A Short Rant on Global Warming (you saw it coming).

Actually, yes. The understanding of the basic fallacies that sometimes occur in rational arguments is central to the study of informal logic, which is itself a critical component that is needed to teach a student to think critically. If schools aren't teaching you critical thinking, then little else that they attempt to impart to you is likely to stick.

Until you do, my counterpoint remains unchallenged. Your unwillingness to address the flaws (both in fact and style) would seem to suggest that you lack anything substantive to offer in return.

By all means, please do.

An argument about the heat we received from the sun and the role that it plays in the past, present and future climate of the earth is a very different argument about whether or not we have the ability to determine the surface temperature of the earth for more than the last 150 years. I only criticized one very specific point that you presented earlier as an example of the misrepresentations in your argument. Your attempts to project that criticism onto invented arguments that I have not in fact offered is disingenuous.

Now, as the argument you attempt to make, now, your assertion is false (or at least once again, misleading). The sun is in fact the origin of almost all of the energy (including heat) that reaches the earth, but that doesn't mean that it is the sole factor in determining what the temperature of the earth is on any given day, or over time. For example, plants on the earth absorb the energy of the sun and store it through a process known as photosynthesis. When those plants die, many of them are transformed over long periods of time into fossil fuels. Many years later, man has the ability to dig up these fuels and when we burn them, the heat and energy stored within those fuels is released back into the atmosphere. That heat causes the temperature of our planet to rise. The gasses that are released at the same time also cause that heat to linger longer than it would naturally.

This is a (very, very simplified) explanation of the greenhouse effect. The point to note is that even though the heat and energy in this model does originate in the sun, it only impacts the climate due to man's intervention in digging up and burning the fossil fuels. So yes, heat does come from the sun. But man does have the ability to affect how that heat behaves in the environment. The evidence for this is found in the graph that I provided to you, earlier. You would seem to think that the dramatic rise in global temperatures that began immediately following the rise in fossil fuel consumption that began during the Industrial Revolution is a coincidence. I think that the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

Oh, and by the way...I have a college degrees in English and Mathematics. I have studied (though admittedly not specialized) biology, chemistry and physics at the collegiate level (not my favorite subjects, but I managed). Perhaps if your understanding of the things we are discussing was supported by something MORE than a middle-school science class, you wouldn't seem so poorly informed about this subject.

That would be true if I had not already provided evidence to support my position. In fact, I have provided you with numerous, scientifically credible sources that support the suggestion that man does indeed not only have the ability to but in fact has influenced the global climate in a significant way. You have responded with a unsupported dismissal. I'm sorry, but debates don't work that way.

The evidence suggests that this is true.

Hmmm...sort of. If the temperature of the sun were to significantly rise or fall, that would have a dramatic impact on the climate of the earth. The sun regularly cycles up and down in temperature, which explains the normal fluctuations in global temperature that can be observed in the paleoclimatic record. The dramatic rise in global temperatures that began in the late 1800's, however, far exceeds the normal level of variation which can be attributed to the sun. The fact that this rise coincides with the dramatic increase in carbon-dioxide (a gas which absorbs and traps heat in the atmosphere) that in turn is directly the result of industrialization, would seem to offer a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon.

It seems you know as little about debate as you do about climatology. When one side in a debate presents evidence to support its assertions, the burden of proof then shifts to the other side to provide rebuttals to that evidence. Surely there is a Debate Team at your school. Find the coach and ask him (or her) about how the burden of proof works in an adversarial discussion.

Of course I haven't, because you haven't provided any evidence (credible or otherwise) that would support that assertion. If you can find a scientifically credible source that would demonstrate that your moon-vacuum theory is valid, then it might be worthy of a more serious response.

And yet, you STILL haven't provided us with even ONE scientifically credible source that seriously challenges the current consensus. Why is that?

This final rant once again demonstrates once again that the TRUE motivation behind your objection to the idea of global warming is political rather than scientific. I don't doubt that there are political forces on BOTH sides of this arguments (oil companies as well as socialists) that have a political stake in promoting one opinion on this matter over another. That however is not my concern, nor is it the issue being discussed here. The question is whether or not man has the ability to affect the global mean temperature, and what are the consequences of that ability if we continue to affect that temperature in the same way that we are now? The answer to that question is not a political one.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

You certainly implied it, however, when you said, "The first thing you need to understand is that the Supreme Court cannot validly change the substance of the constitution any more than the climate can." *rolls eyes* Can you say, "passive-aggressive?"

Actually, yes...it means exactly that. Fortunately, there are other checks and balances in place which permit the Executive and Legislative Branches to keep the SCOTUS from abusing that authority (more on this, below).

Well, +1 to you for knowing about Marbury, but the fact is that Judicial Review was in practice prior to Marbury, as it was an element of the Common Law (on which our system of jurisprudence is based) and which is an integral element to any nation that claims itself to exist under a Rule of Law. Marbury represents the first time that this power was challenged after we broke away from the British legal system, but it was not a new idea, and many of the colonies included specific provisions for judicial review in their pre-founding charters, as well as in their post-founding State Constitutions.

Hardly. Checks and Balances go both (or rather, all three) ways. The Executive Branch has the power of appointment, which gives an up-front balance that keeps the position of Justice directly connected to the will of the people (the people elect the President, and the President appoints the Justices). The Legislative Branch has the ability to deem specific issues not specifically named by the Constitution outside the reach of the Court through the Exceptions and Regulations Clause, i.e. "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" and through the ability to Impeach Supreme Court Justices. The Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the Constitution, and to evoke Judicial Review on the acts of the Executive and Legislative Branches, ensuring that thos actions remain consistent with the Constitution.

The Court has made a very plain ruling that establishes without question that the General Welfare Clause empowers the Federal Government to enact policies that protect the environment (previously cited) and neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches have chosen to challenge that ruling through their respective powers to check and balance the actions of the Court. Until that occurs, or at least until there is some serious indication that such counter-actions are pending, your argument remains a hollow one.

The only think worse than being ignorant is being ignorant on purpose. To purposely cut yourself off from relevant infomration simply because it contradicts your political preferences renders your policies inherently corrupt (not to mention intellectually vacant).

Typical. *lol*

I understand your arguments perfectly. The thing you don't like is that I have challenged you to put up or shut up by providing some kind of actual support for your denialism. But like so many ideological pundits, your position is nothing but smoke and mirrors that vanish at even the hint of having to stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny. As I said above...typical.

Of course it is. Why? Because the scientific evidence supporting your point-of-view does not exist.

Who can say, for sure? Since you have refused to actually show us these "sources" that you keep carrying on about, there's really nothing more to be said except that if your sources are as good as you say they are, it really shouldn't be such a big deal to get you to share them with us.

That might have worked 10 comments ago, but now you've made a total ass of yourself and I don't feel like offering you the "out" of merely spanking you in private. You made a lot of vitriolic claims, so you can either SUPPORT those claims here, or RUN AWAY with your tail between your legs (and I bet I can guess which one you will choose).

How convenient. You should at least be able to provide us with the relevant excerpts from the articles you claim to be reading, as long as you cite them properly, and most journals provide at least the abstracts of their content free of charge.

I'll leave that for our readers to decided, but quite frankly I think that you're overrating your performace.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.