Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize

[Qwerty the Sir]

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.

 

Boy, a "strawman". How the hell is pointing out that you don't have a clear understanding of logic by bringing up a past quote which demonstrates that you have a hazy idea of tautologies a strawman?

 

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.

 

It has relevance as you (wrongly) disparage another member of this forum for not understanding logic when you don't understand it yourself.

 

Now, am I reading you correctly? You accuse me of "poisoning the well" by bringing up past comments about your poor understanding of logic while doing the exact same thing with mkreku? Hypocrisy!

 

In fact, what the hell did his understanding of logic have to do with his statement in the first place? Nothing. It was just a rhetorical ploy used by you to demean him and his posts. You are guilty of the dialectical fallacies of which you accuse others.

 

anyone else care to defend the indefensible?

 

Nah, you're on your own on that.

[Qwerty the Sir]

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

 

Excellent diversion by putting out ([even] more) insults. Are you actually going to reply to my rebuttal post tough guy?

 

You have an uncanny talent for figuring out exactly the cause for an event, I must say.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that I enjoy reading these current even threads once in awhile, especially about science and society (the relationship between the two happens to be one of my interests) and the fact that your avatar is quite easy to remember and the fact that this board's search engine is quite convenient.

 

I was just sitting on that statement for 3 months now, you got me good ace!

[taks]

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

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

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.

 

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).

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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...

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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

[taks]

Boy, a "strawman". How the hell is pointing out that you don't have a clear understanding of logic by bringing up a past quote which demonstrates that you have a hazy idea of tautologies a strawman?

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.

 

It has relevance as you (wrongly) disparage another member of this forum for not understanding logic when you don't understand it yourself.

we could do this all day, but you are incorrect.

 

Now, am I reading you correctly? You accuse me of "poisoning the well" by bringing up past comments about your poor understanding of logic while doing the exact same thing with mkreku? Hypocrisy!

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.

 

In fact, what the hell did his understanding of logic have to do with his statement in the first place? Nothing. It was just a rhetorical ploy used by you to demean him and his posts. You are guilty of the dialectical fallacies of which you accuse others.

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...

 

Nah, you're on your own on that.

and if you're my competition, i'm sorry for you, but you're outgunned.

 

taks

[Qwerty the Sir]

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.

 

You need to study logic in a more formal setting buddy. Internet websites made for internet debating are not going to cut it I'm afraid. Equivocating logic and dialectics is your major problem in this discussion. Neither a circular argument nor a tautology can be "fallacious" in the rubric of logic (especially a tautology... you do know that basic deductive inferences like modus ponens or resolution are derived from tautologies).

 

Strike one...

 

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.

 

If you are speaking of the domination laws where a proposition or a tautology are paired and the paired proposition is thus true, then you are sadly mistaken that it is a fallacy. Any type of proposition in this form is going to be deductively valid and indeed true, due to the nature of a tautology and the 'or' operator's truth values.

 

Strike two...

 

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.

 

You did say that that particular statement was logically fallacious (in fact you said there were two logical fallacies in it) and you just reaffirmed here again. You need to stop telling others that they cant read or comprehend and be more accountable of what you actually say.

 

If you don't remember where you said it, I'll post the link of the post:

 

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807226

 

(it's in the second paragraph)

 

Your killing yourself here taks...

 

Strike three...

 

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.

 

oooh! oooh! I knew even you couldn't be so hard headed as to not change your position at all after it had been put down.

 

The amended stance begins.

 

They are now "informal fallacies" and not logical fallacies per se?

 

Excellent, now all that's needed to be done is to make the point that:

 

Informal fallacies have nothing to do with logic, they have to do with dialectic; they have to do with debate!

 

From one of the journal articles I have on the topic of logic:

 

Informal logic is sometimes presented as a theoretical alternative to formal logic. This kind of characterization may reflect early battles in philosophy departments which debated, sometimes with acrimony, whether informal logic should be considered "real" logic.

 

Indeed, the case that it is not "real logic" is very strong.

 

One of the main problems separating it from logic? Fallacies vs. actual evaluation of the form of the argument (logic is concerned with form; rhetoric is concerned with fallacies).

 

Work in informal logic does not favour a systematic attempt to assess the strength and properties of good deductive, inductive, conductive, etc. arguments. Instead, it favours fallacies as a tool in the analysis of informal reasoning. According to traditional accounts, a fallacy is a pattern of poor reasoning which appears to be (and in this sense mimics) a pattern of good reasoning (see Hansen [2002]). Such accounts are problematic, especially because it is difficult to identify when poor reasoning "appears" to be good. What "appears good" to one person may not appear so to another. In assessing ordinary arguments, most contemporary commentators avoid such issues by understanding fallacies more simply, as common patterns of poor reasoning which can usefully be identified in the evaluation of informal reasoning.

 

In its treatment of fallacies, informal logic has revived a tradition which can be traced to Aristotle. In the history of logic and philosophy, the significance of the fallacy tradition is reflected in the writings of figures as important as Locke, Whately, and Mill. Today, this tradition manifests itself in textbooks and websites which attempt to teach good informal reasoning by teaching students how to detect the standard fallacies.

 

Theoretical discussions of fallacies have failed to produce an agreed upon taxonomy of fallacies, but the set of fallacies discussed in informal logic contexts typically includes formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent; and informal fallacies like ad hominem ("against the person"), slippery slope, "ad bacculum" ("appeal to force"), "ad misericordiam" ("appeal to pity"), "hasty generalization," and "two wrongs" (from "two wrongs make a right"). Some textbook authors use nomenclature designed to highlight the properties of particular kinds of fallacious arguments ("misleading vividness" designates vivid anecdotal evidence used as the basis of hasty generalizations, and so on.)

 

In the research literature, Woods and Walton have discussed the definition, analysis and assessment of a variety of fallacies in a series of articles and books, first as co-authors and then individually (see, e.g., Woods and Walton [1989]; Walton [1989]; Woods [1995]; Walton [1992; Walton [2000]). In a major contribution to argumentation theory, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst [1992] proposed a "pragma-dialectical" theory of fallacies which analyses fallacies as violations of the rules of critical discussion (discussion which aims to critically resolve a difference of opinion). A good representative collection of classical and contemporary essays on the fallacies is found in Hansen and Pinto [1995].

 

Some research in informal logic continues to focus on fallacies, and on the appropriate understanding of particular fallacies, but the field has evolved in different directions which place less emphasis on this kind of research. In some cases this has been because work on fallacies has led the way to other kinds of concerns. Informal logicians influenced by communication theory have, for example, construed fallacies as deviations from the implicit rules that govern various kinds of dialogical exchange, an approach which has ultimately made the study of these implicit rules, not fallacies, the basis of their account of argument.

 

In other contexts, fallacy theory has been criticized both because traditional fallacies are imprecise tools for understanding argument, and because a focus on them inevitably emphasizes poor reasoning rather than good argument. Hitch**** ([1995], 324) has suggested that the claim that we should teach good reasoning by fallacies is "like saying that the best way to teach somebody to play tennis without making the common mistakes … is to demonstrate these faults in action and get him to label and respond to them."

 

The problems with fallacy theory have been compounded by research which has identified many instances of traditional fallacies which appear to be reasonable patterns of inference in day to day contexts of argument.

 

Bolded emphasis mine (the most important snippet to this discussion, as the mistake you make is blurring logic with dialectic, and accuse people wrongly of "fallacies" which can be argued to be very reasonable), not to mention perfectly valid in the domain of logic.

 

Bottom line, any of these dialectal fallacies (or "informal" if you'd like) are really weak. Accusing someone of a dialectical fallacy does very little to damage his argument and it certainly doesn't affect the logicality of it.

 

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...

 

I want you to take a look at what you have said taks: "ad-hominem is not a symbolically representable fallacy"

 

Hmm, I wonder why? Now, in logic (which has to do with form), symbolic representation is key, because, hey, from symbolic representation you get the form and can evaluate with the deductive inferences as necessary.

 

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.

 

I saw it as a little jab at you. You know, like you calling me an ass or ignorant. A rhetorical ploy of which you are the master. You MISREAD it taks... tsk tsk.

 

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.

 

So taks, are you saying a false premise is a fallacy in logic?

 

If so, you are completely incorrect. Fallacy has to do with form, not truth value. The logical fallacy (first mention of a fallacy that is actually a logical fallacy dealing with logic in this thread) affirming the consequent is fallacious, not because a premise is false, but rather because there is no valid deductive inference present. Anyone with a rudimentry understanding of logic would know this.

 

What strike are we on?

 

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.

 

See above.

 

That's not a strawman taks. Do you need a lecture on dialectal fallacies as well?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Qwerty the Sir]

Just a note taks, I'm not going to bother responding to your insults anymore, and stay on the topic at hand.

 

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.

 

Wrong dialectal "fallacy".

 

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...

 

The tautology and circular reasoning stuff was done in the previous post.

[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.

Edited October 14, 2007 by taks

[Tale]

No, mine's bigger!

[Shryke]

nah uh, mine is!

[Qwerty the Sir]

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.

 

You haven't shown why it's a logical fallacy taks. You've just said that is.

 

Your link on fallacy files tries to to the job a little better. It of course, must make the distinction that circularity is an "informal fallacy". That's one clue that we're getting away from logic (read the excerpt from the journal article on the differences). It then goes on to say that circularity is validating.

 

This leads us to a dilemma taks. When we talk of fallacies in logic, we speak of argument forms that are invalid (like affirming the consequent). A fallacy in logic has to do with validity. Now, circularity is clearly valid. How then is it a fallacy?

 

The fallacy files link then goes on to describe some pragmatic dialectical reasons of why circularity is bad ("it becomes too easy to prove anything", "no new information can be gained") but in doing this, it clearly moves away from a fallacy as understood in logic.

 

Circularity cannot be considered a logical fallacy, and even its case as a dialectical fallacy is shaky (see Robinson's Begging the Question [1971]).

 

On tautologies, your case is even weaker, as none of the common internet "fallacy" sites list it as a fallacy. The fact is that a tautology is a logical truth, and logic itself is built on tautologies. The law of the excluded middle is a tautology, modus ponens is a tautology, etc... Heck, a tautology in rhetoric is just redundancy, and not at all a fallacy in that domain, much less in logic's domain.

 

On your "strawman", a misread is not a strawman. Neither is it a grammatical error.

 

I was charitable and dropped my claim that you thought a tautology was a logical fallacy (though you later on did say that a tautology in some cases was a fallacy, dealt with above). I called you out on your other errors with respect to logic (not being able to symbolize what you claimed was a fallacy, equivocating dialectical fallacies with logic, calling circularity and tautologies related).

 

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.

 

You could care less about dialectical, formal, or informal and the distinctions of them in relation to logic and yet I don't understand the subtleties?

 

My man, much of my point is clarifying the subtleties. Look at my posts. I've been distancing your fallacy claims from logic from the start.

 

I'll tell you something taks, the reason I called you out is because I absolutely can't stand when someone says something to the effect of "you're illogical" while not relating it all to logic and while not understanding what logic is. You're not the only one to do it though, and I suppose that part of the problem is the semantics, with 'fallacy' and 'informal logic' and what not...

 

What is the rest of this though? More attacks on mkreku combined with some sort of apologia for your insults? Don't worry taks, my feelings aren't hurt at all (I'm just not that thinned skinned to get upset over being called an ass or stupid or whatever, especially over the internet).

[Calax]

>.> Gore won the prize HORRAY! (not that I saw the movie mind you, just know the basis and like it.)

[kirottu]

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

 

Global dimming might explaing few things.

[Xard]

Stop this faggotry you two!

 

This thread is about Global Warming, NOT LOGIC

 

Make own topic for it, geez. Or just continue in previous one, whatever it was.( You did kill it quite effectively back then... ) I just wasted 20 something minutes reading bunch of posts that didn't have anything to do with topic's subject.

 

Besides, my lulz-o-meter didn't move one inch. Tsk.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Xard

[mkreku]

But it's quite funny that taks doesn't even understand such a simple thing as the meaning of the word "logic". Hahaha!

 

It's like watching a child using words way above his level of comprehension and then blame everybody else for "not understanding" when someone corrects him. Go taks!

 

Lke I said earlier, it's pointless trying to discuss this seriously with people like taks. I've tried before but it's like trying to play chess with someone who can't understand anything but American football. So my contribution to this thread is probably non-existent but it's still funny to watch him squirm

[Gorth]

Lets try this once...

 

Subject title is: Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize.

 

Not "mutual head bashing" gentlemen, thats for behind closed doors at institutions of higher learning and certain countries parliamentary debates

[Guard Dog]

Here is some interesting reading:

 

Excerpt:

Gore gets a cold shoulder

 

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

 

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

 

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

 

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

 

Link to the rest:http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gor...1696238792.html

 

Dr Gray does not advocate the same theory I do, but once again this files in the face of the slogan spouting "Consensus formed" and "The science is settled" crowd that make up Gore's disciples.

[Calax]

Here is some interesting reading:

 

Excerpt:

Gore gets a cold shoulder

 

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

 

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

 

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honored Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

 

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

 

Link to the rest:http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gor...1696238792.html

 

Dr Gray does not advocate the same theory I do, but once again this files in the face of the slogan spouting "Consensus formed" and "The science is settled" crowd that make up Gore's disciples.

I don't think it files in the face of anything. Right now global warming is a minor unknown so half of what you believe takes an act of faith / belief to keep up with it. I've seen scientists who proclaim both things and while some are wrong off the bat (usually they get ostracized) others have proper points.

[Pidesco]

It's a fact that no one really knows for sure whether recent global warming is a consequence of human action or not. However, there are two things that seem to be true. The first is that there seem to be a lot more scientists that think human pollution is the cause of global warming than the other way around (no, I don't have any hard data to corroborate this, so don't ask for it). Second, given that no one is actually sure about it, it seems the smart thing would be to play it safe, especially, when there's other excellent reasons reduce CO2 emissions like, say, for example breathing or oil depletion.

 

As such, this whole argument seems to be beside the point.

[Guard Dog]

The first is that there seem to be a lot more scientists that think human pollution is the cause of global warming than the other way around

 

I'm not so sure about that one. I'm thinking the ones who do follow the Gore mantra get more press because by and large the press wants it to be true because it fits their political agenda. By and large that is. The press of the world is not solely left leaning but the majority of it is.

 

As far a cutting carbon emissions, thats easy, replace coal burning electric plants with Nuclear plants. Easy, and much much more enviormentally friendly. But no the envoirmentalist leftists don't want to hear that either.

 

Science and politics make as poor a mix as religion and politics.

[Pidesco]

The first is that there seem to be a lot more scientists that think human pollution is the cause of global warming than the other way around

 

I'm not so sure about that one. I'm thinking the ones who do follow the Gore mantra get more press because by and large the press wants it to be true because it fits their political agenda. By and large that is. The press of the world is not solely left leaning but the majority of it is.

 

As far a cutting carbon emissions, thats easy, replace coal burning electric plants with Nuclear plants. Easy, and much much more enviormentally friendly. But no the envoirmentalist leftists don't want to hear that either.

 

Science and politics make as poor a mix as religion and politics.

 

The Gore mantra? It's not like Gore invented global warming. A long time before Gore ever picked up the issue, everybody and their mothers were already talking about it, at least here in Europe.

 

 

As for carbon emissions, one thing that could also be done, would be for Americans to stop making and using cars so incredibly uneconomical, compared to European and Japanese cars. The average mpg of American cars is ridiculous and pointless.

[Guard Dog]

The Gore mantra? It's not like Gore invented global warming. A long time before Gore ever picked up the issue, everybody and their mothers were already talking about it, at least here in Europe.

 

 

As for carbon emissions, one thing that could also be done, would be for Americans to stop making and using cars so incredibly uneconomical, compared to European and Japanese cars. The average mpg of American cars is ridiculous and pointless.

That is true. Global warming became a hot button issue in scientific communities about 15 years ago. Al Gore is only using it to give himself an issue to stand on. I remember the first major news article about global warming I read was in 1991. That was right about the time the chicken littles of the world realized the dire warnings about "Global Cooling" from the 1970's were bunk. Oh yes, here is a link to one of the thousands of dire warning about how humans were causing global cooling. The part I like is about how the glaciers would cover North America and Europe by the late 1990's and they seriously discussed ways to melt the polar caps to stave off an ice age. For you reading enjoyment: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm and http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp.

 

As for you second point that is a fair argument. But I would point out there are a large number of VERY fuel efficient models of cars and light trucks for sale here. But they do not sell well because they are very expensive and not very durable. The government cannot compel a company to sell certain models, or not not sell others here. Just as they cannot compel me to buy them. But they can reward me for doing so. And they do. If you buy a fuel efficient car you get a nice tax break.

 

I will tell you right out, I drive a Mercury Mountaineer. It is not terribly fuel efficient but I have a lot of dogs and I need a truck that can carry as many as possible at one time if needs be. The little electric hybrids will not do that.

[taks]

It's a fact that no one really knows for sure whether recent global warming is a consequence of human action or not.

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).

 

However, there are two things that seem to be true. The first is that there seem to be a lot more scientists that think human pollution is the cause of global warming than the other way around (no, I don't have any hard data to corroborate this, so don't ask for it).

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.

 

Second, given that no one is actually sure about it, it seems the smart thing would be to play it safe, especially, when there's other excellent reasons reduce CO2 emissions like, say, for example breathing or oil depletion.

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

Edited October 14, 2007 by taks

[taks]

Dr Gray does not advocate the same theory I do, but once again this files in the face of the slogan spouting "Consensus formed" and "The science is settled" crowd that make up Gore's disciples.

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

[Pidesco]

Ha ha! I remember that.

 

Regarding fuel efficiency, if someone needs a bigger car, they should buy one, no problem there. What annoys me are the people who have no need for bigger cars and still drive around in the city in their big SUVs. Incidentally, if you disregard hybrids, European and Japanese car models are still more economic than American models. This seems to be mostly a cultural difference between the US and the rest of the developed world.

 

A diesel Golf TDI, for example is a durable, and relatively fuel efficient car. It's more expensive, but its gas usage mitigates that. Check this out:

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16708.shtml

 

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=186

 

It's just silly.

[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