Rush is back!

[Foxfyre]

I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true. I never said that makes me an "expert". That's not how I roll.

Fallacy of Assumption?

Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.

That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.

Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer falsely identifies himself as an authority. Not that he is one. If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.

No. Appeal to authority is using your or somebody's credentials to support a point of view. If you are indeed an authority on the statement you make or if somebody else of authority can support the statement based on education or other qualifications, then there is no logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy comes in when you cite your media experience as your authority for being able to judge Rush Limbaugh's motives for creating a controversy, specifically the Sandra Fluke bruhaha. (Which brings us back to the content of the OP.) And you did do that.

First it is absurd to think that Rush intentionally would upset his advertisers and/or listeners with a truly offensive politically incorrect analogy. Once he got into it, he was stuck, and he did apologize for it later. But as Glenn Beck said in his defense of his nemesis, Liz Winstead, when she made an off the cuff offensive remark, there are none of us who have not made an extemporaneous comment in jest that we would like to take back. He defended Jeremy Linn for a sporting 'racial slur' in the same way.

In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut. His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'. And in the process it came out sounding like he had targeted Fluke. It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts. But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse, fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack. Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.

 

[Pogo]

Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.

That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.

Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer falsely identifies himself as an authority. Not that he is one. If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.

No. Appeal to authority is using your or somebody's credentials to support a point of view. If you are indeed an authority on the statement you make or if somebody else of authority can support the statement based on education or other qualifications, then there is no logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy comes in when you cite your media experience as your authority for being able to judge Rush Limbaugh's motives for creating a controversy, specifically the Sandra Fluke bruhaha. (Which brings us back to the content of the OP.) And you did do that.

No, I don't believe I did, but feel free to link or quote... in any case that does not make the fallacy, because the experience is still valid, if irrelevant. That's merely speculation.
Nice try, but the fallacy is committed when the opiner misrepresents the qualifications of that authority. And that hasn't been touched.

First it is absurd to think that Rush intentionally would upset his advertisers and/or listeners with a truly offensive politically incorrect analogy. Once he got into it, he was stuck, and he did apologize for it later. But as Glenn Beck said in his defense of his nemesis, Liz Winstead, when she made an off the cuff offensive remark, there are none of us who have not made an extemporaneous comment in jest that we would like to take back. He defended Jeremy Linn for a sporting 'racial slur' in the same way.

In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut. His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'. And in the process it came out sounding like he had targeted Fluke. It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts. But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse, fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack. Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.

We could get into the whole Flukegate three-day orgy but again I'd rather not get tangented off into details of content. But in any case you've just committed the same "fallacy" you attributed to me, i.e. purporting to speak for what's in Rush's mind. Actually you took it a lot farther; my assessment was simply as regards the dynamics of radio, and I took my cue from David Frum's article and general buzz in the industry. I don't really care what the personal motivations are; I wrote about the radio effect.

But it's not a "fallacy" anyway; it's just two people speculating about a third party's motivations. That's all opinion, so by definition neither true nor false.

Now where's zem snickerdoodles...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.

 

[Pogo]

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.

Oh Emm Gee. I'm devastated. Clearly owned, dead and buried by this irrefutable cache of counterpoints that have dismantled everything I've posted. My head swims.

 

[Pogo]

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.

She avoids some of mine too. I'll invite her to demonstrate a complaint and then... crickets.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.

When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.

If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."

But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer. Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor." That is: YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere. And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.

Oh Emm Gee. I'm devastated. Clearly owned, dead and buried by this irrefutable cache of counterpoints that have dismantled everything I've posted. My head swims.

Your head swims alright.

But it's a more natural process.

You are simply an idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.

No. I have confidence that we ARE getting honesty out of my friend, Pogo. But honesty and accuracy are two separate things. One can be completely honest in his/her convictions and be wrong as white tennis shoes with a black tuxedo at a wedding. I'm sure in his mind he is telling it like it is. I could go back through the posts and really get after him for stuff he said and now denies he said, but what would that accomplish? He has put up a good debate. Much MUCH better than the average leftist on this board. And I don't expect anybody left of Chairman Mao to agree with me.

 

[Pogo]

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.

No. I have confidence that we ARE getting honesty out of my friend, Pogo. But honesty and accuracy are two separate things. One can be completely honest in his/her convictions and be wrong as white tennis shoes with a black tuxedo at a wedding. I'm sure in his mind he is telling it like it is. I could go back through the posts and really get after him for stuff he said and now denies he said, but what would that accomplish? He has put up a good debate. Much MUCH better than the average leftist on this board. And I don't expect anybody left of Chairman Mao to agree with me.

Aw shucks.
And the same can be said of you, Foxy.

You too Ernie.
Ernie?
Oh, he's on garden duty...

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.

When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.

If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."

But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer. Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor." That is: YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere. And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.

You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! It's time for a global warming update. Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.

(Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)

RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth. All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. First from Brussels, Belgium: "The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.


Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:

RUSH: So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea. You mark my words on this.

We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis. Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. Some of it comes from our exhaling. That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live! It's a brilliant set up by God. So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution. Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!

But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe? I'm not talking about you people have hangovers. That maybe another matter. I'm just saying, this is absurd. You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

 

[midcan5]

The draft dodger is back - there must be a joke hidden in there somewhere. From the doctors? From the drugs? From the pain? Oh the pain! LOL

Joe "5 deferments" Biden

[ad removed]

Let's see if we can figure out the reasoning behind this reply. If faced with any wrongdoing or criticism mentioning the fact that another did the same action dismisses the original claim. So if accused of some crime, the perpetrator need not prove their innocence, they simply have to note a similar incident or multiple incidents and that explains away the wrong? Didn't mom say something about this long ago? Maybe moms have changed, you think?

But suppose for the sake of argument we too engage in this rather weak analogous equivalency excuse. Aside from being a draft dodger, Rush was also a drug addict, a two time loser at the altar, and a purchaser of extravagant foreign cars. This being the case, the interlocutor must now find a suitable analogous draft dodger with similar qualities should this form of repartee be considered substantive. So with this said, it would seem Rush was not a perfect asshole. Ah, I knew there was a joke in there somewhere.

FN: Pretentious tone and language dutifully noted. Foreign car thrown in as irrelevant aside.

 

[JoeB131]

[

In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut. His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'. And in the process it came out sounding like he had targeted Fluke. It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts. But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse, fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack. Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.

Seriously... He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out.


Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Here's what he said, for those playing along at home.


RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.

Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.

Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having.

He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students.

If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man.

Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature. Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women. He's on Fake Marriage number 4. He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.

 

[Toro]

I used to listen to Rush. I have no doubt he meant to call her a slut.

He's lowlife scum.

 

[JoeB131]

A final note.

There actually was a valid policy question on the table with all things Fluke.

Should the government require religious employers to provide birth control or any other treatment that violates their religious beliefs. Personally, I think they should. Once they've engaged in commerce beyond religion, they become just like any other employer.

But I can see a completely valid argument being made on the other side.

Unfortunately, Rush obliterated that valid argument. It became about his misogyny, and Romney couldn't really argue the point with Obama without the Media happily hanging Limbaugh around his neck.

(Of course, the Weird Mormon Robot had his own problems, in that his Health Care program already mandated family planning and he supported abortion rights all the way up to the Mid-Oughts. BUt I digress.)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A final note.

There actually was a valid policy question on the table with all things Fluke.

Should the government require religious employers to provide birth control or any other treatment that violates their religious beliefs. Personally, I think they should. Once they've engaged in commerce beyond religion, they become just like any other employer.

But I can see a completely valid argument being made on the other side.

Unfortunately, Rush obliterated that valid argument. It became about his misogyny, and Romney couldn't really argue the point with Obama without the Media happily hanging Limbaugh around his neck.

* * * *

I rarely agree with anything Joey ^ says, but strangely enough, I think Rush did drop the ball on the Fluke thing.

The reaction was, of course, quite out of proportion to the offense. That's the problem with being a lightning rod like Rush is. The liberal opponents can always use anything he says which is even slightly intemperate into something useful with which to deflect the conversation.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.

When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.

If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."

But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer. Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor." That is: YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere. And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.

You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! It's time for a global warming update. Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.

(Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)

RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth. All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. First from Brussels, Belgium: "The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.


Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:

RUSH: So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea. You mark my words on this.

We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis. Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. Some of it comes from our exhaling. That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live! It's a brilliant set up by God. So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution. Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!

But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe? I'm not talking about you people have hangovers. That maybe another matter. I'm just saying, this is absurd. You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Nice wall of words.

And no, I generally don't bother clicking your links.

It doesn't matter; you still miss the point.

He may have been talking about CO2, but the "majority of the atmosphere" comment was clearly a reference instead to greenhouse gasses.

You'd have an argument to make if it weren't true that water vapor IS the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere. But to the extent the whacks on your side insist on calling water vapor a "gas," well then it is what it is: the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.

 

[edthecynic]

When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.

If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."

But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer. Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor." That is: YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."

Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere. And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.

You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! It's time for a global warming update. Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.

(Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)

RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth. All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. First from Brussels, Belgium: "The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.


Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:

RUSH: So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea. You mark my words on this.

We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis. Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. Some of it comes from our exhaling. That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live! It's a brilliant set up by God. So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution. Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!

But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe? I'm not talking about you people have hangovers. That maybe another matter. I'm just saying, this is absurd. You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Nice wall of words.

And no, I generally don't bother clicking your links.

It doesn't matter; you still miss the point.

He may have been talking about CO2, but the "majority of the atmosphere" comment was clearly a reference instead to greenhouse gasses.

You'd have an argument to make if it weren't true that water vapor IS the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere. But to the extent the whacks on your side insist on calling water vapor a "gas," well then it is what it is: the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.

Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *
Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.

You remain an obtuse dullard. Nobody is disputing that he used the wrong terminology, you dipshit.

What I SAID was that he obviously MEANT that water vapor was the largest component of the so-called "greenhouse 'gasses'" in our atmosphere.

Again, sticking your head in the sand to avoid what he obviously meant by harkening back to the very misstatement is proof that you come to the table empty handed, as usual.

By the way, why are the AGW Faith-based morons like you so concerned with the "carbon" form of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases? What has a greater impact on allegedly "trapping" heat in the atmosphere? The relatively trace amounts of CO2 or the relatively enormous amounts of water vapor?

But you goobers go after carbon. Hm.

It never dawns on you that the real agenda has nothing to do with so-called AGW climate change? It can't penetrate your impervious skull that the real agenda is purely economic?

 

[edthecynic]

* * * *
Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.

You remain an obtuse dullard. Nobody is disputing that he used the wrong terminology, you dipshit.

What I SAID was that he obviously MEANT that water vapor was the largest component of the so-called "greenhouse 'gasses'" in our atmosphere.

Again, sticking your head in the sand to avoid what he obviously meant by harkening back to the very misstatement is proof that you come to the table empty handed, as usual.

By the way, why are the AGW Faith-based morons like you so concerned with the "carbon" form of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases? What has a greater impact on allegedly "trapping" heat in the atmosphere? The relatively trace amounts of CO2 or the relatively enormous amounts of water vapor?

But you goobers go after carbon. Hm.

It never dawns on you that the real agenda has nothing to do with so-called AGW climate change? It can't penetrate your impervious skull that the real agenda is purely economic?

I'm not surprised you are too dishonest to admit the truth. The dunce meant what he said. He only mentioned water vapor to say where CO2 came from. It was a stupid statement, not a misstatement. The idiot claims to know more about science than anyone who disagrees with him.

May 29, 2012
RUSH: * People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.