Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Poptech]

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...p-climate.html

Thats a picture of a guy and his home up on his site where he is trying to promote for his political gain.

Those pictures were all freely available online.

[RandomGuy]

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

Guilt by Association (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO, May 9, 2012)

I can see it now.

DUN DUN DUN! (open to theme song)

PopTech, esq.
Starring "Poptech, avenging liberatarian superstar"


"Your honor, I have brought forward an expert scientist, here are all of his credentials. Please ignore his other statements equating non-scientific theories with valid scientific ones, and focus only on what I want you to, because the people bringing that up are bigots with a firm bias against bullshit".

[Poptech]

What I have here is a letter from a poster on the SpursTalk political forum.

[Poptech]

[RandomGuy]

If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

He wasn't stating a relgious belief, sporto.

He was assigning validity to a non-scientific theory, and equating that to a valid scientific theory.

That pretty much meets any reasonable definition of pseudo-science.

[Poptech]

You think it's cause he wanted more web hits?

Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful.

This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads.

[Poptech]

He wasn't stating a relgious belief, sporto.

He was assigning validity to a non-scientific theory, and equating that to a valid scientific theory.

That pretty much meets any reasonable definition of pseudo-science.

Why are you a religious bigot?

[RandomGuy]

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_d...evolution.html


"evolutionism"

[RandomGuy]

Why are you a religious bigot?

(edit)

Irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that Roy Spencer believes intelligent design is as valid a theory as evolution.

[Poptech]

Why are you not applying an appropriate amount of honest skepticism to Roy Spencer's work?

All I do is apply honest skepticism which is why I am not making ad hominem arguments against Dr. Spencer like you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I do want more web hits. I had no idea you would be this helpful.

This is why the list and truth articles are such a problem for alarmists because in order for you to criticize them, you have to discuss them, which leads people to actually read them. As anyone rational can read the source material themselves and make up their own minds. This generates an actual positive feedback loop as the truth spreads.

The email was exclusively about your mental disorder and how it manifests. You going to write an article title "The Truth About My Aspergers Disorder?"

[Poptech]

The email was exclusively about your mental disorder and how it manifests. You going to write an article title "The Truth About My Aspergers Disorder?"

[RandomGuy]

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

Implied:


"Randomguy says that Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones"

Random guy is a religious bigot.

Therefore, I, PopTech say Randomguy is wrong about Roy Spencer"


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

---------------------------------------------------

Person A = RandomGuy
Claim X = Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones
Person B = Poptech
Attack = Random guy is a religious bigot

[Poptech]

The religious bigots are all very easy to spot as they obsess on discussing creationism like RG does.

[RandomGuy]

All I do is apply honest skepticism which is why I am not making ad hominem arguments against Dr. Spencer like you are.

Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones.

He could very well be right, about his climate science claims, I lack the inclination to really dig into it.

However, when one has indications that a person engages in poor reasoning, one should be a bit more skeptical of that persons' interpretation of data.

That is quite logical and appropriate.

If I have a less than credible expert interpreting data one way, and another credible expert telling me something else entirely, it is only logical to assign the latter a higher probability of being correct than the former.

[RandomGuy]

The religious bigots are all very easy to spot as they obsess on discussing creationism like RG does.

Do you believe creationism a credible theory? You seem to want me to ignore it for some reason.

[Poptech]

Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones.

He could very well be right.

However, when one has indications that a person engages in poor reasoning, one should be a bit more skeptical of that persons' interpretation of data.

That is quite logical and appropriate.

If I have a less than credible expert interpreting data one way, and another credible expert telling me something else entirely, it is only logical to assign the latter a higher probability of being correct than the former.

Applying your religious bigotry to his climate science arguments is an ad hominem and does not change his climate science credibility. Dr. Spencer is highly credible and has impeccable climate science credentials,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

You are correct though that if we were discussing creationism, Dr. Spencer would not be qualified. His qualifications only relate to atmospheric science.

Do you believe creationism a credible theory? You seem to want me to ignore it for some reason.

I support evolution theory but I also respect people's religious beliefs and am not a religious bigot like yourself.

[RandomGuy]

The reason you want me to ignore it, is because you know I am right.

The "religious bigot" charge, and accusing me of "obsessing" over it, are rather obvious ploys to change the subject.

Your ego will not allow you to admit I have made a good point.

You have dimissed this as an "ad hominem" when it is clearly not, and, in the process provably committed that logical fallacy yourself.

Your ego will not allow you to answer the question

If a scientist equates a non-scientific theory to a scientific one does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?

Because the obvious answer, i.e. "Yes, one should assign less credibility" would then mean one of the scientists advancing your "skepticism" isn't as strong of an advocate as you want everybody to believe.

The inability to answer questions like this are exactly what twoofers talking about faked plane crashes on 9-11 do, when you confront them with information that indicates their positions are weak.

[RandomGuy]

Applying your religious bigotry to his climate science arguments is an ad hominem

The only logical thing to do is to reject a theory until it is proven.

Prove my statements constitute an ad hominem attack.

I have given you the format.

You will have to work hard to get around this though:

Dr. Spencers claims on climate science cannot be logically dismissed simply because he equates non-scientific theories with scientific ones

Further, the topic under discussion is his credibility, and the comments bear a direct bearing on that.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

I ... am not a religious bigot like yourself.

Prove I am a religious "bigot".

Again, your claim, your burden of proof.

I am not a religious bigot.

[Poptech]

The reason you want me to ignore it, is because you know I am right.

The "religious bigot" charge, and accusing me of "obsessing" over it, are rather obvious ploys to change the subject.

Your ego will not allow you to admit I have made a good point.

You have dimissed this as an "ad hominem" when it is clearly not, and, in the process provably committed that logical fallacy yourself.

Your ego will not allow you to answer the question

No I do not believe you are right, your arguments is both a red herring and an ad hominem. Dr. Spencer's religious belief in creationism has no bearing on his climate science arguments. He has no theological qualifications,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

Because the obvious answer, i.e. "Yes, one should assign less credibility" would then mean one of the scientists advancing your "skepticism" isn't as strong of an advocate as you want everybody to believe.

Why should people use your religious bigotry and ad hominem arguments to lie about Dr. Spencer's climate science arguments?

The inability to answer questions like this are exactly what twoofers talking about faked plane crashes on 9-11 do, when you confront them with information that indicates their positions are weak.

Continued ad hominem against skeptics. You consistently demonstrate your logical fallacies.

[Poptech]

Prove I am a religious "bigot".

Do you bring up creationism in climate science discussions?

[RandomGuy]

No I do not believe you are right, your arguments is both a red herring and an ad hominem. Dr. Spencer's religious belief in creationism has no bearing on his climate science arguments. He has no theological qualifications,

Meh.

You are pulling a rather standard conspiracy theorist ploy now.

Ignoring, dimissing, and repeating, and obfuscating. Like reposting his credentials will erase the man's equating non-scientific theories to scientific ones.

Any reasonable skeptic would say that indicates flawed thinking on one subject, and would then apply much more skepticism to his other statements, even ones he is qualified for.

No one here would believe for a second that you would not say the exact same thing if the expert in question advocated AGW theory and the theory that it could potentially cause some serious harm.

[RandomGuy]

Do you bring up creationism in climate science discussions?

So you can't prove it?

I didn't think so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RG, i think its a very good point. Is a scientist that puts something without any empirical evidence on the same level as a theory with extensive and diverse empirical evidence credible. Or is he prone to confirmation bias?

From my experience most scientists I have talked with separate the notions of faith and empirical science. That is not to say that a supreme being or diety is by definition precluded but rather that there is as of now no confirmable empirical basis for use in science.

[Poptech]

You are pulling a rather standard conspiracy theorist ploy now.

Ignoring, dimissing, and repeating, and obfuscating. Like reposting his credentials will erase the man's equating non-scientific theories to scientific ones.

Any reasonable skeptic would say that indicates flawed thinking on one subject, and would then apply much more skepticism to his other statements, even ones he is qualified for.

Still with the ad hominem? His climate science credentials have nothing to do with his religious beliefs,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

There is no question he has no theological qualifications but we are discussing climate science. Any reasonable skeptic would not apply someone's religious beliefs to their climate science arguments.

No one here would believe for a second that you would not say the exact same thing if the expert in question advocated AGW theory and the theory that it could potentially cause some serious harm.

I have never brought up a person's religious beliefs when discussing climate science. The difference is you are showing your religious bigotry as many alarmists do.

[Poptech]

So you can't prove it?

I already did.

[RandomGuy]

RG, i think its a very good point. Is a scientist that puts something without any empirical evidence on the same level as a theory with extensive and diverse empirical evidence credible. Or is he prone to confirmation bias?

From my experience most scientists I have talked with separate the notions of faith and empirical science. That is not to say that a supreme being or diety is by definition precluded but rather that there is as of now no confirmable empirical basis for use in science.

The fun thing is that I don't have to prove AGW or not.

The title of the thread isn't "I think AGW is real"

I can talk about it, to be sure, but all I really have to do is wait for the deniers attracted to the topic to be themselves.

"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience"

I prove my case when people like PopTech can't honestly answer questions, commit provable logical fallacies, falsely accuse me of logical fallacies, and fail to prove things when asked to do so, all of which he is doing and has done.

[RandomGuy]

I already did.

Really?




"Your honor, I proved that I am right, because I said I was right".





The continuing adventures of "PopTech, esq."...

[RandomGuy]

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Again, as a general question:

If a scientist expresses a belief that a non-scientific theory has the same credibility as a scientific one, does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?