Socialized Health Care in the USA

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
It is indeed a faulty argument. However, it is not his argument (nor mine). It is the Republicat's misrepresentation of his argument. So, go fault them.

Done. However, he does say "There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998 temperature peak..." (god I wish this weren't a pdf so I could just copy and paste). He proceeds, if I read correctly to summarize his general complaints so the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. It is part of the same paragraph so maybe the next part is somehow correlated but then I have no idea what he's saying.

Then you need to rethink his work, maybe reread it (or read it rather than reading someone's commentary on it).
But he does accept global warming, what he does not agree with is the best way to control it.

Ambiguous (to me) actually. It's hard to say what's his point with lines like "Global temperatures have declined-extending the current downtrend to 11 years... At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated". Either he means since CO2 has gone up and temperatures haven't in the last 11 years they can't be correlated or he means temperatures aren't going up. Either way it's an argument assuming that since for 11 years the global temperature has been declining therefore on a broader scale something. If he's not saying that global temperatures aren't generally on the rise I don't see why he wouldn't (I'm not trying to strawman here - either there's something about the last 11 years which isn't generalizable in which case it's not relevant to CO2 causing warming or it is generalizable and global warming is just not happening. The only way out of this that I can see is to assume that the he thinks the people warning about global warming think CO2 is the unique, neccessary, and sufficient cause. Now who's putting words in whose mouth:)).

Unlike the scientists who *never* consider the economic aspect ("Why use lead if gold will do?"), he wants to at least consider more reasonable options.

The other options he's considering are that the recession is minimizing emissions. He mentions that this needs to be considered in discussions of future plans. I really hope this recession isn't your idea of a permanent solution. If it's only temporary I see no reason to involve it in plans for the future and I have no idea what he wants with that.

Ah, come on. Do it for the fun of it.;)

The problem is the rant was/would be more a response to my hippy sister and looney aunt-in-law than to Kandrathe. And if even the ranter can tell he's putting words in other people's mouths you know you have a problem. I think we can come to a concensus or even many concensusususususus on that.