Thread: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Originally Posted by aussiefree2ride

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?

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

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

Originally Posted by Gaar

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?

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..........

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

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?"

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Art Robinson and his organization the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

The Oregon Petition's Disguise Attempt

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

The research paper was also made to mimic the style of the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.

With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. In fact, the documents had been authored by Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

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

Robinson claims the Petition includes 31,000 scientists, 9,000 with PhDs (and the other 22,000 have what credential that makes them “scientists”?). Let’s pretend they’re all real scientists.

So what?

If the premise is that this is a HUGE number (as many in the Denialosphere have tried to claim, and still do), then what is our basis for comparison?

In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists. The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the Denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community.

Except, notwithstanding the extreme parochialism of the American Deniers, climate change is actually a global issue. It involves the global scientific community (who knew?), and the Petition has international signatories, so the real baseline for comparison is the global community.

There are an estimated 63 million scientists in the world, so even if the names were real, the Petition would have managed a stunning 0.005% of the scientific community.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...mes-were-real/

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

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/...mes-were-real/

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.

Originally Posted by Gaar

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

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

short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it

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.

Originally Posted by l4zarus

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.

Originally Posted by Gaar

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).

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by l4zarus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by l4zarus

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gaar

The "point" is in fact being "brought up" by the "Source", and they are therefor the "arguer" for that particular point.

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

Originally Posted by l4zarus

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.

Originally Posted by Gaar

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.

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

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

was WRONG.

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