Donald Trump's 3 positions on abortion in 3 hours

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Poor EDdie the Limpdick Lardass.

Needs a WK on the cumback! Unfortunately all he could get was IBJunior, who's STILL struggling for relevance.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

The only relevance you have is to be the butt of jokes. Other than that, you're fucking worthless.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

You are ignoring context. This was in a thread titled "What type of guy supports Hillary" with a statement made in the first post "I see a pattern, they're all dumbfucks." And give a link showing the actual patterns of the counties that support Trump. Of course, I offer up facts that support the pattern, and you attack me for it. But when bambino says all Clinton supporters dumbfucks (if, of course, you twist his statement in the same way), you're hypocritically mum. No surprise.

Context doesn't save you, fido. You said what you said, then claimed you didn't say it. You made me throw it back in your face. You lose. Btw, I only called bullshit when you insisted (unlike bambino) you were presenting “actual facts”. You couldn't answer because you don't understand how statistical methods are used to measure correlation strengths. No surprise.


No, you're wrong. This is not a crime detective show. We are talking about science. You don't posit a theory, but a hypothesis. Once there has been a lot of testing and confirmation of the hypothesis, only then does it become a theory.

Oh, my! Now you want to lecture us on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? A hypothesis is simply an untested theory. So what? There is no fine line to determine when a theory is “confirmed” or validated. That's what you don't get. There are degrees of confidence, not absolute truth. Based on the data, we can have more confidence in some theories than in others. Yet you stupidly think all theories deserve a gold medal.


Seriously, this is basic science here. It is pretty much the next thing you learn after the scientific method. I'm sure I learned this no later than 9th grade, but I am relatively sure that it was in 7th or 8th grade. I can't believe that I am having a debate about the science of something with people who don't even have a primary school level understanding of what a "scientific theory" is. By definition, it has to be falsifiable, which, by definition, stops science from ever declaring facts.

Seriously, you need to stop being a supercilious, condescending, patronizing asshole. Whatever you learned in 7th grade, you didn't learn it correctly or well. There is an old maxim - “the aim of all education is to teach you how little you know”. You need to take that to heart. You have an incurable need to look down on your presumed intellectual inferiors. That's part of the curse of being a libtard.


No, because that wouldn't be a "theory," but a "hypothesis." Your hypothesis is the equivalent of a kid saying he wants to be in the Olympics one day. You've got a far way to go before you even sniff a medal.

There you go again. I wouldn't posit a theory without including at least some empirical data to support it. So it would be at least partially tested. An intelligent critic (i.e., one who understands more than 7th grade science) would examine the data for flaws and weaknesses in the methodology. Sample size, data biases, adjustments for other variables, etc. A stupid and lazy critic would treat all theories as deserving of Olympic medal-winning status, without bothering to study the data behind any of them.


Just like gravity is a theory we should take seriously.

You bring up gravity to deflect from the fact that you are utterly incapable of explaining, let alone defending, what you call "AGW".


I don't have to pretend. The reality is that if you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, when it comes to science, then it is clear that I understand this far better than you.

There you go again. Stop acting like a smarmy know-it-all. You've already been slapped down. A hypothesis is just an untested theory. What's your point?


I never said that. In fact, I alluded to the opposite when I said "Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies."

Why does a know-it-all like you - who claims to understand scientific methods better than anyone in this forum - have to rely on “experts” to tell him what to believe? Spewing out vague generalities doesn't win an argument... You only raise more questions - What constitutes an “expert”? Exactly what do these experts “agree” on? What is AGW? Are you talking about one theory/conclusion – or twenty?


Of course some theories are stronger than others.

That's not what you said. You said in science all theories win the gold. Are you walking back that idiot statement? And you've demonstrated zero ability to evaluate what makes a theory strong versus weak.


I can explain it myself. But why would you believe my explanation over the explanation and evidence provided in numerous peer-reviewed papers written by experts? That makes no sense.

You've been bragging all over this thread about how your understanding of science is superior to anyone who challenges you – why duck the chance to prove it? Surely you don't expect the rest of us ignorant fucks to wade through hundreds of arcane scientific papers that are intelligible only to enlightened scholars like yourself? Time to come clean, fido... are you admitting you're just too DUMB to dumb it down for us?


On top of that, you've already thrown out the "framing fallacy" by attempting to make the debate solely about correlation between CO2 and temperature. Basically, you want me to answer a leading question that has little to do with the overall debate. The question is "why is the theory for AGW so strong" and you tried to get me to answer something different.

Huh? You're telling me the AGW debate has “little to do” with linking carbon emissions to global temperature rises? Seriously? Then perhaps you can tell us exactly what IS the salient scientific theory we're supposed to accept or reject! Which specific theory is so strong? It's obvious why you like to hide behind vague and unspecific bullshit. Otherwise you lose the argument.


I have, thank you. However, I am smart enough to realize that I am not an expert on the issue and will defer to the experts in the field. Just like I don't examine the designs of every plane I get into before deciding whether or not they are worthy of flight, I trust the experts who have designed, tested and evaluated the designs that they are safe.

Bullshit. Make up your mind. Either you're smart enough to read and interpret the data on plane safety or global warming (and explain it to others), or you're just as ignorant as you snobbishly assume everyone else in this forum is. Actually you're more ignorant. At least most of us know what we don't know.

.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Context doesn't save you, fido. You said what you said, then claimed you didn't say it. You made me throw it back in your face. You lose. Btw, I only called bullshit when you insisted (unlike bambino) you were presenting “actual facts”. You couldn't answer because you don't understand how statistical methods are used to measure correlation strengths. No surprise.

I'm confused as to what non-fact you think I offered up. I gave you a direct link to where I was getting the information from.

Oh, my! Now you want to lecture us on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

I lecture you because you are wrong about it and continue to be wrong about it.

A hypothesis is simply an untested theory.

Incorrect. Simply testing a hypothesis does not make it a theory. The testing and observation has to confirm the hypothesis before it becomes a theory.

So what? There is no fine line to determine when a theory is “confirmed” or validated. That's what you don't get.

There is nothing I've said that suggests I don't "get" this. As usual, you attack a strawman. Just because there isn't a fine line between the two doesn't change the fact that some are clearly on one side or another. If you hypothesize something, and there are no repeated tests to confirm it, then it is clearly just a hypothesis. When something has been out there for as long as AGW, and has been confirmed by numerous different fields as AGW, then it is clearly in the realm of "theory."

There are degrees of confidence, not absolute truth.

Have you even been reading what I've been posting? A good chunk of this debate has been dedicated to me pointing out to DSK that gravity is not a "fact," but a "theory" just like AGW. Where have you been?

Based on the data, we can have more confidence in some theories than in others. Yet you stupidly think all theories deserve a gold medal.

Yes, it is the gold standard of science. Does that mean all golds are equal? Of course not. One year, someone could break the world record, crushing all of the opponents, and the next Olympics, someone could miss that record by 10%, barely beat out the competitors, and still win the gold. Clearly one gold was far more convincing than another, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both gold.

Not only that, but twice in this debate, before you tried to torture that analogy, I've pointed out that not all theories are equally supported. As I said "I wouldn't argue that the evidence supporting AGW is anywhere near the evidence supporting the action of gravity," and, as I already quoted in the previous post, "Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies." It should be obvious to anyone not desperately trying to twist my analogy that I understand that we are not equally confident in all theories.

You can continue to pretend that I said that we are equally confident in all theories, but you will continue to be wrong. If you don't want me to talk down to you, stop putting words that are obviously false in my mouth.

Seriously, you need to stop being a supercilious, condescending, patronizing asshole. Whatever you learned in 7th grade, you didn't learn it correctly or well. There is an old maxim - “the aim of all education is to teach you how little you know”. You need to take that to heart. You have an incurable need to look down on your presumed intellectual inferiors. That's part of the curse of being a libtard.

This is amazingly hypocritical for two reasons. In the last post, you were telling me to analyze the data myself and if I didn't understand it, how could I know it was true. My response? "Defer to the experts." Seriously, right after I say "I am smart enough to realize that I am not an expert on the issue and will defer to the experts in the field," you tell me to be smart enough to realize what I don't know. This is great.

The second reason is you just made the incorrect claim that "anyone can posit a theory." This is not correct. I corrected it. And instead of just admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about, you double down on it by trying to pretend that if I believe I have evidence for my hypothesis, that makes it a theory. lol

There you go again. I wouldn't posit a theory without including at least some empirical data to support it. So it would be at least partially tested. An intelligent critic (i.e., one who understands more than 7th grade science) would examine the data for flaws and weaknesses in the methodology. Sample size, data biases, adjustments for other variables, etc. A stupid and lazy critic would treat all theories as deserving of Olympic medal-winning status, without bothering to study the data behind any of them.

That's not how it works. Something isn't de facto a theory until other people disprove it. It is a hypothesis until your data and observations have been observed, reviewed and/or repeated by others. There needs to be a consensus that what you are putting forth as evidence for your hypothesis is legit. Basically, the argument you are making here is that anything is a theory as long as the person putting forth that hypothesis thinks they are providing valid evidence of it. Sorry, but that ain't how it works.

You bring up gravity to deflect from the fact that you are utterly incapable of explaining, let alone defending, what you call "AGW".

As long as you, or DSK or whoever else it was (cuteoldguy?) repeatedly show that you don't understand that there is no such thing a scientific fact, or that a hypothesis and theory are not the same thing, I'll keep repeating it until you understand it.

There you go again. Stop acting like a smarmy know-it-all. You've already been slapped down. A hypothesis is just an untested theory. What's your point?

How can you continually get something so wrong? Testing a hypothesis doesn't make it a theory. The tests have to repeatedly show that the hypothesis is correct. And that isn't even the only requirement of something to rise to the level of theory. I already gave you the wiki page, it gives a very basic description of the other requirements. If you want me to stop talking down to you, stop pretending you know about something you are clearly clueless about. . .and stop saying incorrect things even after I give you a link explaining why it is incorrect.

Why does a know-it-all like you - who claims to understand scientific methods better than anyone in this forum - have to rely on “experts” to tell him what to believe? Spewing out vague generalities doesn't win an argument... You only raise more questions - What constitutes an “expert”? Exactly what do these experts “agree” on? What is AGW? Are you talking about one theory/conclusion – or twenty?

You can't, on one hand, tell me to recognize what I don't understand and then, on the other hand, criticize me (incorrectly, mind you) for not understanding what the experts are saying.

You've been bragging all over this thread about how your understanding of science is superior to anyone who challenges you

No, that's not what I said at all. I said my understanding of science is superior to the people, including yourself, who don't even understand the fundamental concept of theory in how it pertains to science.

– why duck the chance to prove it? Surely you don't expect the rest of us ignorant fucks to wade through hundreds of arcane scientific papers that are intelligible only to enlightened scholars like yourself? Time to come clean, fido... are you admitting you're just too DUMB to dumb it down for us?

I've already explained why. I've tried in the past, and it just falls on deaf ears. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when the real data and papers are already out there for you to read. Besides, explaining it would take pages and pages, which I am unwilling to write.

The reality is that the experts overwhelmingly agree on this. If you don't want to believe the experts, maybe you should take your own advice and realize what you don't know.

Huh? You're telling me the AGW debate has “little to do” with linking carbon emissions to global temperature rises? Seriously? Then perhaps you can tell us exactly what IS the salient scientific theory we're supposed to accept or reject! Which specific theory is so strong? It's obvious why you like to hide behind vague and unspecific bullshit. Otherwise you lose the argument.

No, what I'm telling you is that the theory is far more complicated than your question about correlation between temperature increase and carbon emissions.

Bullshit. Make up your mind. Either you're smart enough to read and interpret the data on plane safety or global warming (and explain it to others), or you're just as ignorant as you snobbishly assume everyone else in this forum is. Actually you're more ignorant. At least most of us know what we don't know.

I understand the basics of how lift works. However, I could not make a plane. Certainly one as reliable as modern aircraft, as there are intricacies in the field that are beyond me, at least without study and experience. On that, I defer to the experts that they can build a better plane than I. It is the same with AGW. I understand the concepts, have seen a lot of the numbers and studies that are convincing, but the reality is that it gets even more complicated. Without study and experience in the field, those parts are currently beyond me.

The difference between me and those who reject or don't even accept the consensus is that I am smart enough to defer to the experts on the details.

[Yssup Rider]

at least he insulted you...

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm confused as to what non-fact you think I offered up. I gave you a direct link to where I was getting the information from.

Stop feigning confusion. The NYT story did not offer up “actual facts” as you claimed. Here's my post. Why do you want to have your nose rubbed in it again?

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1057954469&postcount=57


I lecture you because you are wrong about it and continue to be wrong about it.

There you go again. I'm right, you're wrong... that's soooo convincing... of your arrogance.


Incorrect. Simply testing a hypothesis does not make it a theory. The testing and observation has to confirm the hypothesis before it becomes a theory.

Uh-huh. So how much “testing and observation” is required? When does the Federation of American Scientists issue a license allowing me to call my hypothesis a “theory”? What happens if my observations are ambiguous? Who makes the call then? You are stupidly hung up on semantics. I can have an untested theory, a disproven theory, a contested theory, or a widely accepted theory. I use the word in the common vernacular. If you want to convince skeptics that global warming is real, you need to do the same. Or do you prefer to hide behind textbook definitions to avoid discussing substance?


There is nothing I've said that suggests I don't "get" this. As usual, you attack a strawman. Just because there isn't a fine line between the two doesn't change the fact that some are clearly on one side or another. If you hypothesize something, and there are no repeated tests to confirm it, then it is clearly just a hypothesis.

You can call it a hypothesis; I'll call it an untested theory.


When something has been out there for as long as AGW, and has been confirmed by numerous different fields as AGW, then it is clearly in the realm of "theory."

Your assertion is meaningless, since you haven't even defined “AGW” or specified which “theories” have been confirmed. Doing so might open the door to substantive discussion, something you obviously want to avoid.


Have you even been reading what I've been posting? A good chunk of this debate has been dedicated to me pointing out to DSK that gravity is not a "fact," but a "theory" just like AGW. Where have you been?

Have you even been reading what I post? I complimented you when I first jumped into this thread:

But now you're backsliding again on your theory about Trump supporters, aintcha? You're still itching to call it “actual fact” - even though it has far less predictive accuracy than what is required for a theory to become widely accepted in any of the natural sciences.


Yes, it is the gold standard of science. Does that mean all golds are equal? Of course not. One year, someone could break the world record, crushing all of the opponents, and the next Olympics, someone could miss that record by 10%, barely beat out the competitors, and still win the gold. Clearly one gold was far more convincing than another, but that doesn't change the fact that they are both gold.

Better find another analogy, fido. The Olympic gold medal one ain't working for you. You could have said some theories only earn a silver or a bronze. But you didn't. And btw, I'm not trying to torture your analogy. You picked a tortured one to start with.


Not only that, but twice in this debate, before you tried to torture that analogy, I've pointed out that not all theories are equally supported. As I said "I wouldn't argue that the evidence supporting AGW is anywhere near the evidence supporting the action of gravity," and, as I already quoted in the previous post, "Considering how overwhelming the agreement among experts is about AGW, the reality is that it is probably far more "established science" than how to deal with premature babies." It should be obvious to anyone not desperately trying to twist my analogy that I understand that we are not equally confident in all theories.

Uh-huh. You still haven't defined “AGW”. And no one knows what testable theory you are referring to when you say “how to deal with premature babies”. However, you're sure some theories are more supported by evidence than others, based on 1) your intuition and 2) whatever you think most of the “experts” (again, undefined) are saying. That's brilliantly persuasive, fido!


You can continue to pretend that I said that we are equally confident in all theories, but you will continue to be wrong. If you don't want me to talk down to you, stop putting words that are obviously false in my mouth.

You don't have to be so touchy, fido – just admit you're walking it back. A little self-reflection might be helpful, too. Like recognizing one of the reasons you never win a debate is because whenever you run out of arguments, you start talking down to others.


This is amazingly hypocritical for two reasons. In the last post, you were telling me to analyze the data myself and if I didn't understand it, how could I know it was true. My response? "Defer to the experts." Seriously, right after I say "I am smart enough to realize that I am not an expert on the issue and will defer to the experts in the field," you tell me to be smart enough to realize what I don't know. This is great.

You didn't defer to the "experts" out of modesty. You did it out of laziness, lack of intellectual curiosity and an inability to consider new or opposing ideas. It's much easier to tell yourself if Al Gore (who earned a D in Natural Sciences at Harvard) says the “science is settled”, that's good enough for me. Spare us your fake humility – it's a little late after so many insufferably arrogant posts.


The second reason is you just made the incorrect claim that "anyone can posit a theory." This is not correct. I corrected it. And instead of just admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about, you double down on it by trying to pretend that if I believe I have evidence for my hypothesis, that makes it a theory. lol

I'll even triple down for you, fido. I will posit the theory that your IQ is below 100. Instead of getting into an argument about whether that's a theory or a mere hypothesis, I will let you take five IQ tests. If you only score above 100 on one of them, is my theory validated? Does it meet your threshold for being called a theory? Would the science be “settled” on that question?


That's not how it works. Something isn't de facto a theory until other people disprove it. It is a hypothesis until your data and observations have been observed, reviewed and/or repeated by others. There needs to be a consensus that what you are putting forth as evidence for your hypothesis is legit. Basically, the argument you are making here is that anything is a theory as long as the person putting forth that hypothesis thinks they are providing valid evidence of it. Sorry, but that ain't how it works.

Already answered: “You are stupidly hung up on semantics. I can have an untested theory, a disproven theory, a contested theory, or a widely accepted theory. I use the word in the common vernacular. If you want to convince skeptics that global warming is real, you need to do the same. Or do you prefer to hide behind textbook definitions to avoid discussing substance?”


As long as you, or DSK or whoever else it was (cuteoldguy?) repeatedly show that you don't understand that there is no such thing a scientific fact, or that a hypothesis and theory are not the same thing, I'll keep repeating it until you understand it.

If there is no such thing as a scientific fact, please tell Al Gore and other global warming advocates to stop saying the “science is settled”.


How can you continually get something so wrong? Testing a hypothesis doesn't make it a theory. The tests have to repeatedly show that the hypothesis is correct. And that isn't even the only requirement of something to rise to the level of theory. I already gave you the wiki page, it gives a very basic description of the other requirements. If you want me to stop talking down to you, stop pretending you know about something you are clearly clueless about. . .and stop saying incorrect things even after I give you a link explaining why it is incorrect.

I'll tell you what, fido... You can say “hypothesis” - I'll say “untested theory”. You can say “theory” - I'll say “widely accepted theory”. Are we on the same page? Now you can either move the discussion forward or stay bogged down in semantics to cover up your own inability to deal with substance.


You can't, on one hand, tell me to recognize what I don't understand and then, on the other hand, criticize me (incorrectly, mind you) for not understanding what the experts are saying.

Sure I can. Just because you are arrogant doesn't mean you can't also be ignorant. And vice versa. You're in denial. And conflicted. You pretend you are deferring to the experts out of modesty, but then hasten to add it would be “incorrect” to suggest you don't understand what the experts are saying.


No, that's not what I said at all. I said my understanding of science is superior to the people, including yourself, who don't even understand the fundamental concept of theory in how it pertains to science.

Keep pumping yourself up... it sure beats having to talk substance on the topic.


I've already explained why. I've tried in the past, and it just falls on deaf ears. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when the real data and papers are already out there for you to read. Besides, explaining it would take pages and pages, which I am unwilling to write.

If you've already explained AGW, then there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Just copy or link your previous explanations. You're not shy about churning out pages and pages of repetitive, non-substantive bullshit in this forum.


The reality is that the experts overwhelmingly agree on this. If you don't want to believe the experts, maybe you should take your own advice and realize what you don't know.

That's the best you got? Parroting your superficial Al Gore talking points? Who picks the “experts”? On what specific theories do they “overwhelming agree”? What are their bases for agreement/disgreement? I already mentioned I am personally an agnostic on the topic. That means my mind is NOT made up. People like you - who can't put forth an intelligent case or even explain their trust in “experts” - only push me in the opposite direction.


No, what I'm telling you is that the theory is far more complicated than your question about correlation between temperature increase and carbon emissions.

Of course it's complicated. I ask a key question to see if you can engage intelligently on substance, and all you can do is say it's complicated? Or my core question isn't relevant? Weak, weak, weak.


I understand the basics of how lift works. However, I could not make a plane. Certainly one as reliable as modern aircraft, as there are intricacies in the field that are beyond me, at least without study and experience. On that, I defer to the experts that they can build a better plane than I. It is the same with AGW. I understand the concepts, have seen a lot of the numbers and studies that are convincing, but the reality is that it gets even more complicated. Without study and experience in the field, those parts are currently beyond me.

Nobody is asking you to understand airplane mechanics or manufacture a plane, fido. Whatever gave you that idea? However, you could explain why you feel safer flying a Boeing 787 than, say, a Tupolev 154. (Hint - which one crashes more frequently per mile flown?) You've shown no indication you “understand the concepts” of what you call “AGW”. If it gets more complicated the more you read about it, that's a reason to be wary about jumping to any firm conclusions.


The difference between me and those who reject or don't even accept the consensus is that I am smart enough to defer to the experts on the details.

Yeah, keep pumping yourself up, fido. You “defer to the experts” because you're smart enough to know that way you don't have to reveal your ignorance on the substantive details of the scientific debate.

.

[Yssup Rider]

Wow, Junior. You didn't disprove anything. You just contradicted what eatfibo said. No proof, no facts, no substance. And, totally irrelevant to the utter lack of leadership displayed by your man Trump which is the topic of this thread.

But at least you insulted him in the process.

Bush league.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Nobody is asking you to understand airplane mechanics or manufacture a plane, fido. Whatever gave you that idea?

I got to here when it became absolutely clear that you have no interest in an actual debate. I drew an analogy to make my point more clear. The idea that this suggests anyone actually asked me to build a plane is absurd. You can't possibly think I suggested this, so you can't possible be doing anything less than being totally disingenuous.

If you want to continue this debate, and get to some actual substance, please stop being so dishonest.

After that, take your own advice, show some intellectual curiosity and read the link I provided that describes a scientific theory, so you stop saying things that make it obvious you are ignorant about what defines scientific theory, like "a hypothesis is just an untested theory" and "I hypothesize you are an idiot, and if you fail an IQ test, that makes it a theory." Seriously, the second statement might be more stupid than the first, if you had bothered to educate yourself, you would see why.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I got to here when it became absolutely clear that you have no interest in an actual debate. I drew an analogy to make my point more clear. The idea that this suggests anyone actually asked me to build a plane is absurd. You can't possibly think I suggested this, so you can't possible (sic) be doing anything less than being totally disingenuous.

If you want to continue this debate, and get to some actual substance, please stop being so dishonest.

You have a knack for choosing inapt analogies, fido. Between scientific theories and Olympic gold medals. Or between deferring to experts on building a plane and deferring to "experts" on global warming. Here is how you presented your brilliant analogy:

“I could not make a plane... I defer to the experts that they can build a better plane than I. It is the same with AGW...”

Read that again, fido. Does it mention your building a plane? Why yes, it plainly does! If that suggestion strikes you as absurd, it's because your analogy is absurd.

A more plausible analogy might go something like this - “Just as statistics allow me to conclude that the risk of flying in an airplane is low, statistics also tell me there is a strong correlation between fossil fuel consumption and the rise in average global temperatures over the past 50 years.” Then you could explain the science behind the so-called “greenhouse effect” for those who doubt the causality involved.

It's obvious you're the one who is afraid to “get to some actual substance” like this. Your lame claim that I am being “dishonest” is just your latest excuse for avoiding substance.

Originally Posted by eatfibo

After that, take your own advice, show some intellectual curiosity and read the link I provided that describes a scientific theory, so you stop saying things that make it obvious you are ignorant about what defines scientific theory, like "a hypothesis is just an untested theory" and "I hypothesize you are an idiot, and if you fail an IQ test, that makes it a theory." Seriously, the second statement might be more stupid than the first, if you had bothered to educate yourself, you would see why.

How many more times do you need to pound your fucking chest proclaiming your superior understanding of scientific methods? Why don't we just stipulate right here and now that you're the smartest “AGW” guy in the room, ok? Feel better now? When you're done patting yourself on the back and ready to explain the substance of global warming instead of latching onto another lame excuse for avoiding it, let us know.

Even though I have an open mind (unlike you), something tells me we're unlikely to learn much when the guy who fancies himself as the smartest person in the room insists the whole debate has “little to do” with linking carbon emissions to global temperature rises, and then - when asked to explain what it IS about - can only tell us "it's complicated".

[Yssup Rider]

OK! Junior, you're just jerking off here. Where are the facts? You're just droning on again.

BLA BLA BLA.

And, what does your squealing have to do with Trump's campaign killing attack on women?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

OK! Junior, you're just jerking off here. Where are the facts? You're just droning on again.

BLA BLA BLA.

And, what does your squealing have to do with Trump's campaign killing attack on women?

You guys have already "Borked" Trump at this point, why pile on? I thought you liberals based your actions upon compassion...

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You have a knack for choosing inapt analogies, fido.

There was nothing in my analogy that said "all theories are equal." Absolutely nothing. All I did was point to the highest achievement for the Olympics and to demonstrate how high of achievement a "theory" is in science. The whole part about "all theories being equal" was something you completely made up. You might as well just said "Scientists don't have to do endurance training!"

I get that sometimes the scope of analogies is not always clear. However, after it was pointed out to you that I had said something earlier, twice, that clearly indicated I did not believe we are confident in all theories are equally, you still pretended that the words you made up were what I actually said.

You whine about semantics, but that is exactly what you are indulging your yourself. Instead of just accepting my explanation, and honestly interpret my words, you try to twist their meaning to what you want.

And this made it clear to me what you do. You aren't just guilty of constant strawmen fallacies, but projection as well. You say you are "agnostic" when it comes to AGW, and then turn around and accuse me of lacking intellectual curiosity. There is tons of information on the topic, both official peer-reviewed papers and legitimate scientific explanations, all over the internet. Seriously, one could spend a few hours and become decently educated on the topic. For one to remain 'agnostic' on this issue shows that you haven't bothered to educate yourself.

Either that, or you aren't smart enough to understand it. Which leads me to the next (possible) projection. You say that education should teach you to know what you don't know. Of course, when I admit I don't know everything and say, "defer to the experts" it's "laziness" (convenient, I can't even win when I do exactly as you suggest, before you suggest it). Yet you, unless you haven't had the intellectual curiosity, don't understand the issue. Instead of defer to the people who do actually understand the issue, you buy into the political BS behind the disagreement.

Which leads me to the next projection. You are so desperate to believe that I am blindly following Gore. You've mentioned him multiple times, when I have not said a single thing about politics in this debate. But if you don't accept the well supported AGW, you are probably being persuaded by the political arguments. Making you, not me, the one blindly following politicians on matters of science.

when asked to explain what it IS about - can only tell us "it's complicated".

Accepting something is complicated is now a fault? Maybe that's your problem. You want it to be simple, like gravity, but it just isn't. While some people, including yourself, can't seem to grasp the simple concepts of 9th grade science, we aren't talking about 9th grade science. We are talking about many different, related fields, with complicated geographical and statistical analyses. I could give a basic explanation, but it could be easily nit-picked, because "it's complicated."

As I've said, I've been in these debates enough times to know that if I throw some evidence forward, someone is just going to nit-pick it. Which will require me to go into more detail. Which will just get nit-picked. Which will require me to describe another confirming phenomenon. However, instead of accepting that these two phenomenon both point strongly to the same thing, they will nit-pick the next phenomenon. Which will require me to go into more explanation of that second phenomenon, which will be nit-picked. Next thing you know, I've written pages and pages supporting the theory of AGW that people won't accept because they were able to nit-pick my non-expert descriptions of each individual thing. So you want me to re-write what has already been written in a way that will not be as correct or as convincing as actual experts on the topic.

I won't do it. The reality is that unless you have a damn good reason not to accept the overwhelming consensus of the experts (and here comes the semantic whining of "what defines expert?!?!?!"), then you are the one pretending to know more than you do.

But this has been good. It makes me realize your tactic for future debates. I understand now that not only is each attack likely a strawman, but also almost certainly a projection of your own faults.