List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

[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/show...3&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.

It's fortunate that I'm rarely wrong.

[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. 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.

It's fortunate that I'm rarely wrong.

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 , and the very first thing he puts on his list is proven wrong, what does that imply about his ability to call me on ?

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 ed up and stupid, you wipe it all away.

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

[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.

[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 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 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 is a Nazi.

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.