3 ms·

Where exactly does this predict that new york would be under water by now ? The BBC article quotes: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might

Where exactly does this predict that new york would be under water by now ? The BBC article quotes: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." and "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate." "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." The snopes articles says Al Gore sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic. Not even close to your initial claim.

ThomPete 9y ago
If you want to just discuss rhetorics by all means here is one example of that claim. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/flashback-abc-news-warns-nyc-will-be-under-water-by-2015-due-to-global-warming-and-polar-bears-will-fall-from-sky/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/flashback-abc-news-w... Not sure what the point about whether new york or not. The general point was that there was alarmist claims as those I linked to in the previous post. I was responding in the same style of the claims about what the so-called "climate deniers" had claimed. I could ask the same questions with regards to the claims about what climate catastrophe skeptics have said if I wanted to be that pedantic. I am still waiting to hear how our decisions curved those predictions as you can't have it both ways. jschwartz is trying to have it both ways. Both claim that we curved a catastrophe by our actions while questioning it was ever claimed it would happen. This discussion illustrates the two major views debate back in 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  I don't want rhetorics, this is not a matter of winning an argument, I'd like to see your claim substianted to decide if they are valid and receivable. Until now I've only see unsubstantiated bold claims, cherry picked provided evidence actually not supporting them when read and various logical fallacies attempts to get out of providing data supporting your point (You waiting for someone else to support their point is not proving yours, appealing to authority by linking to 1hour video debate, etc.)
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    What claims? I have provided plenty of links. What claims have I made and been asked to provide links to that I haven't? I am not cherry picking anything. I giving examples as the only one in this thread btw. Go back and read the thread. Where on earth am I appealing to authority? I link to a debate with two sides debating this very issue to prove a point which is that experts disagree about this which was one of my points. It's a proof of that. You on the other hand link to things and appeal to consensus, how is that useful for anything? I literally gave you links not only to claims about New York being under water but other similar claims. The video is experts warning about the warming and the consequences being imminent. So that critical thinking crash course you talked about, perhaps you should start by applying it to yourself.

ThomPete 9y ago

If you want to just discuss rhetorics by all means here is one example of that claim. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/flashback-abc-news-warns-nyc-will-be-under-water-by-2015-due-to-global-warming-and-polar-bears-will-fall-from-sky/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/flashback-abc-news-w... Not sure what the point about whether new york or not. The general point was that there was alarmist claims as those I linked to in the previous post. I was responding in the same style of the claims about what the so-called "climate deniers" had claimed. I could ask the same questions with regards to the claims about what climate catastrophe skeptics have said if I wanted to be that pedantic. I am still waiting to hear how our decisions curved those predictions as you can't have it both ways. jschwartz is trying to have it both ways. Both claim that we curved a catastrophe by our actions while questioning it was ever claimed it would happen. This discussion illustrates the two major views debate back in 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

bigbugbag 9y ago
I don't want rhetorics, this is not a matter of winning an argument, I'd like to see your claim substianted to decide if they are valid and receivable. Until now I've only see unsubstantiated bold claims, cherry picked provided evidence actually not supporting them when read and various logical fallacies attempts to get out of providing data supporting your point (You waiting for someone else to support their point is not proving yours, appealing to authority by linking to 1hour video debate, etc.)
- ThomPete 9y ago
  What claims? I have provided plenty of links. What claims have I made and been asked to provide links to that I haven't? I am not cherry picking anything. I giving examples as the only one in this thread btw. Go back and read the thread. Where on earth am I appealing to authority? I link to a debate with two sides debating this very issue to prove a point which is that experts disagree about this which was one of my points. It's a proof of that. You on the other hand link to things and appeal to consensus, how is that useful for anything? I literally gave you links not only to claims about New York being under water but other similar claims. The video is experts warning about the warming and the consequences being imminent. So that critical thinking crash course you talked about, perhaps you should start by applying it to yourself.