LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So, i noticed you didn’t commit to the ground rules. I was criticised for appealing to authority , but you will not commit to not appealing to authority.
Last edited:
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I was clarifying what the “ground rules” ought to look like.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I guess it is still not clear. Is appeal to authority OK or not?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So when I bring up Heller or Lindzen, etc., your goto reply cannot be “they aren’t authorities” and thereby completely dismiss what they have to say.
So appeal to authority is NOT okay, but NEITHER is dismissal of authorities because they don’t happen to align with your authorities.
Got it?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I cannot prove anything without citing someone as a source, but if I do that then the objection comes that I am just appealing to authority. There is a great difference between citing someone as a source of facts and citing someone drawing conclusions based on those facts.
How can I prove that the hot spot in the troposphere doesn’t exist if I cannot cite a serious scientist who makes that claim without being charged with “appealing to authority”? Now, Spencer claims that the hot spot has not been found. Other sources claim that it exists. It is not an “argument from authority” to cite and compare the arguments made by both sides.
I’m willing to do that. If you are, then find a source claiming the hot spot exists, and let’s debate their claims.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Try it and see. If you cite a source for a pure fact, chances are I will not object because I will likely accept the fact. But if you cite some analysis I may very well object. That’s how scientists behave, right? They cite universally accepted facts in their arguments all the time, and that is not appealing to authority.
E
Ender
Guest
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I accept that Dr. Spencer’s instruments read what he says they read. That is the extent of the “pure facts” in the article. After that there is a lot of analysis, which I frankly cannot verify. But if you can, please educate me so that I can continue behaving like a scientist. But I did notice that Spencer wrote:
I assume that “our products” refers to his UAH satellite program. So there may still be a hotspot, but the satellite network may just not be suited to finding it.
This link took me to an offer to update my browser with an add-on to convert doc to pdf. If you have a regular HTML version of this article, please link to that.
E
Ender
Guest
Try this one.
T
Theo520
Guest
Not true.
I’ve tried to argue the science with you, I’ve shared significant research done by CERN on climate sensitivity.
Your response was to reject it out of hand. ‘they weren’t climate scientists’ was your response if I recall.
E
EndTimes
Guest
If so, in the trade that’s known as “shifty” …
Funny … On several occasions, In both the Arctive and Antarctic - ships with people onboard claiming to be climate experts who were/are studying Globull Warming - got stuck in the ICE…
And more than once - icebreakers on their way to save them - also got stuck.
Currently - there’s 3 IceBreakers stuck in the Arctic b/c ‘experts’ are studying Global Warming
Are they LYING?
_
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s not arguing like a scientist. That is appealing to authority, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But that is I have constantly hounded to stop doing. So I have to stop doing that, so should you.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not funny at all. When you take a ship into an ice field , you may very well get stuck.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
What do I think of climate change? I trust most of the scientists on this one and think that it exists, it is both natural and man-made, it threatens the existence of our planet, and it should be reduced by means of a global effort. Just how, I don’t know; maybe Bernie Sander does. Joe Biden pays lip service but has no real clue, while Donald Trump doesn’t really care about the issue.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It appears you have difficulty separating the “significant research” from the “done by CERN.”
If @Theo520 was presenting the research and what follows from it coming from the researchers at CERN, that does not mean he is “appealing to authority.” It is the research and the conclusions from it that he is focused on, regardless of whether they were done at CERN or Podunk Hollow by some nobody.
You need to ignore where the research was done and by whom, and focus on the tightness of the evidence and the conclusions that logically follow.
Somehow, you can’t seem to fathom that possibility, which is why if someone provides some data or evidence from YouTube, a PragerU video, Fox or Zero Hedge you automatically dismiss it as valueless.
Ergo it is you by dismissing the evidence without a second thought who are engaging in an appeal to a kind of inversion of appeal to authority, couched in the fact that the evidence doesn’t derive from an authority you subscribe to, therefore it can be dismissed without a second thought.
The point being that that is a foul according to the rules of “arguing like a scientist” which is to treat the evidence on its own merits regardless of the source — YouTube, CERN or Podunk Hollow.
A clear sign of not following the “think like a scientist rule” would be you claiming that because tobacco companies “sowed distrust in science” all research that demonstrates appreciable human caused warming IS NOT happening must be false. That would be a non sequitur besides that it is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.
Stated succinctly…
Both of these statements are false.
If statement X comes from an authority, then statement X is true.
If statement Y does NOT come from an authority, then statement Y is false.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose that would be the contentious part of your belief statement.
While this one requires a whole lot of additional justification.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
I think that society needs to make a complete (or as complete as possible) transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. If necessary this can be enforced with harsh regulations, but I don’t think it will be because subsidies of green energy will just cause economics to take their course.
E
EndTimes
Guest
When those who go to the ICE on a ship for the purpose of attempting to prove the False AGW
and get stuck in the ICE - who is anyone to say that one should never laugh… ?
When Savior IceBreakers come and get stuck too, it evidences an unexpected FREEZE
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
To be fair, this isn’t actually evidence, Leaf is right. I don’t believe in AGW on the scale Leaf supports, but climate scientists aren’t claiming there is no ice, only that there is less ice. If there is large scale ice, there is always the possibility of getting stuck, and it is really far form a laughing matter. Those people’s lives are in danger, and we should be praying for them.
M
Metis1
Guest
In Antarctica, the global warming is causing massive amounts of “calving” so as the ice area actually is larger and in some areas deeper.
BTW, a friend of mine works there 6+ months per year, and even though he’s politically conservative, he has nothing nice to say about the deniers of what he’s been witnessing over the last 15 years or so years he’s worked there. On top of that, he obviously hob-nobs with the scientists there, so he well knows what their “verdict” is on this.
BTW, a friend of mine works there 6+ months per year, and even though he’s politically conservative, he has nothing nice to say about the deniers of what he’s been witnessing over the last 15 years or so years he’s worked there. On top of that, he obviously hob-nobs with the scientists there, so he well knows what their “verdict” is on this.
- Status