taks

awww... i originally read this as a "Free Official Obsidian Plug-in!", not Oblivion. not that my interpretation made sense, but i was hoping. i never could get in to oblivion. the scaled combat killed it for me, damned level 20 rats. taks

i should add that the short term correlation between CO2 and temperature is weak at best. this is hardly a surprise since the correlation actually occurs with a very large lag, between 800 and 2000 years. looking at the last 100 years, which is not long enough to measure an 800 year lag, the largest increases in atmospheric CO2 content occurred post WWII, but the temperature of the planet dropped several tenths of a degree © from then till the mid-70s. we are certainly adding to the content through the burning of fossil fuels. however, if CO2 were the/a cause, then the historic record would show CO2 leading, rather than lagging, temperature as well, e.g. as the oceans warmed and CO2 increased, at some point, if CO2 were indeed a cause not an effect, it would begin to lead the temperature. but it does not. taks

since the nobel thread is no longer open, i should probably respond in a related thread... completely false. it is true the broad statement "correlation does not imply causality" is valid, but to use the word "never" is completely false. my statements regarding the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature based on high correlation are indeed valid, but not solely because of the correlation alone (and i duly noted the third party actor in this). there is a causal relationship, though not a direct cause-effect relationship, which i also pointed out. i also noted that the higher the correlation, the more likely the cause-effect relationship becomes. btw, if "never" were true, communications and radar, indeed nearly all sciences based on signal processing in which we are attempting to detect some event would not work. why? they (signal receivers) use either a matched filter, or its equivalent, the correlator receiver. from the wiki: bold and italics mine. in the specific case of the temp vs. CO2 scenario, we have a known causal relationship, namely: the solubility of CO2 in water is reduced with increased temperature. the obvious follow-on to this concept is that as the oceans warm, which is the primary sink for CO2 (as well as source) the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. the wiki offers a follow up example with this conclusion: italics mine again. the "further investigation" in this case is quite simply, the known relationship between the solubility of a gas in a liquid and the temperature of that liquid. in that context, which i was specifically referring to, both necessary (correlation) and sufficient (known relationship between ocean temperature and CO2 solubility) conditions exist. therefore, in this case, correlation does imply causation. that said, the likely culprit, historically speaking, is that the total solar irradiance incident on the planet increases/decreases and likewise causes a change in the atmospheric temperature. the oceans, containing significantly more mass than the atmosphere, warm at a slower rate. as they warm, they release more CO2 into the atmosphere, but this will necessarily lag the increase in atmospheric temperature as well. the cause-effect relationship is clearly there, and i even offered that it was not the increased temperature of the atmosphere that was the cause, but some other forcer, probably the sun. the reason for the change in solar irradiance, as well as other extra-planetary influences, are many, and not limited simply due to a change in the sun itself. indeed, the earth is not in a completely spherical orbit, and it "wobbles" around its axis (the probable cause of ice ages). the sun itself has cycles of low and high activity, the sun spot cycle which is 11 years, and probably others that are not completely understood. taks

jeez calax, all i did was highlight GD's comment. i put no words in your mouth nor did i add anything one way or another to your comments. GD wasn't ever referring to you, so when you said "are you implying that i'm a heretic" your comment made no sense, since GD meant the two of us, not you... sheesh. taks

there ya go with the intellectually dishonest reply, yet again. i said that i'm probably the most informed regarding this topic, and only because i spend so much time reading about it. i made no comments regarding whether that makes me more right, as i was only replying to tale's mention that i post the most. sheesh you're an ass. i fully understand correlation vs. causation, however, what you don't seem to understand is that a) al gore repeatedly says that the 650,000 year history shows that CO2 causes temperature rise, when in fact the causal relationship is reversed. also, a very high correlation does indeed imply causation, though possibly from some other forcer (think the sun). if you had ever paid attention, you'd understand that's my implication, actually. edit: what i find interesting, btw, is that the correlation vs. causation argument is only dragged out by the likes of you when faced with something that doesn't support your view. indeed, those that bring it up as you have, thinking you've suddenly found a sticking point to get me with, really don't understand the statistical implication of a correlation operation in the first place. when taking the correlation between two signals that have a known physical relationship the results have an even higher probability there is a causal relationship. no, it is intellectually dishonest of you to base an argument on something i never said. you did it twice. first, i never said a tautology was a fallacy. second, i never complained about mkreku's ad-hom in the first post, in fact, i even pointed out that i fully intended to insult him so i was not in a position to complain about such logical failures. you then called me a hypocrite after i grudgingly pointed out what could be construed as a fallacy in his first reply, even though i a) did not originally even mention it (i simply referred to his logical failure in general, i never said the post itself contained anything illogical, you just assumed i did) and b) did not complain about it. intellectually dishonest number 2. added to here, that makes three. you are a complete joke. it is, yet here you continue your ridiculous dishonesty. what a joker. not so much a bad impression, but it's not exactly an objective process if the likes of arafat qualify for a PEACE prize. not a whole lot different than libya serving as the chair of the human rights commission. taks

i don't think the slippery slope really works in this case, gorth. particularly because we're going to run out of things to drill for before the entire debate is ever settled, so it won't matter. every bit of oil will be dug up, rest assured, same for coal and just about anything else that will burn. before we get to the point that we can see the end of the fossil fuel tunnel, it will become so expensive that other means will necessarily be in use... maybe biofuels, probably lots of nuclear for everything except automobiles, and who knows what else, solar, wind, etc. taks

yup. i believe 31% is the limit for a naturally aspirated engine using gasoline. i don't know why, or at least, i don't remember the details. anyone that spends a lot of time working on cars probably knows more. taks

don't put words in my mouth. my god... READING COMPREHENSION!!! i put no words in your mouth. GD SAID that he and i are heretics, i was replying to you, not paraphrasing you... sheesh. why is it so hard to understand simple english? taks

taks is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of media reports that come out regularly. note too, that my zeal has nothing to do with hate because of someone's belief. i pick on mkreku because of his fundamental inability to actually _think_. gorgon doesn't agree with me, nor many others, but you don't see me riding them the same way. qwerty simply picked an off-topic subject and approached it in an intellectually dishonest manner... not unlike what he did with meta (yes, GD, i remember the thread now). it's pretty obvious, too, that i'm probably the most informed in here on the subject. this is simply because i spend quite a lot of time reading about it, not simply reading stories, either. plus, the statistical practices that are used, and abused, in climate science are very similar to what i do for a living (and my school work). taks

no, he's saying that he and i are heretics for not believing. that's all... taks

hehe, mkreku's link is to a foreign language NEWS site... my god man, you really are fooled easily. btw, if i'm wrong, you _should_ be able to show how cause can follow affect. it has nothing to do with "believing taks," simply show me how it can be done. i swear i'll concede. taks

btw, here's a link to the original report that said 11 inaccuracies, which has since been reduced to 9 by combining two and omitting another (the final judgement compared to the interim judgement). taks

yes, i'm wrong because i'm a right winger. never mind the years of school and daily study that i'm still doing, both on and off the job... no, that's not why i take a skeptical view, it's all because of fox news. i suppose i should start watching the news, fox in particular, to live up to others' expectations. i'll start attending church, too... i don't expect anyone to have an answer to this challenge, btw, because it cannot be answered. this is a major sticking point for AGW theory, and it's no surprise al gore and similar types are lying about the past record (i recall reading about one children's book that got caught switching CO2 with temp, and once they got called on it, they switched them back but refused to replace the wording which depended upon CO2 leading temperature). any time the opposition begins to lie, you gotta wonder if they're scared. taks

which is actually an untested hypothesis that turns out to be the opposite of what the backers had hoped. ramanathan has done a few studies and they were discussed at pielke sr.'s site. global dimming ain't quite the right term. taks

it is interesting, btw, that nobody has taken me up on my challenge... can it be that there is no way to reconcile CO2 causing temperature rise, and the longest record of CO2 and temperature that we have showing the opposite? 650,000 years means the confidence level of the correlation is quite high, even if the temperature and CO2 error is large. any takers, mkreku? or are you going to stick to your cop-out "we'll never really know" which is dumb-speak for "i can't argue the point because i don't have a counter." hehe... taks

oh, their operation is quite clean, but there are two problems: 1) they have to be made. the batteries in hybrids contain massive amounts of nickel. this is extremely difficult to process, and it is done in multiple countries. this is the biggest reason the cars cost so much out of the gate. 2) disposal. you need to get rid of all the toxic chemicals when the car batteries are done (or even the car dies). there's not much left in a gasoline engine other than the leftover oil or transmission fluid, both of which are typically recycled anyway. i'm also concerned with the fact that the amount of energy used to grow the corn to make ethanol renders it 30% or so efficient compared to 98% or so for oil. plus, we simply trade the oil cartels for the corn cartels... sheesh. taks

btw, if anyone hasn't read it, kristen byrnes has posted a rather lengthy debunking of al gore's movie... kristen is still in high school. this is why i get so bent out of shape when imbeciles want links for everything because they cannot be bothered to dig into the depths of their high school education to try and figure out the simple stuff. Ponder the Maunder is so named because of the Maunder Minimum (look it up on wiki for god's sake) which was the lowest recorded sun spot activity in recorded history. the maunder minimum was disastrous - temps dropped, crops failed, poverty soared, all because of that little yellow ball of light in the sky. taks

probably simply because gas is cheaper here than in europe. i get 16 mpg in my xterra, and i'm paying under $3 per gallon. in europe, isn't it over $4 per gallon? 25 cents per mile is pushing the envelope. oh, btw, hybrid sales in the US have plummeted... when they revised the way they actually calculate mileage, it turns out they aren't that much more efficient than the good gas cars, and they cost more, and ultimately do more harm to the environment because of the batteries. taks

dr. gray is quite bright, and probably the most well-known hurricane scientist. the new kid on the block is chris landsea, who was originally part of the IPCC process. he quit because he felt like he was being pressured to make hurricanes dependent upon GW which he flatly states is not the case. most of the so-called "increases" in hurricane count are due to technology - i.e. we are simply better at detecting them now than we were before. part of that is due to satellite coverage post 1979, part of it is due to the fact that storms that did not used to get classified now do. taks

this is a fair statement. there's too many problems with the "pro" evidence, and "con" requires proving a negative. a clear answer either way is difficult at best, though we do know for sure about some of human impact. as i've noted, cities are much warmer than the surrounding areas due to all the concrete. simple mass equations there and concrete is an insulator (i.e. it holds heat overnight). i would actually say "there are a lot more scientists that think human emissions are one source of global warming than the other way around". first, CO2 is not a pollution. it is the foundation of most life on the planet (we are carbon based, you know, and CO2 is plant food). some of the GHGs are indeed pollution (NO2, which creates N20 - laughing gas - is pollution and N20 is a GHG, methane is pollution and it is a GHG, etc., but CO2 is the biggie and it is not pollution). second, just read the actual papers that come out; most make one statement about adding to this or that, but very rarely to they make broad statements such as "this is clearly the overall cause" of anything. scientific papers just don't do that. they really are very narrowly focused. can't agree with this, not even slightly. we're going to run out of oil, sooner than later, and there aren't enough fossil fuels to do much more than double the current CO2 content. there's no way CO2 will ever be a hindrance in our atmosphere, at least as far as breathing goes (hypercapnia occurs at 5%, which is more than 100 times the current CO2 content, and there simply aren't enough fuels to get there - do the math 2-3 ppmv per year and we got maybe 100 years left with fossil fuels on the planet?). once we expend all of our fossil fuels, the planet will go right back to the way it always has been without our help. we can kill our economy now for what? to stave off 1-2 C of warming? hell, we're still coming out of an ice age technically, we should welcome at least some warming. "playing it safe" could be disastrous and i have yet to see any real dangers from a few degrees of warming. taks

last post... first, a circular argument is indeed a fallacy when the premise is used to prove the conclusion, and i've not only shown you why, i've also provided you a link to the definition. if you'd like, do a search on the term (hint, you and mkreku need to learn how to use google/wiki even when you don't want to know the truth, or you think you're right). even wiki agrees with me and you can find plenty of references to the definition of the tautology fallacy, which i never stated anyway (that's where the strawman arose from originally, by you making claims about something i never said). your formal version of the circular argument is one specific case, which is a sound argument (it is also a tautology, btw, if B>C is true). second, a tautology is a fallacy if used in an argument in which the statement adds no new information. this is a more subtle fallacy, but you don't seem to understand the distinction. the vacuous truth that withteeth and i were referring to could probably have been termed either a vacuous truth, a circular argument or even a tautology. i don't feel like going back over the details at the moment, but that was all i ever said on the subject. you've invented the rest, which is where the strawman lies. you slightly adjusted what i was originally intending to make a stronger case for yourself, which is the definition of a strawman. when you get done with your logic class, i had mine over 20 years ago, you'll maybe understand some of the subtleties, maybe not... i could care less about dialectal, formal or informal, or whatever, but mkreku has not posited a valid logical argument in any debate he's ever had with me. period. his primary position is and has always been that i'm a right winger so i'm therefore wrong. you can try to go through and find a better one, other than the fact he did reference a valid paper (which i have not had time to read, though i will), though i've had no luck. the only sin i've committed is one of insult, and any idiot on the web that expects to debate without some flame is even more retarded than the guy that wins the argument. i learned that subtlety a looooong time ago, back when this board was much more argumentative. taks edit: revelation again... your entire argument is about the distinction between a "logical fallacy" and a "dialectal fallacy"... wow, you're even worse than i thought. give me a break.

my argument with mkreku has nothing to do with your perceived error on my part. which i've shown quite clearly to be an error on your part. we could do this all day, but you are incorrect. sigh... you can't follow a thread for more than a few posts, can you? you're saying i'm wrong because of something you clearly don't understand from three months ago, which would probably have bearing if you were right, but you aren't. i've never claimed mkreku was incorrect because of his lack of ability to debate in a logical fashion, and i've clearly pointed out that i'll give it as well as take it. flaming each other is hardly hypocritical in that sense, but if you insist... oh well. well, ad-hominem, yes. i'll continue to pick on him till he demonstrates an understanding of he concepts he so vigorously defends, you too. i mean c'mon, you really don't understand how both a circular argument and a tautology can be used fallaciously? even given your nifty exposition merely chose the one type that suits your needs, rather than noticing situations which support my position as well... and if you're my competition, i'm sorry for you, but you're outgunned. taks

and you are incorrect. your inability to understand why either a tuatology or a circular argument can both be fallacious is reason enough for me to suspect your ability to draw such a conclusion. no, you don't and yes, a tautology can be a logical fallacy if it is used as some sort of way to prove an unrelated proposition. you cannot read or at least comprehend very well. i did not say i was referring to that argument as if it contained any logical fallacies, which it did anyway, i was merely stating that he does not understand logic. he followed it up with how many fallacies debating me? i.e. he proved my point. immaterial. i clearly stated that he did not understand logic. period. and yes, it is a logical fallacy because he was attempting to belittle my argument by marginalizing it as "right wing" rhetoric. that is both an ad-hom, and a guilt by association, which are really interchangeable. um, no, besides the point that i never referred to that statement as logically fallacious until you brought it up, i have CLEARLY pointed out how it did indeed contain fallacies, though informal fallacies. he tried specifically to belittle my previous arguments by marginalizing them, which you continue to fail to understand. you're joking, right? ad-hominem is not a symbolically representable fallacy. unless you want it to be: 1) mark's a right winger 2) therefore mkreku is correct. hehe... no, it is an attempt to refute my earlier argument by associating it with ideology, i.e. mark's argument is wrong because he's paid by big oil or mark's argument is wrong because it came from rush limbaugh. subtle, yes, and obviously subtle enough that your massive intellect was unable to detect it. this goes back quite some time. and if you think anything in any of his follow up comments contain any logical arguments you're welcome to point them out. the ONE piece of solid evidence he posted was at the very end of his very long rant. assuming you started out with two true statements, A and B>C, this is indeed a sound circular argument. however, if A was actually assumed, but not true, then something like this: A>B B>C C>A therefore A would be a fallacy because none of these were ever proven. i.e. begging the question. "when did you stop beating your wife!" asked by a lawyer assumes the defendant was beating his wife before that proposition has been proven. as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd think you'd get it. i'll give you the grammar bit. however, i don't know how many ways to say this, but both a tautology and a circular argument can be fallacies. a better word than related would be "similar" actually, and they are. and they are also fallacies if used to prove anything other than their own already proven assertions. this again, is a strawman as it has nothing to do with mkreku's statement, nor any of my replies to him. taks

oh my, i just figured out what happened. qwerty read that statement THREE MONTHS AGO, then sat, and waited, hoping that i'd get all arrogant and he could suddenly come riding in to save the day! woohoo!!! yay qwerty... oh, wait, you didn't READ the statement you MISREAD the statement, then made your own additional error (coupled with some arrogance of your own... yeah right, you'll forgive me for your lack of understanding... hehe) and ended up looking like a fool... awwwww. this is better than any kind of stress relief that i know. taks

of course, your bringing up this past comment is a straw man as well, qwerty. just in case you were wondering since you seem so happy with your ignorance. taks edit: as well as another ad-hominem/poisoning the well, attempting to disparage me based on an alleged past transgression. indeed, even if i had made the mistake, it has no bearing here. but that doesn't matter to you, does it. anyone else care to defend the indefensible?