW is a problem,
it should be good that there are movies that get the message across.
Be it exaggerated or not, the message is still going out there.
Same thing with writing books, although I'm sure the audience is more sophisticated than the movie-goers.
That means at least the book doesn't exaggerate so much as in movies.
But the message is getting accross. It surprises me that there are even still people who say that GW is not a fact and not a problem.
This only shows that there needs to be more education done on this topic.
Scientists who gets grants so that they can further study GW is not a bad thing either!
It only helps in our fight against GW. How else are you going to battle this?
I don't understand your question. Why attack the scientists?
A better question is to ask, who has the most to gain by refuting evidence for GW and attacking the scientist.
And guess what? Grant money pales in comparison to the profits of oil companies. Get real.
Nope the better question is who stands to gain more, the scientist with the wild predictions of doom and gloom that sell books, gets government grants, gets him on the Today Show, or the scientist who just does his job and follows the evidence?
Lightdemon said:And guess what? Grant money pales in comparison to the profits of oil companies. Get real.
False comparison.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?