gut;1491487 wrote:I don't know how anyone can't see a govt agenda to exert more control (and gather taxes!) wielding this research and claiming a duty to do something about it.

This is my biggest issue with climate change. Somehow the government feels the needs to start collecting money because we have to DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! And somehow Al Gore is getting rich off of it. LOFL.

jmog;1491408 wrote:Your last two arguments/posts have been so full of different logical fallacies it's almost comical.

I will list a few...

Strawman-misrepresenting my argument just to make it easier to attack.
Bandwagon-You are definitely miss using this as "well, everyone else says its true so therefore it is true".
Appeal to Authority-Instead of having a clue what you are talking about yourself, if someone with a PhD says it's true then it must be true.
Black or white-There is a spectrum here, your assuming that there are arguments that are either "we are causing GW" and "we have zero affect". There is a whole spectrum here, I happen to find the validity of a lot of the data so bad combined with some knowledge of my own to come up with the belief that we affect GW very little. This idea of AGW is not yes or no.

That's just to name a few.

Lol...explain to how I misrepresented your argument? You claimed w/o evidence that most climate researchers don't understand chaos theory, appealing to your own authority. I suggested this was unlikely considering one of the progenitors of climate research was the progenitor of chaos theory.

I'm not using appeal to authority or bandwagon, etc. per se. I'm saying as a matter of epistemology...given that people who do empirical research on the matter show that well above a preponderance of the empirical evidence supports the notion of significant AGW, what should I believe?

I didn't frame it as black or white, I didn't straw man you and I didn't apply a generic appeal to authority. We've got you appealing to your own authority all the time on this issue and then all of these other authorities out there who are basing their opinions on the matter on the preponderance of the empirical evidence....you're asserting based on what seems to be pure conjecture that the evidence is invalid based on your own authority as an engineer who's taken higher order math.

queencitybuckeye;1491439 wrote:100% of all credible, non-political scientists once believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat. The idea that even accepting a blatently exaggerated notion that most scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change makes it (or even suggests it's) true is a logical fallacy.

In this instance the AGW deniers are ptolemy and the researchers finding that empiricism supports AGW are Copernicus/Galileo who figured out that the Earth was round because of empiricism too.

gut;1491487 wrote:And setting aside the issues and potentially politics with the research...I don't know how anyone can't see a govt agenda to exert more control (and gather taxes!) wielding this research and claiming a duty to do something about it. And why is it that it's mostly liberals/socialists sound the alarm and demanding we need to do something now?

Conservatives certainly don't have much problem adding bureaucracy and throwing money at a problem. So if the "research" is so compelling, then why are conservatives supposedly so resistant?[/QUOTE]

LOL because they think it's all a government librul socialist conspircacy to collect more taxes to redistribut to teh p00rz as you suggest in this post!

BoatShoes;1492961 wrote: LOL because they think it's all a government librul socialist conspircacy to collect more taxes to redistribut to teh p00rz as you suggest in this post!

Typical...You really have lost any demonstrative ability to think for yourself. Put down the glass of kool-aid and REALLY THINK about the question I put forth.

All you did here was spam a defensive attack on conservatives that completely failed to address the how and why - in other words, in typical liberal fashion you dodged the question by attempting to dismiss it as partisan rhetoric because you don't have an actual good answer.

I didn't suggest redistribution. I didn't suggest any motive, I merely made an observation and asked why it was so. Although maybe your response is telling - you deny what you know to be true because you refuse to believe it.

BoatShoes;1492957 wrote:Lol...explain to how I misrepresented your argument? You claimed w/o evidence that most climate researchers don't understand chaos theory, appealing to your own authority. I suggested this was unlikely considering one of the progenitors of climate research was the progenitor of chaos theory.

I'm not using appeal to authority or bandwagon, etc. per se. I'm saying as a matter of epistemology...given that people who do empirical research on the matter show that well above a preponderance of the empirical evidence supports the notion of significant AGW, what should I believe?

I didn't frame it as black or white, I didn't straw man you and I didn't apply a generic appeal to authority. We've got you appealing to your own authority all the time on this issue and then all of these other authorities out there who are basing their opinions on the matter on the preponderance of the empirical evidence....you're asserting based on what seems to be pure conjecture that the evidence is invalid based on your own authority as an engineer who's taken higher order math.

You most certainly did all those logical fallacies. I am not going to point out every single one and bold exactly where you did it. Just reread your post that I was referring too and you will see it.

gut;1493267 wrote:Typical...You really have lost any demonstrative ability to think for yourself. Put down the glass of kool-aid and REALLY THINK about the question I put forth.

All you did here was spam a defensive attack on conservatives that completely failed to address the how and why - in other words, in typical liberal fashion you dodged the question by attempting to dismiss it as partisan rhetoric because you don't have an actual good answer.

I didn't suggest redistribution. I didn't suggest any motive, I merely made an observation and asked why it was so. Although maybe your response is telling - you deny what you know to be true because you refuse to believe it.

Just read the thread. Conservatives (i.e. Believer) said that exact answer. Conservatives favor rugged individualism. To accept that individual human contracts and actions are causing global warming is potentially a threat to individualism because librulz will argue that some types of collective action are necessary to overcome any potential catastophries or aggregate harm that may result.

They are not opposed to global warming per se. They are opposed to collective action and therefore even if they accept that the Earth is warming there's nothing we can do about it.

jmog;1493324 wrote:You most certainly did all those logical fallacies. I am not going to point out every single one and bold exactly where you did it. Just reread your post that I was referring too and you will see it.

Like I said it is not a generic appeal to authority. It is an evaluation of evidence brought forth by varying authorities as part of an epistemological exercise...not unlike the weighing of various evidence and expert testimony in a trial. I don't consider your own appeal to your own authority simply a generic logical fallacy in your argument.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html#articleTabs%3Darticle


bingo

BoatShoes;1494751 wrote: They are not opposed to global warming per se. They are opposed to collective action and therefore even if they accept that the Earth is warming there's nothing we can do about it.

It's not about opposing "collective action". That is another talking point. Practically everything the govt does is a "collective action" of one form or another. There is another explanation. Keep trying.

"They are not opposed to global warming per se. They are opposed to collective action and therefore even if they accept that the Earth is warming there's nothing we can do about it."

I'm opposed to a charlatan that might have an IQ of 105 lecturing us in a field where he has no expertise, and yet got a Nobel Prize for being nothing more than a fraud.

That is all that needs to be said. Al Gore is a moron.

Manhattan Buckeye;1495159 wrote:I'm opposed to a charlatan that might have an IQ of 105 lecturing us in a field where he has no expertise, and yet got a Nobel Prize for being nothing more than a fraud.

For a moment I thought you were referring to Barry Soetoro.

believer;1495164 wrote:For a moment I thought you were referring to Barry Soetoro.

The name Paul Krugman popped into my head first.

^^^

Now that is funny! I posted on another site (one of my alumni groups) that Gore - Global Warming = Krugman - Economics.

Yet we are the fools, after all they have Nobel prizes and we don't.

Manhattan Buckeye;1495219 wrote:
Yet we are the fools, after all they have Nobel prizes and we don't.

If the Nobel Prize in Economics would effectively double your net worth, you aren't qualified to win it, even if you aren't a bit of a dullard to begin with.

Manhattan Buckeye;1495219 wrote:^^^

Now that is funny! I posted on another site (one of my alumni groups) that Gore - Global Warming = Krugman - Economics.

Yet we are the fools, after all they have Nobel prizes and we don't.

Actually that's not a very good analogy. Krugman has a Ph.D in Economics from MIT and also won the John Bates Clark medal well before he began commenting on politics as it is awarded to "the economist under 40 who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge."

Krugman has economics expertise based on a reasonable standard...you just disagree with him. It'd be like me saying Robert Lucas doesn't have economics expertise because I disagree with him....it'd be absurd.

A better analogy if we're to accept your critique of Mr. Gore are congressmen like Paul Ryan and Ron Paul...two congressmen with "no expertise" in economics as Paul Ryan has only ever been a congressmen (much like Gore) w/ no experience in economics and Ron Paul was only ever an OB-GYN. Yet, both are treated as authorities on neoclassical and austrian economics in contemporary political discourse.

If we're to accept your critique that we can dismiss congressional leaders out of hand when they advocate for particular causes as they're not "experts" we can similarly do the same for Paul Ryan and Ron Paul and probably all congressmen.

But, I think your critique is prima facie absurd. Of course congressmen can become well informed and knowledgeable on certain issues and advocate on their behalf. Before he got beat, there were probably few people who were better experts on transportation and infrastructure than James Oberstar who spent years on that committee and yet the guy was not a civil engineer, etc.

queencitybuckeye;1495232 wrote:If the Nobel Prize in Economics would effectively double your net worth, you aren't qualified to win it, even if you aren't a bit of a dullard to begin with.

You're right. John Nash should've never been awarded the prize for Nash Equilibrium because he wasn't a millionaire. Etc., etc.,

Actually, BS, my critique is based on working for Charles Burson for a summer before he became Gore's personal counsel. Burson doesn't speak with Gore anymore. Because Gore is a charlatan, even Gore's wife left him.

If you and the faux Left want to have Gore, have him. He's an idiot, and this country is better off without him. His Aspen speech was nonsensical as was his article. The guy might actually be insane.

BoatShoes;1495236 wrote:You're right. John Nash should've never been awarded the prize for Nash Equilibrium because he wasn't a millionaire. Etc., etc.,

No "etc., etc.". You take an extreme outlier, and stupidly pretend it negates my point. Maybe you should go back to unsticking pages from your economics texts and posting arcane graphs from them. You're far better at that than thinking.

Manhattan Buckeye;1495239 wrote:Actually, BS, my critique is based on working for Charles Burson for a summer before he became Gore's personal counsel. Burson doesn't speak with Gore anymore. Because Gore is a charlatan, even Gore's wife left him.

If you and the faux Left want to have Gore, have him. He's an idiot, and this country is better off without him. His Aspen speech was nonsensical as was his article. The guy might actually be insane.

I really could not care less about Al Gore. He's certainly weird and the more "reinventing government" fiscally conservative democrats that leave the scene the better. However, like I said with regards to this thread, you're just exaggerating about how bad the article was when it was nothing out of the ordinary and it's obvious why...it was just your excuse to go on your silly tirade about how dumb Al Gore is. The guy is basically irrelevant to politics anymore. Maybe next you'll start a thread about an interview w/ Dennis Kucinich and how loony he is???

queencitybuckeye;1495246 wrote:No "etc., etc.". You take an extreme outlier, and stupidly pretend it negates my point. Maybe you should go back to unsticking pages from your economics texts and posting arcane graphs from them. You're far better at that than thinking.

How many people on this list do you think satisfy your criteria for what would qualify one for a Nobel Prize in Economics?

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

' Maybe next you'll start a thread about an interview w/ Dennis Kucinich and how loony he is???"

I'm pretty sure Kucinich wasn't Veep for 8 years and nearly became POTUS, and also wasn't the target of the great South Park episode, "ManBearPig."

I'm not exaggerating anything, Gore's words and writing speak for him. It is absolute gibberish. People hated W because he was a poor public speaker, but at least he wasn't crazy. Gore is actually nuts.

BoatShoes;1495276 wrote:How many people on this list do you think satisfy your criteria for what would qualify one for a Nobel Prize in Economics?

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

It doesn't matter for the exact same reason that the percentage of scientists who believe in man-caused global warming is irrelevant to whether they are right or wrong. We don't get to vote on reality.

Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in year...

Top scientists warning of global COOLING...

BoatShoes;1495233 wrote:Actually that's not a very good analogy. Krugman has a Ph.D in Economics from MIT and also won the John Bates Clark medal well before he began commenting on politics as it is awarded to "the economist under 40 who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge."

Krugman has economics expertise based on a reasonable standard...you just disagree with him. It'd be like me saying Robert Lucas doesn't have economics expertise because I disagree with him....it'd be absurd.

I'm a huge fan of his "Alien Invasion" economic stimulus plan.

The Krugster rocks hard! :thumbup: