Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

[SavageEagle]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Thank you!

 

[dburkhead]

Thank you!

Inconceivable!

 

[dross]

This thread should win an award for a most excellent derailment.

 

[printcraft]

"No more rhyming now I mean it." "Anybody want a peanut?"

 

[dburkhead]

This thread should win an award for a most excellent derailment.

As you wish.

 

[CarmelHP]

Hello. My name is Íñigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

[dburkhead]

To the pain!

 

[SavageEagle]

To the pain!

 

[dross]

To the pain!

Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

[dross]

Hello. My name is Íñigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Stop SAYING that!

 

[dburkhead]

Are you just funnin' or are you really unfamiliar with that epitome of cinematic art "The Princess Bride."

If the latter then get a copy and watch it. Really.

 

[bigus_D]

it could be that fire swamp that is causing all this global warming.

I'm just sayin...

 

[5.56'aholic]

WHY??? Do you have some scientific evidence to the contrary?

To think the natural byproduct of respiration is a major contributor to global warming means that life itself is the cause of global warming, not man. Think about the argument before saying man is the cause. It's like saying the sky is blue because man exists on earth. Just because things seem to be related on a graph doen't mean they are correlated.

 

[dburkhead]

To think the natural byproduct of respiration is a major contributor to global warming means that life itself is the cause of global warming, not man. Think about the argument before saying man is the cause. It's like saying the sky is blue because man exists on earth. Just because things seem to be related on a graph doen't mean they are correlated.

Well, actually it does. That's what "correlation" means--how well the "motions" of two graphs match. What it does not mean is that there is necessarily a causal link--and it especially does not mean that there necessarily is a direct causal link (one causes the other).

Correlation is not causation.

 

[rambone]

 

[SavageEagle]

I'll come in AFTER the polar bear thank you very much...

 

[cbop]

Well, I have read this whole thing and while I did enter in with a bias, I am always ready and willing to listen (or read) with an open mind. I am not incapable of being swayed by a logical, well presented contrary opinion when it is set before me. That being said, I am sorry Bigus_d, you did not win this one. Dburkhead presented his side with dignity, precision and unemotional clarity and I did not find your contentions to overwhelm his points.

Quite frankly, you lost me with the cut and paste of 100 points. I tend to feel that surgical precision is much more damaging in a debate than indiscriminate carpet bombing. To expect someone to counter each and every point, one by one while you spend the time loading up your clipboard with more was an attempt to put your opponent on the defense, debunking each with a personal reply while you take the lazy way out, using other's words. Shame on you.

Mr. Burkhead, I thank & applaud you for your demeanor in this and the effort taken. It was played well....

 

[5.56'aholic]

Well, actually it does. That's what "correlation" means--how well the "motions" of two graphs match. What it does not mean is that there is necessarily a causal link--and it especially does not mean that there necessarily is a direct causal link (one causes the other).

Correlation is not causation.

That is what i mean, thank you for clarifying

 

[bigus_D]

Well, I have read this whole thing and while I did enter in with a bias, I am always ready and willing to listen (or read) with an open mind. I am not incapable of being swayed by a logical, well presented contrary opinion when it is set before me. That being said, I am sorry Bigus_d, you did not win this one. Dburkhead presented his side with dignity, precision and unemotional clarity and I did not find your contentions to overwhelm his points.

Quite frankly, you lost me with the cut and paste of 100 points. I tend to feel that surgical precision is much more damaging in a debate than indiscriminate carpet bombing. To expect someone to counter each and every point, one by one while you spend the time loading up your clipboard with more was an attempt to put your opponent on the defense, debunking each with a personal reply while you take the lazy way out, using other's words. Shame on you.

Mr. Burkhead, I thank & applaud you for your demeanor in this and the effort taken. It was played well....

I would like to see a SINGLE one of the 100 points successfully disputed. As there is no science available to dispute any of these facts, this will not happen. Don't be confused by his long winded posts... they do not address the facts, containing misleading information, and are clearly distractions from the truth. While he is quick to throw out the "straw man" argument, this is a red herring.

Thanks for your input, however. Entertaining!

 

[dross]

I would like to see a SINGLE one of the 100 points successfully disputed. As there is no science available to dispute any of these facts, this will not happen. Don't be confused by his long winded posts... they do not address the facts, containing misleading information, and are clearly distractions from the truth. While he is quick to throw out the "straw man" argument, this is a red herring.

Thanks for your input, however. Entertaining!

Your 100 points were no more than 100 assertions, without evidence to back them.

In an argument, if you make an assertion, it's your job to back up the assertion. Whether science, or by the rules of logic/philosophy, and unsupported assertion may be summarily dismissed with another unsupported assertion.

Choose one of those, find your evidence (not more assertions) and go to town on that one.

Also, I challenge that you are a "scientist" as you've claimed. Respectully, you don't argue like someone trained in science, or for that matter, any field that requires intellectual discipline as a required quality. No shame in that, most people are not, but it's very clear from the way you argue that you don't know how to present a case, or argue conclusions, or the premeses your conclusions are based upon.

I challenge you, choose one narrow area, and go head to head, evidence to evidence with dburkhead. I'd do it with you, but I don't enough about this field. Frankly, though, I think I know as much as you.