Jump to content
splunch

Logical Fallacies Of The Deniers

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kfools said:

Why do you think "non scientists" can't comprehend peer reviewed papers?

 

Do you have trouble understanding them?

So tell us what you think about the science. It seems like the water is rising from melting and warming. Why do you think the water is rising if it's not melting and warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:


@kfools, according to your moronic rule, anyone who asks an unanswered question gets your blessing as the winner of the debate. Does that also apply to nonsense questions like what the “EARTH'S TEMPERATURE SHOULD BE???”.  ?

Seems valid to me.

1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

Does the inclusion of multiple question marks when one will suffice render his question invalid? 
 

No.

1 hour ago, Olivaw said:

What is the rule when the asker is MidnightMax who is such an obnoxious twerp that he refers to half the country as SCHITSTAIN? One would think that the decision to ignore such an individual is all the answer that is needed. 🙂

Ignore if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kfools said:

Why do you think "non scientists" can't comprehend peer reviewed papers?

 

Do you have trouble understanding them?


Published scientists struggle to comprehend peer reviewed papers outside of their discipline but this forum is filled with unpublished citizen scientists who would have us believe that they can not only understand most of these papers but refute them. Why do you think that is? Why are so many such self-acclaimed citizen experts found on the right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, kfools said:

Seems valid to me.

I don’t doubt it seems valid to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, splunch said:

Since I haven't seen this in a week or two, I thought I'd pre-empt it:

 

Referencing an actual expert on a subject is not an appeal to authority logical fallacy, which is, by definition, and appeal to an authority that is NOT an expert on the relevant subject.

 

NASA is packed with actual experts on climate science, so citing their work is not a logical fallacy.  It's citing the best available human knowledge on the subject.

 

Just an FYI, for all you dumbasses out there.

Best 5 words in the republican English language:

 

”In my opinion”

 

”I believe”

 

You cite those declarations and you can surf a rainbow, on your way to good graces w/ the republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  You morons are wasting your time on this garbage and ignoring the big story ... the coronavirus epidemic.   Do you not realize the epidemic is on track to see upwards of 200000 confirmed cases by February 6th ... just 10 days from now?   That's how fast the virus is currently spreading.    And with that 200000 cases will come 5000 deaths or more.  And two days after that, we might see DOUBLE those numbers.   Doesn't this alarm any one of you?   Apparently not since here you talking about AGWalarmist NONSENSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olivaw said:


Published scientists struggle to comprehend peer reviewed papers outside of their discipline but this forum is filled with unpublished citizen scientists who would have us believe that they can not only understand most of these papers but refute them. Why do you think that is? Why are so many such self-acclaimed citizen experts found on the right? 

I think there is something to be said for the application of logic. 

 

Let me explain. 

 

Back in the initial invasion of Iraq, there was a minister on TV. He was an Iraqi spokesman. He spoke into the camera and explained there was no invasion while an m1 abrams was literally plowing through town in the background. 

 

Everybody could see it. 

 

This is pretty much the same situation. 

 

The left claims global warming is going to cause a planetary wide event that will not be good for humanity. They always claim it's just around the corner. Yet, we walk outside and the birds are singing, the bees are buzzing, the sun is shining. It looks like it always has. We see no sign of these problems. 

 

We do see propositions from elites that we need to give up X and pay X in tax to avoid this event or these events that never seem to manifest. 

 

Now let's assume you are right. Do you at least understand why the other side thinks like they think?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olivaw said:

I don’t doubt it seems valid to you. 

I am curious why it doesn't seem valid to you. 

 

If the earth is getting to hot it stands to reason we would know what temperature it is supposed to be yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olivaw said:


Neither, so long as the change is sufficiently gradual that we can adapt to changing weather and crop patterns. 

 

 

Wrong.   Colder is far worse.   You going to adapt to a frozen planet?

 

lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zaro said:

Name some examples

Which means yer not experienced enough to be weighing in on this topic.

 

Informed people know that previous scientific claims have been replaced when new knowledge is discovered.

 

Let's start here...then you can go forward and research on yer own...

 

"In February-March 1616, the Catholic Church issued a prohibition against the Copernican theory of the earth's motion. ... This book elaborated the (geokinetic and heliocentric) idea that the earth rotates daily on its own axis and revolves yearly around the sun."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are told what to believe first, and then accept any rationalizations that are offered.  If they are painfully obviously full of holes, they do not see them.  Their ability to think is superseded by their commitment to accept what Rush Limbaugh says as truth.  

 

When Al Gore makes obvious errors or exaggerations, they spot them quickly and easily.  Their opponents in the debate acknowledge those obvious errors, and point out that lots of people who advocate for addressing climate change are wrong about plenty of things.  But they are not the experts on the subject, and their knowledge of the subject matter is not relevant to anything.

 

So on the one side, people who accept the evidence and conclusions that our best minds have produced can recognize when someone is making an erroneous claim on their behalf.  They don't just reflexively start defending obvious errors just to demonstrate their commitment to the cause, or their solidarity, or whatever.  

 

On the other side, anyone who offers up any denial of climate science is revered as a speaker of truth, hailed as a cultural leader and icon.  Every time some blowhard asks a stupid question that they evidently thinks contradicts or undermines the scientific work of thousands of scientists, they cheer like their home team just won the game.

 

In other words, they're undisciplined thinkers and it makes them stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, personreal said:

Which means yer not experienced enough to be weighing in on this topic.

 

Informed people know that previous scientific claims have been replaced when new knowledge is discovered.

 

Let's start here...then you can go forward and research on yer own...

 

"In February-March 1616, the Catholic Church issued a prohibition against the Copernican theory of the earth's motion. ... This book elaborated the (geokinetic and heliocentric) idea that the earth rotates daily on its own axis and revolves yearly around the sun."

Are you trying to claim that the Catholic Church ever was a scientific organization? You claimed science has been wrong before and you come up with the fugging church as an example. You fugging idiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Are you trying to claim that the Catholic Church ever was a scientific organization? You claimed science has been wrong before and you come up with the fugging church as an example. You fugging idiot

Many scientists back then agreed with the church...they were both wrong.  

 

Al Gore's top climatologist, Stephen Schneider (now deceased), agreed with Al Gore once he was added to the Gore payroll.

 

In the '70s Scheinder said another ice age was coming.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, personreal said:

Many scientists back then agreed with the church...they were both wrong.  

 

 

 

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zaro said:

Who?

Like I said...you don't have the experience.  You'll just keep asking for more examples.

 

Ask someone else here...maybe one of yer leftist buddies.

 

"Has a science consenus ever failed due to new discoveries"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, personreal said:

Like I said...you don't have the experience.  You'll just keep asking for more examples.

 

Ask someone else here...maybe one of yer leftist buddies.

 

"Has a science consenus ever failed due to new discoveries"?

 

 

I'm asking you. You made the claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, splunch said:

In other words, they're undisciplined thinkers and it makes them stupid.

 

 

 

The record here speaks for itself.    You can’t debate.   You mock and laugh while avoiding the hard questions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zaro said:

I'm asking you. You made the claim

And I proved my claim.

 

I understand yer afraid to ask one of yer leftist buddies.  ;)

 

Hey forum!  Zaro doesn't believe that previous science consensus have been change due to new discoveries.

 

According to Zaro this has NEVER happened.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, personreal said:

Like I said...you don't have the experience.  You'll just keep asking for more examples.

 

Ask someone else here...maybe one of yer leftist buddies.

 

"Has a science consenus ever failed due to new discoveries"?

 

 

How about ONE example?  I mean...other than that scientific body, the medieval Catholic Church, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, splunch said:

How about ONE example?  I mean...other than that scientific body, the medieval Catholic Church, of course.

hehehe

 

Elvis has left the building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, splunch said:

How about ONE example?  I mean...other than that scientific body, the medieval Catholic Church, of course.

Many scientists back then agreed with the church...they were both wrong.  

 

Al Gore's top climatologist, Stephen Schneider (now deceased), agreed with Al Gore once he was added to the Gore payroll.

 

In the '70s Scheinder said another ice age was coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zaro said:

hehehe

 

Elvis has left the building

hehehe

 

You never responded...as usual.  hehehe

 

Al Gore's top climatologist, Stephen Schneider (now deceased), agreed with Al Gore once he was added to the Gore payroll.

 

In the '70s Scheinder said another ice age was coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zaro said:

hehehe

 

Elvis has left the building

Funnily enough, I could certainly come up with examples of the scientific consensus being wrong.  

 

Just...not this wrong, LOL.  The ability to compare apples to apples is one of those critical thinking skills that just vanishes if the conclusion doesn't agree with the politically-motivated narrative.

 

Scientists used to believe that black holes might be fairly rare.  Now, they believe they are integral to the formation of most galaxies, if not ALL galaxies.  Does that mean that obviously the scientific consensus can be wrong, and so global warming conclusions cannot be trusted?

 

Let's see.

 

Astrophysicists, working from theory alone, with extremely limited data available because they did not have the Hubble Telescope, or any of the other technologies we have now to collect data, surmised what they could from what they had.  AND if you asked them, they would be able to tell you, there is some guesswork here, we're not sure how this works.  Even today, if you ask an astrophysicist how sure they are about what black holes are and how they work, you'll find that they're not just going to sit you down and tell you how it is.

 

Climate science, on the other hand, at this point is positively rotten with hard data, which is what drives the conclusions and the theories at this point.

 

Asserting that it's "just a theory" and so cannot be relied upon at this point...you may as well say that it's "just a theory" that stars are powered by fusion.  Or it's "just a theory" that species evolve....  oh, wait...they DO say that, too, because evolution confounds some of their other dogma....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, splunch said:

Since I haven't seen this in a week or two, I thought I'd pre-empt it:

 

Referencing an actual expert on a subject is not an appeal to authority logical fallacy, which is, by definition, and appeal to an authority that is NOT an expert on the relevant subject.

 

NASA is packed with actual experts on climate science, so citing their work is not a logical fallacy.  It's citing the best available human knowledge on the subject.

 

Just an FYI, for all you dumbasses out there.

It's true. It's not a logical fallacy to cite Nasa's work. Who said it was I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...