Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why there is no global warming war and never has been; history
Topic Started: Dec 15 2013, 02:25 AM (1,353 Views)
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yet another ignored.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
telcoman
Dec 18 2013, 12:35 PM
Then quit acting like you have no education.
Quit argumentum ad verecundiam.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
At last the two of you have found your intellectual equals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
Brewster
Dec 18 2013, 10:25 PM
At last the two of you have found your intellectual equals.

Argumentum ad hominem

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
More insults.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Berton
Dec 18 2013, 09:57 PM
telcoman
Dec 18 2013, 12:35 PM
Then quit acting like you have no education.
Quit argumentum ad verecundiam.

Geez! Now Berton's trying to impress us by using Latin terms instead of the English version.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The Latin you learn in law school is:

Payis Feeist firstist &

Moneyious upfrontis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
It would impress me more if he used the Latin terms correctly.

I think what he's trying to say, in his unique, garbled style, is "argument from authority", which would be "Argumentum ab auctoritate"

The term he used, "Argumentum ad verecundiam" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "Argumentum ab verecundiam".

But regardless of the grammar, the meaning is wrong anyway - it translates as "argument from shame", and I doubt very much that Telco was ashamed of what he said, or felt he was not qualified to comment.

But of course, bad translation or not, Berton is dead wrong in his accusation that Telco was caught in a logical fallacy.

The fallacy applies when the authority being quoted has no expertise in the field in question.

One example: A Denier favourite - The Oregon Petition - "30,000 Scientists Reject AGW". That is a logical fallacy because those "scientists" could be anything, from Biology teachers to Dentists. What does a Dentist know about Climate Science?

In this case, Telco is using articles from real Climatologists, so Berton's claim is completely wrong.

As his claims always are.

On Edit:

I just reviewed Bertie's sentence. Four words, four errors - that must be close to a record!
Edited by Brewster, Dec 19 2013, 01:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It is pretty hard to come up with a convincing argument when you are trying to base real science on political opinion & bias which is where Berton is at. The problem is poltiics are never about facts, science by definiton generally is.

So the scientific facts will win over Bertons politics any day. People who try to corrupt science with poltical dogma are not that uncommon, they have been around since the middle ages.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Dec 18 2013, 04:13 AM
Berton, you're getting worse all the time.

That so called "information" can be refuted in seconds, even by you - what your so-called "experts" did is termed "wave matching" - they create a wave, find some noise, and adjust that wave to match whatever noise they found, then claim they've discovered something.

Of course, of you look a little further back in the past, you'll find their wave doesn't match anything at all - it only matched their points because that's what they used to modify the wave.

It's a form of the logical fallacy called "begging the question".

Lord, you're Gullible!
I prefer to view this as the wind affect. If you are talking about climate change and an increase either colder as when the forces that have a cooling affect cool the planet or warmer as the forces for warming warm the planet, then there is never and has never been a constant march towards colder or warmer, there are fluctuations. Core sample prove this out. After I studied up on this a bit I came up with my wind affect. And it works in either summer or winter.

The wind is never stagnant and a house is porous. If you turn up the A/C in the summer, a warm wind can temporarily affect the downward march of the houses temperature, Conversely the same can occur in the winter. If you increase the thermostat setting, wind from tine to time can affect the upward trend of the house's temperature. You can't cherry pick a period of time and use the data to prove any trend, other than that a contracting force was the cause of the graph fluctuation. What you can depend upon is that the long term affect will occur--either warming by increasing the furnace thermostat or cooling by decreasing the temperature setting on the a/c. You have my permission to use my wind example and you don't have to like it. If you would like I can give you another wind example that I'm considered a pro at, but be forewarned it has the power to clear a room of all occupants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis