humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 25, 5:38 pm, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, TC wrote:

> > How does *actually* (if you insist) mentioning the effects of
> > GW on humans through storms pretend to be about
> > the effects of humans on GW?

> Do you always present evidence to support the arguments the person you
> are arguing with agrees with?

But in this case you are mistaken about the argument
underlying the statement I made.

> It's my mistake for assuming that your
> response to me responds to the arguments I actually make rather than
> hypothetical arguments I never made?

Why do you put a question mark at the end of a declarative
sentence?
....

> > What nonsense. You were wrong and your sophist
> > rephrasing is a transparent attempt to mask your
> > error.

> Nonsense.

We agree on something!!

.............
> > You still seem to think that humans influencing global warming
> > is the same as global warming influencing humans.

> > Sheesh. The word order should be a tip off.

> Me?! Until you response prior to this one, only the former was under
> discussion. *YOU* brought up the latter,

Wrong.

The exchange was [ Feb 22, 6:57 pm]
DS:
"Right, but the problem is that it's hard to judge the meaning of
short-
term changes in the actual climate without going back to the models."
TC
"The meaning is pretty evidence when a January/February tornado
blows down your house and no tornado has been that early before."

You brought up the issue of the meaning of short term changes
in climate.
What is their meaning if not its affect on humans.

> even though it had nothing to
> do with what we were discussing.

It's all about whether GW has pre or post A's.

> Then you accused *ME* of confusing
> the two of them.

Apparently you do since you can't recognize the difference
between AGW or GWA as you indicated with
GW:
" If you're going to revert back to confusing GW with
AGW after all this, there's no hope"

Tom