Author Archives: Bruce Nielson

Logical Analysis – The Relevance of Judge Vaughn Walker’s Sexual Orientation

Posted on by

“Logic” is the word we use for certain ways to chain ideas. But I doubt that pure deductive logic plays much of a role in ordinary thinking. (Marvin Minksky in The Society of Mind)

I have a natural inclination towards analyzing the logic or rationality (or lack therefore) in people’s arguments. I am going to start a ‘series’ of posts where I take a quote from a news article or some other post and give a quote from it and ask people to analyze the flaws in the logic of the argument. The next day I’ll do a follow on post with my own analysis of the quote.

I will always post my analysis in advanced and I will not change it based on other people’s comments. Therefore I will have no advantage in my logical analysis over any comments. Continue reading →

Do Gore and AGW Believers Really Believe Our Doom is Imminent?

Posted on by

Geoff has written two posts recently advancing the common AGW Skeptic argument that since Gore isn’t carbon neutral this proves he doesn’t really believe what he is saying.

I think I’ve made myself very clear that I completely disagree with the logic of Geoff’s arguments because they are arguments by analogy. I think my latest comment sums up my position well: Continue reading →

Why Anthropogenic Global Warming Isn’t the Real Issue (My Case: Part 3 of 3)

Posted on by

In my last two posts, I first made the case that Anthropogenic CO2 Levels is basically non-controversial and then made the case that our science can’t really connected Global Warming with Anthropogenic CO2 anyhow, even if it’s true. 

Anthropogenic Global Warming Doesn’t Matter After All

I believe Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) isn’t the real issue. The real issue is CO2 emissions. We are putting out unsustainable levels of CO2. I’ll define “unsustainable” as “growing with no chance of cutting back without intervention.” Continue reading →

Why Our Science is Probably Not Up to the Task of Resolving the Global Warming Debate (My Case: Part 2 of 3)

Posted on by

In my last post, I finally made the point that is most crucial to me: that CO2 Levels are growing and even AGW Skeptics agree it’s Anthropogenic in nature. I concentrated in that post on why choosing to believe the testimony of an AGW Skeptic on this point is as good as it gets as far as indirect evidence goes. I finished with this statement:

…our science is not up to the task of proving if global warming is man made or not.

Bold claim? Not really. At a minimum science can never “prove” anything. But in this post, I’m going to attempt to strengthen this claim even further. I’m also going to explain why this fact (if true) favors AGW Believers, not Deniers. Continue reading →

My Case for Acting on Curbing CO2 Emissions – Immediately (My Case: Part 1 of 3)

Posted on by

In my previous posts I explained my own frustrations of trying to make sense of the global warming debate and my anger over dishonesty on both sides. I further expressed some additional one-sided anger at the global warming deniers for using arguments that had nothing to do with the actual debate, such as the false dichotomy of water vapor vs. CO2 or simultaneously claiming that global warming is real, but caused by the sun and then immediately also claiming that the last decade of cooling proves there is no global warming.  

I ended with finally finding global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre’s website. I mentioned that I found something there that got around all the problems of trying to make sense of it and also convinced me that the time to act had already arrived.

 Very simply, I found out that McIntyre claims CO2 levels are growing and are man made. Apparently this fact is generally considered non-controversial because even the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Skeptics, such as McIntyre, agree CO2 growth is man made.

 Now I found this on McIntyre’s old site, but you can still find this on his current site, such as in this article and also this one.

Continue reading →