[Pretzel Logic]

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

Last try -- since my efforts at kindness were received with these attacks, let me just respond to your attacks with logic, in the hopes of maybe reaching some sort of understanding. (It's worth a shot!)

You ENTERED this debate with the following statement. This was the tone you set right at the outset:

One comment about the global warming discussion:
Saying carbon dioxide emissions has no effect on global temperatures is like saying loose monetary policy has no effect on global inflation. Sure we don't know when or how much but to deny the effect is just sticking your head in the sand.

"Just sticking your head in the sand" is to say "you are denying reality" -- essentially, "all who disagree are backwards, and possibly morons." It further implies that you claim the corner on Truth. I'm sorry, but the statement above struck me as arrogant. And those were the very first words out of you mouth. You offered no evidence to back up this arrogant (and judgemental) proclamation, though.

So, my reply was to ignore your personal attack and instead ask you to define "the effect" -- a reasonable and rational response. From there, I went on to lay out my case for why BOTH sides are speculating, and why I felt that the debate was being conducted emotionally on a global level. I, as you like to say, "pointed out the gaps in your logic." But I received no response to my request for information, nor did you ever address "the gaps in your logic."

INSTEAD, the next post you made was revealing -- because it clearly illustrated that you were merely speculating. I know this was speculation, because it was backed up by "facts" that were objectively verifiable, yet wholly incorrect.

If 10% of scientists don't believe something, that doesn't mean it's bad science. Remember there's the other 90% (tens of thousands of scientists) who are worth paying attention to. (I think it's probably much higher than 90% who agree that man-made client change is a real problem, but let's just say 90% to be conservative.)

So I responded with ACTUAL FACTS in the form of surveys, petitions, and a deeper examination of the numbers put forth by AGP leaders. The ACTUAL FACTS demonstrated that your speculation was "clearly and objectively wrong," as you say. (Responding to speculation with facts represents pure arrogance, I know!)

That might lead one to question the speculation they had arrived at by using wrong numbers. Instead it led to an emotional response wherein you seemed to feel like I was attacking YOU personally. Again, I was NEVER attacking you personally, and never once did I make a statement on par with YOUR opening personal attack that anyone who disagreed "had their head in the sand."

So let's go back and review, and see how it ties to the personal attack quoted at the very top:

1. I responded to your speculations with facts and logic, and continued to do so. You continued to respond with new speculation, and continued to not "even address the gaps I point out in (your) logic".

2. Nor were you ever once willing to see how the facts rebutting your speculations, and might suggest a reexamination of those speculations -- some people might call that "a complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong."

3. YOU kept trying to take the debate more and more personal (starting with your very first post, and continuing with condescending attitudes that amounted to: "Oh, tell me why I'm wrong, oh great and smart guy."). I kept trying to keep things civil and kind, but you swatted me back every time. Dude, sorry, but THAT is "arrogance."


As far as I can tell, in actuality, your attacks (below) are self-directed.

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

Jung called this "the shadow" self: you are projecting your own (deeper) attitudes onto me.

I hope I've make it clear that I do NOT share them.