I discuss the logical fallacy of believing in something simply to avert what we perceive as a negative, in response to a beardy David Mitchell's recent rant.
Shot in one take without any practice or writing, so forgive any momentary brain farts. I'll probably rant on the benefits of why I should write my material next.
Now? there's a man ... By: sarah97353. on 09 May 12, 23:15:36 Now? there's a man who loves the sound of his own voice...
@TheNickFox
... By: SpazzyMcGee1337. on 02 May 12, 09:35:31 @TheNickFox
Reducing oil consumption is a net positive though, even if AGW isn't real. By subisidizing alternative sources of energy means of producing oil derived products now, before they are economically viable, we are steeling ourselves against the day cheaply accessible oil runs out.
The only? argument one could make now is that one doesn't give a damn about the next generation bearing the brunt of peak oil? and that one wants to live it up today "while the gettings are good".
yes but god clearly ... By: samdog166. on 23 Apr 12, 21:48:42 yes but god clearly wouldnt be moral or kind if? he did exist
Scientifically ... By: Zochonis. on 02 Apr 12, 13:56:37 Scientifically there is a direct causal link between increased CO2 (and water vapour) in the atmosphere and climate change, and that is the greenhouse effect. Wiki for details. The planet Venus is an excellent example of this.
Whether this is the main cause of climate change is, as? I understand it, still debated, however it is not disputed that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we know what effect that has.
And what experiment ... By: mformonarch. on 01 Feb 12, 19:21:01 And what experiment do you recommend for "proving" causation? Not that it's even necessary... There is a ton of evidence indicative of anthropogenic climate change and no other explanations fit the evidence nearly as well.
And no that isn't just as reasonable, it's merely uninformed. The oceans have taken up 1/2 of the CO2 produced by man and are acidifying from it... There is more CO2 in them now compared to 200? years ago. So, where is all that excess CO2 coming from?
Guess what happens ... By: TheNickFox. on 01 Feb 12, 13:03:06 Guess what happens when you warm the oceans. No really, guess. No guesses other than "Water evaporates?" It releases CO2. ? Warm ocean evaporates creating water vapor which warms the ocean and releases CO2. That is just as reasonable an explanation.
Can you provide ANY causal link between industrialization and CO2, or is it all correlation and conjecture? I'm not willing to put my money on any pony without a causal link.
3.25% more CO2 and ... By: mformonarch. on 01 Feb 12, 08:24:28 3.25% more CO2 and you think "what a small percentage!" and write it off. Well, as it turns out, you're full of crap. Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was at ~278ppm and didn't vary more than 7ppm during the previous 800 years. In 1958: 315. In 2004: 378, 36% more.
Review: CO2 up, temps up, humans produce tons of CO2, and all you have is "water vapor is a green house gas too!" Well guess what happens when that CO2 raises temps? More water evaporates, temps rise, and more water? evaporates...
Good Christ, Nick ... By: Cragget. on 30 Nov 11, 12:49:39 Good Christ, Nick Fox... you're like a young Richard Dawkins: your arguments? are questionable, at best, and you're arrogant, to boot, despite you saying in the first 30 odd seconds or so that you aren't!
@minimacca999 Most ... By: TheNickFox. on 05 Nov 11, 16:46:25 @minimacca999 Most theologians would disagree with you. The modern religious view of the afterlife is that people who live just and moral lives would be welcomed into "heaven." Think about it like this, Hitler loved God, felt he was doing things that would appease God (Make the world more pure) so with that relationship with God, he would be welcomed into heaven. (Theologians believe this) An atheist lives a nice life, never kills or steals, keep his family safe...why shouldn't HE be allowed? in?
@minimacca999 Yes ... By: TheNickFox. on 05 Nov 11, 16:42:53 @minimacca999 Yes we know that CO2 can warm the atmosphere, that's a given. But only just over 3.25% of all atmospheric CO2 is a result of human actions. Water vapor, of which less than .001% if of? human origin, is actually the most prominent greenhouse gas. (95% of the total greenhouse gas concentration is water) Warming conditions also cause the oceans to release CO2. So that's CO2 produced by warming! Where's my causal link for humans?! If you can't produce proof, why should I believe you?
Sorry I find it ... By: roddiegibb. on 23 Sep 11, 08:39:37 Sorry I find it difficult to argue with people who infer things I didn't say from my words (really Neil, I wonder what can you really "tell" about people from what the write on a You Tube comments page?). Honestly, this is my least favorite thing about the internet in general. Too many people dancing on ego driven pinheads instead of actually doing something. We have such short? lives and I can't help but think that even writing this is sapping away part of mine. Where does this get any of us?
It actually seems ... By: TheNickFox. on 23 Sep 11, 00:57:09 It actually seems YouTube may have eaten my first post to you. Weird.
And I wish my own particular ideology was as easy to define as you make it out to be. I'm neither conservative nor liberal, left? nor right. The closest political ideology to my own is Libertarianism. It's not a perfect analogue, but it's close. I often joke that my dream world is one in which I can go to a gay friend's wedding, where he can afford to serve pot at the reception because he save so much from tax cuts
@TheNickFox Debates ... By: Canaderek. on 23 Sep 11, 00:14:05 @TheNickFox Debates are, necessarily, based on arguments. Google "debate" for more info. I do agree that what you're doing is something entirely different.
Sorry I hadn't realized the first response was meant for me. The "@roddiegibb" threw me off.
I can tell you're? an atheist, a cynic, AND an intellectual. I can imagine it must be very difficult for such a person to be a conservative in the United States. Maybe give the "science-worshipping", "egg-headed", "Ivy tower" Left a try...?
That was my second ... By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:56:04 That was my second post to you, so I hadn't opened with it. It was well and truly in the middle. And? nice straw man with the creationist example...Sad to say I'm an atheist...and a cynical asshole. I think that last one might run in my family.
Debates aren't arguments. They are meant to challenge you, to push you to defend your beliefs or positions.
That was my second ... By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:55:56 That was my second post? to you, so I hadn't opened with it. It was well and truly in the middle. And nice straw man with the creationist example...Sad to say I'm an atheist...and a cynical asshole. I think that last one might run in my family.
Debates aren't arguments. They are meant to challenge you, to push you to defend your beliefs or positions.
I'm reading the Tao ... By: Canaderek. on 22 Sep 11, 23:51:11 I'm reading the Tao Te Ching and messed up by saying "Straw Dog" rather than? "Straw Man". I think the fact that you open your rebuttal by pointing this out, with ad hominem, further paints you as a fan of the "Straw Man" style of debate (whereas I hadn't even mentioned the creative grammar in said opener, until now).
You're using a creationist's mindset. They speak EXACTLY the same way about evolution as you do about climate change. I find it difficult to argue with such people.
So, you're saying ... By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:41:21 So, you're saying that even if this warming trend is part of Earth's natural cycle we should attempt to affect it? Change it it to bend to our comfort and will? Isn't that the exact OPPOSITE thing that all environmentalists should be arguing for; removing the affect of man from the Earth.? So, because the Earth's temperature does not suit us, we have the right to augment it, possible causing worse harm? Sounds dangerous.
And if you had ... By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:38:22 And if you had actually has a first year philosophy course, you would know it's known as a straw MAN argument. And you would? also understand why this isn't one. Mitchell presents an exact copy of Pascal's Wager, substituting an eternity of mild temperatures in place an eternity of happiness.
There is no such thing as truth by consensus. All 6.7 billion people on this Earth could believe something but it does not make it true.
Yes, Mitchell says ... By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:32:09 Yes, Mitchell says those things, but can you point to ONE scientific study shows a direct causal link between human actions and global temperature norms. (I'll accept either warming or cooling trends to make this as fair as possible to you) There is only correlation, much like there was a big correlation between stress and ulcers. All? scientists accepted that...until Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren came along, and after being ridiculed for going against the grain won a Nobel.
Mitchell points out ... By: Canaderek. on 22 Sep 11, 23:22:54 Mitchell points out that EVERY body of scientists that has studied the theory (even, eventually, those employed by American Association of Petroleum Geologists) have agreed that global climate change is occurring and human-driven, or that it seems to? be.
Pascal's Wager is a fun thought experiment most of us bump into in first year philosophy (or in popular media), and, in this instance, is known as a "straw dog" argument.
Theoretical theology is very different from evidence-based science.
If you take away ... By: roddiegibb. on 21 Sep 11, 00:01:19 If you take away the need to prove a causal link that climate change is? man made then there is quite a lot of evidence to say that climate change is happening, the earth is warming, the ice caps and glaciers are melting. This argument is a total irrelevance. The seas will rise and we'll have to defend ourselves, costing trillions if we find a link to it being man made or not. We needs to take our heads out of the sand and stop solely trying to figure out what would be the easiest way out of this
I just finished up a windshield mount for my camera and I tested it out by improvising a little Top Gear-style review for my 2000 Volvo S80 T6.
...It's stupid, I know, but so much fun.
Nice review... ... By: jimfddf. on 19 Dec 11, 17:24:03 Nice review... Gotta T6 and is Swedish.... :) Try to push down the pedal fast...and you will know what the T6 is all? about ;)
For what its worth, ... By: Shorty111R. on 07 Jul 11, 15:30:45 For what its worth, a Lotus Elise is my dream car. Under? a Gallardo or 458.
Good video. I've ... By: Shorty111R. on 07 Jul 11, 15:29:56 Good video. I've been wanting to do this sort of thing for a while.
Drove a 2000 T6 yesterday. Absolutely blew my mind how quick it was? for such an old car.
Most fun I've had in a boring car yet.
Haha nice video and ... By: TheVarnster. on 02 Jul 11, 23:07:27 Haha nice video and nice camera mount. Although I do have? to disagree with the stereotype of us Brits having bad teeth lol. But yeah, you're a good presenter and it was the perfect camera angle :)
Good top gear style ... By: FromTheFOD. on 10 May 11, 00:39:49 Good top gear style video. Bit? more stupidness and you would be there.
What mount and ... By: skotner. on 16 Feb 11, 08:27:39 What mount and where did? ya get it?
pffffft.? By: laamberry. on 27 Jan 11, 03:59:41 pffffft.?
All this talk about Jake and Amir #$@king each other was just so disgusting! I had to censor it. Those dirty boys finally got their mouths cleaned up.
It's taken me countless hours to meticulously scrub Amir's mouth out with virtual soap, but I think I finally cleaned his act up. Now this is a song you can let your mother listen to.
he look like said
... By: alialsum52. on 04 Mar 12, 12:47:23 he look like said
fuck me
fuck my wall
fuck my face
fuck my pictures
fuck my videos
I want you to fuck my status
and I want you to fuck yourself
go fuck yourself
like if you get it?
haha? me too LOL By: drawlikewoe. on 23 Nov 11, 02:36:59 haha? me too LOL
Hahaha it sounds ... By: drawlikewoe. on 23 Nov 11, 02:36:15 Hahaha it sounds like he? says Go Fuck yourself LOL @TheNickFox well done LOL
"Accept? the f**k! ... By: ThePhantomSafetyPin. on 04 Nov 11, 03:04:17 "Accept? the f**k! That's it!"
this makes me laugh ... By: TheDirtrider338. on 28 Oct 11, 20:43:40 this makes me laugh so hard every time i watch it? XD
So annoying. :D? By: LolMeista. on 04 Oct 11, 17:21:06 So annoying. :D?
This video is ... By: jdbye. on 26 Sep 11, 00:44:21 This video is perfect for bleeping? :D
... By: canashblacob. on 25 Sep 11, 17:02:46 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?
my brother was ... By: dalloe1. on 17 Sep 11, 17:37:13 my brother was hiding in the? closet while i was watching and he thought i was watching gay porn
Why was "Text me" ... By: Bunneh8. on 25 Aug 11, 09:55:42 Why was "Text me" bleeped?
Oh wait you probly did it for me the "legendary" Bunneh?
FIEL
? By: ImNotEpic. on 15 Aug 11, 07:45:40 FIEL
?
im wearing ... By: BadMovieReviewer1. on 11 Aug 11, 12:16:03 im wearing headphones? so my head is f*cking hurting!!!
couldn't stop ... By: dsiman1234. on 07 Aug 11, 02:01:08 couldn't stop laughing?
i? looled so much! By: pkhamidar2com. on 28 Jul 11, 13:08:32 i? looled so much!
how do i like ... By: RIPxFORxLIFE. on 26 Jul 11, 06:55:03 how do i like something? a million times?
lol, yea i realized ... By: DrunkAngryRussian. on 03 Jan 11, 00:01:00 lol, yea i realized its just a quick? vid u pieced together, but you definitely have potential for making really great videos n maybe become a youtube partner :p
Honestly, this was ... By: TheNickFox. on 02 Jan 11, 23:47:56 Honestly, this was all thrown together in a few hours with just what we had on hand, so I'm not too concerned with it. It was a fun, stupid little video and it kept me from being bored for a? day. So it served it's purpose. Thanks for the comment though.
chilean rules? are ... By: DrunkAngryRussian. on 30 Dec 10, 16:15:02 chilean rules? are there any other?
the lighting and quality is pretty bad? at some parts though, and vid should be cut down a bit.
lol that was cute
u ... By: wge621. on 17 Nov 08, 21:40:43 lol that was cute
u remind me more of the guy who does the soup.. joel something or other than of? conan but still good :)
it's sad how no one can take a joke these days
I'm not saying the ... By: TheNickFox. on 23 Sep 08, 02:27:30 I'm not saying the sketch was "right"? just trying to show that there's a right way and a wrong way to make an incest joke. Insinuating that a political figure's husband is engaged in said relations with his own children is definitely the wrong way.
You're a funny dude ... By: djhufnagle. on 23 Sep 08, 02:24:49 You're a funny dude! But the incest skit was just wrong.
Now, if you want to suggest a skit to "fix" everything..... try this one:
The "Times" reporter writes? a story about how Obama is pimping out his daughter's back in the 'hood in Chicago. That would be great!
I think you make this happen. If you can, peace in this world will be restored.
Not trying to ... By: TheNickFox. on 23 Sep 08, 02:16:11 Not trying to convince anyone of anything...just having a little fun.?
thanks for the ... By: hankszabo. on 23 Sep 08, 02:14:58 thanks for the effort nick! as i mentioned in some of my posts on the snl message board, comedy is incredibly hard to write and perform.
i? don't think nbc should be sued or anything, i just think that joking about anyone sleeping with their daughter is never and will never be funny. if you can convince folks that incest IS funny, then maybe i would change my opinion...
thanks
Too funny Conan? jr! By: TeleHoncho. on 23 Sep 08, 02:11:10 Too funny Conan? jr!
Hahahahaha... Is ... By: LolygagerX. on 19 May 08, 16:21:57 Hahahahaha... Is enough... Wow that was hilarious... Well done.?
Well you were very ... By: SkylerOselznick. on 05 Mar 08, 07:09:10 Well you were very convincing, nicely done...?
A little of both. ... By: TheNickFox. on 04 Mar 08, 23:50:54 A little of both. I mapped it? out and wrote most of the major jokes, but in the moment sometimes you just have better ideas.
Funny! was this ... By: SkylerOselznick. on 04 Mar 08, 23:31:25 Funny! was this scripted or did you ad? lib?
Recently, a few of SNL's sketches have caused a huge uproar on the NBC.com message boards, and by extension a huge amount of work for me, Nick Fox, SNL Message Board Moderator. This is my response to all the users who feel inclined to post, and the writers who continue to make these sketches that cause lots of stress for me, Nick Fox, SNL Message Board Moderator.
I know that guy!!!? ... By: WrecklessAmoeba. on 05 Dec 08, 01:57:27 I know that guy!!!? Seriously!!!
I don't go to the ... By: squizzoo. on 04 Dec 08, 21:35:50 I don't go to the message boards any more because they are slanted one way or another. As an example, I noticed on AOL message boards a person could post the most horrible digusting things about African Americans and nothing was done while others were censored out for simply saying something that was not supportive of the message board moderators' views. This was highly evident prior to the election.
You? ex-AOl people know what I am talking about.
Bottom line? You can have the message boards.
You tell em Nick? By: nathanjbarnatt. on 28 May 08, 06:36:09 You tell em Nick?
how many times do? ... By: drivingyoucrazy. on 12 Mar 08, 21:44:41 how many times do? u say Nick Fox,SNL message board moderator.
Who said I didn't ... By: TheNickFox. on 05 Mar 08, 00:21:11 Who said I didn't want the job, I think you are taking this video? a little too seriously. Relax, it's just the internet. Have I censored anybody? No. So why shouldn't SNL have a guy like me moderating its message board?
Reaching an ... By: TheNickFox. on 05 Mar 08, 00:19:46 Reaching an audience is great so long as what you are talking about is relevant, on topic,? and actually makes sense. The posts in question are accusatory, inflammatory, and often off topic.
I think starone was ... By: mutualdisdain. on 04 Mar 08, 21:30:09 I think starone was making the point that you too have a very limited audience, which pretty much the? rant in the video against yourself as well. Your "who cares" argument applies to anyone who attempts to communicate an opinion.
Furthermore, I find ... By: mutualdisdain. on 04 Mar 08, 21:26:52 Furthermore, I find it a bit hypocritical for someone who is a writer to disparage others for writing. For some people, the limited audience of a message board is all that they have. Any communication can have a vast influence on society whether that audience is? one person or one million.
Why would SNL have ... By: mutualdisdain. on 04 Mar 08, 20:57:34 Why would SNL have a guy like this moderating its message board? The whole point? of a message board is for people to complain, rant, make friends, exchange ideas, and to generally give opinions.
If this guy doesn't want the job he should give it to someone else...
Lol? great job. By: LolygagerX. on 03 Mar 08, 06:39:28 Lol? great job.
Thank you?? By: TheNickFox. on 02 Mar 08, 22:42:08 Thank you??
looooooool........ ... By: GreenAms. on 02 Mar 08, 20:00:33 looooooool........hilarious...?
lol thank you for ... By: Andydrummer2004. on 02 Mar 08, 18:36:04 lol thank you for trying to help with the endless amount of meaningless? opinions Nick Fox,SNL message board moderator.
81? views. By: starone091705. on 02 Mar 08, 17:42:02 81? views.
![Nick Fox\](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2qtTIcLL-58/2.jpg "Nick Fox\")
![Pretending I\](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X9h4AZLYNz0/2.jpg "Pretending I\")
Latest comments made on this video:
By: sarah97353. on 09 May 12, 23:15:36
Now? there's a man who loves the sound of his own voice...
By: SpazzyMcGee1337. on 02 May 12, 09:35:31
@TheNickFox Reducing oil consumption is a net positive though, even if AGW isn't real. By subisidizing alternative sources of energy means of producing oil derived products now, before they are economically viable, we are steeling ourselves against the day cheaply accessible oil runs out. The only? argument one could make now is that one doesn't give a damn about the next generation bearing the brunt of peak oil? and that one wants to live it up today "while the gettings are good".
By: samdog166. on 23 Apr 12, 21:48:42
yes but god clearly wouldnt be moral or kind if? he did exist
By: Zochonis. on 02 Apr 12, 13:56:37
Scientifically there is a direct causal link between increased CO2 (and water vapour) in the atmosphere and climate change, and that is the greenhouse effect. Wiki for details. The planet Venus is an excellent example of this. Whether this is the main cause of climate change is, as? I understand it, still debated, however it is not disputed that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and we know what effect that has.
By: mformonarch. on 01 Feb 12, 19:21:01
And what experiment do you recommend for "proving" causation? Not that it's even necessary... There is a ton of evidence indicative of anthropogenic climate change and no other explanations fit the evidence nearly as well. And no that isn't just as reasonable, it's merely uninformed. The oceans have taken up 1/2 of the CO2 produced by man and are acidifying from it... There is more CO2 in them now compared to 200? years ago. So, where is all that excess CO2 coming from?
By: TheNickFox. on 01 Feb 12, 13:03:06
Guess what happens when you warm the oceans. No really, guess. No guesses other than "Water evaporates?" It releases CO2. ? Warm ocean evaporates creating water vapor which warms the ocean and releases CO2. That is just as reasonable an explanation. Can you provide ANY causal link between industrialization and CO2, or is it all correlation and conjecture? I'm not willing to put my money on any pony without a causal link.
By: mformonarch. on 01 Feb 12, 08:24:28
3.25% more CO2 and you think "what a small percentage!" and write it off. Well, as it turns out, you're full of crap. Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was at ~278ppm and didn't vary more than 7ppm during the previous 800 years. In 1958: 315. In 2004: 378, 36% more. Review: CO2 up, temps up, humans produce tons of CO2, and all you have is "water vapor is a green house gas too!" Well guess what happens when that CO2 raises temps? More water evaporates, temps rise, and more water? evaporates...
By: Cragget. on 30 Nov 11, 12:49:39
Good Christ, Nick Fox... you're like a young Richard Dawkins: your arguments? are questionable, at best, and you're arrogant, to boot, despite you saying in the first 30 odd seconds or so that you aren't!
By: TheNickFox. on 05 Nov 11, 16:46:25
@minimacca999 Most theologians would disagree with you. The modern religious view of the afterlife is that people who live just and moral lives would be welcomed into "heaven." Think about it like this, Hitler loved God, felt he was doing things that would appease God (Make the world more pure) so with that relationship with God, he would be welcomed into heaven. (Theologians believe this) An atheist lives a nice life, never kills or steals, keep his family safe...why shouldn't HE be allowed? in?
By: TheNickFox. on 05 Nov 11, 16:42:53
@minimacca999 Yes we know that CO2 can warm the atmosphere, that's a given. But only just over 3.25% of all atmospheric CO2 is a result of human actions. Water vapor, of which less than .001% if of? human origin, is actually the most prominent greenhouse gas. (95% of the total greenhouse gas concentration is water) Warming conditions also cause the oceans to release CO2. So that's CO2 produced by warming! Where's my causal link for humans?! If you can't produce proof, why should I believe you?
By: roddiegibb. on 23 Sep 11, 08:39:37
Sorry I find it difficult to argue with people who infer things I didn't say from my words (really Neil, I wonder what can you really "tell" about people from what the write on a You Tube comments page?). Honestly, this is my least favorite thing about the internet in general. Too many people dancing on ego driven pinheads instead of actually doing something. We have such short? lives and I can't help but think that even writing this is sapping away part of mine. Where does this get any of us?
By: TheNickFox. on 23 Sep 11, 00:57:09
It actually seems YouTube may have eaten my first post to you. Weird. And I wish my own particular ideology was as easy to define as you make it out to be. I'm neither conservative nor liberal, left? nor right. The closest political ideology to my own is Libertarianism. It's not a perfect analogue, but it's close. I often joke that my dream world is one in which I can go to a gay friend's wedding, where he can afford to serve pot at the reception because he save so much from tax cuts
By: Canaderek. on 23 Sep 11, 00:14:05
@TheNickFox Debates are, necessarily, based on arguments. Google "debate" for more info. I do agree that what you're doing is something entirely different. Sorry I hadn't realized the first response was meant for me. The "@roddiegibb" threw me off. I can tell you're? an atheist, a cynic, AND an intellectual. I can imagine it must be very difficult for such a person to be a conservative in the United States. Maybe give the "science-worshipping", "egg-headed", "Ivy tower" Left a try...?
By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:56:04
That was my second post to you, so I hadn't opened with it. It was well and truly in the middle. And? nice straw man with the creationist example...Sad to say I'm an atheist...and a cynical asshole. I think that last one might run in my family. Debates aren't arguments. They are meant to challenge you, to push you to defend your beliefs or positions.
By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:55:56
That was my second post? to you, so I hadn't opened with it. It was well and truly in the middle. And nice straw man with the creationist example...Sad to say I'm an atheist...and a cynical asshole. I think that last one might run in my family. Debates aren't arguments. They are meant to challenge you, to push you to defend your beliefs or positions.
By: Canaderek. on 22 Sep 11, 23:51:11
I'm reading the Tao Te Ching and messed up by saying "Straw Dog" rather than? "Straw Man". I think the fact that you open your rebuttal by pointing this out, with ad hominem, further paints you as a fan of the "Straw Man" style of debate (whereas I hadn't even mentioned the creative grammar in said opener, until now). You're using a creationist's mindset. They speak EXACTLY the same way about evolution as you do about climate change. I find it difficult to argue with such people.
By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:41:21
So, you're saying that even if this warming trend is part of Earth's natural cycle we should attempt to affect it? Change it it to bend to our comfort and will? Isn't that the exact OPPOSITE thing that all environmentalists should be arguing for; removing the affect of man from the Earth.? So, because the Earth's temperature does not suit us, we have the right to augment it, possible causing worse harm? Sounds dangerous.
By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:38:22
And if you had actually has a first year philosophy course, you would know it's known as a straw MAN argument. And you would? also understand why this isn't one. Mitchell presents an exact copy of Pascal's Wager, substituting an eternity of mild temperatures in place an eternity of happiness. There is no such thing as truth by consensus. All 6.7 billion people on this Earth could believe something but it does not make it true.
By: TheNickFox. on 22 Sep 11, 23:32:09
Yes, Mitchell says those things, but can you point to ONE scientific study shows a direct causal link between human actions and global temperature norms. (I'll accept either warming or cooling trends to make this as fair as possible to you) There is only correlation, much like there was a big correlation between stress and ulcers. All? scientists accepted that...until Barry Marshall and J. Robin Warren came along, and after being ridiculed for going against the grain won a Nobel.
By: Canaderek. on 22 Sep 11, 23:22:54
Mitchell points out that EVERY body of scientists that has studied the theory (even, eventually, those employed by American Association of Petroleum Geologists) have agreed that global climate change is occurring and human-driven, or that it seems to? be. Pascal's Wager is a fun thought experiment most of us bump into in first year philosophy (or in popular media), and, in this instance, is known as a "straw dog" argument. Theoretical theology is very different from evidence-based science.
By: roddiegibb. on 21 Sep 11, 00:01:19
If you take away the need to prove a causal link that climate change is? man made then there is quite a lot of evidence to say that climate change is happening, the earth is warming, the ice caps and glaciers are melting. This argument is a total irrelevance. The seas will rise and we'll have to defend ourselves, costing trillions if we find a link to it being man made or not. We needs to take our heads out of the sand and stop solely trying to figure out what would be the easiest way out of this