Remember me
▼ Content

What's wrong with a big of warming?



Page 2 of 2<12
12-02-2019 17:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry. The rich will not want to stop getting richer. To do that we need growth in all areas so they can. So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

There is no climate change.

And you don't understand wealth either: rich do not take money from the poor. They make MORE wealth and pocket that.

The middle class has been growing since the first settlers in this country. Or are you one of those people that believe that the Indians were rich and the white settlers stole all of their money?
12-02-2019 18:40
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(105)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry.

And that's exactly what this is. We can't control the weather. Why worry about it?

Terry1001 wrote:The rich will not want to stop getting richer.

"The rich" is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined.

Terry1001 wrote:To do that we need growth in all areas so they can.

Rich people getting richer is good for all of us.

Terry1001 wrote:So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

Climate change is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined in a non-circular manner... Nothing is creating "climate change"; the climate changes all on own...


There's another of Nightmare's idiotic statements. Tell us all what you think that "circular argument" means as relates to climate change?

Circular argumentation (as relates to anything) is when an argument concludes with its initial predicate.

An example of a circular definition for global warming is "world wide increasing temperatures" ... that's just defining a word with itself (saying the same thing using different words)... words can't be circularly defined like that... they must be defined by something outside of themselves.
12-02-2019 19:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry. The rich will not want to stop getting richer. To do that we need growth in all areas so they can. So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

There is no climate change.

Then why do you keep saying there is???
Wake wrote:
And you don't understand wealth either: rich do not take money from the poor. They make MORE wealth and pocket that.

The poor are poor because they don't do that.
Wake wrote:
The middle class has been growing since the first settlers in this country.

There is no 'class'. The range of wealth owned by an individual is continuous. You can't put people in boxes, Wake. To do that is bigotry...a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Or are you one of those people that believe that the Indians were rich and the white settlers stole all of their money?

The Indian tribes WERE rich in their own way, until they lost the wars they waged. Only now are the tribes finding the path to wealth again. Money is not the only form of wealth.


The Parrot Killer
12-02-2019 20:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry.

And that's exactly what this is. We can't control the weather. Why worry about it?

Terry1001 wrote:The rich will not want to stop getting richer.

"The rich" is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined.

Terry1001 wrote:To do that we need growth in all areas so they can.

Rich people getting richer is good for all of us.

Terry1001 wrote:So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

Climate change is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined in a non-circular manner... Nothing is creating "climate change"; the climate changes all on own...


There's another of Nightmare's idiotic statements. Tell us all what you think that "circular argument" means as relates to climate change?

Circular argumentation (as relates to anything) is when an argument concludes with its initial predicate.

An example of a circular definition for global warming is "world wide increasing temperatures" ... that's just defining a word with itself (saying the same thing using different words)... words can't be circularly defined like that... they must be defined by something outside of themselves.


Quite right. A word defined by itself is meaningless. It is a buzzword. Using it as the subject of any other argument renders that argument a void argument fallacy.

Since a theory is an explanatory argument, no theory (scientific or otherwise) is possible based on such a buzzword. No theory of 'global warming' or 'climate change' is possible. There is no science to it. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2019 20:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3805)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry.

And that's exactly what this is. We can't control the weather. Why worry about it?

Terry1001 wrote:The rich will not want to stop getting richer.

"The rich" is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined.

Terry1001 wrote:To do that we need growth in all areas so they can.

Rich people getting richer is good for all of us.

Terry1001 wrote:So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

Climate change is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined in a non-circular manner... Nothing is creating "climate change"; the climate changes all on own...


There's another of Nightmare's idiotic statements. Tell us all what you think that "circular argument" means as relates to climate change?

Circular argumentation (as relates to anything) is when an argument concludes with its initial predicate.

An example of a circular definition for global warming is "world wide increasing temperatures" ... that's just defining a word with itself (saying the same thing using different words)... words can't be circularly defined like that... they must be defined by something outside of themselves.


As higher mean global temperature is not "circular" because it means that the temperature has increased. Tell us all - does a higher dose of medication being more effective show circular reasoning? Does "it is sunny today and it was sunny three weeks ago" a circular argument?

Inventing your own English definitions doesn't make you some sort of expert on anything.
13-02-2019 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6585)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Terry1001 wrote:
If its something we can not stop why worry.

And that's exactly what this is. We can't control the weather. Why worry about it?

Terry1001 wrote:The rich will not want to stop getting richer.

"The rich" is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined.

Terry1001 wrote:To do that we need growth in all areas so they can.

Rich people getting richer is good for all of us.

Terry1001 wrote:So growth will produce more of what is creating climate change.

Climate change is a meaningless buzzword. It needs to be defined in a non-circular manner... Nothing is creating "climate change"; the climate changes all on own...


There's another of Nightmare's idiotic statements. Tell us all what you think that "circular argument" means as relates to climate change?

Circular argumentation (as relates to anything) is when an argument concludes with its initial predicate.

An example of a circular definition for global warming is "world wide increasing temperatures" ... that's just defining a word with itself (saying the same thing using different words)... words can't be circularly defined like that... they must be defined by something outside of themselves.


As higher mean global temperature is not "circular" because it means that the temperature has increased.

Circular definition. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, Wake. No start or end point has been defined either.
Wake wrote:
Tell us all - does a higher dose of medication being more effective show circular reasoning?

Yes.
Wake wrote:
Does "it is sunny today and it was sunny three weeks ago" a circular argument?

No. This is a description of past observations.
Wake wrote:
Inventing your own English definitions doesn't make you some sort of expert on anything.

Inversion fallacy. That is what YOU are doing, Wake. I am not trying to define 'global warming'. YOU are.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-02-2019 23:01
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate What's wrong with a big of warming?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What's wrong with this picture? Proof Please.2711-12-2018 04:40
ARTIFICIAL LEAF - The next big thing in the fight against climate change!1706-09-2018 19:56
Nevada water chief rejects big Vegas pipeline pumping plan1421-08-2018 21:58
Big World Cup day today.408-07-2018 00:12
New Research Again Proves Warmies Wrong.614-03-2018 03:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact