This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.
This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.
It was directly implied. Did you not read this the first time?
My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.
Your argumentum ad populum is noted.
This was just explained to you,You forgot to say "hypothetically".
You can't, or won't, show me this hypothetical exercise.
I got it.
Hypothetically a lack of ability to explain ones statements or a lack of willingess to explain ones statements is the mark of a sophist.
Hypothically, speaking that is.
It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.
This does not need the word hypothetically added to it.
Your failure to show where I claimed you stated or implied this is the mark of a sophist.
Do you not know what a hypothetical argument is?
RG and I are two different people and he will tell you that we do not agree on everything by any measure. I suppose in your little myopic world that you do not understand that possibility exists but we often disagree and I have a healthy respect for him nonetheless. I have no respect for you whatsoever.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.
You have not, after being asked repeatedly shown how "this" or "that" argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant.
I am forced, at this point, to believe that you cannot, or will not.
I am not entirely sure what to make of this.
If you cannot, that means you don't know, and made shit up. If you will not... that is a bit more open ended.
Either way, you get added to my list. Thank you.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.
You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.
Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.
Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy.
Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.
That, again, is not an answer to my question, nor does it show the structure of your underlying charge. You saying it is implied, especially when it is not explicitly stated, nor even directly intended on my part, does not make it so.
We both know the logical answer is, yes, it is logical to reject your statement.
Your charge is rejected.
(edit)
Error redacted. Not quite a strawman.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 04:42 PM.
At least when I accused you of using the appeal to popularity I used the form. What I want to see is the meltdown he will have if we ever get him into what he considers a logical corner. its going to require what he considers a logical corner because of how his ego appears to work. Its only his truth that is relevant after all.
He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.
Still don't quite see it. (puzzled)
I am willing to withdraw anything proven to be logically or factually flawed.
Could you step me through it? Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.
I am not aggravated.
He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.
I just want you to not have the excuse of not being able to see it.
Again, thanks for helping me prove the OP.
Poptech, as an impartial, but interested viewer of this debate, I must say that you are not bringing much to the table other than offering paradoxical reasoning while focusing on inconsequential minutiae like defending your use of the soviet flag and RG's supposed use of argumentum ad populum, which I do not think you effectively defended.
You have open and unanswered questions to MiG (and RG) relating to the actual science. this particular sequence went unanswered by you:
Originally Posted by Poptech
Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.Originally Posted by Poptech
The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.
Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.Originally Posted by MiG
Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
If you are talking about his assertion then I have no clue. I have been wondering that myself and waiting for him to actually show the argument rather than just claim its existence.
As for mine, it comes down to it its a problem with epistemology. I do not know your exact wording but you said you liked asking questions because it led to a concensus. I said that was an invalid reason for validity because the argument 'everyone agrees therefore it is true' is pretty much the definition of ad populum.
OTOH, how can we know anything? Thats the other side of that particular coin as when it comes down to it cause is unknowable without having some rational construct to work with. I have yet to see a rational construct based on anything other than observation. Introduce the fallibility of sensory perception and the fallibility of inserting agreement for the truth and you are left with nothing. Its all that shit that Hume was getting at.
So i get what you are saying to no small extent but when push comes to shove I guess i cannot agree with it wholeheartedly. Its the basis of the quote in my sig.
[bla bla bla, big long exchange]
You are right to walk that back.
Or did you forget to say "it is my opinion that your..."
Awfully convenient to forget things like stating an opinion as a fact.
Man, I wish I could wave my magic opinion wand and make them into facts. Can you share your magic power with me?
aaaaah. (nods)
Gotcha. I see your point now. It *is* something of a paradox. Now you are getting into philosophy, which is a bit out of my normal area of interest.
Thank you.
It isn't the first time we have gotten into it either.
One should never be afraid to call out someone, no matter how much you like them or respect them, or generally agree with them on most things.
That is a hallmark of intellectual honesty and good faith.
Something that seem to be in short supply these days.
Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?
The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".
My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.
The Truth about SourceWatch
It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.
Then you are arguing a strawman.
Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.
Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?
Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?
Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.
You have dodged this question again,
Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?
I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?
You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?
Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.
Was this the reason their papers were listed?
Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?
Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.
Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
Can a corporation and a scientist hold the same position independently?
You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.
Do you have any evidence of corruption?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-03-2012 at 11:05 PM.
I can play this game as well. I will work on this in detail if you like?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 06:53 PM.
Yay more questions inserted for arguments! So without further ado:
Linking liberals to Soviets and using large red effigies is not red scare tactics because the USSR was socialist! WOOHOO!Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.
You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.
No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.
Intellectual cowardice at its finest.
So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.
Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.
I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.
That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.
Its a weak and obvious tactic in a game that I do not play.
As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.
As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.
Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.
This leaves you a choice. You can ask your question again which once again i will repeat myself or you can actually make your argument for yourself. I am sure you will try and discredit me instead. Oh well.
I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/bu...anted=2&src=pm
Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0106164921.htm
Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us
As for the last, i think that the influence of agencies such as the NSF or NASA has on the scientists they endorse should be very concerning. The difference however is there is at least a measure of oversight and accountability.
Further, unlike when dealing with ExxonMobil, we can file for discovery of documents using the Freedom of Information Act. I see no obvious economic benefit to them making a conclusion one way or another. OTOH, the impact for the energy lobby is obvious. Its saying their product is unsafe.
Supporting socialist programs makes you a socialist but supporting capitalist programs does not make you a capitalist! WOOHOO!
Ask more questions and pretend like its an adequate argument, monkey.
Do you have any evidence of a "new thread" button? hint hint
And don't forget about this, monkey.
Don't forget this either:
It is a strawman argument.
My list is a defined set.
Not when it is a strawman argument.
1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies
The Truth about Skeptical Science
"If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well." - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
"I will admit that I smoke pot" - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
Why is you set the standard by which all other lists are to be judged by? He never stated that he was pulling from your list so you can not argue that he is cherry picking from your list.
Its not a strawman. You are apparently just too dense to understand the argument or the logical extension of what you claim.
You also dropped this, monkey:
Originally Posted by MiG
Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
You seemed confused about why I am here. My only reason for being here is to correct misinformation stated about the list or other articles. When those criticizing the list failed they went into tangential arguments about climate change.
Once I stated, "Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined." his whole line of argumentation following was irrelevant because he was attempting to show that if the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of temperature change and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising with the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of this being Y then it will cause a temperature increase of Z and the anthropogenic fraction would be appreciable.
I will state my position simply,
There is empirical evidence for a very mild global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man. I completely reject AGW Alarm on all grounds.
I already responded to this,
Yes my usage of the flag of the U.S.S.R. has nothing to do with the "Red Scare". Images of that flag can be used for other purposes besides the anti-communist movement from the first half of the 20th century in the United States.Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?
The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".
My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.
The Truth about SourceWatch
It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.
Then you are arguing a strawman.
Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.
Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?
Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?
Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.
You have dodged this question again,
Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?
I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?
You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?
Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.
Was this the reason their papers were listed?
Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?
Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.
Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?
Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?
You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.
Do you have any evidence of corruption?
If you are a Capitalist you do not believe in publicly owned or nationalized industries. Thus those who believe in a mixed economy (which includes publicly owned or nationalized industries) are socialists.
The questions I asked were relevant and you have conceded those points.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 08:12 PM.
This is incorrect.
I have conceded valid points many times.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-03-2012 at 11:08 PM.
That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered.
By the way, make sure and keep us posted on how your self-ruling floating libertarian city is flourishing. I know I am interested in how that untenable misadventure turns out!
So I just want to get this straight.
If you believe in socialist policies then you are a socialist.
If you believe in capitalist policies then you are a capitalist.
If you believe in a mix of both capitalist and socialist policies then you are a socialist but not a capitalist?
Not only that but if you believe in any socialist policy whatsoever then you feel its merited to use this picture
for a header in an article describing them?
My position has been stated online many times.That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered.
I do not subscribe to caricatures of mainstream libertarian positions.
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Video) (25min)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
