Another p**s boiling Co2 advert from The Ministry of Truth

[anonymousposter]

Whether you believe in MMGW or not is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is your vested interest.

Hard core environmentalists: Welfare of the planet
Governments: New tax opportunities (and non-jobs)
Crusties: Using MMGW as a trojan horse for socialism
Scientists: More research grant funding
Policy lobbyists: Investment in alternative energy firms
Corporations: Perceived product value
Media: A combination of the above

In other words there are probably VERY FEW people who genuinely believe in MMGW and for all the rest they are merely using MMGW to achieve their own ends.

[ludo]

anonymousposter said:

Whether you believe in MMGW or not is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is your vested interest.

No, what is actually important is whether the scientific argument is actually valid or not. The ad-hominem (attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself) is a logical fallacy.

[bogwoppit]

ludo said:

anonymousposter said:

Whether you believe in MMGW or not is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is your vested interest.

No, what is actually important is whether the scientific argument is actually valid or not. The ad-hominem (attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself) is a logical fallacy.

Well said. Or, to use an analogy, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you".

I get sick and tired of the constant sensationalising of every bloody issue. Why can't we use rational arguments and open debate to inform and govern, instead of adopting a position and moving mountains to bludgeon the rest of the country to adopt it too. By doing this, the original argument gets polluted and the whole process is counter productive.

The fact is, man-made climate change may be true, but even if it is, the illogical arguments being used to convince coerce the populous of it and the illogical punishments are putting people off. Case in point: choosing to punish easy targets rather than those with the biggest impact. If the dog thing is really true it throws the whole "gas guzzler" issue wide open - if dogs are bad for the environment, what about people themselves? Shouldn't one attract scorn for having CO2-emitting children? The moment you allow economics into the climate change equation (children are good for the economy) you have polluted your argument.

[Jinx]

ludo said:

No, what is actually important is whether the scientific argument is actually valid or not. The ad-hominem (attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument itself) is a logical fallacy.

Except when the source is this Government then it probably safe to assume it's all BS.

[eldar]

Zod said:

Funkateer said:

By the way, our lead is diminishing. Let's not rest on our laurels, I'm sure there's plenty of people who haven't yet voted!

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

* 2318 counted in so far
* 6558 counted out so far

Remember thoug, the 6558 have "room temperature IQs" according to the great Monbiot.

I've just put my heating on full, so I'll get cleverer