Antropogenic Global Warming Advocates and Logical Fallacies

[gslack]

Then please consider the whole thing quoted. w/e
It doesn't change the reply.

Why consider the whole thing quoted when it wasn't, and in fact was clearly edited by you to give a false impression.. I'll consider it properly quoted when you properly quote it.. It doesn't change the reply, it changes what you were replying to...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why consider the whole thing quoted when it wasn't, and in fact was clearly edited by you to give a false impression.. I'll consider it properly quoted when you properly quote it.. It doesn't change the reply, it changes what you were replying to...

I quoted the main premise of your post.
There was nothing in your post which was not support for that main premise.
You're being weird.

Yeah, Argumentum ad populem would be the appeal to consensus. Like when people assert a consensus of climate scientists believe thus, so therefore it is true..


Argumentum verecundiam would an appeal to authority. Like when people point to a specific climate scientist and argue that it must be true based solely on that...


They are both sides of the same coin. The point remains; the inherent "expertise" or specific knowledge of the individual does not change the fact it is still a logical fallacy to use that as your sole reasoning or argument. Be it one climate scientist (ad verecundiam) or many climate scientists in agreement (ad populem), relying on either as your sole argument is a logical fallacy.


I used ad populem to make the point because it was easiest and frankly, when ever one climate scientist is questioned the usual tactic here is to point out that scientist isn't the only one...


BTW. Would you find it improper to accept predictions on yours and your childrens plumbing needs for the next 100 years or more, and allow him to act on those predictions on your dime?

The statement quoted above is an example of equivocation.


There are meaningful, significant differences between the statements, "Most everyone believes X," and "Most all subject matter experts believe X."


Do you feel better now? lol
; )

 

[gslack]

I quoted the main premise of your post.
There was nothing in your post which was not support for that main premise.
You're being weird.




The statement quoted above is an example of equivocation.


There are meaningful, significant differences between the statements, "Most everyone believes X," and "Most all subject matter experts believe X."


Do you feel better now? lol
; )

No, I'd "feel better" if you actually addressed my post...

They are two sides of the same coin. The point remains;"The point remains; the inherent "expertise" or specific knowledge of the individual does not change the fact it is still a logical fallacy to use that as your sole reasoning or argument. Be it one climate scientist (ad verecundiam) or many climate scientists in agreement (ad populem), relying on either as your sole argument is a logical fallacy."

Now if you have some point to make, or argument against that statement please post it, if not you can keep on nay-saying.

Once more you mentioned taking plumbing advice from your plumber, yet ignored my question regarding an instance where you may not...I'll ask it again..

"Would you find it improper to accept predictions on yours and your childrens plumbing needs for the next 100 years or more, and allow him to act on those predictions on your dime?"