[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

Err... breathing is not recycling CO2. Where did you get that from? Now if you add a tree into the picture, it somewhat makes sense. But that's the tree doing the job, not us. We don't recycle jack. I, personally, worry about the tree more.

You breathe in air, your lungs absorb O2, then you exhale air with a higher slightly higher CO2 concentration. You're not adding CO2 that isn't already in the atmosphere. When you burn fossil fuels on the other hand, you're releasing greenhouse gases that have been trapped underground for millions of years. Now what happens when you do this? The Earth heats up similiar to the temperature it was at those millions of years ago when said gases were in the atmosphere. In short, we're recreating conditions that human grown crops are going to be less likely to thrive in.

If that is responding to this:



then you need to stop taking the liberal pill. I'm offering a neutral position here, aka, I'm with you as long as you can prove that executing that son of a bill can have some meaningful result rather than providing the liberal placebo cookies. I'm not willing to pay more just to achieve a false sense of security.

Except that you are not offering a neutral position. You're advocating ignoring scientific evidence because isn't not convienient. You ask for it to be proved when it has been. What more proof would be sufficient to convince you?

About that dude: He's a scientist, no? You guys use him to back you up because he's a scientist or because he's a human being? Both? What happens if he decides he wants to be the latter more? Just to handle the media? Does he realize that the funding of his big-ass project are coming from average tax payers who happens to be heavily influenced by the media? And that his words during those interview matters more than his research thesis? Just scare the shit out of those morons, huh?

When exactly did I quote him? You're the one who brought him up. Also any work he's done would have been peer reviewed. Even if he's a lying bastard when he appears on TV, that doesn't mean the actual research he's done is wrong. Now, do you have anything that would cast doubt on actual research that the guy has conducted? Not that it matters because you're the one who brought him up, not me.

pff... Do you think highly of it?

Not particurily, though he does have a point. You can't explain things in any kind of depth in the little soundbytes you get when you appear as a talking head on some news show. Though that's irrelevent as you're attribiting to me something I never said, hense strawman.

Logical fallacy? Logic only goes as far as its usefulness huh?

An attack on a person's credibity does not discredit the evidence they have to support their position. If you're going to participate in a debate you need to attack the arguement, not the person making the arguement. Hense, it's a logical fallacy.