The Cimate Change Poll
Out of context: Reply #22
- Started
- Last post
- 46 Responses
- nb2
Are you guys serious with the "other planets" argument? It's not a relevant argument against the scientific community because science says that humans contribute and have sped up climate change on Earth.
You can't use planets where humans don't exist as an example to prove that humans don't contribute to climate change on earth. Logic doesn't work that way.
Let me explain with an analogy. (It's not perfect, but it illustrates the formal fallacy in your logic.)
Let's say we were discussing if smoking is a factor in how long a person lives. We'll assume we have scientific evidence that says smoking causes causes cancer that results in death, and we have scientific evidence that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. (As we have evidence that climate change has sped up since the industrial revolution.)
You could not argue by saying "But look at this huge group of non-smokers that also died! 100% of them died, and many of them died at relatively young age! And people died at even younger ages before smoking was invented! Therefore smoking is not a contributor to death!"
It's not a valid argument.
- you're right but in the end does it matter? so you die at 60 of smoke related causes or you live until 70 with alzheimers or the 1000's of other age related_niko
- diseases that will get us one way or another._niko
- Well, I'd bet some would argue that it matters much more when we're talking about years upon years of potential life for billions of people.nb
- the planets thing is based on 50 year old data, and has been often debunked. don't worry, nutters gonna nut.inteliboy
- "And has often been debunked"
What planet are you living on? The data is straight from nasaset - You'll say anything to defend your warped and implanted opinion, it's bizarre. Al gore loves people like you hahaset
- Why are you so obsessed with Al Gore?nb
- It doesn't need to be debunked. It's a logical fallacy, therefore irrelevant!nb