List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

[Poptech]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%900 out of how many papers total?
2. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.
3. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely.
4. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement
5. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841353&postcount=3308)

Remember, it is my contention that people who are skeptical of AGW are, generally speaking, little better intellectually than 9-11 truthers.
6. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5839579&postcount=3268)

Fuck you
7. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841689&postcount=3321)

So basically you are accusing me of something, then being a punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

I will say again:

Fuck you.
8. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844117&postcount=3447)

If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted fucktard, who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.
9. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844853&postcount=3491)

Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.
10. Red (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848135&postcount=46) Herring (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848144&postcount=47)

Thread Topic: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5846793&postcount=1)

LET'S PLAY:

GUESS THE COMMON THEME OF THE HERITAGE TRUSTEE PICTURES [...]

Can anyone spot the common theme? [...]

Nothing screams "traditional American values" like ruling bodies deviod of representatives of certain segments of the population.

11. Straw Man (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848818&postcount=64)


All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.
Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science.

12. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849003&postcount=3543)

PopTart. Heh, that's funny too.

[RandomGuy]

There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111).



That is not an argumentum ad populum.

I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

That is your implication. Not mine.

I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

This also got ignored.

You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

Your claim, your burden of proof.


Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?

Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy. :lol

Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.


It was directly implied...


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.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844814&postcount=3489

[RandomGuy]

1. argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

The default skeptical position is to reject something until it is reasonably proven.

Jumping up and down like a monkey and repeating the same thing over and over and over after being asked to show proof, does not make something and more true the 100th time ... well, see the "Apollo hoax" thread in the club forum.

You'll loooove Cosmored.


... and by love him, I mean hate him with the burning heat of a thousand blazing hot suns.

[RandomGuy]

as you did with your argumentum ad populum.





[b]My opinion on this...


You are right to walk that back.

Or did you forget to say "it is my opinion that your..."

:lol

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?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844904&postcount=3495

[clambake]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?

[RandomGuy]

1. argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

2. ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

3. ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

4. ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=212&pictureid=1684

Saying they are, does not prove they are.

FAIL.

Post as many as you want. Feel free to start proving any of them, sophist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?

It looks like the meltdown i was looking for.

[Poptech]

damn random, got your own thread.

you make this guy blow a gasket?
Actually he blew a gasket multiple times, see above.

[Poptech]

It looks like the meltdown i was looking for.
The only meltdown, is the one you started (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5843874&postcount=3443),

As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.

[jack sommerset]

My personal favorite was when his granddaughter would be of age to drive there would be no gas. Great guy. God bless

[CuckingFunt]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only meltdown, is the one you started (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5843874&postcount=3443),

How exactly is pointing out that leading questions don't make an argument a meltdown?

Creating a tread to 'call out' another poster is the definition of asshurt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.

I now have all kinds of free time until June and other than Spurs games I don't watch TV. Maybe I should go out and get hammered.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually he blew a gasket multiple times, see above.

Of course he did. :rolleyes

Now are you going to at least attempt to qualify any of those assertions? Do you want some help in how to write a logical construct?

[Poptech]

How exactly is pointing out that leading questions don't make an argument a meltdown?

Creating a tread to 'call out' another poster is the definition of asshurt.
You consider RandomGuy an asshurt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)?

:lol

Bringing him up again is not doing your position much service. When he starts a thread calling you out by name you let me know, kk?

[jack sommerset]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)?

Maybe. Tough one to call. He uses fear to stir things up at times. That's a sign he is disturb or desperate, maybe both. He is misguided but he believes in his cause even when science/logic disputes his claim. I bring science up because he tries to pull a bill NYE the science guy on us but when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it. I lean towards butthurt but he is a great guy. God bless

[RandomGuy]

My personal favorite was when his granddaughter would be of age to drive there would be no gas. Great guy. God bless

Not quite, your memory is a bit fuzzy:

We will have gasoline for a looong time it will certainly be around in 40 years.

By the time my grandchildren come of driving age, it will be uneconomical to burn in vehicles.

[RandomGuy]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)?

Says the guy with the thread with my name in it, and no proof...



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438

[Stringer_Bell]

Fuk yo syllogisms clown

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's apparently added this thread to his sig.

[RandomGuy]

Of course he did. :rolleyes

Now are you going to at least attempt to qualify any of those assertions? Do you want some help in how to write a logical construct?

I was actually going to type up a primer on it, seeing as how he seems to be unable to do so.

I am honestly beginning to wonder if he actually understands them or not. toss up between not knowing, and too smart to commit the intellectualy dishonest constructs he will have to make to flesh them out.

Try the holocaust denial website:

Nizkor.org

They have some very well spelled out, easy to follow ones.

I guess when you have been dealing with holocaust denial (HA) conspiracy theories for 60 years, you get good at ferreting it out.

[RandomGuy]

You consider RandomGuy an asshurt (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2)?

:lmao

I stated my intent was to support a theory.

I constructed a list of things I thought supported my theory.

Where have I heard that before....? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

Quit lying (guffaw) about my list!!

argumentum ad populum!!!

:rollin

Seriously, you crack me up. The thread is flattering, by the way. Thanks.

By the way, if you can actually prove any of those to be an actual fallacy, I will give you a cookie. Promise...

[Stringer_Bell]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.

[Poptech]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.
Let me use some of his "logic"

RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks) was a Nazi.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

nah he likes anti-trust laws. He must be a communist.

[Poptech]

nah he likes anti-trust laws. He must be a communist.
Oh my, whatever are you talking about? I was just making that statement. It was not referring to anyone here.

I have heard that the MiG (http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/mig15.htm) was communist.

[Winehole23]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.WTF are you talking about, CF? It's all free time... ;-)

[RandomGuy]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.

You like that? I thought it was very clever... satire.

Someone doesn't get the funny. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

Let me use some of his "logic"

RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks) was a Nazi.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/38/comedypolice.jpg

(sighs)
Now little Johnny, "PoopDeck" is funny, because it sort of sounds like your name and is an actual, if unfortunately named, noun.

You are not wrong about anything, just because your chosen name can be humorouly modified.

"Randomlie" is the best mine seems to elicit, but the people that came up with that aren't quite as smart as I think you might be. You can do better than "Nazi".

Unless of course, you aren't really all that funny, which I strongly suspect.

[TeyshaBlue]

butthurt thread delivers

[RandomGuy]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.

So let's examine your claim.

Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.

Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:


900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.

To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.

This list of documents, claimed to be all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These documents have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.

The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.

Here is the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.
Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"


Kind of hard to get to:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.


from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"


If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.

Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838657&postcount=3188).

(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )

-------------------------------Provable strawman #2-------------------------


I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem"



All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts,

(sighs heavily)



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:



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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).-----------------------------------------

PopTech = Person A
RandomGuy = Person B
An attack = PopTech is mildly insane, or, alternately, PopTech's modus operendi about the catastrophic effects of AGW has direct parallels to the clearly insane people who believe in vast evil conspiracies about 9-11 and faked moon landings.
Claim X = Human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.


1) PopTech make the claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

2) Randomguy says that PopTech is mildly insane.

3) Randomguy says that since PopTech is mildly insane, his claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous is false.



The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible [this theory's] skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

You can't show the last step of that chain, since that is directly contradicted by what I actually said.

Once again, a provable strawman on your part. That is two, and I have not bothered with the rest, nor am I currently inclined to.

--------------Provabe Ad hominem------------


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

Once again, I am sorry to hurt your feelings with my statements about your sanity. I understand you are deeply insecure and my statements and rather merciless shredding of your arguments and claims does not help.

The larger issue at hand, however, is much more important than any one person's hurt feelings. It would be a disservice to ignore the weaknesses in your arguments and claims to spare your feelings about how smart you are.

It is what it is, and I mean nothing hostile in all of this. To sure, I could use slightly less loaded language than "nutter". Sorry.

I hope someday you get better.


FFgoGtt7wu4

I am genuinely concerned about my own well-being. Such people do not care who they hurt, and do not view others with any empathy. That raises a whole lot of things I would rather not risk.

[RandomGuy]

butthurt thread delivers

I'm like ringworm that way. I get under your skin. BUWHWHAHAHAHAHA.

[RandomGuy]

when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it.


Second let me repeat, as I have periodically and in the OP itself, that not all people who are skeptical of AGW or whatever you want to call it, are what I would call "deniers". I allow for honest skeptics.

I allow for the fact that the science on a complex subject not to be uniformly in support of a theory. I am perfectly content for every paper on that list to contradict the theory that AGW will have catastrophic effects. I would be happy if the science ultimately says that will be the case.

Those are my givens.
...
I think [the list on PopTech] is valid science...

I'm not that bad, honest.

Not all skeptics are intellectually dishonest asshats. I can even agree with Yonivore on some things about the subject, and can find the post to back that up, if you want. Scary, I know.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not quite, your memory is a bit fuzzy:

We will have gasoline for a looong time it will certainly be around in 40 years.

By the time my grandchildren come of driving age, it will be uneconomical to burn in vehicles.

jack is not the brightest guy around.. he's not sure what a lie is.. but he hates them...er he only likes liars when they aren't Obama the liar..

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)


http://joshuamhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/noahs-ark.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..:lmao

[Poptech]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)


http://joshuamhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/noahs-ark.jpg
:lol

[RandomGuy]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..:lmao

You missed Wile E. Cobra's bromantic overture to PT:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5842468&postcount=3355

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)


http://joshuamhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/noahs-ark.jpg

:lol

I will save some room for you, if you ask nicely. :D

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

RG broke this guy so fast its not even funny.

[Poptech]

RG broke this guy so fast its not even funny.
Actually, you can see the examples of him breaking up in the first post. You will find no such behavior from me here.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.

[Poptech]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.
What you see is a list of his logical fallacies where he actually breaks down. Just like I shut down all of your failed attempts at arguments.

[RandomGuy]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.

By the by, I think this was spot on:


Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of [the] cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.

But I LOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when people say that humans don't have an appreciable affect on the global climate. Its just laughable to me when that is said and I love to pick apart that foolish argument.

I would guess I am somewhat of an outlier in his experience. He is used to flinging those "fallacy" charges, because he is used to leveling them at people far less able to defend against them.

Since I have been beating 9-11 truthers, creationists, and moon landing hoaxers over the head with them for more than a decade, I have gotten pretty good at de-constructing them.

There are some genuine, intellectually honest, skeptics of AGW out there, as Yoni has shown. There is even a body of at least mildly countervening evidence about the potential catastrophic effects, as PT has shown.

The problem with that is that they get drowned out by the idiots. That is why I started my happy-fun polemic.

Being evasive and/or intellectually dishonest is not the way to win people to your cause. When there is contradicting evidence about an issue, one should be deeply skeptical when one side can't frame the debate fairly and in good faith. It is fully possible to be honest in an absolute sense, but dishonest using lies of omission, when leaving out important facts, like admissions that some aspect of your evidence is particularly weak.

That goes for people screaming about the world coming to an end from AGW, as for those who are self-professed "skeptics".

I saddens me to see the subject attract so many people who simply cannot get past their own biases.

[RandomGuy]

anyhoo. lunch is over.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32



[crickets]

[Wild Cobra]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..:lmao


You missed Wile E. Cobra's bromantic overture to PT:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5842468&postcount=3355
I don't need to pile on Random any more than he's getting. I'm fine being a spectator, and starting to feel sorry for him.

Hold on...

Gotta pop some more popcorn...

[clambake]

I don't need to pile on Random any more than he's getting. I'm fine being a spectator, and starting to feel sorry for him.

Hold on...

Gotta pop some more popcorn...

:lmao just can't get that word pop off your mind.

you better hit him fast and hard before he finds out about you.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm thinking about clams now.:depressed


Is that wrong?:lol

[clambake]

I'm thinking about clams now.:depressed


Is that wrong?:lol

you hittin on me?

[TeyshaBlue]

Dunno. Might buy you some 93 octane if you put that purty dress on I bought ya.

[clambake]

Dunno. Might buy you some 93 octane if you put that purty dress on I bought ya.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

What you see is a list of his logical fallacies where he actually breaks down. Just like I shut down all of your failed attempts at arguments.

Yeah man, you shut everyone down with your amazing logic. I am simply here to bask in your glory.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah man, you shut everyone down with your amazing logic. I am simply here to bask in your glory.
It's so funny that you never realize when you are beat. I guess I should give you props for the positive attitude.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's so funny that you never realize when you are beat. I guess I should give you props for the positive attitude.

:lol TAKE THAT MANNY!

[CuckingFunt]

It's so funny that you never realize when you are beat. I guess I should give you props for the positive attitude.

The irony, she burns.

[Nbadan]

Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again


I bring science up because he tries to pull a bill NYE the science guy on us but when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it.

Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[Poptech]

Yeah man, you shut everyone down with your amazing logic. I am simply here to bask in your glory.
All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.


:lol TAKE THAT MANNY!

[RandomGuy]

Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again



Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...

:lmao

Yeah, I am a real shite for not wanted to subject myself to a two hour bukkake of twoofer stupid, when you won't watch 2 minutes of debunking. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again



Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...

:lmao


I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..:lmao

[RandomGuy]

All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.

Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science. :rolleyes


Gonna wear that smiley out.

[RandomGuy]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.

So let's examine your claim.

Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.

Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:


900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.

To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.

This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.

The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.

Here is the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.
Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"


Kind of hard to get to:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.


from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"


If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.

Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838657&postcount=3188).

(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )

[Poptech]

All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.
Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science.
Strawman, thanks (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5845193&postcount=1)!

[RandomGuy]

Strawman, thanks (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5845193&postcount=1)!


The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.

So let's examine your claim.

Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.

Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:


1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:


900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.

To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.

This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.

The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.

Here is the fallacy:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.
Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"


Kind of hard to get to:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.


from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"


If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.

Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5838657&postcount=3188).

(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )

Z_u7VGiMO0U

[Poptech]

http://demotivate.me/mediafiles/full/demotivational-poster-denial_21201113230am.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The conclusion of the argument is the arithmetic. It should stand on its own. Stating two numbers and then dividing them is not ad hominem.

I didn't realize that he was modifying the OP every time you made fun of him. This thread may go down as the biggest butthurt thread in ST Political Forum history.

[Poptech]

The conclusion of the argument is the arithmetic. It should stand on its own. Stating two numbers and then dividing them is not ad hominem.
This is good to know.

[Poptech]

I did not know RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Galindo) was gay.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is good to know.

Fatback is bad for you.

[ChumpDumper]

lol 29 hours of OP editing

[Vici]

reading the political forum always makes me realize just how little free time i've got.

+1

[RandomGuy]

I didn't realize that he was modifying the OP every time you made fun of him. This thread may go down as the biggest butthurt thread in ST Political Forum history.

It may indeed.

When anybody brings up any effective criticisms against him, or his precious list, that is what he does.

Dude is like some Denier smeagol... preciousssss lissssst....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ms4USv49TcA/TKTxSSG1DzI/AAAAAAAAAXM/n7_W8xd_3Q0/s1600/smeagol.jpg

[DarrinS]

It may indeed.

When anybody brings up any effective criticisms against him, or his precious list, that is what he does.

Dude is like some Denier smeagol... preciousssss lissssst....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ms4USv49TcA/TKTxSSG1DzI/AAAAAAAAAXM/n7_W8xd_3Q0/s1600/smeagol.jpg



:lol

Speaking of precioussss lissssst


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668020&postcount=2


Yay! I win!

[DarrinS]

Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:

Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?

There are two statements there.

1. "900/200000= 0.45%"

and

2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"




Then what was your point?



Consensus fallacy is argumentum ad populum.

[RandomGuy]

Then what was your point?



Consensus fallacy is argumentum ad populum.

My point was to ask about the entire body of evidence, of which his list is a subset.

I pointed out that his claim about that is a strawman.

He hasn't hesitated to call me out on anything he thinks is wrong or logicall flawed or unfair.

Why do you think he is ignoring my post/claim, Darrin?

Put the words down before you cut yourself, because you don't know how to use them.

[mouse]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

I will say again:

Fuck you.


you are a selfish, short-sighted fucktard,


This is the same guy that gave me a hard time and threaten not to post in a topic anymore cuz i called him RandomLie?

[ElNono]

lol bitching about personal insults then starting a butthurt thread about it...

[DarrinS]

My point was to ask about the entire body of evidence, of which his list is a subset.

I pointed out that his claim about that is a strawman.

He hasn't hesitated to call me out on anything he thinks is wrong or logicall flawed or unfair.

Why do you think he is ignoring my post/claim, Darrin?

Put the words down before you cut yourself, because you don't know how to use them.


lol





punk ass bitch and not backing it up.

I will say again:

Fuck you.


you are a selfish, short-sighted fucktard,

[MannyIsGod]

Then what was your point?



Consensus fallacy is argumentum ad populum.

Its great how how guys found a new Latin term to toss around and use but its such a shallow use that its ridiculous. When someone points out the vast majority of papers point to a certain position they are not basing the authority of that statement on the numbers alone. They are basing them on the numbers of experts with the best ability to judge the field. There is definitely a logic behind believing what is pretty much a statistical certainty in this situation.

But sure, keep going with your ad populum stuff instead of asking exactly WHY the sheer number of papers is what it is.

[RandomGuy]

Randomguy guy got mad at us for accusing him of lying or fucking up and not bothering to back it up.

Why can't we just accuse people of shit without backing it up?

Evidence and proving stuff is so *hard*

waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!

Maybe if I complain about it, everyone will ignore how we can't back up what we say. (sniff)

:cry



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=1438


Butthurt thread delivers

[RandomGuy]

This is the same guy that gave me a hard time and threaten not to post in a topic anymore cuz i called him RandomLie?

On a slightly more serious note;

I was cranky. It didn't really bother me that much, and I overreacted.

Please accept my apologies for that one.

I'm sure it was my beard getting the better of me. I have shaved it off now, so I feel a lot better. :p

[TeyshaBlue]

Summer beards suck.

[MannyIsGod]

Eh, I refuse to shave it off!

[DarrinS]

Eh, I refuse to shave it off!

You really should though

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/29/2955/RLPRD00Z.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Can't play the role of a dirty liberal academic without the beard. Sorry, it stays.

[Poptech]

But sure, keep going with your ad populum stuff instead of asking exactly WHY the sheer number of papers is what it is.
1. There is no "sheer" number of papers supporting ACC/AGW Alarm.

2. The "number" is an argumentum ad populum.

[mouse]

You really should though

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/29/2955/RLPRD00Z.jpg

That's not a bearded woman its a man in a dress.

[MannyIsGod]

1. There is no "sheer" number of papers supporting ACC/AGW Alarm.

2. The "number" is an argumentum ad populum.

The number is only ad populum if you stop at the number. Shallow analysis is your forte.

[z0sa]

Poptech,

don't know you and I'm not sure if you're aware of this yet but RandomGuy is the board authority on logically arguing most issues IMHO.

[Wild Cobra]

Poptech,

don't know you and I'm not sure if you're aware of this yet but RandomGuy is the board authority on logically arguing most issues IMHO.
No...

He just thinks he is because he uses big words. He takes an educational elitism approach, rather than talking a common language. I love the fact that PopTech beats him at his own game.

[RandomGuy]

1. There is no "sheer" number of papers supporting ACC/AGW Alarm.

2. The "number" is an argumentum ad populum.

You don't get to do that.

It is not an argumentum ad populum, simply because you say it is.

Prove it. We all know you can't.

[z0sa]

No...

My opinion is wrong? Ok bro

[clambake]

cobra can't get him enough of that pop!

[Wild Cobra]

My opinion is wrong? Ok bro
LOL...

We all have our opinions. Fine with me if that's your opinion. I just disagree.

-and-

Sorry... You did write it as your opinion, and I didn't do the same. My last post is my opinion as well.

[RandomGuy]

Randomguy isn't an expert in logic because he uses big words and kicks my ass. I will claim he doesn't ever do that, and pretend that my new hero PopTech has responded to his ass whooping (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32).


Maybe you will pick up the gauntlet that darrin so rightly left on the ground.

PopTech has not hesitated to claim I have made all manner of logical fallacies, and lies.

I directly accuse him of a logical fallacy and in, essence, lying here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32

He has not added it to his list, nor responded to it.

(whips out the big boy fonts)

What does that tell you about the point I made?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it doesn't count as cherry picking because this is a comprehensive list of YOUR logical fallacies and not his.

[RandomGuy]

My opinion is wrong? Ok bro

As Afro noted:


I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..:lmao

In my experience, those who scream about other people lying about them the most, tend to be the quickest to turn around and do the same thing. Pyschological projection of ones attitudes on others.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you will pick up the gauntlet that darrin so rightly left on the ground.

PopTech has not hesitated to claim I have made all manner of logical fallacies, and lies.

I directly accuse him of a logical fallacy and in, essence, lying here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5847193&postcount=32

He has not added it to his list, nor responded to it.

(whips out the big boy fonts)

What does that tell you about the point I made?
And you rewording my quote isn't a logical fallacy or strawman RandomPropagandaGuy?

Your link proves you use straw man arguments. Why continue, when you keep denying it? When people give up on showing your failing, you claim victory. That's not a victory, that's ignorance.

You focus on the strawman you create in other people's words and attack the strawman you made, and claim they made it? bad form 'ol chap.

[RandomGuy]

Well, it doesn't count as cherry picking because this is a comprehensive list of YOUR logical fallacies and not his.

Keep in mind:

PoopDeck has essentially acknowledged that people who study a certain field to the level of PhD's have the greatest chance of being right about theories within their field of study.

For him to really carry through his charge, he would have to construct it such a way that he would open up his argument/charge to all sorts of valid attacks, and he can't admit the weak parts of his argument. Remember he is, in his mind, a genius and incapable of error.

Either he knows this, and that is why he doesn't do it, or he doesn't really know what the fallacies he accuses other people actually mean.

I am tending towards the former, but can't entirely dismiss the latter.

[TeyshaBlue]

RG and I agree about 50-60% of the time. When I think he's wrong, it's generally pretty cut and dried and usually easy to address because he does debate rationally. This is why I enjoy the cut and thrust with him because, generally, it's logically clean and errors in judgement are fairly glaring. Same goes for Manny.
:toast
It's fortunate that I'm rarely wrong.:shootme

[MannyIsGod]

Keep in mind:

PoopDeck has essentially acknowledged that people who study a certain field to the level of PhD's have the greatest chance of being right about theories within their field of study.

For him to really carry through his charge, he would have to construct it such a way that he would open up his argument/charge to all sorts of valid attacks, and he can't admit the weak parts of his argument. Remember he is, in his mind, a genius and incapable of error.

Either he knows this, and that is why he doesn't do it, or he doesn't really know what the fallacies he accuses other people actually mean.

I am tending towards the former, but can't entirely dismiss the latter.

I would agree that the argument was ad populum if it was simply numbers. But its numbers in the absence of an adequate way to explain climate dynamics (and simple chemistry) in both the past and present other than what the numbers support.

Its why these guys dodge questions about the effect of CO2 and what its absence would mean for climate on earth. Its why no skeptic can develop a working climate model that can accurately reproduce earth's climate and limit CO2's effect at the same time.

They have trouble looking a big picture full of context behind minutia.

Ad populum. :lol SMH

[MannyIsGod]

RG and I agree about 50-60% of the time. When I think he's wrong, it's generally pretty cut and dried and usually easy to address because he does debate rationally. This is why I enjoy the cut and thrust with him because, generally, it's logically clean and errors in judgement are fairly glaring. Same goes for Manny.
:toast
It's fortunate that I'm rarely wrong.:shootme

Awww shucks. One out of one MIGs likes debating with TB too.

Ad populum!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Actually the fact that most thermometers on earth show rising temps is simply ad populum argument. After all, how do we really know thats the temp? Has anyone proven it?

[RandomGuy]

And you rewording my quote isn't a logical fallacy or strawman RandomPropagandaGuy?

Your link proves you use straw man arguments. Why continue, when you keep denying it? When people give up on showing your failing, you claim victory. That's not a victory, that's ignorance.

You focus on the strawman you create in other people's words and attack the strawman you made, and claim they made it? bad form 'ol chap.

Meh.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

Since you don't have the balls to answer:

Poptech has not answered the post, or addressed it, or linked it, because he knows I am right about it.

If you think he is so good at calling me at shit, and the very first thing he puts on his list is proven wrong, what does that imply about his ability to call me on shit?

Honestly, I would be a lot more worried about your accusations if you exhibited intellectual honesty on a consistant basis.

I have really, really, really tried to build up some respect for you, but everytime I get close, you say something so fucked up and stupid, you wipe it all away.

I used to think that the part changer shit was a bit overmuch and mean. You will notice I don't use it. But you bring this shit on yourself.

If you don't like it, the principles of critical thinking and intellectual honesty are as close as a google search, and an afternoon of serious reading and self-reflection.

Did I distort your post? Yes.
Was I mean-spirited? Yes.

That would make it a mildly provable strawman attack. Mea culpa. You fuckers wear on me, and I am only human. It is very hard to play by the rules when your oppenents cheat constantly.

Now what?

You got the guts to owe up to any of your stupid shit?

[Wild Cobra]

Its why these guys dodge questions about the effect of CO2 and what its absence would mean for climate on earth. Its why no skeptic can develop a working climate model that can accurately reproduce earth's climate and limit CO2's effect at the same time.

I will say this again. If CO2 were absent, there wouldn't be life on earth as we know it. Strawman much?

Another strawman...

The AGW crowd isn't able to create a model that accurately shows what CO2 does, and you expect the skeptics to? You create and attack the strawman.

Think carefully of what you ask. Why is the skeptic skeptical? Could it possibly be because there is no proper model for CO2? Could it be because there are natural forces and other forcing that more likely accounts for most the warming we have witnessed?

Scientists are suppose to be skeptics. When you dump on skeptical science, it would appear you have an agenda.

[RandomGuy]

Actually the fact that most thermometers on earth show rising temps is simply ad populum argument. After all, how do we really know thats the temp? Has anyone proven it?

Red herrring! we are here to talk about Randomguy's logical failures and the Epic Butthurt club.

http://static.regretsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Butthurt-Dictionary-Webview.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Random, Manny...

I ask that you consider how many times I have pointed out a person arguing against a point I did not make. You guys accuse me of making a strawman. I usually come back and say you are twisting my words, lying, etc. Not long ago, I repeatedly went through that with ElNono. You all will claim I am making strawman arguments, when it isn't what I am doing in most cases. Your perception is either incorrect, or you are purposely twisting my intent to claim I am making the strawman. In reality, the strawman is your creation, that you made, so you could attack it. I guess it's easier to attack a strawman than it is my actual intent.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess it's easier to attack a strawman You would know.

[Poptech]

The number is only ad populum if you stop at the number. Shallow analysis is your forte.
Obviously,

MiG (http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/mig15.htm) was communist.

[Poptech]

Poptech,

don't know you and I'm not sure if you're aware of this yet but RandomGuy is the board authority on logically arguing most issues IMHO.
I'm sure you believe this.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually the fact that most thermometers on earth show rising temps is simply ad populum argument. After all, how do we really know thats the temp? Has anyone proven it?

Is this an attempt to ridicule the skeptics who don't trust monitor station reading, because of land use changes around them?

[Poptech]

You don't get to do that.

It is not an argumentum ad populum, simply because you say it is.

Prove it. We all know you can't.
And you cannot prove this is a personal attack,

RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks) is a Nazi.

[Wild Cobra]

Its why no skeptic can develop a working climate model that can accurately reproduce earth's climate and limit CO2's effect at the same time.

Just my opinion, but did you mean:

Its why no denier can develop a working climate model that can accurately reproduce earth's climate and limit CO2's effect at the same time.
Again, science is suppose to be skeptical. It's also very hard to distinguish when you mean skeptic or denier as you and others seem to mix up that terminology often.

[RandomGuy]

And you cannot prove this is a personal attack,

RG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks) is a Nazi.

:lol

Answering a charge that you can't prove anything by ignoring a request for proof.
Butthurt thread delivers the comedy gold.

[Poptech]

Keep in mind:

PoopDeck has essentially acknowledged that people who study a certain field to the level of PhD's have the greatest chance of being right about theories within their field of study.
We have never gotten into the Ph.D. argument beyond the accepted fact that someone with a Ph.D. in a certain field is likely to be more knowledgeable on this field.

So what field would their Ph.D.'s have to be in?

[Poptech]

Its why no skeptic can develop a working climate model that can accurately reproduce earth's climate and limit CO2's effect at the same time.
No one can produce any working climate model period. Don't tell me you are uneducated in computer science as well?

[RandomGuy]

We have never gotten into the Ph.D. argument beyond the accepted fact that someone with a Ph.D. in a certain field is likely to be more knowledgeable on this field.

So what field would their Ph.D.'s have to be in?

That is a good question.

You tell me. I'm all ears.

[Poptech]

Poptech has not answered the post, or addressed it, or linked it, because he knows I am right about it.
For the record I do not think anyone is right unless I state so, this especially includes you.

[Poptech]

That is a good question.

You tell me. I'm all ears.
I have no idea you brought up Ph.D.s and appeals to authority not me.

[RandomGuy]

For the record I do not think anyone is right unless I state so, this especially includes you.

Wow. It must be nice to be the sole arbiter of what is the truth and what isn't.

I wish I had those magic powers. Nice to meet you.

If I hang around long enough, can I have some of your magic?

[Poptech]

Wow. It must be nice to be the sole arbiter of what is the truth and what isn't.

I wish I had those magic powers. Nice to meet you.

If I hang around long enough, can I have some of your magic?
Unlike you, I think for myself.

[RandomGuy]

I have no idea you brought up Ph.D.s and appeals to authority not me.

(shrugs)

I don't have a PhD in any science. I have to generally trust that experts who study things are more likely than not to be right about things they study.

My understanding is that for the climate sciences, the general consensus of those people is that AGW is real and appreciable, your list notwithstanding. The only people really claiming otherwise are hacks like yourself, so I am deeply skeptical of those claims.

It seems to me that we have to make some choices as a civilization as to what to do to mitigate potential risks when they are brought to our attention.

It is entirely possible to make decisions based on ambiguous data. (edit) AGW and its ultimate effects are ambiguous here. We have a rough guess about both, and that has to be good enough. Again, risk mitigation.(end edit)

The kicker for CO2 is that the end of cheap gas/oil/coal is just about here.

Such forms of energy will become increasingly more expensive relative to other forms of energy.

We will, through simple market forces, reduce our emissions anyway.

Given all this, and that the opportunity costs are greater the longer you wait in an NPV sense, it makes sense we act now.

This will require government intervention. Companies and humans in general tend to focus on short-term, and this is a long term trend.

[RandomGuy]

Unlike you, I think for myself.

Whatever you say, kid.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow. It must be nice to be the sole arbiter of what is the truth and what isn't.

You don't even realize you are building another strawman to attack, do you?

[RandomGuy]

You don't even realize you are building another strawman to attack, do you?

Eyup.

You would almost think it was deliberate.

Like, maybe....

http://www.teachscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/sarcasm.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

No one can produce any working climate model period. Don't tell me you are uneducated in computer science as well?

:lmao

I guess if you say it it must be true.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I guess if you say it it must be true.
If there is an accurate working climate model out there, why haven't you linked us the evidence?

[RandomGuy]

If there is an accurate climate model out there, why haven't you linked us the evidence?

Does any model have to perfectly reflect reality to be useful?

[RandomGuy]

.or... alternately:

Does any climate scientist claim that their model is perfectly accurate?

Either way the question isn't a very good one.

[Wild Cobra]

Does any model have to perfectly reflect reality to be useful?
Perfect, no. Reasonably accurate, yes. Are there any out there, and yes, we will probably disagree on what is reasonable.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm going to make an assumption here.

I'm going to assume that you guys do acknowledge that even the degree of flaws in all known climate models, it rather uncertain.

That said, why do you guys periodically bring up any particular future modeling in an attempt to make a valid point?

[RandomGuy]

Perfect, no. Reasonably accurate, yes. Are there any out there, and yes, we will probably disagree on what is reasonable.

You have defined "reasonably accurate" already.

That would be something you agree with. You would not agree with anything that might show AGW or show any catastrophic results from AGW.

I am unqualified to say what is reasonably accurate. So are you for that matter.

(edit)

This is circular reasoning by the way.

"That model can't be reasonably accurate"

"Why not?"

"Because it shows that AGW is real and might be really bad"

"How do you know that?"

"Because AGW is false."

"How do you know that?"

"Because that model can't be reasonably accurate."

:rolleyes :bang

[RandomGuy]

I'm going to make an assumption here.

I'm going to assume that you guys do acknowledge that even the degree of flaws in all known climate models, it rather uncertain.

That said, why do you guys periodically bring up any particular future modeling in an attempt to make a valid point?

If you take a genetic test that indicates you have a special susceptability to a certain kind of cancer, even though the test has a great deal of uncertainty, would you get tested for that cancer?

[Wild Cobra]

If you take a genetic test that indicates you have a special susceptability to a certain kind of cancer, even though the test has a great deal of uncertainty, would you get tested for that cancer?
If such a test is available.

What does that have to do with AGW? Are you suggesting that there is a valid test for AGW levels?

[Wild Cobra]

You have defined "reasonably accurate" already.

That would be something you agree with. You would not agree with anything that might show AGW or show any catastrophic results from AGW.

I am unqualified to say what is reasonably accurate. So are you for that matter.

(edit)

This is circular reasoning by the way.

"That model can't be reasonably accurate"

"Why not?"

"Because it shows that AGW is real and might be really bad"

"How do you know that?"

"Because AGW is false."

"How do you know that?"

"Because that model can't be reasonably accurate."

:rolleyes :bang
Building another strawman I see. Doesn't that get tiring to inject your portrayal of my viewpoint incorrectly? You know, you are effectively lying that way, right?

[Galileo]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

2. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

3. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

4. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

5. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841353&postcount=3308)

6. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5839579&postcount=3268)

7. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841689&postcount=3321)

8. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844117&postcount=3447)

9. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844853&postcount=3491)

10. Red (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848135&postcount=46) Herring (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848144&postcount=47)

Thread Topic: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5846793&postcount=1)


11. Straw Man (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848818&postcount=64)


12. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849003&postcount=3543)

great post! I applaud you!!

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Future modeling? Where did I say anything about future modeling? Yeah, its a wonder why I don't bother with the guy who can't read.

[Wild Cobra]

Future modeling? Where did I say anything about future modeling? Yeah, its a wonder why I don't bother with the guy who can't read.
Must I elaborate everything said in the past?

All earlier models have failed to properly forecast today's climate with any accuracy. Will you say that the latest and greatest models today will properly forecast our climate a decade or two away, or are they more likely to also have faults?

[RandomGuy]

Building another strawman I see. Doesn't that get tiring to inject your portrayal of my viewpoint incorrectly? You know, you are effectively lying that way, right?

It isn't a strawman, that is the really sad part. I wasn't being sarcastic or attempting to distort your views in the slightest.

Answer this question:

If I showed you any model that showed both AGW is real, and that it could potentially be catastrophic, would you believe it?

why or why not?



I mean this in a simple, fair, and without guile way. Tell me what you really believe.

[Wild Cobra]

If I showed you any model that showed both AGW is real, and that it could potentially be catastrophic, would you believe it?

why or why not?

If the model had a long term trend of an accurate prediction, then yes.

[MannyIsGod]

Must I elaborate everything said in the past?

All earlier models have failed to properly forecast today's climate with any accuracy. Will you say that the latest and greatest models today will properly forecast our climate a decade or two away, or are they more likely to also have faults?

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
I see when a question is over you head, you go into laughing fits. I forget. What's that disorder called (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29)?

[RandomGuy]

If the model had a long term trend of an accurate prediction, then yes.

How would you know if it had a long term trend of an accurate prediction?

[Wild Cobra]

Future modeling? Where did I say anything about future modeling? Yeah, its a wonder why I don't bother with the guy who can't read.
To what degree of accuracy have any models on climate change been?

[Wild Cobra]

How would you know if it had a long term trend of an accurate prediction?
That would be hard to determine wouldn't it. Like accurately knowing how CO2 actually affects climate, right?

We wouldn't know, but if a model could predict numerous climate trends accurately, and not be wrong on any trend, then we would have a model worth taking serious. Right? the longer and longer the model continues to make accurate predictions, the more... statistically... it can be relied upon, right?

[MannyIsGod]

To what degree of accuracy have any models on climate change been?

Apparently none according to you.

[MannyIsGod]

That would be hard to determine wouldn't it. Like accurately knowing how CO2 actually affects climate, right?

We wouldn't know, but if a model could predict numerous climate trends accurately, and not be wrong on any trend, then we would have a model worth taking serious. Right? the longer and longer the model continues to make accurate predictions, the more... statistically... it can be relied upon, right?

:lmao

[Poptech]

(shrugs)

I don't have a PhD in any science. I have to generally trust that experts who study things are more likely than not to be right about things they study.
I did not ask you what you had, I asked what field would the ["expert"] PhD be in?


My understanding is that for the climate sciences, the general consensus of those people is that AGW is real and appreciable, your list notwithstanding.
Which is an argumentum ad populum. Can you provide me with the complete poll of all "climate scientists" in the world demonstrating this "consensus"? How many are there in the world anyway?


The only people really claiming otherwise are hacks like yourself, so I am deeply skeptical of those claims.
Just because I am more knowledgeable about this debate than you does not make me a "hack".

So no credentialed scientists support my position?


It seems to me that we have to make some choices as a civilization as to what to do to mitigate potential risks when they are brought to our attention.
Alarmists do not get to arbitrary define what is a risk.


It is entirely possible to make decisions based on ambiguous data. (edit) AGW and its ultimate effects are ambiguous here. We have a rough guess about both, and that has to be good enough. Again, risk mitigation.(end edit)
So you make emotional decisions?


The kicker for CO2 is that the end of cheap gas/oil/coal is just about here.

Such forms of energy will become increasingly more expensive relative to other forms of energy.
Only due to government intervention in the energy industry by creating an artificial scarcity as they are now.


Given all this, and that the opportunity costs are greater the longer you wait in an NPV sense, it makes sense we act now.
Alarmists who lack evidence and do not understand economics believe this, this is true.


This will require government intervention. Companies and humans in general tend to focus on short-term, and this is a long term trend.
Another economic fallacy, thanks for proving my economic points as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Apparently none according to you.
If I'm wrong, please show me one that has been accurate.

[MannyIsGod]

If I'm wrong, please show me one that has been accurate.

No

[Wild Cobra]

No
I take it that you mean you don't know of any either.

[MannyIsGod]

I take it that you mean you don't know of any either.

Take it to mean whatever you'd like.

[RandomGuy]

That would be hard to determine wouldn't it. Like accurately knowing how CO2 actually affects climate, right?

We wouldn't know, but if a model could predict numerous climate trends accurately, and not be wrong on any trend, then we would have a model worth taking serious. Right? the longer and longer the model continues to make accurate predictions, the more... statistically... it can be relied upon, right?

What if you have to get some degree of predition on something before you have such a model available?

What then?

Wouldn't you use the best available model?

[RandomGuy]

View Post Yesterday, 08:28 PM
Remove user from ignore listPoptech
This message is hidden because Poptech is on your ignore list.

Sorry, your "attention from Randomguy" card is invalid.

[Wild Cobra]

What if you have to get some degree of predi[c]tion on something before you have such a model available?

What then?

Wouldn't you use the best available model?
No.

It's either accurate or it is not. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.

Also notice, I specifically said "predict." A model must be made and not altered before the outcome. A model that is made to fit past performance is not yet tested for it predictive ability.

[Galileo]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5833703&postcount=3111)

2. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

3. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

4. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668019&postcount=1)

5. Ad hominem (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841353&postcount=3308)

6. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5839579&postcount=3268)

7. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841689&postcount=3321)

8. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844117&postcount=3447)

9. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5844853&postcount=3491)

10. Red (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848135&postcount=46) Herring (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848144&postcount=47)

Thread Topic: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5846793&postcount=1)


11. Straw Man (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5848818&postcount=64)


12. Personal Attack (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5849003&postcount=3543)

It would be easier just to list the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

It would be easier just to like the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.

:lmao
Maybe, but then he wouldn't learn anything.

[Poptech]

No
He cannot because no climate model has ever been accurate. Computer climate models are all code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Yeah, no climate model has ever been accurate. Ever. Not the ones that are conitously validated. Its amazing how often they are used since none of them work.

[jack sommerset]

Sorry, your "attention from Randomguy" card is invalid.

A little too much to handle. Nothing wrong with that. God bless

[Poptech]

Sorry, your "attention from Randomguy" card is invalid.
Your concession on all points is accepted.

[Poptech]

:lmao

Yeah, no climate model has ever been accurate. Ever. Not the ones that are conitously validated. Its amazing how often they are used since none of them work.
This is correct and none have ever been validated. Psuedo-matching past trends is not validation. Are you laughing at you lack of understanding regarding computer science?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm laughing at your idiotic claim.

[Poptech]

I'm laughing at your idiotic claim.
Then you are laughing at your own ignorance on computer science.

Falsify these statements,

A computer program can be written to get whatever computer generated results that you want.

Computer climate models are all code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.

[Poptech]

You can thank the computer science illiteracy of those pushing climate models as evidence of anything for my skepticism. This illiteracy was exposed in a Nature article,

Computational science: ...Error …why scientific programming does not compute. (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html) (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)

Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyse past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task. [...]

...as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."

As a general rule, researchers do not test or document their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. [...]

Greg Wilson, a computer scientist in Toronto, Canada, who heads Software Carpentry — an online course aimed at improving the computing skills of scientists — says that he woke up to the problem in the 1980s, when he was working at a physics supercomputing facility at the University of Edinburgh, UK. After a series of small mishaps, he realized that, without formal training in programming, it was easy for scientists trying to address some of the Universe's biggest questions to inadvertently introduce errors into their codes, potentially "doing more harm than good". [...]

"There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are."

As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't need to falsify anything. Neither of those statements prove that climate models today that have been verified to be accurate and are in use are somehow invalid.

[Poptech]

I don't need to falsify anything. Neither of those statements prove that climate models today that have been verified to be accurate and are in use are somehow invalid.
You cannot falsify either statement.

Your repeated false claim that climate models have been "verified" is based on computer science illiteracy. Just because the output from a computer program matches another dataset (no climate model matches anything) does not mean the methods used to match this dataset are scientifically valid.

[RandomGuy]

No.

It's either accurate or it is not. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.

Also notice, I specifically said "predict." A model must be made and not altered before the outcome. A model that is made to fit past performance is not yet tested for it predictive ability.

Your standard is something that finds a perfect fit for a huge complex system like our global climate over the long term?

You are looking for a level of certainty that will not be possible for decades, if at all.

Sorry buddy.

Decisions need to be made now. There are some fair indications that we do not have a lot of time to make these decisions.

You have tested positive in a test that is 60% accurate for a certain type of cancer. Do you wait for a test that is 100% accurate to seek further treatment?

[RandomGuy]

A little too much to handle. Nothing wrong with that. God bless

Meh. If it makes you happy to believe that, it wouldn't be the only untrue thing you believe.

Life it short. :toast

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to falsify anything. Neither of those statements prove that climate models today that have been verified to be accurate and are in use are somehow invalid.

Because asking people to falsify something is better than making actual arguments.

This is how twoofers work, as you have probably noticed here. "cosmored conspiracy thread" and all that.

They call something into doubt, but fail to provide alternate theories of their own, because then they would be forced to defend things.

It is the hallmark of those that have to have conspiracies running things for their worldview to work.

[RandomGuy]

It would be easier just to list the items where RandomGuy does NOT use logical fallacies.

:lmao

:lol

You have something there on your chin...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's either accurate or it is not. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement.

[ChumpDumper]

Call-out thread delivers.

[MannyIsGod]

This is an incredibly ignorant statement.

Incredibly.

[MannyIsGod]

You cannot falsify either statement.

Your repeated false claim that climate models have been "verified" is based on computer science illiteracy. Just because the output from a computer program matches another dataset (no climate model matches anything) does not mean the methods used to match this dataset are scientifically valid.

:lol

"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"

Yeah - I have no idea why I'm laughing. I'm just ignorant on CS.

[Poptech]

:lol

"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"
First of all the climate models do not produce the expected outcomes, I noted this is my statement. Now try reading what I stated again until you understand it,

Just because the output from a computer program matches another dataset (no climate model matches anything) does not mean the methods used to match this dataset are scientifically valid.

Your lack of a computer science education is obvious as you do not understand the argument.

As a very simplistic example, I can write a program where the output completely matches any other dataset. I can do this in endless ways and have each one get the same exact output. None of which is evidence of the scientific validity of the methods used to get to those results.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

"Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly"

Yeah - I have no idea why I'm laughing. I'm just ignorant on CS.

[MannyIsGod]

I do find it very ironic you making your repeated logical fallacy in a thread you started about logical fallacies.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Your standard is something that finds a perfect fit for a huge complex system like our global climate over the long term?

You are looking for a level of certainty that will not be possible for decades, if at all.

So what is your solution? Ruin our economy in an attempt to stop CO2 production, when CO2 may not be the cause at all? Go to war with other nations to make them stop CO2 production? What is your solution? how do you get Asia to stop?


Sorry buddy.

Decisions need to be made now. There are some fair indications that we do not have a lot of time to make these decisions.

And i completely disagree. Between levels of radiative forcing that can be more accurately defined for solar and black carbon changes, there simply is not enough room left for CO2 to have much of en effect. The most effective solution we have to reduce AGW is to do our best to stop releasing soot in the air. As soot, it warms the air. On ice, it melts it faster. we have no control over solar forcing which has increased only a fraction of a percent since the 1700's, but that fraction of a percent represents more than a 1 watt/sq meter of radiative forcing in the atmosphere.


You have tested positive in a test that is 60% accurate for a certain type of cancer. Do you wait for a test that is 100% accurate to seek further treatment?

No.

I assess the cost, life quality, etc. If it's cheap, I go for it. If it's going to reduce my quality of life, I would prefer to live a better and shorter life than just live longer.

This is a poor example. If man was the cause for the warming trend we see, it would still take more than 200 years at our current CO2 output rate to increase temperatures by 2 to 3 C. That's assuming CO2 is as strong of a greenhouse gas the alarmists say. That is plenty of time for life on this planet to adapt to such a change. The earth will go on and so will we.

Why type of Apocalypse are you expecting?

I see no reason to spend money we don't have on uncertainties. I have no problem with reducing CO2 emission, and definitely want to see anthropogenic black carbon emissions eliminated to the best possible degree.

How do you suggest we cool the sun to the levels of 1800?

[ChumpDumper]

I do find it very ironic you making your repeated logical fallacy in a thread you started about logical fallacies.

:lmaoHe's starting to make a habit of it.

It's entertaining.

[Poptech]

I do find it very ironic you making your repeated logical fallacy in a thread you started about logical fallacies.
I haven't made any logical fallacies about computer climate models, you have.


Even though the models are able to produce the expected outcomes doesn't mean that the experts are actually programming the systems they are experts in correctly
1. None of the climate models match any empirical datasets. You are confusing pseudo-trend following with accuracy. That is not how a computer program works. The fact that it does not match it exactly means the computer program is wrong.

2. Even if they did, it is scientifically meaningless. The model could be using equations that have nothing to do with real climate physics. A computer program cannot be used to "prove" anything scientifically. The fact that you believe otherwise only demonstrates your support of confirmation bias.

3. The scientists programming the computer climate models are not experts in computer science. Your delusions on this are entertaining.

You really should not continue to display your computer illiteracy like this.

[Galileo]

The greatest logical fallacy of RandomGuy is that the government insiders on 9/11 would not want to kill thousands of people. RandomGuy thinks people in the gubiment are nice fellows who would not do that sort of thing. But of course, governments kill at a pace that exceeds anything the private sector could hope for. Over 100 million people were murdered by government employees in the 20th century, a new century record. You see, the gubiment has a monopoly on force.

[ChumpDumper]

The greatest logical fallacy of RandomGuy is that the government insiders on 9/11 would not want to kill thousands of people. RandomGuy thinks people in the gubiment are nice fellows who would not do that sort of thing. But of course, governments kill at a pace that exceeds anything the private sector could hope for. Over 100 million people were murdered by government employees in the 20th century, a new century record. You see, the gubiment has a monopoly on force.You deserve your own thread so you can state your 9/11 theory in full an everyone can see it.

[MannyIsGod]

I haven't made any logical fallacies about computer climate models, you have.


1. None of the climate models match any empirical datasets. You are confusing pseudo-trend following with accuracy. That is not how a computer program works. The fact that it does not match it exactly means the computer program is wrong.

2. Even if they did, it is scientifically meaningless. The model could be using equations that have nothing to do with real climate physics. A computer program cannot be used to "prove" anything scientifically. The fact that you believe otherwise only demonstrates your support of confirmation bias.

3. The scientists programming the computer climate models are not experts in computer science. Your delusions on this are entertaining.

You really should not continue to display your computer illiteracy like this.

Boom and there it is. The climate model is only accurate if its perfect. But I do appreciate you making your logically void arguments again.

Could be could be could be could be.

Too bad for you they're not.

:tu

[Wild Cobra]

Boom and there it is. The climate model is only accurate if its perfect. But I do appreciate you making your logically void arguments again.

Could be could be could be could be.

Too bad for you they're not.

:tu
No...

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh." Doesn't touch the rim. each prediction simply needs to make the basket. Yes, it's still a very tight margin, but doesn't require perfection.

[ElNono]

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh."

smh

[Poptech]

Boom and there it is. The climate model is only accurate if its perfect. But I do appreciate you making your logically void arguments again.
Is computer climate science settled?

[MannyIsGod]

Really? Tired of making the same illogical arguments so you're moving on to new illogical arguments?

SMH

[Poptech]

Really? Tired of making the same illogical arguments so you're moving on to new illogical arguments?
This is all tied together but none of it is illogical. Even simpler for you,

Is climate science settled?

[MannyIsGod]

I make this even simpler for you. Your initial arguments were completely moronic and foolish therefore now you're busy gathering straw to build a massive strawman.

I suppose you'll be adding these links to your thread on your own logical fallacies? Oh, wait....

[Poptech]

I make this even simpler for you. Your initial arguments were completely moronic and foolish therefore now you're busy gathering straw to build a massive strawman.

I suppose you'll be adding these links to your thread on your own logical fallacies? Oh, wait....
You obviously have never studied computer science which is why you are deflecting,

Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?

[MannyIsGod]

straw straw straw straw straw. Keep piling.

[Poptech]

straw straw straw straw straw. Keep piling.
Keep dodging,

Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?

Is climate science settled science?

[ChumpDumper]

No one calls it a swoosh.

[ElNono]

I can ask the hard question too,tbh...

Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the shit takes we've all heard before?

[Poptech]

I can ask the hard question too,tbh...

Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the shit takes we've all heard before?
That is not the answer to these questions,

Can a computer climate model be programmed to produce results that pseudo-follow a trend of or exactly match an empirical dataset using climate physics equations that are scientifically invalid?

Is climate science settled science?

[Wild Cobra]

No one calls it a swoosh.

We did in my day.

[ChumpDumper]

We did in my day.No one ever did.

[Wild Cobra]

No one ever did.
What do you want to wager on that?

[ChumpDumper]

What do you want to wager on that?How would you try to prove something like that?

[Wild Cobra]

How would you try to prove something like that?
Care to wager or not?

[ChumpDumper]

We did in my day.Who is "we"?

If your proof merely consists of the testimony of some other stranger, then I'll just say lol.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, forget the wager.

From Basketball Phrases (http://www.sporting-central.com/basketball-phrases.html):

Bury -A "swoosh" (a successful SHOT that only touches the net after it leaves the hands of a player). Otherwise known as a perfect shot.You will hear people use the Basketball Phrase "Nothin' but Net!" which is the same as a bury!

Sports Basketball Net Swoosh (http://www.audiomicro.com/sports-basketball-net-swoosh-sound-effects-75573)

Now I don't know if the presence of NIKE in Beaverton, OR has anything to do with it, but they have a "swoosh" symbol, also created here Oregon, buy a Portland college student. Maybe "swoosh" was only used here in Oregon in the 70's when I was in school.

I had a hard time finding a reference, but the above does show it was used.

[ChumpDumper]

OK. I can believe someone used it at some time.

"Hey, coach! I made a swoosh! Can I play varsity now?"

[Wild Cobra]

OK. I can believe someone used it at some time.

"Hey, coach! I made a swoosh! Can I play varsity now?"
Why are you always a condescending twit?

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you always a condescending twit?Not really condescending. That particular usage I inferred just seems strange. But if it was so long ago, I can accept it.

[TeyshaBlue]

For the record I do not think anyone is right unless I state so, this especially includes you.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/tautology-club.jpg

/thread

[ElNono]

That is not the answer to these questions

This is not the answer to this question,

Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the shit takes we've all heard before?

[RandomGuy]

I can ask the hard question too,tbh...

Can Poptech bring a novel argument instead of the shit takes we've all heard before?

The answer is "no".

Keep in mind you are dealing with someone deeply insecure, to the point of what trained psychologists would call mild insanity.

This deep insecurity means that he cannot admit any of the following:


Someone has found a weak point in his reasoning.
He has made a mistake.
Someone he disagrees with can make good point.


No matter what pile of valid evidence or reasoning may be presented to him, he will persist in his beliefs. Further, being unable to admit he has made a mistake, or has any weakpoints in his arguments means that he is incapable of a basic function of critical thinking: determining one's own biases.

His narcissism drives him to believe that he is smarter than you or I, and more logical, to the point of infallibility. You can't hold the ideas "I am smarter than these people, more logical, and don't make mistakes", while admitting that people who, to him, are less intelligent, illogical, and obviously have made the mistake of accepting AGW as a reasonable theory, have actually found a mistake of his, or have come to their conclusions logically using sound reasoning. To reduce the cognitive bias inherent in these two conflicting ideas, he takes the route of "it is a persecution of me and my ideas" route. It's a conspiracy against him and his ideas.

Anyone who doesn't see the exact same way, is obviously deluded. There is no room for honest conversation, because there is no "honorable dissent" in this worldview.

This is exactly the kind of person who buys into 9-11 conspiracy theories, fake moon landing theories, etc.

If one would care to swim through the sewers of 9-11 threads on just about any message board, you will see people fit into this pattern as well.

The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible its skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem" or, alternately one of his fanboys will say "RG is not a psychologist, so he is wrong about all of this".

As PopTech himself has stated "it is possible for someone without a PhD in a subject to be knowledgeable in a subject."

I have spent more hours arguing with conspiracy nutters of one stripe or another than I would care to admit to. I know 'em when I see 'em.

[RandomGuy]

The greatest logical fallacy of RandomGuy is that the government insiders on 9/11 would not want to kill thousands of people. RandomGuy thinks people in the gubiment are nice fellows who would not do that sort of thing. But of course, governments kill at a pace that exceeds anything the private sector could hope for. Over 100 million people were murdered by government employees in the 20th century, a new century record. You see, the gubiment has a monopoly on force.

Thank you for casting your lot in on this thread.

It helps me make my case regarding the parallels between people who buy into the 9-11 conspiracies where the goverment is covering up "the truth", and people who think that climate scientists are engaging in a conspiracy to cover up "the truth".


What do you think about Global Warming? Mad-made or not? Really bad, or no big deal? Somewhere in between?

[Wild Cobra]

I just had to pick this one out as I quickly skimmed over you post:


As PopTech himself has stated "it is possible for someone without a PhD in a subject to be knowledgeable in a subject."

So, is it your contention, that it is impossible for someone to know enough to have an working understanding of a topic, unless they have a PHD?

[RandomGuy]

So what is your solution? Ruin our economy in an attempt to stop CO2 production, when CO2 may not be the cause at all? Go to war with other nations to make them stop CO2 production? What is your solution? how do you get Asia to stop?

I would not ruin the economy to limit CO2.

I would not go to war.

My solution is simply a mild tax on fossil fuels. That's it. Start small, build it up for a bit, then taper it off with a definite fixed end time where it expires. Use the revenues to pay down debt that we need to pay off anyway.

Let the market figure out the best mix of efficiency, and other less CO2 intensive forms of energy.

We are already heading that direction anyway. If we can get there before depletion factors force this anyway, we will have a huge head-start compared to nations who don't, i.e. China, etc.

Long term economic trends indicate that it is 100% certain that renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels, and for oil, that day is rapidly approaching.

There is some very strong evidence that event is about to happen, or quite possibly has already happened.

Huge market distortions that may produce any huge economi harm are not needed. Change the environmental conidtions a bit and let evolutionary/technological forces do the rest.

[RandomGuy]

I just had to pick this one out as I quickly skimmed over you post:

So, is it your contention, that it is impossible for someone to know enough to have an working understanding of a topic, unless they have a PHD?

Negative.

It is possible.

Even you could be knoweldgable about climate science, since that is where you are going.

That is why I think you should get out there and get an eduction and/or publish, to see if your ideas really do hold any water to someone who has the expertise to effectively judge them outside an internet forum.

My suspicion is that they don't, mostly because I see you make all sorts of poorly reasoned arguments and theories on things I *do* know about. But hey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really are right, I want that out there so that the correct theory is the one that everyone can see is correct, and get some professional agreement on.

[RandomGuy]

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

[Wild Cobra]

I would not ruin the economy to limit CO2.

I would not go to war.

How do you get other nations to play along?


My solution is simply a mild tax on fossil fuels. That's it. Start small, build it up for a bit, then taper it off with a definite fixed end time where it expires. Use the revenues to pay down debt that we need to pay off anyway.

How do you impose that on Asia?


Let the market figure out the best mix of efficiency, and other less CO2 intensive forms of energy.

I'm OK with that, as long as it doesn't impose much of a burden. I honestly don't believe you can accomplish that without damaging the economy.


We are already heading that direction anyway. If we can get there before depletion factors force this anyway, we will have a huge head-start compared to nations who don't, i.e. China, etc.

Do you really think other forms of power will be viable for our needs? I don't believe that will happen for a very long time. Still going to have a problem with nations like China cooperating.


Long term economic trends indicate that it is 100% certain that renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels, and for oil, that day is rapidly approaching.

This may happen, but it isn't 100% certain.


There is some very strong evidence that event is about to happen, or quite possibly has already happened.

As I stated before, energy companies will move that way as a natural part of doing business when that time comes. No need to force it.


Huge market distortions that may produce any huge economi harm are not needed. Change the environmental conidtions a bit and let evolutionary/technological forces do the rest.
Don't we need to currently make fossil fuels about twice as expensive to accomplish that goal?

[Wild Cobra]

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
That may as well be my saying, but I wouldn't want to claim to be as good as him.

Just because I am in the minority of the AGW issue, it doesn't mean I am wrong. Consensus is not science.

[RandomGuy]

This may happen, but it isn't 100% certain.

There are a finite amount of fossil fuels. It is. You are wrong about this, and provably so to any reasonable person.


Long before the ultimate sucking out of the last unit of oil/coal/natgas, it will get more and more expensive relative to other forms of energy.

This is a long term trend.

Just because you say it isn't certain, doesn't make it so, unless you can show an infinite amount of oil under our feet.

Can you?

The other end of that would be if you could show something that would keep renewables from its long term downward trend on costs?

Do you think technological progress will stop in this one area? Can you show this?

I don't mind changing my mind if have some evidence I was unaware of.

Otherwise, this is hand-waving. If you can't admit I might have a point, then I can stop now. Let me know.

[RandomGuy]

How do you get other nations to play along?

How do you impose that on Asia?

Irrelevant.

X is bad.
I say that we should stop doing X.
X does not become good if others do it too.



Long term, moving to renewables avoids a LOT of fuel costs on things that have to be imported, or dug up on a continuous basis.

Free market economics will dictate that if you can get your cost structure down to the point where you can underbid your rivals, you will get an advantage.

This would have that function, even if one only considers the imports of oil energy.

This is, essentially, the same logic you use to push for lower corporate tax rates.

Is it suddenly invalid now that you dont' like the conclusion?

[RandomGuy]

Do you really think other forms of power will be viable for our needs? I don't believe that will happen for a very long time. Still going to have a problem with nations like China cooperating.

Again, I am not saying we make a 100% switch tomorrow.

We will have to eventually, and that will be long after I am dead.

The answer to your question is yes, renewables can, and WILL provide an increasing fraction of our civilizations energy needs.

It is good policy to hurry that along.

Countries that don't... will not grow as fast over the long term.

[RandomGuy]

Don't we need to currently make fossil fuels about twice as expensive to accomplish that goal?

If nothing changes that is roughly correct.

But

Technology is bringing down the costs of batteries and all the things that go into making things like EV's at the same time costs for oil/gasoline go up.

There are two trends at work, and they will meet in the middle at some point.

The cost of oil will double in the next ten years or so.

These costs will add to the cost of gasoline. (reference economist article to that rough effect).

Within 5 years a host of new technologies will bring down the costs of EV's from a pure cost standpoint, not to mention learning curve and efficiencies of scale gains.

I may not be able to tell you within a year or so when that crossover will happen, but it appears to be within that 10 years.

When that happens renewables will be provably cheaper. It will be a bit funny to watch the Free Market Brigade backpedal about "drill here, drill now" when the synergies of renewables start kicking in and jobs move that way.

[Wild Cobra]

There are a finite amount of fossil fuels. It is. You are wrong about this, and provably so to any reasonable person.

Do you know that as fact?

What about the abiotic oil? Are you saying that is impossible?

Now I myself have stated that there will be a natural move away from fossil fuel as it gets more expensive. You however seem to advocate an unnatural approach to supply and demand pricing by reducing supply or increasing regulation, taxes, etc. Am I wrong about you wanting to make fossil fuel more expensive, forcing us to other means?


Just because you say it isn't certain, doesn't make it so, unless you can show an infinite amount of oil under our feet.

Can you?

Of course not, but you cannot show we will actually run that low either.


The other end of that would be if you could show something that would keep renewables from its long term downward trend on costs?

Do you think technological progress will stop in this one area? Can you show this?

Of course I cannot show the trend will slow of stop. I do believe there will be a point where it does, but I'm in no position to know where that will be.

Are you?

Past performance does not guarantee future performance.


If you can't admit I might have a point, then I can stop now. Let me know.
I understand your points, I just disagree on how to handle them.

[Wild Cobra]

Irrelevant.

X is bad.
I say that we should stop doing X.
X does not become good if others do it too.

I agree, but if we do it when it costs too much more, it puts us in a worse global trading disadvantage than we already are. Besides, just how bad "X" is with modern technology is subjective.


Long term, moving to renewables avoids a LOT of fuel costs on things that have to be imported, or dug up on a continuous basis.

Yes, in know. Isn't it a joke how much we waste to make and ship ethanol. The subsidies involved also.


Free market economics will dictate that if you can get your cost structure down to the point where you can underbid your rivals, you will get an advantage.

My point on waiting for the natural evolution to green technology.


This would have that function, even if one only considers the imports of oil energy.

This is, essentially, the same logic you use to push for lower corporate tax rates.

Is it suddenly invalid now that you dont' like the conclusion?

I am pretty consistent on reducing taxes and regulations. You seem to advocate the opposite since it takes more regulations and subsidies to make the renewable energy business grow right now.

[Wild Cobra]

Technology is bringing down the costs of batteries and all the things that go into making things like EV's at the same time costs for oil/gasoline go up.

Well, let me know when a sufficiently powered EV retains more than 90% of their battery capacity over their life. Have you seen what the cost is to change the batteries?


There are two trends at work, and they will meet in the middle at some point.

Probably. I say let the marketplace work naturally here.


The cost of oil will double in the next ten years or so.

Absolutely, but everything may double over 10 years. What about vs. a proper inflation index?


Within 5 years a host of new technologies will bring down the costs of EV's from a pure cost standpoint, not to mention learning curve and efficiencies of scale gains.

If you are so certain, why do you advocate market controls?


I may not be able to tell you within a year or so when that crossover will happen, but it appears to be within that 10 years.

It might be. I still seem to recall you wishing to hurry up the natural process.


When that happens renewables will be provably cheaper. It will be a bit funny to watch the Free Market Brigade backpedal about "drill here, drill now" when the synergies of renewables start kicking in and jobs move that way.

Maybe they know something you don't.

[CuckingFunt]

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh."

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2509/nikelogod.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh

[johnsmith]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.

[Poptech]

The answer is "no".

Keep in mind you are dealing with someone deeply insecure, to the point of what trained psychologists would call mild insanity.
I have no such insecurity but I see your demonization of me continues.


This deep insecurity means that he cannot admit any of the following:


Someone has found a weak point in his reasoning.
He has made a mistake.
Someone he disagrees with can make good point.

1. You have not found a weak point in my reasoning.
2. I admit to actual mistakes not ones you imagine.
3. You have not made a good point.


No matter what pile of valid evidence or reasoning may be presented to him, he will persist in his beliefs. Further, being unable to admit he has made a mistake, or has any weakpoints in his arguments means that he is incapable of a basic function of critical thinking: determining one's own biases.
You have not presented valid evidence. You are confusing your subjective arguments with valid evidence. When I make an actual mistake I will admit it and have many times.


His narcissism drives him to believe that he is smarter than you or I, and more logical, to the point of infallibility. You can't hold the ideas "I am smarter than these people, more logical, and don't make mistakes", while admitting that people who, to him, are less intelligent, illogical, and obviously have made the mistake of accepting AGW as a reasonable theory, have actually found a mistake of his, or have come to their conclusions logically using sound reasoning. To reduce the cognitive bias inherent in these two conflicting ideas, he takes the route of "it is a persecution of me and my ideas" route. It's a conspiracy against him and his ideas.
I am not narcissistic as I fail all such tests to label me as such. I also have no illusions about my intelligence. People that call AGW Skeptics "Deniers" or attempt to compare them to 911 Truthers are not reasonable. Your continued attempts to demonize me is all anyone needs to see to make up their own minds about your intentions and lack of integrity. I hold no such view that I am being persecuted or of any such conspiracy.


Anyone who doesn't see the exact same way, is obviously deluded. There is no room for honest conversation, because there is no "honorable dissent" in this worldview.
Calling me a denier, 911 Truther, sociopath or a narcissist is not having an honest conversation nor do I consider it honorable.


This is exactly the kind of person who buys into 9-11 conspiracy theories, fake moon landing theories, etc.

If one would care to swim through the sewers of 9-11 threads on just about any message board, you will see people fit into this pattern as well.

See here we go. I do not believe in either of these,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html)
Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4011)

You have to continue to desperately try and associate me with them because it will cause you cognitive dissonance if you accepted otherwise.


The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible its skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem" or, alternately one of his fanboys will say "RG is not a psychologist, so he is wrong about all of this".

As PopTech himself has stated "it is possible for someone without a PhD in a subject to be knowledgeable in a subject."

I have spent more hours arguing with conspiracy nutters of one stripe or another than I would care to admit to. I know 'em when I see 'em.
All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts, recognizing your ad hominem before hand does not make it any less of an illogical argument.

So far you have only demonstrated how little you actually know.

[Poptech]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.
You can thank RG and his friends.

[ChumpDumper]

Calling me a denier, 911 Truther, sociopath or a narcissist is not having an honest conversation nor do I consider it honorable.You're a drug addict.

[Blake]

No...

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh." Doesn't touch the rim. each prediction simply needs to make the basket. Yes, it's still a very tight margin, but doesn't require perfection.


smh

rofl

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/tautology-club.jpg

/thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5850929&postcount=203

He has no delusions grandeur but he thinks he has asbergers like he thinks a billionaire hedge fund manager has.

This dude is a certifiable nutjob.

[RandomGuy]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.

No it isn't.

kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Wild Cobra]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2509/nikelogod.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh

Did you see the post that was 21 posts earlier than yours?


Now I don't know if the presence of NIKE in Beaverton, OR has anything to do with it, but they have a "swoosh" symbol, also created here Oregon, by a Portland college student. Maybe "swoosh" was only used here in Oregon in the 70's when I was in school.
Are you trying to tell me something I already knew growing up in Oregon history?

[CuckingFunt]

Did you see the post that was 21 posts earlier than yours?

At the time that I was responding to a post that was 18 posts ahead of that one? No. I hadn't.


Are you trying to tell me something I already knew growing up in Oregon history?

No. I was being a smart ass. I thought that was fairly obvious.

[RandomGuy]

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem"



All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts,

(sighs heavily)




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:


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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

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

PopTech = Person A
RandomGuy = Person B
An attack = PopTech is mildly insane, or, alternately, PopTech's modus operendi about the catastrophic effects of AGW has direct parallels to the clearly insane people who believe in vast evil conspiracies about 9-11 and faked moon landings.
Claim X = Human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

1) PopTech make the claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

2) Randomguy says that PopTech is mildly insane.

3) Randomguy says that since PopTech is mildly insane, his claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous is false.



The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible [this theory's] skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

You can't show the last step of that chain, since that is directly contradicted by what I actually said.

Once again, a provable strawman on your part. That is two, and I have not bothered with the rest, nor am I currently inclined to.

Once again, I am sorry to hurt your feelings with my statements about your sanity. I understand you are deeply insecure and my statements and rather merciless shredding of your arguments and claims does not help.

The larger issue at hand, however, is much more important than any one person's hurt feelings. It would be a disservice to ignore the weaknesses in your arguments and claims to spare your feelings about how smart you are.

It is what it is, and I mean nothing hostile in all of this. To sure, I could use slightly less loaded language than "nutter". Sorry.

I hope someday you get better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whatevs, objection to ad hominem is is ad hominem, RG.

Aspberger delusion boy is never going to deviate from his obsessive, puritanical fundamentalism.

[RandomGuy]

Whatevs, objection to ad hominem is is ad hominem, RG.

Aspberger delusion boy is never going to deviate from his obsessive, puritanical fundamentalism.

No, he won't.

The more one delves into the rabbit hole of this guy's online activities, the more creepy it gets.

I have little doubt that if he is ignored, he will go away.

Maybe he will infest the NJ Net's equivalent of Spurstalk.

[Poptech]

Ah look RG has took to spamming his lies online (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/rotfl-too-funny/#comment-23824). I must have really embarrassed him with this thread.

[Blake]

You're really obsessed with RandomGuy.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, I took a breif scan of that site. If that's you, I have a hard time believing you are participating in such a place. Those compilation of responses I read, and links, are far worse than all the twoofers here post.

[TeyshaBlue]

You're really obsessed with RandomGuy.

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.:lol

[Blake]

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.:lol

©

[RandomGuy]

RG, I took a breif scan of that site. If that's you, I have a hard time believing you are participating in such a place. Those compilation of responses I read, and links, are far worse than all the twoofers here post.

Honestly, I have spent more time browsing links that you/Darrin/Yoni etc. have given me to your favored websites than I have ever really spent in any blog or website like Greenfyre's.

I would point out that PoopDeck himself provided a link to it, so it's not like I had to go out and do anything other than read through PT's cultish, rambling website to find it.

This whole thing inspired me to a bit to poke into a few more websites skeptical of the AGW denier movement, and I have come away with a much stronger opinion about what the science says, and the fact that the people who are most skeptical of it, are the least credible.

The quality and types of arguments made by deniers has direct parallels to that of 9-11 truthers. There is no doubt in my mind about that at all.

[RandomGuy]

Ah look RG has took to spamming his lies online (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/rotfl-too-funny/#comment-23824). I must have really embarrassed him with this thread.

WOW.

That was fast. I posted that this afternoon.

Interesting.

On another note, do not expect me to respond to anything else you post. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to see if you had anything interesting or compelling to say about Libertarianism, and I saw that was about as vacuous as the rest of your propaganda.

I have other things to do than to talk with sociopath cultists, and I genuinely think you would do me some kind of harm, were you in the position to do so. I will not give you that opportunity.

Goodbye to you, and I will not be clicking on any more "see posts".

[Poptech]

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.:lol
You didn't see my comments there first? He followed me there, therefore I cannot be stalking him and his comments mirrors his smears here.

It is irrefutable evidence of his desperation to demonize me because he cannot debate the facts.

[Poptech]

The quality and types of arguments made by deniers has direct parallels to that of 9-11 truthers. There is no doubt in my mind about that at all.
Then please explain this,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html)

[Poptech]

I have other things to do than to talk with sociopath cultists, and I genuinely think you would do me some kind of harm, were you in the position to do so. I will not give you that opportunity.
This post demonstrates your absolute insanity.


Goodbye to you, and I will not be clicking on any more "see posts".
You said this already but cannot help to post more libelous lies.

[ChumpDumper]

Then please explain this,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html)Poptech got pissed and posted a link to a page with 25 YouTubes and hundreds of links because he is a drug addict.