I'm not making logical fallacies, I'm asking questions to prove a point. One side says it wants to require the EPA to disclose the science it uses to justify its regulations. The other side says that's not a good idea, that we should just trust them. My question is to prompt them: If they are not saying that the EPA should be allowed to base its regulations on non- or secret-science, then what are they saying? That is, besides mindless anti-Republican ranting.

Then what are they advocating? That the EPA can keep its justifications secret? That we should just trust them? Or that it's a Republican-sponsored bill, and therefore must be bad, so the Democrats should write their own version, and then it'll be okay?

How is placing more restrictions on the government's power increasing its size?

The (I don't know...MSNBC? Huffington Post?) school of debating, that assumes that Republican-sponsored legislation is innately evil. If this law passes, we're all doomed. DOOMED!

Anyone who thinks God created the universe is clearly an antiquated fool. And anyone who doesn't agree that we're all doomed because the planet is going to cook us is clearly suffering from head-in-the-sandism and should be publicly ridiculed until they convert. And all Republicans think rape is a gift of God, and that women can just not get pregnant if they don't want to. There are no foolish Democrats.

...Both sides are bad so vote Democrat?

Hey, the Republicans have done a lot of bad things to this country too. But ask yourself this: if one group of people wants to take more of your money and make more decisions for you, and the other party wants to let you keep more money and make more of your own decisions, which one is less evil? Which one wants to control your life more?

Is there no doubt in your mind that Democrats won't do bad things if they get their way, too?

Are we not doing that right now? I have lights, heat, food, and clean air outside. My life expectancy is probably higher than at any time in recorded history. Is that not acceptable enough for you? Must we blindly trust the government and whatever they want us to do?

Good grief, I'm so sick of these stupid false dichotomies.

"We can't require the EPA to be open and honest and scientific! If we don't blindly trust them, we'll end up like China and won't even be able to go outside!"

Is it even possible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone?

"So we definitely need to stop running this dangerous experiment and run this other experiment instead. Yeah, we don't know exactly what will happen, but 'The predictions are there,' so if we don't do it NOW, 'we are screwed, and millions will die'! Yeah, yeah, 57 million people die every day...but think of all the millions that might die if we don't force people out of work and into poverty! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't force other people to die earlier! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't reduce the population by making people die faster! Yeah, yeah, the earth has been around for millions and millions of years, long before humans existed...and yeah, the oceans produce far more CO2 than humans ever could...but WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! All these rich people just want to get richer so they can afford huge A/C units when the rest of us roast! They're all anti-science!"

"It's hotter outside!"

"Look at all this CO2 we're producing! It must be our fault! Yeah, the CO2 produced by the oceans alone dwarfs what we produce...but it still must be our fault! It has to be! Don't worry about these 'details', I have them more-or-less right, and I'll keep adjusting them until they prove what I think!"

"Look at all these millions of measurements I took! Clearly I am right! Er, no, don't bother with those measurements...they're...uh...irrelevant."

"Hey, what do you want me to do, reproduce an entire planet? You're crazy! But look, I made a computer simulation that basically does just that, and it agrees with me! And look, I keep adjusting--I mean, improving it! I keep getting more right all the time!"

By the way, who is this mythical "we"? People who agree with you? Oh, okay then.

What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?

What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?

Oh, I forgot, those are all made up by big, evil businesses. All the scientists who say that are shills. All the scientists who say we're doomed are the honest ones. We should all throw away our standards of living and jobs and "go green." The government will take care of us. What? Who takes care of the government? Um...it does?

This is a false dilemma. Who says a study would have to be like that? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to show that these hypothetical chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, and therefore should not be dumped into a body of water?

You know, I thought your post was quite reasonable, until I got to the last line.

I didn't assume that people opposing the bill are against science. I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assumption about me. I asked a question to make a point; namely, that requiring the government to disclose the data and methods it uses to justify its regulations is a good thing--the alternative is secrecy and blind trust, which is the antithesis of democracy. If someone is arguing against mandatory disclosure, one should question their motives, especially if their argument tends toward hypocrisy because of their accusing their opponents of all being "anti-science."

But I wouldn't want to influence anyone with my "ignorance," "stupidity," or "idiocy," so you should probably ignore me.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the IRS's side before.

Well, some people will do anything to defend Obama. We all know that he and his executive branch would never do anything wrong; they'd never, ever misuse or abuse their power to intimidate or inconvenience their political opponents. Yeah, yeah, there were documents and sworn testimony, but that's all made up BS. Why? Because...why am I replying to you? Sigh....

From your link:

If you think that constitutes an "objective fact," then you clearly don't know what an objective fact is.

Here, let me ask you 0.18 questions and see if you answer correctly: How does

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're calling your opponents "the Tealiban"?

You know, it's funny, I can't recall hearing any Tea Party folks make up names for their opponents that look and sound like an infamous group of terrorists recognized around the world as just plain evil. But it seems like people who disagree with Tea Party ideas can't even post a comment without resorting to labeling, name-calling, and well-poisoning.

"...extremist...abuse...wars...mindlessly..." Labeling your opponents is the easiest and cheapest way to avoid having a rational argument.