Non Trump Supporters

if youre now saying "gonna be a huge wall that cost millions of dollars" why were you talking about people going around or breaking through it WTH?

 

That's the point its a waste of money. I don't know what your trying to get at

 

If people are prone to attempting to "break through" the wall, then the obvious solution is building a wall that can't be broken through.

 

its not a waste of money, it also stops drug and human trafficking

 

they are just gonna dig under it. there's no stopping it...

 

Then let's also get rid of door locks. There will always be people trying to break in houses...

 

i mean so did Eryp and octo thats why there were links in what they were saying but so what.

 

there's a difference between using a few sources to make an argument and copying an article verbatim, dude

 

I'm not throwing shade I was just telling SavageCobra it had no difference whether it was original. Actually though, props for finding all of that sht to educate the people here.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

 

where did i say anything was fallacious about it?

 

I didn't say you said it was fallacious. it doesn't need to be.

 

what are you talking about then and why did you post that link?

 

If you actually read the page, it says that the fallacy fallacy doesn't necessarily have to be in response to a comment deemed fallacious.

 

i know what the fallacy fallacy is so i didn't bother, and if you understood the page rather than pulling it out as a dumb "gotcha!" you would note that it applies to situations where one implies that the person's claim is wrong because of a fallacy in their argument, which i did not do

 

I understand the entire website. I didn't just slap it down to make myself feel better.
Secondly, I already know your note. However, the real definition includes a little bit more than that.

 

care to explain how that would in any way apply to my post then?

 

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong."

 

now point to where i did the red part please

 

Are you sure you want me to paste the whole thing? Alright, here goes:
ok https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

the link really covers everything, but i will give you specific counterpoints from that and other sources in context with what the video says, since i am very nice.
everything he says in the beginning of the video about their being three groups, etc. is mostly factual, however he neglects to mention that group 2 makes up ~3 percent of climate scientists, vs 97% who fall into group 1 [source]
this gets us to the meat of the video: what the two groups agree on. i will respond to each of these individually to make sure i miss nothing

• "the climate is always changing" - a true statement, but presented in a way that leads you to draw the false conclusion that "the climate is always changing in a way that is similar to the way it is changing now". the climate has always changed, yes, but we are currently experiencing an unprecedented rise in co2 levels and global temperature, as seen in this handy chart [source: this climate denier guy's post, lol]

now take a look at this chart and note the extreme rise we've been experiencing since the industrial revolution and large scale human burning of fossil fuels [sourced from my original link]. so yes, the climate is always changing, but in generally predictable patterns... that we are massively deviating from ever since humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale (aka climate change).

now, you might look at this and say, "well, octo, it could just be a massive coincidence, an instance of spurious correlation! what makes you think that co2 would directly influence the temperature?" well, you're in luck. the second thing that the video notes both groups agree on is...

• "CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming." - this is a funny statement because it leads with the idea that human life is not possible without co2 to get you to think that it can't be extremely harmful in too high a quantity. for a similar statement, consider "consumption of water is necessary for human life, but being completely immersed in it can lead to some trouble breathing" - yes, water is necessary for human life, but that doesn't mean you can't drown in it. not really too much to address or refute here beyond that, let's move on to the next point.
• "Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century." - this is factual and i have nothing to say about it, but on it's own it isn't an argument for or against climate change. i think it's just a lead in to point number 4, which is
• "Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role." - here is a graph showing temperature increase over that timespan [source]

what you will notice is that there isn't all that much of an increase at all prior to the 1960s (aside from a spike interestingly correlated with ww2, one of the biggest booms in production, and thus co2 emissions, in history), and that after the 1960s, it takes off, increasing at a rapid pace relative to any prior increase. so yes, man's greenhouse emissions probably didn't have a huge effect prior to the 1960s, but they seem to be having a clear and obvious effect from then onward. (addendum: you may think to respond "what difference can one degree celcius make?", in which case you may want to read this) anyway, on to the final point

• 'Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”' - so i was curious about this claim and decided to check out some ipcc reports (interestingly enough i couldn't find that quote in the 2007 report, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a paraphrase). what it comes down to is this: climate is incredibly complicated, and making (key word coming up) long term predictions is very difficult to do with any confidence. but what the ipcc does do is note that in the short term, certain effects are very likely (they italicize it like that too) to occur, with those trends likely continuing in the long term. if you're interested in what these effects may be, feel free to read a fairly brief, well-sourced report from 2014 which outlines causes and effects of climate change here.

WELL I JUST RELOADED THE PAGE AND SAW Eryp ALREADY DID THIS BUT WHATVER LOL 2 POSTS ARE BETTER THAN 1!!! anyway yea climate change is real dude and stop watching prageru

edit: oh wow the bulk of my analysis goes right after his leaves off so these are some perfect companion pieces, great job Eryp <3