I don't have the strength to try to explain logic to Steele any more, mainly because I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing, somewhere down in his amygdala, if not in his frontal lobes.

Maybe an example would help. Check this out, Steele. Tell me if you think this is a logical argument. It may help us understand how your brain works.

1. I don't believe in chocolate ice cream.

2. I'm not denying that you're eating chocolate ice cream right in front of me, that it's on the menu, or that it smells, looks, and tastes like chocolate, I'm just disagreeing with your conclusion that it's chocolate ice cream.

3. The existence of chocolate ice cream is a religion.

You're very welcome.

Steal the First is pursuing a conservative agenda and it is known to be a deliberately destructive agenda. He can't defend it or advocate it on its merits because it doesn't have any. His only hope for success is to somehow enable the acceptance of logical fallacies.

Therefore he has to pursue it dishonestly. Facts are logic are his enemies, and not his friends. This necessarily puts him at an extreme disadvantage.

Get a life, man.

How do you say that in Latin?

You've undercounted his logical fallacies. It's hard to keep track of all of them.

Godot

You're going to have to show me that study where populations cycle up and down. That's a new one on me.

The main problem with pwoxby is that he doesn't believe ecological systems are also physical systems, even though living entities are physical and operate on physical processes in a physical environment. It's pretty easy to tell that he knows he's way out of his league. He knows he's screwed up. So much the worse for him.

Financial systems, by contrast, aren't subject to physical laws, even though certain analogies can be drawn between financial processes and physical processes. Money itself is a convenient fiction of a kind which wouldn't be possible in physics. It doesn't conform to conservation principles.

You guys are friggin' geeks!

We've been deconstructing you for recreation. How does it feel to be a laboratory specimen?

It's nice to know you're feeling outclassed. Hopefully that will make you more tractable in the future.

The closest translation is probably: Estis Fossores

(You are clowns)

@Renegade Iconoclast:

1. I don't believe in chocolate ice cream.

2. I'm not denying that you're eating chocolate ice cream right in front of me, that it's on the menu, or that it smells, looks, and tastes like chocolate, I'm just disagreeing with your conclusion that it's chocolate ice cream.

The fallacy with your example, in relation to your disagreement with Steele The First, is that chocolate ice cream does exist - it is not a theory, it is not an hypothesis, and there is not a movement claiming the non-existence of chocolate ice cream. Chocolate ice cream exists - it is an irrefutable fact {key word being "fact"}.

On the other hand, Global Warming is a theory (the key word being "theory"). Global Warming is not a proven fact and there are many respected, intelligent scientist, and people, who refute the theory of Global Warming. See the following links:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198188/Hysteria-real-threat-global-warming.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Frevolutionarypolitics.com%2F%3Fp%3D1524&feature=player_embedded

To illustrate your point correctly you would need to use another theory, such as "I don't believe the Quantum Field Theory" or "I don't believe in the String Theory." See the difference? Steele The First is not disagreeing against a fact, he is disagreeing against a theory.

You seem to labor under the common misconception of non-scientists that there is some sort of truth hierarchy, whereby a FACT is the biggest, baddest of them all, and a theory is something we're not quite sure of yet.

You're simply wrong about that. For example, gravity is a fact, and gravitational theory details our best model for explaining the fact of gravity. Evolution is a fact, and evolutionary theory is our best way of explaining how it occured. In the same way, global warming/climate change is both a fact, and a theory.

In any case, let's dive into what you said.

To illustrate your point correctly you would need to use another theory, such as "I don't believe the Quantum Field Theory" or "I don't believe in the String Theory." See the difference? Steele The First is not disagreeing against a fact, he is disagreeing against a theory.

First of all string-theory is a very bad example to use, because no string-theory is widely accepted in physics, and in fact, there's been some talk of abandoning it altogether, because it has so far proven untestable, unlike climate-change theory, which is quite testable.

As for Steele, he's disagreeing with the fact, and the theory of GW/CC, except that he is dismissive of the facts, doesn't even bother to address the theory, and even admits that he's not qualified to address either one. This means that his opinion is firmly rooted in the realm of "belief," not science, fact, or theory. Yet he insists in the same breath that my opinion (along with the opinion of the vast majority of scientists) is one of belief. This is what I was lampooning with my chocolate ice cream analogy.

Instead of addressing the facts, he has used nearly every logical fallacy in the book to argue against what he pointedly admitted he doesn't even understand. He has tried (unsuccessfully) to avoid begging the question, but it's hard to argue that he hasn't engaged in false-dichotomies and red-herrings.

As to your links, I'll address the first two, briefly, but I'm not going to watch a youtube video. I don't have the time, nor do I have much expectation that the effort will be worthwhile, in terms of changing anyone's mind.

Re: ClimateDepot -- Climate change theory does not state that the Earth will continue to warm, non-stop, year upon year, until the end of time. Natural fluctuations are part of the theory, and accounted for by the science. Warming trends are predicted over the long-term not the short term. No climate scientist would dispute that. It is sadly a common argument amongst the ignorant, that because temperatures have dropped a small amount in recent years, GW theory must be false. This only betrays a basic misunderstanding of the science.

Re: DailyMail -- This article makes several common errors and mistaken assumptions. First of all, we have a lot more evidence of CO2 based warming than just computer models. We have fossilized pollen, tree rings, ice cores sea levels, and other data that collectively reaches back millions of years. Glacial ice in particular is almost as good as having a thermometer attached to a time machine, and we have found that historical temperature measurements match up fairly closely with the predicted glacial evidence. If you'd like, I could explain further, but right now I'm out of time.

In any case, both of those articles are of the pop-science variety. Can you produce a hard-science article? Usually you have to pay a significant amount of money for those, but even an abstract would be fine.