'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

So you say...

Real Science suggests that the Human "element" is very little. Small enough in fact to say that it is "negligible".

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

The UN reports that they have about 2,500 "scientists" who state there is "global warming". There are more than 31,000 scientists who state otherwise. DO THE MATH. That's about 8% vs. 92%! 8% who are deciding what is "real" when 92% disagree. Something is very, very wrong here!

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Climate Emails Stoke Debate
Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming

By KEITH JOHNSON
The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

"This is horrible," said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

(continued at link provided)

 

Sorry but are you POSSIBLY suggesting that "real science" can be found on a website called

"Globalwamingisafarce.com"?

 

You understand that challenging the source rather than the information provided is not a legitimate debate tactic, right?

 

You can`t blame anyone else for our political antagonism, it`s home grown. I have no idea what you are talking about re your Alan Jones comment. However it seems that you hate him so much, that in your mind, he can`t possibly do anything right, therefore you use a comparison to him as an insult, but I forgive you.

The point is, AGW is a religion more than a science. Questioning the AGW church isn`t meant to hurt the feelings of believers, it`s just human nature to inquire into unsubstantiated theories.

 

It`s as plain as the butterfly on your face sweetie.

Here`s that Alan Jones again. Have you got a crush on him? Does he wear budgie smugglers?

 

Budgie smugglers. LOL had to look that one up. Had to look up Alan Jones too.

Oh mang, yous guys.

 

I'm sorry, but no. Challenging the information and the source of that information often amounts to the same thing. True, you can get good information from a bad source(ie website), but in most of those cases the bad website links to the good source, so there's no reason to even mention the bad website in the first place.

Its the debater's responsibility to find the best source of information he/she is using because obviously they risk being dismissed using a kooky source. If the only source the debater can find to support their proposition is a kooky source, then they should reconsider their proposition. Or admit it is a personal bias.


I think you're misapplying the "attack the argument not the person" principle to sources, "sources" being defined as reported news, public studies and research, etc. These sources are always fair game.

 

It is known as an Ad Hominem attack, when you simply dismiss an argument by citing the source rather than the information they espouse.

Are you doubting what was said, if so please attempt to refute it because I can support it, as I have shown...

Which part of the statement do you have concerns with? The U.N cites those in agreement, so I will give you a link to the 10's of thousands who disagree, it is called the Oregon petition...

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Care to address what was said, or simply attack who said it?

 

Yes I am and for a very good reason

It is an anonymous blog on the internet

Toilet paper is more useful - even used toilet paper is more useful and hardly contains less (*)(*)(*)(*)

But I am game - if you want to you can prove to me the validity of the site - show me the academic referencing to peer review studies, preferably studies less than 5 years old - that is the usual academic standard

 

You are the one who keeps siding with him sweetie!!

But once again general ad homs without proof {{{{{{{{{{{yawn}}}}}}}}}}

 

Oooooh1 Gooody!! just made my day! With not ONE but TWO complete and utter easy to refute Furphies!!

Usually things are NEVER this easy!!

First we will start with what an Ad Hom actually is..........

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

If you want an example of a an Ad Hom look no further than the posts of my fellow Australian

Usually those who resort to Ad Homs have lost the argument

Now to decimate the "Oregon Petition" but before I do that ask yourself "Are you willing to listen to famous liars?"

http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition

Now if you do not want accept my blog site and prefer your own sites I suggest you simply google "Oregon petition" and check the names for yourself

But even if the names are real

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/

 

Yes, you attacked the messenger rather than address ANY of the argument. Which is in fact an Ad Hominem attack

I am glad you admit that by using such an attack you have lost the argument.

Interesting...

In looking at most of what you have pointed me to I find just more Ad Hominem attacks. No one simply addresses the Science they have at the site, just like you haven't.

So, accordiong to your own statement, they, as well as you, have lost the argument.

Thank you for making my point for me...

Now, care to address the SCIENCE or just simply attack the massive amount of messengers?

I have in fact provided Science here, that you don't seem able to address. I am therefore left to assume that you are unable to and you concede the points I have made.

 

That is not an Ad Hominem attack. Ad Hominem is when you attack the arguer instead of the argument. It is a type of person attack, on the person making the argument, not their factual sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I don't know where you got your definition of Ad Hominem, but it's been twisted beyond recognition.


Attacking the argument is fair game. The argument includes supposedly factual sources. Therefore attacking sources as invalid is fair game, especially if those sources have no link to a more credible source.

There is a reason we take the New York More seriously as a source than the Weekly World News.

 

That is not what she is doing...

She is simply dismissing the Science being offered because of the source. That is in fact an Ad Hominem attack, attacking the source or "arguer" (as you put it) instead of the facts they present (or their argument).

Now, if either of you would like to have a REAL discussion, then please address the Science and/or points that have been made and quit dismissing them simply because of where they are cited from.

Otherwise, I will be left to assume that neither of you can in fact refute anything that has been presented and are admitting defeat.

 

The arguer is NOT their source, the arguer is the person you are arguing with. You don't get to change definitions to suit yourself.

You are the one who tried to redefine Ad Hominem to suit your own agenda. According to your logic, a creationist should be allowed to use the Bible to debate science and no one should be able to criticize the Bible as an invalid source of scientific information. That is BULL.

Sources are accepted and rejected all the time in valid debate. Otherwise it's not a debate, its just two or more people throwing around their personal opinions.

If you don't like your sources criticized, get better sources.

 

The "point" is in fact being "brought up" by the "Source", and they are therefor the "arguer" for that particular point. You are or you are not able to address their point, period. Dismissing their point because of the source of the information is in fact an Ad Hominem attack, whether you will admit it or not.

Wrong...

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

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]
=============================

Please note: I am offering you links to where I get my information from as you offer nothing but an opinion.

Imagine that.

 

Repeating it doesn't make it so....but nice try.

 

I gave you a quote from the very source you gave me.

That you are unable to address what it says should tell you something.

You are trying to say that the argument can only have one source and that is the person they are talking to. Well that is simply stupid, because when you cite someone else THEY become the arguer. If you dismiss what they say simply because of who they are you have in fact committed the Ad Hominem fallacy.

The point being, you can either address the information they provide or you cannot. If you simply dismiss it because of the source you have in fact committed an Ad Hominem, whether you will admit it or not.

 

No. I simply recognize when someone has stopped arguing in good faith, and plans to cherry pick what they want and ignore any points to the contrary.

Your first post quoting Ad Hominem was incorrect. Instead of admitting that with something like:

"Okay, I was incorrect; that's not Ad Hominem per se, but it's considered a sub category, etc."

..you pretended your definition was correct as presented. Now you're picking cherries and expecting people waste time sifting through them.

Your definition of ad Homenim

was WRONG.

<<< Mod Edit: Personal Attack >>>Enjoy.

 

You still misunderstand - very possibly because you have not clicked the link to the Wiki entry - it explains things nicely for those who are, well, not correct in what they are averring

Going back to the Wiki entry

If I had attacked you for posting some elephant dung then THAT would be an Ad Hom. If I had attacked the writer of the blog - THAT would be an AD Hom - but what I attacked was the source itself - a blog as being unreferenced and unsupported

See if you undertake ANY tertiary studies you soon learn that every argument you bring forth should have some supporting evidence. In science that often means quoting previous research to either bolster the conclusion or as a counterpoint to your conclusion. When you submit an assignment at university that is what is asked of you - you do not meet that standard and you are marked wrong - the lecturer is not indulging in an Ad Hominem attack they are simply measuring your work against a set and well accepted standard

Ummmmm - what science?

This bit?

Why do so many people who subscribe to the belief in global warming also subscribe to the
leftist liberal viewpoint on so many matters? Why does this belief appeal to those that have
a certain political view?

Is that the "science"?

IS this bit the "science"

Doesn't it alarm you that a strong political leader is so vehemently stating that "the debate is over in the scientific community" when very clearly it is NOT? Never mind actual "global warming" for a minute. Let's focus on that statement.

Or are you averring that the "Oregon Petition" is science?

Have you ever asked yourself how can Gore make such statements when there are over 31,000 scientists and climatologists who publically signed a petition stating they do NOT agree? http://www.petitionproject.org/ 31,000! Very clearly the debate is NOT over r
http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

When you come up with something other than a fiver year old astroturf blog I will consider it - and I notice you did not address the actual analysis of the "Oregon Petition" either

 

Also from the Wiki entry, perhaps you should try reading the entire thing...

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

...Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

The Oregon Petition has in gact a peer-reviewd document associated with it. Why does it not surprise me that you don't understand that...

If you care to address any of it, please do, but somehow I don't think you will because I think you have clearly shown you are incapable of addressing ANY of the Science that refutes your ideas.

But just in case you do, the full study can be found at the link...

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

I will provide just a bit of the summary, in case you can't seem to find it...

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

 

Quote mining and cherry picking - usual tools of denialists

Let us look at the WHOLE paragraph

Add in the first paragraph and it is clear that the Wiki entry is still talking about attacking the person and not a source as in origin of information

<<<<<<<ad Hominem deleted>>>>>>>>>

Sorry that is NOT repeat NOT a peer reviewed article

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

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

Admittedly that quoted article is actually from 2007 so it has been updated but has it been published in a journal dedicated to climatology or a related field?

No - it has been published in

So a MEDICAL journal that is not even recognised as a valid source by the medical field

No, that is NOT peer review - not by a long long long shot

But I am always grateful for people trying to pass the Oregon Petition off as valid - it makes the so called "climate gate" look like the most above board honest and ethical incident known to man

 

Really?

Then why would they cite being attacked because of the bias of the source, as you have been doing?

Seems to me that the source and the person pointing to it are likely two, if not more, different people, and yet they are in fact saying that an Ad Hominem is attacking the bias of the source instead of their argument, are they not?

Which is exactly what you have been doing.

 

Deflection - and derailment of the thread you have not given rebuttal to my analysis of the validity of your so called "peer reviewed" article or even on the open fraud associated with OISM

as for the AD Hom Circumstantial - again remember Ad Homs are about PEOPLE not information or where you get that information from. SO Ir I had said "I am not going to listen to that because you are a denialist" THAT would be an Ad Hom circumstantial

All those who post "Global Warming is a farce because Al Gore is a nut job" THAT would be an Ad Hom circumstantial

But saying "the information from that source is suspect because it is from an unreferenced anonymous blog off of the internet" is NOT an Ad Hom

Tell you what - why don't you seek further confirmation and simply report this to the mods asking someone like Shiva or Cenydd to review what constitutes an Ad Hom - because a TRUE Ad him is a personal attack and THAT is against the rules of the board

Oh! And BTW there is a difference between attacking the BIAS of a source and the VALIDITY of a source