Can Plot & Characters have a Political Bias?

Good point Horus, if people feel they are being preached to (and not just politically, it could be religious too), they might tune out. That's why I make fun of Ayn Rand, her writing is saturated with radical right wing "Objectivist" propaganda.

If your characters have political opinions because you do, that's okay, it may make your characters more dimensional, just be careful about being preachy, there are books for that outside of fiction.

PS: Seta, nice graphs, I have a few of my own, I'm curious to see where you got yours. I won't debate you here on the whole "global warming is a myth" thing, but if you don't believe in CO2 contributing to global warming, just look at our closest neighbor, Venus. You know, the planet that's so hot you can melt lead in a second?

 

Logical fallacies: Straw man argument, Ad absurdum.

Mockery does not make for civil discussion. No one made any claims about "Illuminati," and it would be better if it was kept that way.

I never mentioned Al Gore. Logical fallacies of association are implied.

The word "scam" implies that someone is intentionally defrauding the public. You've provided no evidence of intentional fraud. Indeed, what you've provided is some charts and speculation. The "scam" claim is an ad hominem argument: an attack which is insulting in nature, suggesting fraud.

Now, as to the scientific portion of your claims:

1.) Global warming must have an initial cause. Your claim assumes global warming is real (something the previous poster denied) but a different cause-and-effect relationship.

2.) Peer-reviewed scientific studies have suggested the initial cause-and-effect relationship exists: that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the probable cause of global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out many thousands of studies to this extent.

If your claims and figures are accurate, it may be demonstrative of a spiral-effect: CO2 causes global warming, which causes water to evaporate, which causes more CO2, which causes more global warming.

Nothing you've presented suggests that no CO2 increase has been man-made, but rather, that evaporation can cause CO2 increase.

In other words, even if you could prove that increased temperature increases the CO2 level through evaporation, that would not simultaneously prove that there is no additional cause, or that fossil fuel emissions do not increase the CO2 levels.

The peer-reviewed studies suggest that CO2 is at its highest levels, literally, in many millions of years. This can't be accounted for simply by an increased temperature causing evaporation, which increases the CO2 level.

Nothing in what you presented suggests either that:
a. There is no man-made cause for the CO2 increase in addition to your proposed evaporation cause.
b. The CO2 increase has no effect on global temperature.

What you have presented merely suggests that increased temperature can increase the CO2 level. It ignores the possibility of other additional causes of increased CO2 level, including man-made, or that increased CO2 level can indeed cause increases in temperature. For these possibilities, I defer to the peer reviewed studies.

The claim of a "scam" however, is logically fallacious, argumentative and accusatory. In the light of this accusation, I'd like to focus on the accusation itself, because, even if I were to assume (contrary to scientific evidence) that CO2 does not effect global warming, the suggestion that it does may hypothetically be the result of error in the peer-reviewed studies rather than scam. You propose, no, it is not an error in the peer-reviewed studies, but rather, it is a scam. Please present your evidence that intentional fraud was perpetrated. I won't insult you by suggesting the Illuminati was behind the alleged fraud.

Finally, returning this to the topic, which, as we all recall, is not global warming, but rather, is the insertion of political views into ones works:

This discussion a demonstration of precisely why, it is my viewpoint that, while I defend the rights of anyone to present their views, I believe that logic and critical thinking must be taught (along with civics) starting in grade school. How many people know how to identify ad hominems, straw man arguments, slippery slope arguments, argument ad absurdum, and the dozens of other logical fallacies out there? I don't even need to be an expert in a particular subject (in this case, global warming) to identify the logical errors in these arguments, and the identification of logic errors is a valuable tool for separating fact from propaganda when one encounters the political arguments that inevitably will come up in ones reading.

Charlie

 

Charlie...is there really any point in arguing over global warming? People are either going to believe the propaganda that says it is caused by man, or they are going to believe the other sides studies (the ones that are poo-poo'd on by global warming enthusiasts) that say the sun and volcanic activity are the cause of global warming trends. Either way, both camps are in agreement as to the fact that the earth is warming. Most people are going to agree that overall we are in a warming trend, just one more of the cycles the earth goes through.

The disagreement comes over how the warming is happening. Man made or natural. The man made camp tends to push their views like a religion. The other side is not.


Is there a profitable market in non-man made global warming? Not really.

Why is it even a big deal? Humanity could be wiped out by itself ten times over with the nuclear and biological weapons we have at our disposal. A comet could hit the earth and wipe everything out. And in a few billion years we will collide with the Andromeda galaxy throwing our whole galaxy out of whack. What does any of it matter? Why bother arguing over it?

If someone wants to put a political spin or religion bias in their fiction, go for it. Someone out there will agree with it and read it.

edit: Just a point that you were trying to make about co2 Charlie... One volcanic eruption will put out more CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere and stratosphere than all industrial countries combined in a year. So is it really man made? NO one knows.

 

I'm going to believe the peer-reviewed scientific studies. What they show is that global warming is a fact and it's caused by CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions.

I've examined the claims of the other side, and they've been demonstrably propagandist. For example, they've held up people who had degrees in the social sciences (economists, for example) to bolster their claim that "scientists" doubt global warming. Ultimately, if truth was on their side, they wouldn't need such false bolstering of their claims.

On the other hand, thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated, not only the fact of global warming (which is disputed by some, despite what you said about that -- I've even seen some who claim that there is currently global cooling) but also its cause: fossil fuel emissions.

I'm not going to repeat the logical errors of others by falsely accusing anyone of a "scam," however, non-man made global warming is certainly profitable to those who would want to deny man-made global warming, specifically, those who profit from the production, manufacture and distribution of fossil fuels. There are certainly motives, financial and political, for increasing the production, sale and profit-margins of fossil fuels, and for keeping the population of the planet fossil-fuel dependent.

Is that intended as sarcasm?

You might not care if any of those things happen, or if man-made global warming damages the sustainability of life on Earth. I do. I love my planet.

I find your question rather... unusual. Do you truly not understand why some consider these things important? Seriously?

Source?

Charlie

 

You can't know one way or another about the financial assets of Michael Crichton. I was just making a supposition. Not a "straw man". Hence the "maybe" preceding my statement. Learn more about logical fallacies before trying to spar.

It doesn't matter what was or was not implied. Al Gore is a poster boy for pushing a policy which is scientifically baseless. Even if the two gentlemen are not working together directly they may have similar agendas or motivations. Once again, idle supposition.

~~~

Furthermore, I was merely talking about the carbon dioxide scam. Certainly increased CO2 may contribute to a "green house effect" but also consider that water vapor is approximately a thousand times more potent at holding heat than CO2. Also, consider the posted corroboration between solar irradiance and global temperature. The direct correlation is undeniable.

Lastly, get off of "peer reviewed" material - you can find peer reviewed material going either direction. Start thinking for yourself.

~~~

About political views in general - some people right hardline novels specifically to cater to certain people. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was renamed to "Sorcerer's Stone" because of religious problems. They obviously wanted to cater to a broader range so they decided to be a bit less offensive to some cultures. Be becoming neutral you can cater to a larger crowd. By being left or right or black or white you can cater to specific crowd.

 

I'm constantly learning more about logical fallacies. I love studying them.

Your supposition was a straw man. Straw man arguments, by definition, manipulate language, so further manipulation to put it in the form of a supposition doesn't change the fact that it's straw man. Aside from being ad absurdum, by virtue of being ludicrous.

Fallacies: Again, argument by association.

It's the very fact that he's a "poster boy" (itself an independent ad hominem argument) that makes this an associative fallacy. That's how the arguments by association work.

Person A: I support position XY.
Person B: Regarding position XY and Hitler.

Hitler, being a "poster boy" for evil, is used in the "Guilt by Association fallacy." Hitler supported position XY, therefore, position XY is wrong. It doesn't matter if position XY is finding a cure for cancer.

That's the basic format of the Association fallacies. By calling him the "poster boy," you all but admit you're using the fallacy.

"Scientifically baseless"?
Fallacy: Vagueness. I'd hardly call thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies "scientifically baseless."

Once again, you accuse a "scam" without evidence of fraudulence. Please present your evidence of fraudulence.

That was an ad hominem argument, plain and simple.

I do, sir, think, for myself.

Totally uncalled for.

Charlie

 

This has become a heated off-topic debate.