Originally Posted By jonvn "Yes, and it clearly is not what jonvn thinks it is" Well, no, but you can't understand it anyway, or refuse to, so your statements are again pointless.
Originally Posted By jonvn But it is nice that you are attempting to drag me into something with you because I refuse to play your little game. Which I will not do. Hopefully, others will figure it out soon enough, and stop as well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I understand it fine. It's you who doesn't comprehend what you read.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/21/hotel.fall.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US /02/21/hotel.fall.ap/index.html</a> I don't suppose I can interest anyone in an argument about the effects of gravity, speaking of planet Earth? (heck, seems like we can have debates about so many other issues that seem to have been proven by most rational people, why not gravity?)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Heck, we should tax the excess profits from bottled water, since they charge more a gallon for it than gasoline....
Originally Posted By jonvn I heard that bottled water is now the single most popular drink bought in this country. More than any soda, or anything else. It's WATER. It's free. Why do people buy this?
Originally Posted By jonvn "seems like we can have debates about so many other issues that seem to have been proven by most rational people, why not gravity?" Well, it certainly does seem that some folks like to argue that down is up!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<My only mistake was saying "quote" when one of them passages (but not all) was a paraphrase. And from this somehow you think you're right.>> <And I was right about that.> And as usual, claiming "victory" for some little mini-sub-technical point, trying to distract everyone from your being wrong about the main points. <<Tiggertoo's posts certainly did, much better than mine.>> <Agreed.> Good. <<But Tiggertoo's posts clearly show both what the consensus is, and that there are climatologists saying flatly what it is.>> <Yes, and it clearly is not what jonvn thinks it is, and yet he tries to insult anyone who points that out to him.> Tiggertoo's post is far closer to jonvn's take on what the consensus is than it is to yours. <<We do know that his actual quotes back up the paraphrase as reported, not your fantasy that somehow he might have said something 180 degrees different.>> <I never claimed he might have said something 180 degrees different. The point I'm trying to get across is that there are subtle differences between what climatologists believe, and the alarmists keep trying to paint them all the same, and as saying the worst.> "Alarmists saying the worst" is a strawman. No one here is taking a "we're going to die tomorrow" stance. In fact, all I've seen anyone here insisting is that a). there is a consensus among climatologists, and b). the consensus is that humans are a contributing factor to climate change. That's certainly all I said, and tiggertoo's post shows that to be the case. <When people hear one climate scientist saying the polar caps are going to melt, and then somebody else comes along and says almost all climate scientists agree what is happening, it gives a distorted picture of what the actual concensus amongst climate scientists is.> That's not what has happened on these boards. <<Jon's already done so, and tiggertoo just did so.>> <Well, you're half right.> Jon did long ago, but has given up trying to reach you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And as usual, claiming "victory" for some little mini-sub-technical point, trying to distract everyone from your being wrong about the main points.> But my main point is not wrong. <Tiggertoo's post is far closer to jonvn's take on what the consensus is than it is to yours.> No, it's not. But I wouldn't expect you or jon to understand that. <"Alarmists saying the worst" is a strawman.> No, it's not. My comment about "the worst" referred to the worst predictions of climate scientists, which are not shared the majority of them. <That's not what has happened on these boards.> Unfortunately, it's happened far too often. <Jon did long ago, but has given up trying to reach you.> That's what he claims. I think the truth is he can't back up his claims, and so makes excuses not to when I object to them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, it's not. But I wouldn't expect you or jon to understand that." Thanks for telling me what my point and understanding is, when you continually don't get it. Hey hey, ho ho. "I think the truth is he can't back up his claims" Already pointed out to you. By me and others.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I get it just fine, and will continue to point out when you get it wrong.
Originally Posted By jonvn Acutally, no. And you're saying "no it isn't" doesn't point out a thing, other than your inability to use facts and argue persuasively. But keep living in your fantasy dreamworld where what you say makes sense to anyone else but yourself. Because frankly, it does not. And I'm not exactly alone in this assessment.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And as usual, claiming "victory" for some little mini-sub-technical point, trying to distract everyone from your being wrong about the main points.>> <But my main point is not wrong.> Yes it is. I provided you a climate scientist who provided quotes and a (presumably accurate) paraphrase that said there was a consensus that was what I said it was. Tiggertoo provided an even better example. You get caught up in the minutia of "it was a paraphrase not a quote" as a distraction. <<Tiggertoo's post is far closer to jonvn's take on what the consensus is than it is to yours.>> <No, it's not. But I wouldn't expect you or jon to understand that.> Then explain it, please. Because Tiggertoo's post said that a). there is a scientific consensus, and b). the consensus is that humans are a contributing factor. Which is all I've said, and all I believe that Jon has said. So what's your position, and please show how it's closer to what Tiggertoo's quoted scientist said than what Jon has said, if you're going to claim such a thing. <<"Alarmists saying the worst" is a strawman.>> <No, it's not. My comment about "the worst" referred to the worst predictions of climate scientists, which are not shared the majority of them.> And who among us has sided with the predictors of the worst predictions? If you'd like to argue with them, I suggest you seek them out; if you're arguing with us, bringing up arguments no one here brought up is creating a strawman. <<That's not what has happened on these boards.>> <Unfortunately, it's happened far too often.> Please show us where. <<Jon did long ago, but has given up trying to reach you.>> <That's what he claims. I think the truth is he can't back up his claims, and so makes excuses not to when I object to them.> I'll leave that to the two of you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Acutally, no. And you're saying "no it isn't" doesn't point out a thing, other than your inability to use facts and argue persuasively.> It points out far more than your typing a paragraph of nonsense. Although that does show your inability to use facts and argue persuasively. <But keep living in your fantasy dreamworld where what you say makes sense to anyone else but yourself. Because frankly, it does not. And I'm not exactly alone in this assessment.> You can keep telling yourself you're right and I'm wrong all you want, but no matter how much affirmation you may receive from the other liberals on this board, it isn't true.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which is all I've said, and all I believe that Jon has said. " Yep. And I added that the people we need to listen to on this are the organizations and scientists who are actually studying this directly, and not the Wall Street Journal editorial page. "I'll leave that to the two of you." Not much to leave to me. He's simply distracting the topic again from something he knows he can't win. As I've said, the debate is over, and now he's just spinning meta conversations.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You can keep telling yourself you're right" OK, it's easy, because I am. I said we should listen to the people actually studying this stuff. That's pretty much about as right as you can get. I'm not all that liberal, either. Just not a deranged idealogue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I provided you a climate scientist who provided quotes and a (presumably accurate) paraphrase that said there was a consensus that was what I said it was. Tiggertoo provided an even better example.> Sigh. Obviously I'm not getting through. Whenever a human-caused global warming skeptic brings up an article that points out some problems with the human-caused global warming theory, even if the article includes quotes from climate scientists, certain people say the article is worthless because it is not written by a climate scientist in a peer reviewed magazine. By objecting to your citation, I was trying to make the point that this is a ridiculous standard, since such articles are not often available on the web, and when they are, they tend to be overly complicated or detailed. They also tend not to back up the worst predictions of global alarmists. I've got to go now. I'll try to get back to the rest of your post soon.
