(As usual, the Left can’t attack the message, so it attacks the messanger – not that attacking a lying messanger is a bad thing, but FIRST one must establish that fact by showing the message to be fabricated).

Yet the Register chose to continously enlighten us with his views on climate change without criticism, Is he perhaps having some connection to IT professional John Atkinson, who was allowed to post a similarly incoherent article on the Register? Is it just a coincidence that someone using the moniker “John A.” pops up regularly on the blog of Stephen McIntyre, who works in IT as well and is known for making powerful oil interests heard?

My son insisted I watch it with him, and I assented after he assured me I would like it. He was right.

You raise a good point about the distinction between reality and fantasy. If our neighbors acted like some of the characters we admire on the screen, how long would it be before we reported them to the authorities.

I guess in my ol’ broad age, I find myself increasingly gravitating to Disney/Pixar movies, dry witted comedies, adventure fantasies like Lord of the Rings, Nat’l Treasure, Harry Potters, etal… and enjoying classics like The Princess Bride (not to mention being mad for Mandy Patinkin thru his theate/celluloid career). What all these flicks have in common is an inherent charm because good and evil are so easily discerned, and what is right and moral a choice is so obvious.

Oddly enough, they are discussing the new Batman movie like that. Noting that it’s okay for Batman to illegally wire tap, use undue violence, even enjoy the low popularity numbers of Gothic City, because he’s keeping saving their asses…

“Where is your God now?”

All in good time, Vizzini, all in good time. In the meantime, be careful of the cup you choose.

What WD-40 is doing there is quoting one of the villains from “The Princess Bride,” a pretty entertaining romantic comedy for kids. He, like WD-40, fancied himself a whiz at logic, and used it to decide which of the two goblets of wine had poison. Unbeknownst to him, the hero had put poison in both cups because he had developed an immunity to it, so that whichever cup the villain chose for himself (the other being for the hero), he, like WD-40, became the loser.

How does that apply in this case? It doesn’t. Why does he quote it? Maybe he can supply some more non sequiturs to “elucidate”?

If you are a teacher, and I pray you are not, then G-d help our children!

Heh. Prayers unanswered! Where is your God now?

I’m not trying to hurt your self-esteem or anything, but I just spent three years teaching kids who were one step up from SpEd, and they pick up on stuff faster than you do.

If four out of five wingnuts agree, then it must be true!

So, we are “wingnuts” if most of us do not think it is possible to reduce CO2 to zero?
….excellent non-sequitur!

Yonason: this stuff you’re trying to school me on here? It’s my job

….not very good at it, are you!

…. more irrelavent nonsense ….

“Thus invalidating your entire rant up above.”

…in the fantasy universe you inhabit. That was “cross-talk” appologizing for any impression I might have given dc that I was calling him stupid, again giving him the benefit of the doubt, and not part of my argument.

you wiggle like a worm on a hook, but the “straw man” was still yours, not ours.

If you are a teacher, and I pray you are not, then G-d help our children!

I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt, as hyperbole is how the majority of us anti-AGW folks see that kind of representatioin.

Ah. If four out of five wingnuts agree, then it must be true!

A “straw man” is (see link to definition, above) “An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated”,…like WD-40’s assertion that he knows “the ins and outs of figurative language.”

…Thus proving once and for all that, while you can cut and paste a definition, you really have no understanding of the concept.

Yonason: this stuff you’re trying to school me on here? It’s my job. I’ve been doing it for eighteen years. Be semi-literate if you’d like–it’s a free country, and semi-literacy puts you in a lot of company, what with most of the people who post here–but don’t try to pass it off as knowledge.

Representing the pro-AGW side as wanting to get rid of all CO2 is such a ludicrous idea, that no respectable argument could be made that would incorporate that as a serious attack on the pro-AGW position. However, treating dc’s hyperbole as being representative of our arguments, that WD-40 can then so easily refute, is the real “straw man” here, but it’s not ours, . . . IT’S WD-40’s!

And here we get a glimpse of yonason’s thought process: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

dc-I do hope you didn’t mean it litterally. If you did, I’m sure it’s ignorance and not stupidity,

Thus invalidating your entire rant up above. It’s sweet when the Moebius strip turns in on itself so nicely.

The point is that more CO2 is good, and less is bad. Stretching the point by imagining what would happen by reducing CO2 to zero helps get the point across is not a “straw man”; it is hyperbole. And that makes WD-40 the loser.

A “straw man” is (see link to definition, above) “An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated”, …like WD-40’s assertion that he knows “the ins and outs of figurative language.” (thanks for the illustration, btw)

Representing the pro-AGW side as wanting to get rid of all CO2 is such a ludicrous idea, that no respectable argument could be made that would incorporate that as a serious attack on the pro-AGW position. However, treating dc’s hyperbole as being representative of our arguments, that WD-40 can then so easily refute, is the real “straw man” here, but it’s not ours, . . . IT’S WD-40’s!

**dc-I do hope you didn’t mean it litterally. If you did, I’m sure it’s ignorance and not stupidity, but I needed a bit of hyperbole there, for effect, as I’m sure you can understand.

WD-40 IS AT IT AGAIN – malfunctioning droid alert!

That’s not a “straw man,” it’s hyperbole

Wrong again, as usual, but thanks for playing.

If Dc had not meant his argument literally, it would have been hyperbole. What we’re dealing with here, however, is a lame-ass straw man: “An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.” The way that we know that “After you suck all the CO2 out of the air” is a straw man, rather than hyperbole, is that Dc proceeds to posit an argument aimed at refuting or defeating this wholly imaginary suggestion: “…what are the plants (that give off O2) going to live on?”

Seriously: you’re getting in over your head when you try to teach me the ins and outs of figurative language.

That’s not a “straw man,” it’s hyperbole (“A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.”), because we could never suck all the CO2 out of the air.

But, since there is more CO2 in the air now, crops are more productive and food supplies more available for the World’s increasing population so they won’t starve (unless the climatefascists can divert food into fuel).

If the eccofreaks can claim a dependence of temps on CO2 when they don’t correlate, why don’t they see a connection between CO2 levels and increased crop yields when those DO correlate?
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/SectorGraphics/Ag/Corn.jpg

NOTE – that graph is PER ACRE, not total, which means it’s due to improved productivity, not just the use of more land.

After you suck all the CO2 out of the air

Strawman alert!

Most excess Co2 is absorbed in the Ocean..where it is held for years before being released from the bottom like a bellows. The amount of CO2 released from the Ocean is exponential compared to everything Gore is talking about.

The technology is probably decades away, and understanding the environmental impact, even longer.
http://www.physorg.com/news116611252.html

Meanwhile, they are having a little TURBINE TROUBLE (and I don’t mean the Mid Eastern kind)

That is NOT what I call “environmentally friendly”