Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize

[taks]

The point is that humans are playing a significant role in the changes and projected changes we're seeing in the earths enviroment. Picking straws over factual this and science fiction that is still pretty much missing the point, and, as such, the thrust of the film remains in tact. The fact that someone might not like the message or the person giving it has zero impact on this. The judge in question said as much.

no, i'm sorry, that is not true. there is no evidence to support this. simply showing the planet is warming is nonsense. it does this all the time. it also cools all the time. harken back to a little thing called the maunder minimum and you'll see what happens when things cool off. the thrust of the film is completely baseless. if all of his scientific "facts" are in fact wrong, how can any of his conclusions be even close to correct? really, does ANYONE UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD???

 

no mkreku, you don't. why don't you try to show us the side view of antarctica and claim it is warming again...

 

taks

Edited October 13, 2007 by taks

[taks]

i'll issue a challenge to any of you wanna be scientists that haven't ever had a lick of statistical signal processing, or even any advanced statistics or mathematics courses:

 

explain how CO2 is warming the planet when the 650,000 year record that gore touts as "evidence" clearly shows that temperature ALWAYS rises before CO2 content rises? if you can actually explain this idea, keeping in mind what is known as the principle of causality, heck, why not mention the principle of causality in your "proof," i'll concede.

 

 

taks

[taks]

it's been a half hour and no response? maybe it's simply because you haven't visited (mkreku), or maybe, just maybe, because you really don't have a clue.

 

what's funny is your ONLY argument is that a) i have my opinion because i'm "right wing" and therefore i must be wrong and b) i don't think socialism can work and therefore i'm extra wrong. the sad part is that you really think these things matter (albeit both of your assertions are incorrect, duh).

 

we have met yrkoon's match.

 

taks

[taks]

Well global warming has always been contested, only over the past decades the evidence of ozone depletion and water levels rising has been steadily acumulating.

um, not sure where you have been but ozone depletion has nothing to do with GW. in fact, not only is it unconnected, but it is not related to man-made activities, either. in spite of the elimination of CFCs from the world marketplace, the "hole" continues to wax and wane as it always has.

 

It's pretty obvious whats going on, as evidenced by a now very strong consensus among the scientific comunity that the phenomenon is real.

sorry man, but you missed the boat yet again. first of all, consensus is meaningless. get that into your head. second of all, the "consensus" is manufactured by the media and the activists pushing for such things. it is true the planet is warming, but i also dare anyone to provide direct evidence that CO2 is causing it. this is a no-brainer.

 

hint: i wouldn't consult the likes of mkreku for help.

 

why do you people really think that what gets printed in the news MUST be correct? are you that blind?

 

taks

[mkreku]

It's useless and pointless to even try to have an intelligent and interesting debate with someone who never backs up his nonsense with anything AND refutes every single link/proof/report with disdain and baseless mockery. Let me sum up your posts so far in the thread as a shining example.

 

11, actually, but some reports are now saying 9.

---

the fact that temp rises first, the obvious error, typically by 800 years, often as many as 2000, changes the entire thrust of his film from scientific to science fiction, just on that one point alone.

---

yassir arafat is another winner of the "prestigious" nobel peace prize. ya got an activist organization awarding yet another activist an award... hardly a surprise.

What reports? Link? Proof? Something? No?

---

Fact? Are you using the word "fact"? Hilarious. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Just as I have, many times, by providing links when you've spouted your right wing nonsense.

---

Love it when you claim even the Nobel Prize committee have an agenda.. Or that they don't know what they're doing.. Because taks knows better. This actually makes me laugh in real life. Boy, your inner picture of yourself would be so much fun to see. TOTAL lack of self insight.

 

warmer does not equate to "harsher." indeed, more species flourish in warmer, rather than cooler, temperature climes. there are orders of magnitudes of more deaths every year related to colder temperatures rather than warmer. if anything, a warmer planet would be a benefit, not a detriment. this is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by the green activists, gore included.

Myth? On what grounds? None? OK THEN! Please claim more BS the next time, this post was way too short to even bother with.

 

none of which has any basis in the reality of what happens when the planet warms. these are highly exaggerated claims coming from a few highly motivated pseudo-scientists pushing an obvious agenda.

---

poverty is probably the key here, and limiting the ability to generate CO2, at least during our lifetimes, will only mean increased poverty.

---

edit: i should add, ultimately we will need to either a) develop fusion technology or b) come to grips with the fact that nuclear energy is really safer for the people, as well as the planet and we should adopt it as the defacto source of energy. "a" is unlikely. "b" could happen quite quickly (other than for transportation) if the damned activists would get off that hobby-horse as well. we will run out of fossil-fuels looooong before they can do any irreparable harm, and we will run out of them regardless of what measures are taken to curb their use today (which would inevitably only delay whatever impending doom the doom-mongers are wishing upon us).

Really? Which agenda? Trying to overturn the US finances for..? Are they terrorists?? SHOULD YOU BOMB THEM?! Feel free to explain your insanity. Also, which pseudo-scientists? And please show some scientists who are MUCH BETTER than all these "alarmists" (as you used to call them)?

---

Again: really? Taken from what studies? Feel free to link something that backs up this OBVIOUS BS.

---

So nuclear energy is safe energy? Where do you get this "fact" from? That huge piece of fat you're sitting on? OK. If you feel you have better sources, please provide.

 

yes, that's the idea, but it has no basis in science. every time you hear someone spouting about "increased precipitation" or "more storms," it is almost always in an anecdotal context. the activists have positioned themselves in such a way that no matter what weather happens, it is due to global warming. it's a joke and anyone with a serious scientific background of any kind can see through the charade. sadly, the general population listens to the likes of gore.

Blah blah blah, you keep reciting your Fox news (or wherever you get your BS from) over and over and over. None of this is worth anything to anyone but you since you DON'T BACK ANYTHING UP, EVER. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

that's absolutely untrue. most scientists believe only one thing about GW: the planet has warmed. in fact, most also acknowledge that it has been flat, with a slight down-trend over the course of the last decade. the whole "consensus" idea is a myth. scientists get signed on to the "consensus" simply by agreeing to one single point, and suddenly "they're in."

---

i can't recall when consensus actually meant anything anyway. it is largely a media and activist ploy to lend credence to an idea that is otherwise unpalatable.

---

funny, but not many of the skeptics are businessmen. many scientists, and the number is growing, disagree with most of the hypothesis for one simple reason: a lack of evidence other than things have warmed a bit. i'm just an amateur that knows how to analyze data. it's got nothing to do with profits, though i must admit i'm very leery of the people of the US being hit with a tax bill that covers india and china's so-called "green" transgressions. utter nonsense, and any one else in the world that pays taxes should be outraged as well.

Most scientists? How do you know? Where did you get that "fact"? How do you know it's a myth? Why are glaciers disappearing? Do you actually know anything?

---

An activist ploy? And you base this "fact" on what? Feel free to provide any type of evidence, proof or even.. WIKIPEDIA LINKS. You know.. you usually ridicule people who use Wikipedia as a basis for their knowledge. Do you know how stupid that looks from someone who bases his knowledge on Fox or right wing propaganda or, in your case so far, NOTHING? I guess you don't.

---

"Many scientists".. Don't you ever get sick of yourself and your baseless claims? Provide names, provide links to your research, provide backup. Anything.

 

um, the US is 1/3 the entire global economy you dolt. all socialist economies WILL crumble, and the evidence has already shown that nearly all have. god you're an imbecile.

What the hell is a dolt? And I keep telling you that we (Sweden) have been a socialist country for a hundred years and we're one of the strongest nations in all categories measurable, yes even economically. But feel free to provide proof of this utterly ridiculous statement. One thing is sure though: You can't. That's why it makes you look really, really.. uninformed.

 

Or will it be like that time when you claimed that the US has the best healthcare in the world and I provided a report that said it wasn't.. and your only response was "That report sucks and I know better"..? That was pretty funny too.

 

no, i'm sorry, that is not true. there is no evidence to support this. simply showing the planet is warming is nonsense. it does this all the time. it also cools all the time. harken back to a little thing called the maunder minimum and you'll see what happens when things cool off. the thrust of the film is completely baseless. if all of his scientific "facts" are in fact wrong, how can any of his conclusions be even close to correct? really, does ANYONE UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD???

 

no mkreku, you don't. why don't you try to show us the side view of antarctica and claim it is warming again...

No, I'm sure every real scientist in the world is wrong because of those billions of credits of statistics you read in a university (or was it one of those distance courses you can buy over the Internet?).. But feel free to find something that backs up your claim that everything that's going on right now is a natural cycle. Feel free to overwhelm us with your knowledge that only you can understand, and not mere mortals as I (who've only read 10 credits of university statistics).

 

explain how CO2 is warming the planet when the 650,000 year record that gore touts as "evidence" clearly shows that temperature ALWAYS rises before CO2 content rises? if you can actually explain this idea, keeping in mind what is known as the principle of causality, heck, why not mention the principle of causality in your "proof," i'll concede.

And this is where your understanding of the numbers end and your right wing agenda takes over. Anyone who's ever read statistics know that you will not ever find proof in the numbers, only tendencies. What does the numbers point to? Noone knows for sure. Do we have enough knowledge to make a reliable analysis? No. So why do we bother? Because we don't have 650,000 years to check if the numbers are true. With the limited science we have today we've measured that we're indeed warming the planet. If we're wrong and still try to stop it, we lose some money. Big f-ing deal. If we're right and we don't try to stop it? Do we really want to find out what happens then? Is it possible to comprehend that notion through your Fox-washed mind?

 

it's been a half hour and no response? maybe it's simply because you haven't visited (mkreku), or maybe, just maybe, because you really don't have a clue.

 

what's funny is your ONLY argument is that a) i have my opinion because i'm "right wing" and therefore i must be wrong and b) i don't think socialism can work and therefore i'm extra wrong. the sad part is that you really think these things matter (albeit both of your assertions are incorrect, duh).

Yes, because we should all sit here and watch this forum all the time so WE can PROVE stuff for you, the one person on this forum who still hasn't figured out how the LINK function works..

 

um, not sure where you have been but ozone depletion has nothing to do with GW. in fact, not only is it unconnected, but it is not related to man-made activities, either. in spite of the elimination of CFCs from the world marketplace, the "hole" continues to wax and wane as it always has.

---

sorry man, but you missed the boat yet again. first of all, consensus is meaningless. get that into your head. second of all, the "consensus" is manufactured by the media and the activists pushing for such things. it is true the planet is warming, but i also dare anyone to provide direct evidence that CO2 is causing it. this is a no-brainer.

---

why do you people really think that what gets printed in the news MUST be correct? are you that blind?

Really? Proof? Links? Reports?

---

Sure, I'll do that. Right after you've proved that it ISN'T CO2 that's causing it. Deal?

---

So you want us to believe YOU instead of news or "Forskning och Framsteg" ( http://www.fof.se/ ) or scientific reports?

 

 

 

PS. Excuse the "unorthodox" quoting mechanic I used. The board complained about too many quotes or something so I had to condense it

[Musopticon?]

none of which has any basis in the reality of what happens when the planet warms. these are highly exaggerated claims coming from a few highly motivated pseudo-scientists pushing an obvious agenda.

---

poverty is probably the key here, and limiting the ability to generate CO2, at least during our lifetimes, will only mean increased poverty.

---

edit: i should add, ultimately we will need to either a) develop fusion technology or b) come to grips with the fact that nuclear energy is really safer for the people, as well as the planet and we should adopt it as the defacto source of energy. "a" is unlikely. "b" could happen quite quickly (other than for transportation) if the damned activists would get off that hobby-horse as well. we will run out of fossil-fuels looooong before they can do any irreparable harm, and we will run out of them regardless of what measures are taken to curb their use today (which would inevitably only delay whatever impending doom the doom-mongers are wishing upon us).

Really? Which agenda? Trying to overturn the US finances for..? Are they terrorists?? SHOULD YOU BOMB THEM?!

 

 

For what it's worth, the warming right now can be attributed to both temperature fluctuation, which is natural, and pollution.

[Blarghagh]

Sure, I'll do that. Right after you've proved that it ISN'T CO2 that's causing it. Deal?

 

I don't really want to get between mkreku and taks in this argument that can only be described as an on-topic flamefest (mostly on mkreku's part, who seems to be holding a grudge because someone doesn't share his opinions), but doesn't this go against established scientific conventions about proving and disproving? I can't be bothered to look up what it actually was, as I haven't actually cared about science for years, but I believe it went something like this: "you can't prove a non-entity".

[Guard Dog]

Hmmm. Well, lets just see here. We are all intelligent people on this board (with a few exceptions) to lets outline the problem. We have a planet whose mean temperature has increased by 0.65 C since 1970. It's polar caps are melting (it has been confirmed that the largest mean change in temp is at the poles), and CO2 as a percentage in the atmosphere has increased by 2.3% since 1976. Does that sum it up? Mkreku? Meta? Nick? Gorgon? Do we all agree on these facts? OK. Now what could be causing this? Most of you would probably say humans. The Nobel Laureate has. What if I could prove to you it is not. Well, here you go:

 

It's not Earth, it's Mars: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/ful...ws070402-5.html. It's true kiddies, Mars is experiencing global warming at a rate commensurate of that on Earth. As most of you are aware (pay attention here Mkreku) there are no humans on Mars. No phones, no lights, no motorcars, as natural as can be.

 

But wait, there's more!

 

What if I told you there is a planet that has seen a 5% increase in mean temp since 1989? What if I told you that this planets atmosphere is less than 0.0000000001% CO2 but it is still warming anyway. And here is the kicker, the largest changes are happening around the poles! It's true! That planet is Neptune http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml. And by way of further proof Neptune's largest moon Triton is also warming at about the same rate as Mars, Neptune and (gasp) the Earth http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199805260...trunc_sys.shtml.

 

Still with me kids? Great. I thought most of you would be on the floor covering you eyes and ears by now. Well, there's more. It's happening to Pluto too: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plut...ing_021009.html. I might add that Pluto is heading toward it's apoapsis (that means it's getting farther away) and it is still warming up. Oh, by the way, there are no SUVs on Pluto.

 

Saturn is also getting warmer. Since 1981 it's atmosphere temp has increased by a mean of 3.1 Kelvin and it also boasts an increase of 5 degrees Kelvin at the Poles. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm Hey didn't Al Gore say the Earth is warming fastest at the poles?

 

Well, as we established. We are all reasonable and intelligent people here right? What do all these planets have in common beside the fact they are experiencing the same rate of warming as Earth. I'll give you a hint; It's not humans. I'll give you another; It's not CO2 (half of the list worlds have little to no CO2). What could it be? The SUN! Yes indeed, the all orbit the same star that has since 1971 become more active: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html and http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ys_warming.html.

 

So there we have it. The Nobel Laureate is sitting in his palatial mansion in Nashville (that consumes more energy than an entire city block: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/articl...?article_id=367) polishing his Nobel Prize, telling us WE need to shut down the factories scrap OUR cars and change all the world to a socialist/agrarian economy (and elect him to run it I'm sure). Maybe before you just nod your empty heads and agree with him you should do a little research.

 

Here endeth the lesson. I realize I have just committed a major heresy to the PC religion so many follow, so flame away if you like.

[Tale]

Do you read your own links before posting them? I only bothered checking the Pluto one, but it provides alternate theories for Pluto, including seasonal change during its 248 earth year "year." Or do you think Global Warming is blamed for temperature changes between summer and winter?

Edited October 13, 2007 by Tale

[Xard]

And from the first link

 

"The more we learn about Mars, the more intuition it gives us about Earth, but the systems are fundamentally different," he says.

[Pidesco]

If what Guard Dog is saying is true, then the planets closer to the Sun should be getting warmer by a significant degree than the planets further away from the sun. The data he gives, however doesn't seem to indicate that.

[Guard Dog]

Do you read your own links before posting them? I only bothered checking the Pluto one, but it provides alternate theories for Pluto, including seasonal change during its 248 earth year "year."

Yes I saw that. That is one theory, but a body like that increasing in temp as it heads away from the sun and doing so at a consistent rate as all of the other planets supports the theory I posted about. There was another article that was to long to post about the moons Europa, and Io, and Dione, and Encladeus and how they were heating up but there were of course alternate theories about that as well. One that I thought was intersting was how orbital changest in Encladeus resulted in it radiating more geothermal energy but then goes on to say no orbital changes had been noted withing the time Cassini arrived. With Europa and Io, it was theorized they were warming because of increasing radiation from Jupiter. But there in the last paragraph was the caveat, Jupiter is increasing it's radiation because it is receiving more from the sun.

 

The point I'm getting at here is too many of you are confusing politics with science. When they wave their hands and say "Humans are the cause (particularly American humans), the science is settled" it strikes me as the perfect marriage between arrogance and ignorance.

[Xard]

That first link also included link to this

 

Read it.

 

edit: Didn't specifically mean GD, he just hapened to post just before me

 

It is also worth noting that the Sun's radiance is measured from Earth orbit, and these records do not show it increasing over the past few decades, except with the regular rise and fall of the solar cycle. This second fact, you might think, should be enough to scupper the theory about system-wide solar warming on its own; strangely it is notably absent from accounts of the matter.

 

Personally I think climate change is fundamentally caused by natural cycle of sun/universe/yadda yadda but our deeds are exaggarating it. And that exaggaration is the threat in here.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Xard

[Calax]

I'll sell my truck and move to a cabin in the woods and live off of roots and berries as soon as Al Gore does.

He's not asking you to do that, just use solar energy and don't drive when you don't have to.

 

Also don't use pesticide

[Sand]

Personally I think climate change is fundamentally caused by natural cycle of sun/universe/yadda yadda but our deeds are exaggarating it. And that exaggaration is the threat in here.

 

That is my view as well.

[taks]

Well, as we established. We are all reasonable and intelligent people here right?

i think we all know the obvious exception.

 

btw, that's pretty strong evidence that the sun is the major player. certainly CO2 and other gasses play a part, but very minimal. the fact that temperature historically increases before CO2 certainly is strong evidence that the whole concept of cause-effect is reversed from what folks like mkreku want to believe.

 

mkreku's entire argument is, as trueneutral pointed out, "taks is right wing and disagrees with me politically therefore he must be wrong." of course, he made a few points that were worth pointing out so i'll respond in kind.

 

first of all, nearly everything i stated is either public knowledge or readily available on the wiki. to expect somebody to fill their post is a cop-out when you don't have an argument. mkreku doesn't, which is evidenced by his hypocrisy of lambasting me repeatedly for not posting links, yet failing to do the same until the very end of his post. indeed, not one of his arguments actually addressed anything i said directly, and only used some fallacious arguments in his defense.

 

next, i find it humorous that mkreku has the nerve to question my education when he has none, or very litter. kyrsten byrnes, i high school student, has enough education to understand why nearly every statement al gore made is incorrect, yet here you need references to the UK decision that there are 9 major inaccuracies? a high school student has a better grasp on science than mkreku and he is arrogant enough to question another's education? laughable.

 

also, regarding this moronic statement:

 

And this is where your understanding of the numbers end and your right wing agenda takes over. Anyone who's ever read statistics know that you will not ever find proof in the numbers, only tendencies. What does the numbers point to? Noone knows for sure. Do we have enough knowledge to make a reliable analysis? No. So why do we bother? Because we don't have 650,000 years to check if the numbers are true. With the limited science we have today we've measured that we're indeed warming the planet.

first, i'd like to find a region of "right wing" that includes atheistic, pro-choice, dead-heads that are against the death penalty because clearly YOUR ideology is lacking in something... oh yeah, intelligence.

 

anyway, my understanding of numbers is quite apparent to most other than yourself. certainly correlation is not causation, but al gore sells it as such in his movie. this is one of his biggest points. he puts up a graph and says that every time CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. he's correct, it does. however, what he fails to mention, which is one of the 9 points ruled on by the UK courts, is that temperature ALWAYS rises first. your statement that we don't have enough knowledge to make a reliable analysis fails on two points. first, YOU are making an assumption that CO2 is causing warming yet you sit here and say we don't have enough information. second, correlation does indeed imply at least some causation, like it or not. that the correlation exists over six hundred and fifty thousand freaking years is clear evidence that there is a cause-effect relationship. unfortunately for the activist world, since temperature precedes CO2 rise, that means temperature is the cause, not the effect. oops.

 

If we're wrong and still try to stop it, we lose some money. Big f-ing deal. If we're right and we don't try to stop it? Do we really want to find out what happens then? Is it possible to comprehend that notion through your Fox-washed mind?

uh, TRILLIONS of dollars, not just "some money." what if you're wrong and we wreck the economy? what then. you think socialism is gonna bail your dumb ass out then? get a clue. btw, we know what happens when the world is warmer: there are more species, more crops, more life in general. we've got hundreds of millions of years of evidence to support that.

 

as for all your responses to "many scientists," besides the obvious mcintyre and mckittrick, roger pielke sr., richard lindzen, timothy ball and a host of other well-known names, there are the 19,000 people that signed this petition. don't get me wrong, this does not make their view correct in any way. however, it does support my statements that a lot of scientists disagree. once i have my phd (yeah, mkreku, it is from a real school and quite a well known adviser, but you're just jealous that you aren't smart enough, right?), i'll be on that list.

 

If what Guard Dog is saying is true, then the planets closer to the Sun should be getting warmer by a significant degree than the planets further away from the sun. The data he gives, however doesn't seem to indicate that.

not necessarily. as noted, each planet is different. each has different mass, different albedo (sort of the reflection coefficient of sorts), different atmosphere. they will each be impacted in a drastically different manner from an input change. the one thing they all have in common, besides increasing temperatures, is the fact that their primary energy source is the sun.

 

btw, the solar irradiance is not only limited to visible light, and heat (infrared). and the solar influence correlates much better with temperature than CO2 does. we all know that CO2 has risen fairly steadily since the early 1900s, yet somehow, the global temperature went DOWN (check GISS if you're so concerned einstein) from the mid 30s to the mid 70s. if CO2 is the cause, why the hell did temperature go down? oh, i know, because that's the only thing that fits your simple view of the world.

 

taks

[taks]

Personally I think climate change is fundamentally caused by natural cycle of sun/universe/yadda yadda but our deeds are exaggarating it. And that exaggaration is the threat in here.

 

That is my view as well.

that's actually _mostly_ my view as well. i understand complex feedback systems well enough, however, to know that there's no such thing as the tipping point the alarmists are warning of, at least not given the current state of affairs on the earth. if our steady increase in CO2 was dangerous, temperatures would be climbing exponentially due to the instability of the system (there's no way for me to explain to you why that is... GD might recall from his control theory classwork, however - put a pole in the right half of the s-plane GD, hehe).

 

the "exaggeration" is there, and our presence is impacting the general climate. las vegas and phoenix both generate their own weather, btw (if you want a link mkreku, just visit the freaking place or ask someone that has), and cities are most certainly warmer than surrounding lands due to the massive amounts of concrete in them, which holds heat. but CO2, sitting at 380 ppmv, which is 0.038% of the atmosphere by particle (about 0.03% by mass as i recall), is not impacting anything significantly.

 

oh, btw, check the latest satellite data for a laugh. the global temp has shown a slight declining trend since 1998.

 

taks

[Qwerty the Sir]

I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy

i'm curious how your simple mind can come to the conclusion that this has anything to do with "right wing"???

what i have that you don't is extensive training in statistics, statistical data analysis methods and above all, i understand logic. something that apparently fails you.

 

I would like to know exactly where mkreku logic failed him (in fact, I saw no appeal to any kind of logic except in the very basic structuring of his argument and semantic).

 

Also, I seem to recall you saying in another thread that a tautology is a logical fallacy. As that is quite an error, I would hesitate (if I were you) to accuse others of not understanding logic.

[Hildegard]

What do you mean if he runs for president? "

 

During the Regan administration Bush senior ran the show, then he became president, then Clinton was president, now current Bush is president and now Hillary will be elected...a then they say the US doesn't have an aristocracy and laugh at us Europeans but they have two families that together run the country for 28 years and soon more...lol

 

sorry for being off topic:P

[taks]

I would like to know exactly where mkreku logic failed him (in fact, I saw no appeal to any kind of logic except in the very basic structuring of his argument and semantic).

oh, my, gawd. yet another.

ok, he said i'm wrong because i'm right wing. poisoning the well. of course, i've lobbed some insults myself (though i never said he was wrong because he's an idiot, just an idiot), so i can give him a pass on the ad-hominem. however, it is also a red-herring since my political views, views that he apparently does not understand, are immaterial to the discussion.

 

he also said "why don't you prove CO2 is NOT the cause." that's what is called a strawman. i never said CO2 had NO impact, merely that it is not the primary impact. the hypothesis i'm attempting to falsify is that CO2 is the primary forcer, period. moving the goalposts to what amounts to proving a negative (as trueneutral correctly points out) is a strawman, period.

 

he also makes an appeal to consequences, i.e. "what if we're wrong?" that's 4 but i credit him on 1 so only 3. oops, this actually counts as two because it is also an appeal to fear, yet another red herring, so that's 4.

 

oh yeah, "prove that CO2 is not the cause" is also an argument ad ignorantium, and argument from ignorance. plus one more, makes 5. i could also call this a bifurcation, the black and white fallacy, because it's not as simple as CO2 is or is not a cause of global warming. certainly it has some impact, so it is not "either all or nothing." but i'll leave that be since it is subtle.

 

the fact that folks like mkreku and others believe in consensus is an appeal to the many, i.e. the bandwagon fallacy. up to 6.

 

i've gotten through C, shall i continue, or are you convinced of your own ignorance yet?

 

Also, I seem to recall you saying in another thread that a tautology is a logical fallacy. As that is quite an error, I would hesitate (if I were you) to accuse others of not understanding logic.

um, do you know what a tautology is? "A truth-functionally compound proposition which is true for every possible combination of truth-values of its components." not sure how you can get a tautology out of anything here, and i've clearly exposed his logical failures. yours included.

 

thanks for trying, however. it wasn't all that fun since you guys are so easy to pick apart.

 

taks

Edited October 14, 2007 by taks

[Qwerty the Sir]

I would like to know exactly where mkreku logic failed him (in fact, I saw no appeal to any kind of logic except in the very basic structuring of his argument and semantic).

oh, my, gawd. yet another.

ok, he said i'm wrong because i'm right wing. poisoning the well. of course, i've lobbed some insults myself (though i never said he was wrong because he's an idiot, just an idiot), so i can give him a pass on the ad-hominem. however, it is also a red-herring since my political views, views that he apparently does not understand, are immaterial to the discussion.

 

he also said "why don't you prove CO2 is NOT the cause." that's what is called a strawman. i never said CO2 had NO impact, merely that it is not the primary impact. the hypothesis i'm attempting to falsify is that CO2 is the primary forcer, period. moving the goalposts to what amounts to proving a negative (as trueneutral correctly points out) is a strawman, period.

 

he also makes an appeal to consequences, i.e. "what if we're wrong?" that's 4 but i credit him on 1 so only 3. oops, this actually counts as two because it is also an appeal to fear, yet another red herring, so that's 4.

 

oh yeah, "prove that CO2 is not the cause" is also an argument ad ignorantium, and argument from ignorance. plus one more, makes 5. i could also call this a bifurcation, the black and white fallacy, because it's not as simple as CO2 is or is not a cause of global warming. certainly it has some impact, so it is not "either all or nothing." but i'll leave that be since it is subtle.

 

the fact that folks like mkreku and others believe in consensus is an appeal to the many, i.e. the bandwagon fallacy. up to 6.

 

i've gotten through C, shall i continue, or are you convinced of your own ignorance yet?

 

Yawn. Yet another internet debater blurring the lines between dialectics and logics, throwing out a laundry list of fallacies (that have nothing to do with logic) and smugly hitting enter...

 

I don't know why you brought up the other statements and arguments of mkreku, when I was merely bringing up his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" (there's a reason I left it quoted when I replied to your post), which has nothing to do with logic in any meaningful sense.

 

If you really are intent or pursuing your misguided assertion that it is, please formalize his statement and show me.

 

Of course, you just went for the rhetorical ploy of calling out your interlocutor's understanding of logic to support your own position. How boring.

 

Also, I seem to recall you saying in another thread that a tautology is a logical fallacy. As that is quite an error, I would hesitate (if I were you) to accuse others of not understanding logic.

 

um, do you know what a tautology is? "A truth-functionally compound proposition which is true for every possible combination of truth-values of its components." not sure how you can get a tautology out of anything here, and i've clearly exposed his logical failures. yours included.

 

Kinda dodging my question there taks, I know what a tautology is, however, given your statement here (as compared with one from the past), you seem to be ambivalent in your understanding of it.

 

I seem to remember this statement of yours a while back:

 

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry790019

 

A Vacuous truth i believe. That is a logical fallacy. Right?

yeah, a bit of a circular argument, or a tautology.

 

taks

 

So I'll ask you again, why do you (or did you) think a tautology is a logical fallacy (I'll spare you on your mistaking a circular argument for a logically fallacy for now)?

 

Thanks for "exposing" my "logical failures", however, I think I'm still "convinced of my own ignorance" so please do continue.

[taks]

Yawn. Yet another internet debater blurring the lines between dialectics and logics, throwing out a laundry list of fallacies (that have nothing to do with logic) and smugly hitting enter...

i said he did not understand logic, which he does not. his argument was nothing but logical fallacy. that you choose not to understand is no surprise.

 

I don't know why you brought up the other statements and arguments of mkreku, when I was merely bringing up his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" (there's a reason I left it quoted when I replied to your post), which has nothing to do with logic in any meaningful sense.

um, i was merely responding to mkreku's lack of understanding of logic, something i've seen over and over for the past several years. there was no particular reference to that specific comment, which was quoted only because i replied to his comment. that particular statement, actually, the one you "specifically quoted" was two logical fallacies in one to boot.

 

If you really are intent or pursuing your misguided assertion that it is, please formalize his statement and show me.

"i love it when taks gets going on his right wing nonsense" argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association. duh.

 

Of course, you just went for the rhetorical ploy of calling out your interlocutor's understanding of logic to support your own position. How boring.

no, mkreku is a proven dolt. i like to pick on him, i admit, but nowhere has he made a single logical argument.

 

Kinda dodging my question there taks, I know what a tautology is, however, given your statement here (as compared with one from the past), you seem to be ambivalent in your understanding of it.

 

<snip>

 

So I'll ask you again, why do you (or did you) think a tautology is a logical fallacy (I'll spare you on your mistaking a circular argument for a logically fallacy for now)?

hate to tell you but a circular argument is a logical fallacy. i'll spare you for being not only ignorant but an ass as well.

 

also, if you read carefully, i did not say that a circular argument is a tautology, i said that what withteeth was referring to was a circular argument OR a tautology, though they are related. you understand what a tautology is, yet not grammar. good deal.

 

Thanks for "exposing" my "logical failures", however, I think I'm still "convinced of my own ignorance" so please do continue.

given that you failed to understand either point, or why i was criticizing mkreku's logical debate ability, i'm not surprised.

 

taks

[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?

Edited October 14, 2007 by taks

[Qwerty the Sir]

i said he did not understand logic, which he does not. his argument was nothing but logical fallacy. that you choose not to understand is no surprise.

 

Well, I say that you do not understand logic, which you do not.

 

See how easy this is (and I have a stronger case as you have not been able to provide any symbolic formalization of his so called "logical failure" nor did you grasp that a tautology is not a logical fallacy.

 

His argument is not a logical fallacy in any sense, because he did not even make an argument with that statement (see below).

 

um, i was merely responding to mkreku's lack of understanding of logic, something i've seen over and over for the past several years. there was no particular reference to that specific comment, which was quoted only because i replied to his comment. that particular statement, actually, the one you "specifically quoted" was two logical fallacies in one to boot.

 

Makes a bit more sense if you meant his previous statements (quoting that one particular line before making your statement sure doesn't help clarity, but another rhetorical ploy is obfuscation, and I wouldn't put you above using it), although I'm still surprised you continue to push that his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" as a logical fallacy (see below).

 

"i love it when taks gets going on his right wing nonsense" argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association. duh.

 

Ah, finally, the moment of truth!

 

So, this is your "formalization" of his statement? What you have done is copy is statement and put the Latin name of a dialectical "fallacy" next to it, specifying it's form in an English translation.

 

Now I am fairly certain you don't understand logic. You see, I was hoping that you would symbolically represent his statement as a set of propositions or predicates and then examine the form using the rules of deductive inference and show where the failure occurs. That is what formalization of an argument means in logic, and you should have known that if you were at all familiar with logic.

 

Now, let me show you quite clearly, how his statement of "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" simply cannot be called a logical fallacy.

 

The statement: "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" is not a preposition. We cannot analyze it with propositional logic.

 

The statement: "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" is not a predicate. We cannot analyze it with first (or greater) order logic.

 

What is the statement "I love it when taks gets going with his right wing nonsense! Pure comedy" then? It is an expression of an opinion, or a similar rhetorical phrase. Logic is not applied to it at all, as it falls outside the domain of logic.

 

I have continued to point this out, that I saw no appeal to logic in this statement. You continue to assert that some logical failure occurred.

 

Now that I have actually given you a hint on how you should go about trying to justify your assertion, please do so or drop you assertion and man up that you really had no idea what the hell you were talking about.

 

no, mkreku is a proven dolt. i like to pick on him, i admit, but nowhere has he made a single logical argument.

 

He's a proven dolt and has made a single logical argument. Interesting propositions, though hard for me to believe either (how the hell do you prove someone is a dolt for one, and claiming that he has not made a single "logical" [though I'm not sure of what to make of your conception of logical] argument is certainly the generalization). Of course, more likely than not, they are not propositions at all, rather they are more rhetorical ploys. How boring.

 

hate to tell you but a circular argument is a logical fallacy. i'll spare you for being not only ignorant but an ass as well.

 

Wonderful, you give me a link to fallacy files and smugly hit enter (after dropping some more rhetorical invective), thinking your job is done.

 

Sad to say it isn't. I will formalize a circular argument right now and show you:

 

1) A

2) B > C

C) Therefore A

 

The argument is perfectly deductively valid. By virtue of it's form, it is guaranteed that the conclusion is true if the premises are due to the nature of the deductive inference from 1 to C. There is no way that it would ever be considered a logical fallacy. Then again, you have shown that you do not have a clear understanding of logic at all, and blur the lines between dialectical fallacies and logic commonly. It's not surprising you would make such a mistake.

 

also, if you read carefully, i did not say that a circular argument is a tautology, i said that what withteeth was referring to was a circular argument OR a tautology, though they are related. you understand what a tautology is, yet not grammar. good deal.

 

I sure may have made a mistake in interpretation, and given the structure of dialogue:

 

"...a logical fallacy right?"

 

"yeah..."

 

I think it's quite understandable that I interpreted that statement the way I did.

 

Now, I want to point out another interesting proposition of yours: Did you say that a circular argument and a tautology are related?

 

If so, you really seem to confused with the rubric of logic. Boy, no wonder the discussion head this way.

 

Also, you seem to be saying I don't understand grammar. Please show me how ambiguities in the English language are related to grammar, and the grammatical rule that a statement with the form given above can only be interpreted in one way.

[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