Climate Change - Impacts, Part II

[quote=“Mick”]Ok, you’re going with if ANYTHING is unknown, then NOTHING is known argument.

Apply this to anything and see how much sense it makes. Example, because gravity remains a mystery in many areas, we know nothing about gravity hence it is useless to draw conclusions that use gravity in their formula. :laughing:[/quote]

Yeah that was my point with this (not sure BK even read it, based on his response):

But apparently, since I’m an English teacher, I’m not to be trusted with simple logical analogies and inferences.

[quote=“Vay”]

But apparently, since I’m an English teacher, I’m not to be trusted with simple logical [strike]analogies[/strike] fallacies and inferences.[/quote]

Anyone who would lump those theories together to make a point about climate science is indeed dim-witted, and English teachers are seldom to be trusted with grammar let alone logic

At this point I’m having trouble believing the ‘Euthyphro’s Dilemma’ post was written by the same person who said this. Shall I accept these bald assertions on the doughty weight of your authority, or do you have reasons and evidence to back them up?

At this point I’m having trouble believing the ‘Euthyphro’s Dilemma’ post was written by the same person who said this. Shall I accept these bald assertions on the doughty weight of your authority, or do you have reasons and evidence to back them up?[/quote]

You want me to provide evidence that lumping those theories together with the CDC fails to make a valid point? It’s worse than I thought :loco: Or maybe you want evidence that English teachers are illogical, lolz…then look no further than yourself. Don’t you have some coloring books you need to grade?

Um, yes. Arguments aren’t usually just accepted Prima Facie… they’re expected to be backed up with reasons and evidence. In case you weren’t aware, AGW theory is a scientific theory in good standing, the roots of which extend back to Fourier and Tyndall in the 19th century. It is based on multiple, independent lines of evidence converging on a conclusion. It comprises over ten thousand pieces of research. So where am I wrong in making this comparison?

Wow. Setting aside the blatant personal insult, Mick made essentially the same argument as I did. Shall we infer your comment applies to him as well?

Finally, it’s pretty ironic that you’re accusing me of fallacies, when a big part of your “argument” over the last page or so has been that my arguments should be dismissed out of hand because I’m an English teacher. In making this argument, you’re engaging unambiguously in a variation of the fallacy of ‘Argument from Authority’.

Oh yes… and I think my grammar’s not half bad. :slight_smile:

PS - Buzzkill, I saw the post the got deleted. For the sake of logic, I think I should point out that dismissing my arguments because I’m dim-witted is no more valid than doing so because I’m an English teacher. The latter is an Argument from Authority; the former is an Ad Hominem argument.

So other than these two clearly fallacious approaches, have you got any other response to Mick’s and my critique of your “scientists don’t know everything, therefore they know nothing” position?

Yes, your post is a straw man, and only an idiot would compare climate science to the law of gravity and the theory of relativity, lolz…

Yes, your post is a straw man, and only an idiot would compare climate science to the law of gravity and the theory of relativity, lolz…[/quote]

In other words you got nothing. There is a correct answer which would be the next logical step for you, I was interested if you knew it, that’s all. If all you have is insults, then there will be a few more of your posts joining that last one in temp.

Yes, your post is a straw man, and only an idiot would compare climate science to the law of gravity and the theory of relativity, lolz…[/quote]

I see. So Mick and I are idiots. Well, it’s fine if you want to think that, but gravity is a theory as well as a law, and I’m not sure what you think is so special about “climate science” (I would say, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming). In any case, idiots or not, this is still an Ad Hominem argument. We could have the intelligence of four-year-olds; it would still be fallacious to dismiss our arguments for this reason. Don’t you think if you’re going to accuse me of fallacies (on this same page) that you ought to stop using them yourself?

PS - incidentally, Buzzkill, assuming you mean the post I’m thinking of, there were several parts to it:

• I responded to your point about “solar activity” with some questions.
• I pointed out that your position strikes me as Post Modernist.
• I related this to denialism and gave a historical example of where a well-known political PR guy used “the science isn’t settled” argument.
• I pointed out the logical equivalence of dismissing AGW theory for your stated reasons.
• I asked you how you think of a person who is not an expert can reach conclusions about scientific truth.
• I posted Dr. Steven Novella’s great piece on scientific consensus and Climate Change (SORRY!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!) in response to your points about that subject.

Are you saying all of it was a straw-man? Honestly I’m still not getting the sense you even read it.

Buzzkill it seems doesn’t understand the question Vay.

Here is an easier one for you Buzzkill, do you think gravity is 100% understood?

[quote=“Mick”]Buzzkill it seems doesn’t understand the question Vay.

Here is an easier one for you Buzzkill, do you think gravity is 100% understood?[/quote]

He’s having a bad day. I know he can do better than this.

Lately, I’m really missing Jotham. Whatever happened to that guy?

Yes, you are VERY impressed with your sources, aren’t you? It must be highly confusing to you when others don’t believe with the same degree of faith because the mere acting of citing this source PROVES it to be true, right? Right? Talk about people having a bad day… bit rich coming from someone who has had a number of mental meltdowns on this very same forum, no?

You, on the other hand, have always been the voice of dispassionate reason, haven’t you?

Yes, you are VERY impressed with your sources, aren’t you? It must be highly confusing to you when others don’t believe with the same degree of faith because the mere acting of citing this source PROVES it to be true, right? Right? [/quote]

Not sure why there needs to be any “faith” when the source cited is the guy in question - but fine: here’s another example of a known denialist (known, around here anyway), using the same strategy:

[quote=“Fred Smith”]My view has always been as follows:

  1. The science is not “settled” and there is no “consensus” other than that man is causing “some” of the global warming. [/quote]

Oh yes… and can you remind us who or what is responsible for the rest of that warming, again?

You and your car?

I was gonna ask, ‘…your hot air?’

But both (your air, my car) would be accounted for under human emissions. So shall we write it off to pixie farts?

God is it HOT today. I apologize to Mother Earth for not caring before but now that I am burning up I just want to tell her how sorry I am. Do you think that she will forgive me?

You must not be in Taipei. 31 in late July is not so bad.

are you still exiled to some backwater hell-hole?

I got fried in the sun today. CLEARLY Mother Nature is mad at me for not caring more about global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) Do you think that I should light candles? engage in singing kumbayah type songs? organize a march/drum circle? send money to Al Gore to get on her good side and thus end my suffering which she is sooooo CLEARLY directing/dictating? I don’t want locusts or boils to follow! :blush: