|Shell Understood Climate Change as Early as 1991—and Ignored It - October 201724-11-2017 17:18|
|"... In 1991, Shell Oil Company produced and distributed a twenty-eight-minute documentary titled Climate of Concern. Asserting that climate change was taking place "at a rate faster than at any time since the end of the ice age—change too fast perhaps for life to adapt, without severe dislocation," the film addressed potentially drastic consequences of climate change including extreme weather, flooding, famines, and climate refugees. While commenting that global warming was "not yet certain," the Shell film stated, "many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible...." |
Project Censored 2017
|Into the Night★★★★★
|Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.|
Science has no theories based on void arguments.
Into the Night wrote:
When you argue a point that has no point is it a "void argument" ?
|Into the Night★★★★★
James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote:
There is a point, though you can't see it.
A void argument is one that is based on undefinable terms, or one that contains no predicate other than itself and reaches no conclusion other than its predicate. It is a type of circular argument.
Since the phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' are not definable by anything other themselves, they are essentially buzzwords. They don't mean anything.
Attempting to define 'global warming' through the medium of 'greenhouse gasses', is still a void argument, since 'greenhouse gasses' are in turn defined by 'global warming'.
Attempting to define 'global warming' through the use of temperatures is still a void argument, since the temperatures are simply assumed to be 'global warming'. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth, and simply picking a couple of arbitrary points in time to be significant while ignoring all other points in time as insignificant is itself a void argument.
The buzzword 'climate change' has the same basic problem when attempting to use temperature to describe a global 'climate'.
No theory, whether a scientific one or not, can be based on a logical fallacy such as a void argument. The theory fails the test of internal consistency. This usually results in paradoxes.
It IS possible to have a theory based on a circular argument, since a circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. The Theory of Evolution is one example. The Theory of Creation is another. These are both valid theories, but not scientific ones. They remain circular arguments, and they can be defined by terms other than themselves. These are not void arguments.
While the circular argument by itself is not a fallacy, the failure to recognize one for what it is does become the fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-11-2017 22:09
"old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: It IS possible...It is possible to see that "old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is an old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
|Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)||6||11-12-2017 19:05|
|Early 20th Century Arctic Warming||20||24-05-2017 19:38|
|Japan's cherry blossoms come increasingly early||19||09-04-2017 16:33|
|Northern hemisphere sees in early spring due to global warming||111||13-03-2017 17:18|
|Shame award for Shell||0||28-01-2013 14:20|