Al Gore get the Nobel Peace prize

[taks]

actually I was saying you were putting words in my mouth or rather giving my words a more.... Religious(?) overtone than I had placed upon them.

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

[Qwerty the Sir]

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.

 

Oh noes taks, did my little comment on your previous behavior hit a nerve? You used that phrase "intellectually dishonest" again, I see. Great. In fact, if take a closer look, you'd see that I'm mimicking your style of response as seen here:

 

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807235

 

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.

 

I wasn't going to dispute (a) at all. If you must know my opinion on the global warming issue; firstly, I do believe it is overinflated greatly, and second I don't think science should influence public policy in any major way, so the Gore point is moot.

 

However, correlation never implies causality and even very strong correlations suggesting some sort causality is a very tricky point that is hotly debated (you with your supposed background in statistics must know of the problems with the problems of applying Bayesian analysis and probability values to events with a correlation as the basis on which the casual link is supposed to be infered (either through a logical necessity [not happening] or through a empirical verification of a casual nexus [problematic, as we only see events in succession and never actually perceive any casual nexus between them; the casual link is formed through our minds]).

 

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.

 

I believe I already responded to this long ago.

 

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=807243

 

(You did say a tautology was a fallacy and that his posts had logical fallacies explicitly later on. That you want to be evasive and hide behind the ambiguity of your first post (which doesn't matter as you quite explicitly affirmed the points I assumed from your first post) is intellectual dishonesty.)

 

it is, yet here you continue your ridiculous dishonesty. what a joker.

 

Excellent reply. Simply devastating in it's cogency...

Edited October 15, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Gorth]

One of my favourite parts of the forum guidelines:

 

In general, our guidelines are based on the fundamentals of common sense, respect and tolerance.

 

It seems like this topic has outlived it's intention and through the heated debate of posters rather than ideas add to the global average temperature. Sad attempt at witty closing remark, I know :sad: