Global warming consensus - Cracking or Broken?

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Robroy]

[quote="rose-colored-coolaid]
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unicorn

1. a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.
2. a heraldic representation of this animal, in the form of a horse with a lion's tail and with a long, straight, and spirally twisted horn.

Wow, it's in the dictionary. I gave you authoritative proof that unicorns exist. Maybe that's why proof from authority is a logical fallacy...?

Or perhaps we should concede that finding a word in the dictionary means it is commonly used, not that it is fictional.[/quote]
The word is not fictional. What it describes is fictional, and the dictionary definition includes that critical information in the definition.

I really appreciate most of your posts here, RCC, even when we disagree, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. It really is an established definition and, actually, enhances discourse. It is good.

[Alan]

When participants in an argument begin using dictionaries to make their point, both sides have lost and should probably just stop talking to each other altogether.

I'm dubbing this "Alan's law".

[Charles Dean]

[lamont]

[lamont]

[lamont]

[Robroy]

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Robroy]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[TheMightyQuinn]

This is such an interesting topic. Those who believe man is causing global warming cite "consensus" as some sort of proof. Of course no one with a background in science would do such a thing, since they know consensus does not equal proof. Yet we hear it again and again. Shouldn't they be citing proof instead of consensus? Does anyone remember the "scientific method?"