Jun 30

Argumentation - The bad and the ugly

Tag: StuffMichael Lind Mortensen @ 9:52 pm

I love debates! I really do.. I simply love discussing the facts, opinions and actions of one self and others - with the appropriate argumentation of course. This is something I’ve often loved doing with my family and friends (whom often hate me for it, as I’m kinda strict with correct argumentation) and of course in my work with politics in Radikale Ungdom here in Denmark.

But during all of this over enthusiastic opinion sharing I’ve often come across certain argumentation styles I’ve found .. well, ridiculous! Let’s take a few examples:

Arguments of the form “Everyone knows … “ or Everybody agrees … “ are inherently false - Always!! No matter what subject you pick, no such subject will be known by all of the general population and no opinion will be shared by the general population. The mere fact that you are having the discussion with someone should tell you that your argument is inherently wrong, as that person clearly does not know or does not agree! This form of argumentation often comes up in emotional subjects like “Everybody agrees child molestation is wrong” - Which is obviously false, since some actively molest children. Or perhaps in another context “Everyone agrees that global warming is real” which is again obviously false, since some don’t believe this to be true.

There is a correct way to use the “Everyone .. something” argumentation form however, you just have to limit your population. So an argument like “All doctors agree ..” might be right, it’s definitely not inherently wrong. Also, in the same category, an argument like “All soldiers know guns can shot” would also probably be correct, while “Everyone knows guns can shot” isn’t!

Let’s take another example of bad use of argumentation: “Abraham Lincoln would have …” - Using what a dead guy might have said, is very very bad argumentation! Actually this is one that Jon Stewart already pointed out (very delicately I might add) on The Daily Show a few months back.

Sadly many actually do this! Like refer to Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, JFK or some other historical figure - but really, how the fuck do you know what that person thinks? Maybe he would have hated your guts?

Hmm another example: “Studies have shown…” A very commonly used argument for some given product or solutions correctness. Yet this seemingly normal expression is probably one of the worst forms yet, since it begs the question: “Which studies?”, and as long as that question can not be answered by the individual, his or her argument doesn’t count for shit! It’s all too common:

Normal guy reads newspaper, sees a headline “Studies show mobile phones cause HIV” and then unquestionably believes this snippet of information to be true. He then tells his friends, his girlfriend, his dad, his teacher, a couple of stoners and perhaps his dog (he’s probably kinda drunk). This then circulates even further with these individuals talking to other individuals, claiming that studies show mobile phones cause HIV and finally, 1 year later, people are so damn scared no one dares use a mobile phone for fear of HIV.

Using an argument like “Studies have shown … “ is the equivalent of saying: “As far as I know and believe …” - that is if you can’t mention the source of course!

So what was this post all about? Well - mainly it was about me getting some frustration out there :-).. I’m tired of people believing arguments like the above are worth anything, and I’m tired of people unquestionably believing everything they hear or read… So really my one goal here, my one morale, is simply:

Be sceptical - Question everything!!




Jun 01

Global Warming caused by CO2?

Tag: DebunkingMichael Lind Mortensen @ 11:47 pm

You’ve all heard it! Rises in CO2 is accelerating global warming and potentially killing our entire civilization - you know, the basic Nostradamus wanna be stuff. What most of you probably haven’t heard, is that this is just basically complete and utter crap, and a whole bunch of scientists already know this - it’s just not politically correct to say so!

Let’s take a look at the Danish contribution first. The Danish National Space Center published a report earlier this year claiming that global warming was mostly the result of cosmic radiation and solar activity. This conclusion was based on several years of research and examination of data from the last several centuries. A summary of the research has been placed on The Danish National Space Center’s website here: http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming-and-cosmic-radiation

Not convinced yet? Don’t worry - I’m far from finished!

Just so you can understand how cosmic radiation works I’ll give a short explanation. A star burns out somewhere in the universe. It then blows up in a super nova and emits radiation. This radiation travels through the universe and some will, at some point, reach Earth. Here it ionizes the atmosphere and creates clouds. Solar activity, like cosmic radiation, has a great deal of impact on the climate, as shown by this illustration: http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2569/25691101.jpg - while solar activity in itself can’t explain global warming, solar activity coupled with cosmic radiation can and does explain everything.

Physicist Henrik Svensmark has been studying this phenomenon for over 4 years and is now convinced that cosmic radiation is to blaim for most of the global warming seen today. An article on his work is to be found here: http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_connection.php

Several institutions all over the world have concluded similar things due to research, like for example the University of Ottawa, University of Stanford and several others.

For all of you who have seen Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth”, you probably remember his two graphs with global temperature and global CO2 levels. When he puts those two together, they seem kinda similar don’t they? Well they are! CO2 and global temperature are closely linked, but not as claimed in “The Inconvenient Truth” - Actually the demonstration in the movie was a bit of, because the increase in CO2 at each point comes AFTER the increase in temperature - not before and not at the same time - but AFTER! And why is this? Increases in global temperature increases the CO2 emission from - yes you guessed it! - the seas!.. no not the people, not the factories, not the pollution - the seas! The data for cosmic radiation, solar activity, CO2 levels and global temperature however fit nicely and show a clear correlation. For your convenience I’ve even posted it here:

Cosmic Radiation vs. global temperature

Want more? Well here’s a more entertaining documentary from the British Channel 4 - “The Global Warming Swindle”: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warning+swindle

So you want even more proof? Well I guess I’ll just post a few links to some REAL scientist’s work - scientists who aren’t “forced” to claim the global warming crisis is upon us just to get paid:

The Standford Review

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIII/Issue_5/Features/features1.shtml

University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=ecc98cd8-217e-448f-97cb-38926b2a04d8

(Not a real scientist), but a guy who gathered a lot of information:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/