Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, remake it said:

You mean responses unlike almost every post above and yours which have been exactly personal attacks, but apparently you are blind to the concept of an ad hominem seeing you failed to notice.

Valid point - maybe my attached pics went a little far, but far from ad hominem.

I can't undermine an argument by attacking the person making it (definition of ad hominem) if there isn't an argument in the first place! You haven't presented any facts or made any attempt to debate - you've only told others they're wrong without telling us why they're wrong or where you stand. 

43 minutes ago, remake it said:

That's for you to resolve and is not hard if logic applied.

And this is exactly why you get the responses you get.

Quote

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” 

This is exactly my experience, but analyzing...

  • Climate change advocates cite "97%" - yes, heard this many times
  • Many times supports the fact it's a 'popular rhetorical move'
  • Anyone who disagrees is 'unscientific' as they site the 97% - yes, seen many times
  • unscientific and 'deniers' often go in the same sentence/headline

If you'd be so kind as to grace me with your superior intellect, because I don't see a fallacy in this...

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Anyone who disagrees is 'unscientific' as they site the 97% - yes, seen many times

 

21 hours ago, DayTrader said:

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.”

First, most governments signed on to the Paris Agreement as the basis for reducing emissions and that was driven by the IPCC's projections and not any survey, so that's a false equivalence; and secondly it is impossible for surveys of peer reviewed scientific literature to be described as unscientific... and do you want more?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, remake it said:

 

First, most governments signed on to the Paris Agreement as the basis for reducing emissions and that was driven by the IPCC's projections and not any survey, so that's a false equivalence; and secondly it is impossible for surveys of peer reviewed scientific literature to be described as unscientific... and do you want more?

You didn't say it was wrong, you argued that it was a logical fallacy. Please show how there is a logical fallacy in the statement. (Or simply correct your previous statement. Not trying to be pedantic... really trying to follow and debate)

As to this comment:

The Paris agreement is trash and is more about money redistribution than solving climate issues. There have been multiple studies on how we could decrease emissions cheaper and more effectively. 

So because the IPCC says it, it must be true? (Hint... no. I'd actually struggle to propose a government entity, association, organization, or committee that has even a good record of truth in the past decade, much less a record beyond doubt)

The article didn't cite IPCCs projections... it did, in fact, cite a survey.

And it's  'impossible for a peer reviewed scientific survey to be described as unscientific'?!?!? Seriously? My friends and I used to joke that anyone could get published in 'Nature' ('You get a nature publication, you get a nature publication, everyone gets a nature publication!' - oprah like. Look it up.) Point us, there are a number of publications that are peer reviewed and still worth less than toilet paper (because at least that has a use! And is soft...)

So yes, I would like more, because the reasons provided so far are very unconvincing for the reasons stated above.

(Giving the benefit of the doubt and having an honest discussion here...

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

You didn't say it was wrong, you argued that it was a logical fallacy. Please show how there is a logical fallacy in the statement. (Or simply correct your previous statement. Not trying to be pedantic... really trying to follow and debate)

A false equivalence renders the comment a "fallacy," while there is no basis for the notion that "aggressive government intervention" is necessary if the Paris Agreement is met by those very same governments.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Since the world countries looked at the science they almost all signed up for the agreement. We’re kinda past the science argument and are moving into saving the earths air. 
Obama haters won’t cheer some simple achievements. The Paris accord is a 17% drop in emissions from the 2005 levels by 2025. The economy is way up since 2005. Transportation miles are also way up. Population has grown.

In spite of these daunting headwinds the US is somewhere around 10.7 to 11.6 below 2005 levels with emissions in 2018. With Trump we may not make 17% but who knows the way coal is losing market share and the growth of all that green tech. 
 

Trump and fans of pollution are gonna win an occasional battle but lose to cleaner air in the end because capitalism is on the side of cheaper costs reguardless of the politics.

Trump in the end will do better than most countries in complying with the Paris Accord because Obama’s legacy reigns.

Edited by Boat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Valid point - maybe my attached pics went a little far, but far from ad hominem.

See the source image

You met your own definition, unless you want to redefine ad hominem, because the point made related to the initial post being riddled with fallacies - a point you were unable to see.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

So because the IPCC says it, it must be true? (Hint... no. I'd actually struggle to propose a government entity, association, organization, or committee that has even a good record of truth in the past decade, much less a record beyond doubt)

You need to brush up on making a case, because that is called a "straw man," while your point about what is "unscientific" is mere word salad.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. Best, Annie...Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia

...Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford? I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil [38]

[Santer] John Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.

[Christy] This gets to the issue that the "consensus" reports now are just the consensus of those who agree with the consensus. The government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest brokers of information. That is a real tragedy, because when someone becomes a gatekeeper, they don't know they've become a gatekeeper - and begin to (sincerely) think the non-consensus scientists are just nuts (... it's more comfortable that way rather than giving them credit for being skeptical in the face of a paradigm).[39]

Thanks Mike

It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute, Thanks, mike [40]

[Phil Jones]Susan offered John Mitchell some advice, but that was all. She did get tough with McIntyre when he began requesting in press/submitted papers that were referred to in AR4 drafts - saying he couldn't do an adequate review without seeing them. He stopped once she threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list.

--- What will amuse is the paragraph about structured archiving. As you both know Keith and me work on the sedimentary sequence approach to filing![41]

I responded to [Chris Landsea's] earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open

enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on him!!!! Kevin [Trenberth][42]

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people.

Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too. [Tom Wigley][43]

In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member of our professional societies.

The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices. They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.[Ben Santer][44]

David - here are some relevant excerpts from an essay recently published by von Storch:

"...there is indeed a serious problem for the natural sciences: namely, the public depiction and perception of climate change. Research has landed in a crisis because its public actors assert themselves on the saturated market of discussion by overselling the topic....

...The costs of stirring up fear are high... A scarce resource - public attention and trust in the reliability of science - is used up without being renewed by the practice of positive examples...

...The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed. In the long term, these allegedly so helpful dramatizations achieve the opposite of that which they wish to achieve."[45]

Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will

have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC ! There will be a number in the atmos obs, paleo and in your chapter I suspect - will likely be the hardest bits to write. Still awaiting from you a revised draft to comment for IDAG. As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic [Timo Hämeranta?] below, but managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.[46]

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exposing the origins of the bogus "consensus"

Quote

Climategate: Just Sign on the Dotted Line

By Dexter Wright

The mainstream media were convinced of global warming theory's legitimacy by the warnings supposedly signed by large numbers of the world's climate scientists. The propagandists in this effort were led by the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of Britain and former Vice President Al Gore.

Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures. 

 

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Alcamo clearly has no respect for the media, implying that they are either lazy or stupid. Operating under this premise, Dr. Alcamo goes on by saying the following:

 

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!

Is he suggesting that his gang members go to skid row and have homeless winos sign this document? Maybe he was suggesting that they go to a Chicago cemetery for names? "Get those names!"

Simultaneously, the folks at Greenpeace were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to manipulate the media. Their formula is tried and true: Don't read the fine print -- just sign. To showcase this subterfuge, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned "scientists." The Jones Gang wanted to make sure that maximum media manipulation was accomplished by coordinating media events as is detailed from the same e-mail:

 

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions 

Different directions? Maybe he meant something like left and far left. I hope he never helps a little old lady across the street.

But one of the Jones Gang was looking the other way before he crossed the street, and that was Professor Richard Tol. In an e-mail dated 12 of November 1997, Prof. Tol pointed out the dirty little secret: There is not a consensus among scientists.

 

I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000 signatures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did not sign?

But why was so much energy put into a propaganda campaign for the media to see that there was a "consensus" among the scientific community? The answer dates back to 1992, when the Jones Gang was caught by surprise right before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At that time, a group of notable and respected scientists began circulating a document known as the Heidelberg Appeal for signatures. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. This document stated that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the theory of carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced global warming was an unproven theory. The document appealed to policy makers to avoid making policy based on uncertain science.  The document explicitly stated the following: 

 

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. 

The original Heidelberg Appeal document was presented at the Rio conference, but it was largely ignored by the media and a pseudoscientific community that was more interested in seeking grant funding than seeking the truth. To date, more than four thousand scientists and intellectuals from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed it.

The Jones Gang knew that this would likely happen again before the 1997 Kyoto Climate Conference. If they were right, they were hopeful that they could deliver a counter-document to lend credence to their cause and steal the spotlight. 

Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. The document expressly states the following:

 

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science. Clearly the so-called "consensus of scientists" so often referred to by Mr. Gore is not a consensus at all. 

In addition to these two powerful and well-considered public statements calling for restraint, there is also the Oregon Petition. To date, over 31,000 American scientists have signed this document. The petition explicitly states the following:

 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of Carbon Dioxide, Methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. 

Unlike the uncovered e-mails from the Jones Gang, these statements of caution are in the public domain and have been for years. By contrast, the Jones Gang engaged in an effort to misinform nations by hiding the facts and overstating the "consensus" -- but then, secrecy is essential for propaganda to be effective and ensure that the checks continue to be signed.

The mainstream media were convinced of global warming theory's legitimacy by the warnings supposedly signed by large numbers of the world's climate scientists. The propagandists in this effort were led by the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones of Britain and former Vice President Al Gore.

Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures. 

 

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Alcamo clearly has no respect for the media, implying that they are either lazy or stupid. Operating under this premise, Dr. Alcamo goes on by saying the following:

 

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!

Is he suggesting that his gang members go to skid row and have homeless winos sign this document? Maybe he was suggesting that they go to a Chicago cemetery for names? "Get those names!"

Simultaneously, the folks at Greenpeace were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to manipulate the media. Their formula is tried and true: Don't read the fine print -- just sign. To showcase this subterfuge, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned "scientists." The Jones Gang wanted to make sure that maximum media manipulation was accomplished by coordinating media events as is detailed from the same e-mail:

 

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions 

Different directions? Maybe he meant something like left and far left. I hope he never helps a little old lady across the street.

But one of the Jones Gang was looking the other way before he crossed the street, and that was Professor Richard Tol. In an e-mail dated 12 of November 1997, Prof. Tol pointed out the dirty little secret: There is not a consensus among scientists.

 

I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000 signatures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did not sign?

But why was so much energy put into a propaganda campaign for the media to see that there was a "consensus" among the scientific community? The answer dates back to 1992, when the Jones Gang was caught by surprise right before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At that time, a group of notable and respected scientists began circulating a document known as the Heidelberg Appeal for signatures. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. This document stated that the science of climate change was uncertain and that the theory of carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced global warming was an unproven theory. The document appealed to policy makers to avoid making policy based on uncertain science.  The document explicitly stated the following: 

 

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. 

The original Heidelberg Appeal document was presented at the Rio conference, but it was largely ignored by the media and a pseudoscientific community that was more interested in seeking grant funding than seeking the truth. To date, more than four thousand scientists and intellectuals from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed it.

The Jones Gang knew that this would likely happen again before the 1997 Kyoto Climate Conference. If they were right, they were hopeful that they could deliver a counter-document to lend credence to their cause and steal the spotlight. 

Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. The document expressly states the following:

 

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that -- contrary to the conventional wisdom -- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science. Clearly the so-called "consensus of scientists" so often referred to by Mr. Gore is not a consensus at all. 

In addition to these two powerful and well-considered public statements calling for restraint, there is also the Oregon Petition. To date, over 31,000 American scientists have signed this document. The petition explicitly states the following:

 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of Carbon Dioxide, Methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. 

Unlike the uncovered e-mails from the Jones Gang, these statements of caution are in the public domain and have been for years. By contrast, the Jones Gang engaged in an effort to misinform nations by hiding the facts and overstating the "consensus" -- but then, secrecy is essential for propaganda to be effective and ensure that the checks continue to be signed.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note, remake it seems to be an amusing and quite lively bot.  Engage only if you wish to waste time arguing with an Artificial Intelligence computer, that seems incapable of directly answering questions that are not part of its agenda. 

On the bright side, the fun bit is trying to figure out what exactly remake it's agends is, except luring otherwise intelligent posters into a neverending spiral of a game of "poke the Jello" for non-answers and personal insults as a response.

One of my "hobbies" is trying to short circuit online AI bots with obtuse comments designed to cause the human handler of the bot to intervene.  Not as simple as it seems.

The day that AI bots no longer require a human handler will be a bad day indeed.

Just my opinion; as always, my human handler is free to intervene.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Side note, remake it seems to be an amusing and quite lively bot.  Engage only if you wish to waste time arguing with an Artificial Intelligence computer, that seems incapable of directly answering questions that are not part of its agenda. 

You would need to actually ask a question... but if rubbish is allowed to be thrown around here with gay abandon, do not be surprised if from time to time it is equally well dispensed with.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, remake it said:

A false equivalence renders the comment a "fallacy," while there is no basis for the notion that "aggressive government intervention" is necessary if the Paris Agreement is met by those very same governments.

False equivalence between what? (Hint, for that to apply you have to take two points equated in the arguement that dont equate. You're the one bringing in other points. I don't see an equivalence being drawn, much less a false one. But I will await the answer to my errors.)

5 hours ago, remake it said:

See the source image

You met your own definition, unless you want to redefine ad hominem, because the point made related to the initial post being riddled with fallacies - a point you were unable to see.

So you're again calling me an idiot because I cant see a point you've so far failed to illustrate. Sounds good.

I can't dispute something that's not there... so this still stands as defined.

 

I can't undermine an argument by attacking the person making it (definition of ad hominem) if there isn't an argument in the first place! You haven't presented any facts or made any attempt to debate - you've only told others they're wrong without telling us why they're wrong or where you stand

5 hours ago, remake it said:

You need to brush up on making a case, because that is called a "straw man," while your point about what is "unscientific" is mere word salad.

Dont like that argument about the IPCC? Ok, ignore it... I still stand by it as valid, but I made a number of points dissecting every different way I could reasonably interpret your post... and refuting it.

As for the unscientific portion... that's the trouble with absolutes. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is true in every case, I only need to show one instance where it's not true to win.

Granted, my point was weak as a personal anecdote,  but sufficient to prove the point (unless you're going to call me a flat out liar and claim I made the whole thing up. We are online, but i think i have a reasonable amount of credibility here)... Nature, a publication that most outside the informed scientific community would likely regard as scientific, is reviewed as garbage by higher institutions. Seriously, you don't list that publication on your resume or in your body of work... you'd be laughed out the door. (Sorry if anyone is published in Nature... but it's true. Your paper may be great - please submit it somewhere else for actual feedback.)

As for Tom's point on directly asking a question... I have 10 pages of them in the thread on China's blueprint for global power... please feel free to answer any as they have so far not received any factual response.

(Notice, even tone, no personal attacks... fair response. General public - Please feel free to let me know if I'm off base... It's been a 16 hour day and I need some sleep before field time tomorrow.)

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

False equivalence between what? (Hint, for that to apply you have to take two points equated in the arguement that dont equate.

The false equivalence was previously explained.

6 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

So you're again calling me an idiot because I cant see a point you've so far failed to illustrate.

No, that was a copy of the meme you posted which you did not regard as an ad hominem.

7 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Dont like that argument about the IPCC?

The thread starter suggests it's a survey that drives national emissions mitigation, but it has nothing to do with the survey.  

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

As for the unscientific portion... that's the trouble with absolutes. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is true in every case, I only need to show one instance where it's not true to win.

That's a completely different argument, so try to line up your ducks a lot better please.

14 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

As for Tom's point on directly asking a question... I have 10 pages of them in the thread on China's blueprint for global power... please feel free to answer any as they have so far not received any factual response.

You said China's territorial claims were bogus, stuffed up the math, and actually showed that the succession from Qing to modern China involved a reduction in territory, so you appear to have wasted a lot of your time on a flawed proposition.

  • Downvote 3
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

to see if you respond in a conciliatory tone or whether you revert to type

Remake It. Unfortunately the latter and still unwilling to accept any other argument (supported by facts as Otis and Ward have given you) to at least sway your opinion if not totally change it.

As Tom says you must be an AI bot so not worth the trouble, so I wont bother engaging you anymore.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would scroll up in this thread but I'm fairly confident in the predictable nonsense / diversions / lack of argument / predictable spiralling round and round that I will read.

Moral of the story - facts can be annoying. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tom, DT, Rob and Otis,

Does the phrase, ‘Flogging a dead horse’ mean anything to you?😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Yes, shame it's not just 1 horse though. Just accusations that must be meant as ironic from people who have never presented any case other than 'you're wrong'. So tedious. STILL waiting for what they do or how they live that's so amazing and green - in a week I've heard 'I drive a Yaris', that's their entire green effort apparently, and now I've just read effectively  'suck on the tailpipe, see how it pollutes'.

You said it perfectly for me.

Thankyou for acknowledging your moronic hypocrisy to all.

And you really shouldn't be flattered I remember what you say. Trust me it's not a good thing. It's like you remembering everything Trump says.

#USMCA

Edited by DayTrader
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Yes, shame it's not just 1 horse though. Just accusations that must be meant as ironic from people who have never presented any case other than 'you're wrong'. So tedious. STILL waiting for what they do or how they live that's so amazing and green - in a week I've heard 'I drive a Yaris', that's their entire green effort apparently, and now I've just read effectively  'suck on the tailpipe, see how it pollutes'.

You said it perfectly for me.

Thankyou for acknowledging your moronic hypocrisy to all.

And you really shouldn't be flattered I remember what you say. Trust me it's not a good thing. It's like you remembering everything Trump says.

#USMCA

So is sucking on a Yaris' tailpipe somehow better than the tailpipe of my Tacoma?

(Because otherwise I don't get the point...)

To take the point further, is sucking on the smoke stacks of a coal plant, or the exhaust of a CCGT better? Oh, but depending on what state you live in, you might only have to suck on a percentage of that smoke stack... (I realize this argument is severely flawed... just trying to point out how ridiculous I find people saying, 'go suck on a tail pipe!')

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, remake it said:

The false equivalence was previously explained.

...Which I analyzed in good faith and asked for more information about, kindly, in good faith.

13 hours ago, remake it said:

No, that was a copy of the meme you posted which you did not regard as an ad hominem.

...Yes, which I explained couldn't be an ad hominem by the definition of ad hominem. I also supplied the definition of ad hominem for your reference. And again, asked in good faith for you to explain your position - which you haven't done. You've just turned it around on me even though I've explained everything I've said...

And your copy paste was meant to imply that I was an idiot, was it not?

13 hours ago, remake it said:

The thread starter suggests it's a survey that drives national emissions mitigation, but it has nothing to do with the survey.  

...Um, the provided article does, in fact, refer to a survey. Did you read it? Sorry, you're wrong on this one.

13 hours ago, remake it said:

That's a completely different argument, so try to line up your ducks a lot better please.

That's the problem debating with you: I can make multiple arguments - all valid - and you don't seem to get any of them.

If this isn't a diversion, what is?

But that's not even the case - it's not even a different argument! I was explaining why my original argument (even as weak as it was) was more than sufficient to discredit your statement by the basic rules of logic by definition of an absolute statement.

(Btw, I studied formal logic  - including predicate logic and propositional calculus - from a top institution. But I only took it for 3 semesters so sure, it's probably me who's getting all flustered with the different types of logical arguments. That sounds right... /sarcasm)

13 hours ago, remake it said:

You said China's territorial claims were bogus, stuffed up the math, and actually showed that the succession from Qing to modern China involved a reduction in territory, so you appear to have wasted a lot of your time on a flawed proposition.

That's already been addressed in another thread where there's 10 pages of rebuttal and questions you've failed to answer. You've already been referred to that other thread from this one. If you'd like to debate that issue - please go answer the 10 pages of thorough research and unanswered questions.

Thank you!

 

  • Great Response! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And your copy paste was meant to imply that I was an idiot, was it not?

No, it was to demonstrate that your meme was the perfect example of an ad hominem - especially given you linked it with another - while all your other points also suggest you need to brush up on your logic as the information has been provided and it appears not to be understood.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, remake it said:

No, it was to demonstrate that your meme was the perfect example of an ad hominem - especially given you linked it with another - while all your other points also suggest you need to brush up on your logic as the information has been provided and it appears not to be understood.

So you're ignoring my repeated explanation about why it fails to meet the definition of ad hominem?

And you're ignoring every other point I've made in detail?

...Just trying to be clear.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are locking this thread. 

  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.