Gene Frenkle

lol

Kind of a follow-up to this: Stem Cell Shooting Gun Heals Massive Burns In Days http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI&feature=player_embedded http://kotaku.com/5750108/stem-cell-shooting-gun-heals-massive-burns-in-days?skyline=true&s=i

Sturgeon's Law applies to absolutely everything though, right? It's almost like saying nothing at all.

How does one distinguish man-made carbon dioxide from naturally-occurring carbon dioxide?

I'd love to see your breakdown of what you consider legitimate, illegitimate and why. I only ask because you seem pretty definite on that 80% number. The problem with you conservatives is that you just can't do for yourselves. Always looking for a handout.

Nerd fight! Depending on how it's used, it seems that Reductio Ad Absurdum can sometimes be co-classified as: Fallacy Of The General Rule: Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. If we weren't artificially affecting the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment, you would have a very good point.

Like I said, I'm not your research student. Are all ya'll's your fingers broken or are you afraid of running out of 'it doesn't follow common sense' arguments? That would suck for me if I were trying to prove anthropogenic global warming.

My only argument is that localized cooling trends do not disprove man-made global warming. Fair enough - I should know better than to quote Yahoo Answers.

It's all relative dude. Maybe. If there are significant environmental impacts related to a massive lip balm spill, there should be regulations in place to mitigate that risk. Is this a serious argument? Just in case it was...our second logical fallacy of the day is: Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd): A form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. You are absolutely deluded by your partisanship. That's not the point. You're comparing something that is naturally-occurring to a massive milk spill, which is not.

After further research, it appears the answer is not so clear on this. The periodic orbital explanation is, however, a part of some existing theories. To my original point, my lack of knowledge on the subject does not mean there is not a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. There's a common theme in this thread...if you don't understand something and you actually care to know the answer, by all means use the Internets and do some research. There is no validity in using your ignorance as proof of bad science.

Sorry for suggesting that you use your own brain.

My reaction to his ridiculous reaction does not seem as ridiculous to me.

Al Gore in this case - because his view coincides with the accepted science. In the video, it seems like a lot of people, including nervous people in industry, are falling victim to confirmation bias. Is my last name Google? If you're actually interested in the answers, try doing some reading.

Found a nice explanation on Yahoo Answers... There are two types of ice ages and both are caused by different natural cycles. The conventional ice age occurs of it’s own accord at intervals of approx 100,000 years and this is due to the shape of the orbit that Earth takes around the Sun (it’s called eccentricity and relates to the elliptical orbit of the Earth, over time the orbit tends to and from circularity). The last ice age of this nature ended 10,000 years ago, we’re due for another in about 90,000 years. There are also the great ice ages that occur at intervals of approx 125 million years. Unlike the lesser ice ages that only affect parts of the planet, these great ice ages can turn the entire planet into a ball of ice. These are most likely caused by changes in the orbit of the Sun around the centre of the galaxy. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100524160435AAgMjZO COMPLETELY unrelated, the logical fallacy of the day is: The Argument from Personal Incredulity: I cannot explain this, therefore it cannot be true.

You make the religion to science comparison and then show why Gore's statement is actually sound science. There may be other aspects to the prevailing global warming science that you could argue are dogmatic, but this is not one of them. Notice I didn't call you an idiot.

Yours seems an uninformed, reactionary response. WTF do you know about the environmental effects of a large milk spill? It makes a catchy talking point though.

For what?

Pelosi's an idiot, so you actually have something in common. I'd like to personally thank for doing this hard, important, thankless job. With you out there, us lemmings can rest assured that the mainstream media complex cannot keep the truth from oozing out!

I'm just wondering how you can make a statement like you did without including qualified candidates from the other side of the aisle.

What's it like to only acknowledge things that support your beliefs? Are you constantly throwing up in your mouth a little bit or have you truly mastered the art of self-delusion?

I'm liberal: I love this and think it is funny! I'm conservative: I hate this and think it is not funny! I'm DC Tom: I think this is stupid.

:D

Maybe they should just secede and solve the problem for us.

Of course that's your response. Magically get rid of all the people who we somehow know are going to cause trouble and then make it easy for the remaining people to purchase guns. It's a miracle that nobody's thought of this before.

That would be terrible! I mean guns should be easy to get, right?