secinfo.com— A quarter of a billion dollars has found it way to Al Gore's carbon credit company, Generation Investment Management LLP, according to this filing with the FCC.
Apr 5, 2007View in Crawl 4
Singer's lack of credibility does *not* disprove any scientific findings he publishes. The science stands on its own. An ad hominem attack is never a valid refutation. However, if the published article is a mere opinion piece, then little to no heed should be given it because of said lack of credibility.The same goes for here. Attempting to show that Al Gore is a megalomanic hypocrite is commended. It shows that his opinions should be taken with a mountain of salt. It does *not* disprove the science that he is wrapping his opinions around.I agree that the global warming fear mongering isn't about science - regardless of whether the FUD is coming from alarmists ("the world is going to end") or deniers ("our economy will be destroyed"). It is about protecting their preconceived notions and enhancing their bottom line. An alarmist is merely a denier with a different mouthpiece to their similar agenda.Ignore the rhetoric, and focus on *all* of the science. Logical fallacies, outright myths, cherry-picked facts & quotes and other forms of sophistry do not refute scientific theories.
vikingcoder, this thread isn't about the science one way or the other. It's about Gore.On other threads I've presented what I feel is pretty compelling evidence on why the science isn't yet settled. I've done the best I can to try and let the scientists who feel this way speak for themselves. Where ever possible I use the original scientific reports to make the point. I've spent quite a bit of personal time and money making an effort to understand both sides of the debate.But really, if global warming were just about whether or not climate models can make accurate predictions out to 100 or even 500 years, I wouldn't even bother. The global warming debate is, ultimately, subsumed into the debate on how we care for the planet. Not a computer model planet 100 years from now, but this planet that we live on now.
Same here. I only have a problem with what I perceive as you attempting to refute theory, research & fact with opinion. It's most likely railer that is digging me down.
@vikingcoder"It's most likely railer that is digging me down." No but thanks for the idea!I'll remember to quote you next time a scientist is called a industry shill. "Using examples of such to disprove scientific theories is an ad hominem fallacy." -vikingcoderOh by the way once you remove the "Logical fallacies, outright myths, cherry-picked facts & quotes" there really is no more global warming, what you want to debate the Mann Hockey Stick? How about those 20 meter floods? Mass die offs? Without Hysteria, global warming ceases to exist. It's a lot like the bogyman that way.
Well... my apologies then.Please do quote me the next time somebody use argumentum ad hominem to attempt to dismiss a scientific theory. An opinion article can be easily dismissed by such though.The last part is what I mean by attempting to refute theory, research & fact with opinion. Ardent belief in the invalidity of a scientific theory does not disprove it. Pointing out alarmist drivel does not disprove it either.
@vikingcoderWell could you please explain to me what you think GW is and it's consequences to earth, because I've never seen it explained without fear mongering and using actual facts. And I'm not kidding.
This is not about ad hominem or hypocrisy; this IS all about *conflict of interest*. It is right that everyone should be sceptical of those calling for something which is in their favour.Yes Gore's invested position does not prove or disprove the science and yes the science should stand on its own; unfortunately those who claims this science does are usually those with similar conflicts of interest (their continued funding to prove what they are researching)
magicjavaApr 5, 2007Submitter
Typo. The filing is with the SEC. :)
vikingcoderApr 5, 2007
Singer's lack of credibility does *not* disprove any scientific findings he publishes. The science stands on its own. An ad hominem attack is never a valid refutation. However, if the published article is a mere opinion piece, then little to no heed should be given it because of said lack of credibility.The same goes for here. Attempting to show that Al Gore is a megalomanic hypocrite is commended. It shows that his opinions should be taken with a mountain of salt. It does *not* disprove the science that he is wrapping his opinions around.I agree that the global warming fear mongering isn't about science - regardless of whether the FUD is coming from alarmists ("the world is going to end") or deniers ("our economy will be destroyed"). It is about protecting their preconceived notions and enhancing their bottom line. An alarmist is merely a denier with a different mouthpiece to their similar agenda.Ignore the rhetoric, and focus on *all* of the science. Logical fallacies, outright myths, cherry-picked facts & quotes and other forms of sophistry do not refute scientific theories.
magicjavaApr 5, 2007Submitter
vikingcoder, this thread isn't about the science one way or the other. It's about Gore.On other threads I've presented what I feel is pretty compelling evidence on why the science isn't yet settled. I've done the best I can to try and let the scientists who feel this way speak for themselves. Where ever possible I use the original scientific reports to make the point. I've spent quite a bit of personal time and money making an effort to understand both sides of the debate.But really, if global warming were just about whether or not climate models can make accurate predictions out to 100 or even 500 years, I wouldn't even bother. The global warming debate is, ultimately, subsumed into the debate on how we care for the planet. Not a computer model planet 100 years from now, but this planet that we live on now.
magicjavaApr 5, 2007Submitter
See my reply below.
vikingcoderApr 5, 2007
Same here. I only have a problem with what I perceive as you attempting to refute theory, research & fact with opinion. It's most likely railer that is digging me down.
railerApr 6, 2007
@vikingcoder"It's most likely railer that is digging me down." No but thanks for the idea!I'll remember to quote you next time a scientist is called a industry shill. "Using examples of such to disprove scientific theories is an ad hominem fallacy." -vikingcoderOh by the way once you remove the "Logical fallacies, outright myths, cherry-picked facts & quotes" there really is no more global warming, what you want to debate the Mann Hockey Stick? How about those 20 meter floods? Mass die offs? Without Hysteria, global warming ceases to exist. It's a lot like the bogyman that way.
vikingcoderApr 6, 2007
Well... my apologies then.Please do quote me the next time somebody use argumentum ad hominem to attempt to dismiss a scientific theory. An opinion article can be easily dismissed by such though.The last part is what I mean by attempting to refute theory, research & fact with opinion. Ardent belief in the invalidity of a scientific theory does not disprove it. Pointing out alarmist drivel does not disprove it either.
railerApr 6, 2007
@vikingcoderWell could you please explain to me what you think GW is and it's consequences to earth, because I've never seen it explained without fear mongering and using actual facts. And I'm not kidding.
smeegyheadDec 1, 2008
This is not about ad hominem or hypocrisy; this IS all about *conflict of interest*. It is right that everyone should be sceptical of those calling for something which is in their favour.Yes Gore's invested position does not prove or disprove the science and yes the science should stand on its own; unfortunately those who claims this science does are usually those with similar conflicts of interest (their continued funding to prove what they are researching)