> > > > > > The guy who signs his monicker, thusly, what can you tell us about > > > > > > the > > > > > > Topic heading? > > > > > > > Can you tell us the Source and can you identify the Land Areas, or > > > > > > better yet, the Countries that are Cooling? > > > > > > A few of the world's countries are in fact cooling due to > > > > > human-caused global warming. The vast majority of the world's > > > > > countries are warming, and at an unprecedented rate, from an > > > > > unprecedented cause (human activity). > > > > > The most interesting thing about deniers isn't that they rely on bogus > > > > facts but that the facts they use contradict their conclusions. > > > > > For example, if one third of the earth is cooling then the > > > > implications are, > > > > > 1. 2/3rds of the surface is warming, possibly at a higher rate than > > > > the cooling of the other third. The fact that deniers haven't (up > > > > until now) ever suggested that the cooling of the one third is much > > > > greater than the warming of the 2/3rds just shows they are too > > > > ignorant of middle school math to even argue in their own direction. > > > > > 2. the studies of tree rings in one region don't say anything about > > > > the _global_ climate. > > > > > Bret Cahill > > > > One guy is not all "deniers". > > > 1. "For example" means just that. > > > 2. Who said anything about "all?" > > > The point is deniers mangle basic logic even worse than isolated or > > scientific facts. > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Really? Is that *all* "deniers" or only *some* ? > > Or most? > > Or almost all? > > Or a substantial minority? > > Or a small minority? > > _____________________________________ > Good questions.
Anything seems more comprehensive than the false dicotomy of "all" or "some."
> If there is meaning to the statement, it is not apparent. > > > If it is only *some*, then your argument is meaningless > > You are one of the overwhelming majority of deniers that mangles basic > logic. > _________________________________________ > Because if it is only *some*, almost all collections of people will include > some who mangle logic, rendering the statement a tautology and hence > meaningless.
But supposing it isn't "some?"
Supposing 98% of deniers are confused irrational nut job wing a ding dings and the other 2% are cynical shills working for Big Oil?
Then just about everyone in the main stream media as well as the rest of society would believe it was acceptable shorthand to just say "Deniers Mangle Basic Logic Even Worse Than Isolated or Scientific Facts."
After all, the more deniers try to invoke the same standard for criminal defense as for their denier buddies the more everyone will suspect that you guys really are criminals.