Buckdog

It's called Argumentum ad Hominem, and it's an old, old logically fallacious debating ploy. If you can't attack the message, attack the bearer.

smalldeadanimals has taken that to new lows. Completely and utterly out to lunch on almost any political or social discussion.

My pleasure talj and Andrew!

Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that you used an ad hominem attack to rebutt an ad hominem attack?

I think both Liberals and Conservatives can do better here.

I ran in "He who sucks on Lemons" last week when he posted that BS petition of 19000+ Scientist against Global Warm crap. When I engaged Brian about the dated science behind the petition, the bs methods they used to promote the scienific research to make it appear as if it had been published and peer-reviewed and the errors in the 1990's Idso data sets, I got called a whole bunch of nasty names, my comments delted and Brian continuosly mischaracterize my comments as "proganda" when they where actually about the process of the scientific method.

I would like to use some colourful words to describe Brian's behavour, but that would only reduce me to his level and debating style.

dan, but in the case of smalldeadanimals, they deserve it!!

stu·pid (stōō'pĭd, styōō'-) Pronunciation Key
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

I say round up the rightwingers touting this trash and leave them in the Biosphere for a few months... then we'll see if they still fell that man can't have an effect on his environment...

E

Maybe it's brain misfunction as a result of inhaling too many paint fumes when airbrushing motorcycle helmets.

Just sayin' y'know.

I read the definition to but that doesn't mean I'm smart as a Poodle.The second smartest dog next to the Border Collie.
The pit bull terrier being stupider of course.

Having lost all scientific and other reasonable arguments on the reality of global warming

What was the rate of melting of the Columbia Ice Sheet in the years 1245-1345? It seems perhaps one of the more damning arguments, and we're continually winning it.

Which of the climate models showing warming was successful in predicting the current climate using 1970 data? Seems quite the victory there as well.

What's the total economic cost to Canada of taking action that would decisively prevent any global warming versus the economic cost of adapting our lifestyle and economy to meet the new slightly altered climate? Another argument the tree-hugging left doesn't even want to participate in.

I think, after all of this, we have earned the right to call Suzuki a blowhard (as some of us have been doing for over a decade).

I say round up the rightwingers touting this trash and leave them in the Biosphere for a few months... then we'll see if they still fell that man can't have an effect on his environment...

If you want to argue that mankind can have an impact on small pockets of local environment, you'll beat up that straw man every time. But just because I can redirect a river by half a mile or rip a tree out of the ground doesn't neatly carry into the irrational belief that mankind has advanced anywhere near to the point where we can inadvertently decimate the entire globe.

Well, I don't know a bout that, I get a kick out of SDA. You can always tell if things are going badly for knuckle draggers, they tighten up real quick. And their rifs do not at all have the sound of deep down swinishness like the university and media types have. They mostly come across as people who still need to sort out how to tie their pet hates to useful activity.

Look at the complete lack of comprehension of the facts from fenyman when he says "But just because I can redirect a river by half a mile or rip a tree out of the ground doesn't neatly carry into the irrational belief that mankind has advanced anywhere near to the point where we can inadvertently decimate the entire globe."

A complete denial of reality. He has no concept of the scope of activity of 6 Billion human organisms, (thats 6000 million individuals) and their industries on the planet; burning of the rain forests, hundreds of millions of vehicles daily churning out pollution, the global petroleum and petro chemical industrial emmissions, - the sheer number of humanity is straining the resources.

But guys like him simply choose to ignore the science. They have beliefs based on fears, not logic.

I have just read through this whole thread and can't find any difference in arguement from either side. Both sides resort to name calling and ad hominum attacks while refusing to argue the science. And its not just here, its everywhere, right and left alike.

Dude - thanks for the link. We (and GWB) look pretty smart now about Iraq.
And given that the world is freezing its collective ass off, we're looking better all the time there to.
I am not in the class of the leftoids that attack my site.
And I've even got an entente with Red Tory and Stafe Left.
I don't insult, I criticize - there;s a difference. And I am entitled to MY opinion, just as YOu are entitled to MY opinion.
Cheers.
ps - was surprised how weakly you bailed over the Ellie May thing. They don't have the money to actually sue you.
I made a point of carrying on yoru story.
Lemon.

Not since the days of the old sitcom, 'The Beverly Hillbillies' have intelligent people had such a good laugh from uneducated, illiterate buffoons who only know how to 'react' .... logic escapes conservative types.