Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
A burden of proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and you still have yet to prove that. You responded with not why global warming has proven itself beyond a resonable doubt, but what requires other science thesis' to prove the "lowest" burden. Are you *actually* implying that it isnt necessary to rule out resonable doubts to consider a theory a fact?
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard in criminal cases. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard in most civil cases. There are many other standards used in different venues. You have yet to demonstrate the standard to be used in the global warming debate, by scientists themselves, or by politicians. In any event, whatever the standard is, it was met in the eyes of the Administration from a policy perspective.
Snip
Quote:
My analogy was in relation to a thesis being proven on the basis it cannot be disproven, not aliens killing you instead of humans. The analogy still stands, because you repeatedly have made the statement it is the responsiblity of everybody to disprove greenhouse gas induced global warming. That intended meaning cannot be accidentally construed if you read the text before it and following it, so essentially your responding with yet another un-related argument to weasel out of answering the original question. Again, is it my burden to prove my alien thesis, or is it your burden to disprove it?
You are clearly in over your head here. Your analogy was defeated because WE (yeah, that’s us, you and me, human beings) are the one’s dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. Thus, we have the burden of proving no harm. I, on the hand (along with us, you and me, human beings) did not put the wrapper on the other side of the moon. If I had put it there, or if humanity was responsible for it, then your analogy would hold, but it does not.
Quote:
Not to mention I destroyed your original analogy with a single probative difference: An m16, and the history and operation of such are not, nor will not be questioned by anyone. Hence "tangable" object. You on the other hand, state that the analogy fails because aliens infect you with plague and not humans? Are you that naive?
Again, you obviously are in over your head. The issue in the analogy was not whether any one would question the history operation (or use) of the M-16. The issue was who you would go to for information on those matters, an expert or a gun control nut. Based upon your postings, I’m sure you don’t get that but there is not much else I can do for you. I can hold your hand and walk you through these things but you have to have some modicum of reasoning skills and logic.
Snip
Quote:
Fall back onto the definition of sarcasm please, because you obviously cant tell the difference. You obviously have trouble reading beyond the literal subject. I can make just as powerful of an example and use SARCASM to make an irony of the statements you have made that your life is threatened by global warming which MAY increase the temperature of the earth maybe two degrees over the course of your lifetime, which you claim is similar to someone else putting a revolver to your head and pulling the trigger;
On that notion, your analogies have miserably failed. Explain one way "global" warming is going to lead to your death. Explain one way avoiding a small amount of global warming will save a positive net value of lives.
Try to focus. Think before you post. The operative point in the analogy is not that death will result from either or both comparisons, but, rather, that the burden of proof regarding results is on those who would alter the status quo. i.e. the world before man’s green house gas influence and me and you standing around minding our own business before you decide to point a gun at me and pull the trigger. I could have used any of a thousand other analogies that would not result in death or bodily harm. Like diverting a stream above your fields, or condemning a road through your property, or whatever. Burdens are assigned to those who would take action altering the baseline to the possible detriment of another, or society as a whole.
Quote:
Not only that, but I can use "Humans" in the example. Just replace "Aliens" with Buzz Aldrin. Happy?
Yes. Now you can see: the burden of proof should be on Buzz to prove his leaving of the wrapper will cause no harm.
Quote:
Want another kicker? SARCASM in my analysis of your M16 analogy, coupled with a metaphor. Yes, an analogy is not a thing itself. I pointed out, that comparing a half proven theory with a tangable object is flawed, comparing a half proven theory to the history and operation of a tangable object is flawed, and that, THROUGH SARCASM, showed how you were attempting to appeal to people on a firearms board. But, its ever so apparent everyone needs to speak to you LITERALLY.
You don’t understand analogy. It is clear. When you say “analogy is not A thing itself” you miss the point. Analogy is not THE thing itself. i.e. It is not the thing that it is analogized to. If I say a A is like B, I mean they are both letters of the alphabet, I don’t mean that A=B. And for you to try and defeat the analogy by saying A does not equal B is fallacious. The analogy A is like B is not offered for the proposition that they are equal. Nor does it matter that they are not equal. The fact is, they are both letters of the alphabet. Get it? I hope so. Now go back and rethink your faulty reasoning.
Quote:
Do I need to point out the scientists making opinons about a yet proven theory cannot be held on the same level of seasoned experts teaching about history? Two, completely unrelated subjects that have no similarities in your analogy, and again, you twisted the relative postions in said analogy. Explain, how global warming activists "proposing" a theory has anything remotly similar to a seasoned "expert" veteran of the M16. The main difference? Every "expert" verteran of the M16 is going to know its operation and history. Every climatologist "expert" is not going to support global warming. Not even a major, severe, or vast majority do, and your invented statistics that they do need citation before you continue with more bs. Stating to learn about global warming you would need to go to a "global warming activist" (expert is misused) is extremely short sighted.
Again, you miss the meaning of analogy. We are not talking about experts “on the same level” or proponents of a theory versus seasoned experts on the M-16. We are talking about who you would seek out for information on any subject: An expert or someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about? In the case of the M-16 it would be the expert versus the gun control nut; in the case of global warming it would be the scientist versus the policy wonk (Card, Creighton, etc.) or you or me.
Quote:
On the same note, to learn about radical Islam you must you go to a radical muslim, resulting in your head cut off on an internet video by the same logic. Your analogy fails. Your analogies of smoking and someone shooting you in the head also fails, due to the element of human mortality not evident in the global warming debate.
I wish you wouldn’t say things like that. It reinforces my already cynical view about the state of education in this country. You really don’t get it, do you? Honestly? You really think that element of human mortality is a relevant variable in the analogy, don’t you? I’m sorry.
Quote:
You are naive if you think only the global warming activists know what they are talking about, and can be considered the *only* experts on the issue.
Not activists; scientists. And no, they are not the only ones who know what they are talking about. They are just the ones who have come forward with evidence (regardless of whether that evidence meets your standard of proof) and those on the other side have failed to successfully rebut it. The burden should actually be on the latter, but whatever, it’s moot now that burden is back on those who wish to defeat the science in support of the theory.
Quote:
You still have yet to tell anyone why global warming is worth diverting resources away from programs that actually save *real* lives, you simply ignored that portion of one my posts with another "nah nah nah" plug your ears argument.
No, I didn’t ignore it. I suspect I never even noticed it because it was buried in all your ranting nonsense. Either that, or it was in the balance of one of your posts that I did not even finish reading because you had ruined any intellectual integrity you might have had by putting words in my mouth, misstating my position and otherwise using dilatory argument. Now that you’ve brought it to the surface, I will summarily dismiss it with reference to my prior, un-rebutted arguments on the burden of proof. Remember asbestos? Remember the revolver? Remember the argument regarding cost internalization, personal responsibility, the tragedy of the commons, smoking, and, most importantly, the argument regarding punching the Earth and it’s impact on her ability to absorb another punch? That is why resources should be diverted. Just as we prioritize our use of resources in all other areas, so too our government has chosen to take steps to reduce our contributions to global warming. People’s lives can be saved by reducing the speed limit, but we make a conscious decision to accept some deaths for the convenience of speed. Similar decisions have been made, and more should be made regarding global warming.
snip
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
I asked you to help me out if that was not your meaning. You cited an EPA position and said they not say “X.” I quoted your EPA position where they said “X.” I assumed you were not stupid and asked for your clarification. A logical response would have been reference to EPAs distinction between global warming and climate change.
Reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaallly.
That has to be the best quote of inserting "words into peoples mouths" in this entire thread. A: I never cited an EPA position and said they did not say "X". B: You never cited me and asked for clarification of what I said and C: Nowhere in my original citation did I make an issue, or even mention global warming and climate change verbage, so it did not need clarficiation, nor is it an issue D: You brought up global warming/climate change verbage as a response, to avoid having to actually reply to points brought up.
Show me where I said "not X" or where you can infer, imply, or otherwise assume I said "not X" or are you inventing posts as well as you invent statistics?
Now, watch my lips and prepare to eat your words.
You said:
Quote:
Link #3:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined
Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
They dont.
The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof.
Emphasis added in bold so you can eat your words. The article you just cited, above (yes, YOU) says this, the relevant portion in bold, and in direct contradiction to your statement above:
“What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.”
Get it? No? I didn’t think so.
Quote:
Its not my obligation to prove why greenhouse gas induced global warming is false. It is the obligation of its supporters to prove why it is true, and thus so far you have failed miserably.
Actually, I just defer to the scientists and let the science speak for itself. I know you don’t speak the language, but that’s okay. Whatever.
I am going to let you have the last word. I have tried to be somewhat civil, and I have tried to explain things that you clearly cannot grasp, but since I am not a teacher, and since you clearly are not a student, it really makes me look like a bully when I try to converse with you. It's not fair to you and it demeans me. So hey, guess what, you win! Global warming does not exist and even if it does, humans have nothing to do with it. All will be fine. Carry on.
