• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

Let's see if you brought anything of value to the table:

gfm7175 said:
That's just a long-winded way of saying "your argument is absurd" without providing any counterargument as to WHY it is absurd, along with throwing a few insults his way.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.

Try substantive reasoning next time...
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing here. :)

gfm7175 said:
There is no such thing as "scientific opinion", just opinion. You are accepting the opinions of others. Those opinions go along with your religion (the Church of Global Warming). You have also yet to define 'climate change'... What does 'climate change' mean? What definition are you working under?


Science is not credentials.


Science is not credentials.


AGW denies currently standing theories of science such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. AGW also denies logic, as it makes use of a buzzword fallacy, thus rendering AGW to be a void argument.
Click to expand...

Complete with the fallacious application of the "appeal to authority" charge when it is only a flaw when applied to deductive reasoning, not inductive. Next! :2wave:
 
LowDown said:
I'll not criticize people who go along with the mainstream if they have no understanding of the science. It's the rational thing for them to do. Those of us who understand the science don't have that luxury, we have to go with what the science tells us.

If you understand the science you don't need to know about credentials. The science speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Then you accept the scientific opinion on climate change! Welcome aboard! :thumbs:
 
Into the Night said:
This must get tiresome for you having to explain this over and over.
Click to expand...

irony-meter.jpg
 
Tim the plumber said:

When the basic obvious numbers say one thing and other people say another I go with the basic numbers.

You go with the priests.
Click to expand...
All Hail Science! :lamo
 
Phys251 said:
Let's see if you brought anything of value to the table:



Nope, nothing here. :)



Complete with the fallacious application of the "appeal to authority" charge when it is only a flaw when applied to deductive reasoning, not inductive. Next! :2wave:
Click to expand...

What appeal to authority charge?
 
gfm7175 said:
What appeal to authority charge?
Click to expand...

Let me help you by repeating your own words back to you so that you may clearly see them with your own eyes:

gfm7175 said:
Science is not credentials.

Science is not credentials.
Click to expand...

Your intention to misapply the appeal to authority fallacy was clear. Appeals to authority are only logical flaws for deductive reasoning. You don't even know why, do you?

gfm7175 said:
To what, your circularly-defined buzzword religion??
Click to expand...

0/10 projection attempt. :lol:
 
Phys251 said:
Let me help you by repeating your own words back to you so that you may clearly see them with your own eyes:

Your intention to misapply the appeal to authority fallacy was clear. Appeals to authority are only logical flaws for deductive reasoning. You don't even know why, do you?
Click to expand...
No, I'm just telling you that credentials have no effect on theories. Credentials do not further support any theory, nor do they falsify any theory. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; it concerns itself with conflicting evidence...

Phys251 said:
0/10 projection attempt. :lol:
Click to expand...
That's what climate change is, Phys251... A circularly defined buzzword religion... You have yet to offer up a definition for what "climate change" is...
 
gfm7175 said:
No, I'm just telling you that credentials have no effect on theories. Credentials do not further support any theory, nor do they falsify any theory. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; it concerns itself with conflicting evidence...


That's what climate change is, Phys251... A circularly defined buzzword religion... You have yet to offer up a definition for what "climate change" is...
Click to expand...

Phys251 said:
I do not believe you are ready to even hear a definition.
Click to expand...

If only there were a dictionary definition for it! ;)

Are you gonna take on the dictionary now? :lol:
 
Into the Night said:
Evasion. Define 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on void arguments.
Click to expand...

Into the Night said:
Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. Define 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
Click to expand...
:2funny: :2funny:
I knew it! I provided you with a DICTIONARY DEFINITION of climate change and you rejected it! You will accept NOTHING that doesn't suit your agenda. :lamo

You are dismissed. Nothing you have to say is of value any more. :)
 
Phys251 said:
:2funny: :2funny:
I knew it! I provided you with a DICTIONARY DEFINITION of climate change and you rejected it! You will accept NOTHING that doesn't suit your agenda. :lamo

You are dismissed. Nothing you have to say is of value any more. :)
Click to expand...

Webster's defines it as "changes in the earth's weather patterns." I am not aware of any place on earth that the weather patterns have changed. We see them change in a few decades of time, but we have natural cyclical patters that are more decades long yet. History tells us what we have seen in the last 30 years is nothing new.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Webster's defines it as "changes in the earth's weather patterns." I am not aware of any place on earth that the weather patterns have changed. We see them change in a few decades of time, but we have natural cyclical patters that are more decades long yet. History tells us what we have seen in the last 30 years is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Very interesting that you would try to nitpick the definition instead of ITN's completely irrational comments...
 
Phys251 said:
Very interesting that you would try to nitpick the definition instead of ITN's completely irrational comments...
Click to expand...

Everyone already knows how I feel about his arrogant and ignorant comments. I generally ignore his words.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Everyone already knows how I feel about his arrogant and ignorant comments. I generally ignore his words.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But climate science is a real thing, and it studies climates past, present, and future.

Future climates are where all the arguments concentrate. Past climates are as noncontroversial as the existence of dinosaurs.
 
Phys251 said:
Fair enough. But climate science is a real thing, and it studies climates past, present, and future.

Future climates are where all the arguments concentrate. Past climates are as noncontroversial as the existence of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this thread.

"Continuing Problems with Paleoclimate Proxies"
 
Phys251 said:
Fair enough. But climate science is a real thing, and it studies climates past, present, and future.

Future climates are where all the arguments concentrate. Past climates are as noncontroversial as the existence of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

You are speaking on terms of millions of years. Decades, are nothing in terms of climate. All we have still seen, and likely will see, are weather pattern changes of a cyclical nature. I will give exception to the northern ice because we are dramatically helping it melt with aerosols that change the albedo of ice.
 
Phys251 said:
If only there were a dictionary definition for it! ;)

Are you gonna take on the dictionary now? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, I am... a dictionary is not an authority over any word definition.

I'll respond to the definition you stole from dictionary.com though...

1) What does "long term change" mean? How long is that? It's too vague... If 20 years, why not 30 years? Why not 100 years? Why a certain window of years? Why ignore other years? Why are some years more significant than others?
2) It is a circular definition... it asserts that "climate change" is "climate change", since 'a long term change in the Earth's climate" is just a rephrasing of the words 'climate change'... Circular definitions don't work... I asked for a non-circular definition...
3) It goes on to claim "especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature"... That is another way of saying "global warming", which is another buzzword with the same issue that "climate change" has... There is no way to measure "average atmospheric temperature".

So no, that circular definition doesn't work... I want one which ISN'T circular...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Webster's defines it as "changes in the earth's weather patterns." I am not aware of any place on earth that the weather patterns have changed. We see them change in a few decades of time, but we have natural cyclical patters that are more decades long yet. History tells us what we have seen in the last 30 years is nothing new.
Click to expand...

So Websters also defines it in a circular manner, since "changes in the earth's weather patterns" is another way of phrasing the words "climate change". Circular definitions are meaningless... They are void arguments...
 
Phys251 said:
Very interesting that you would try to nitpick the definition instead of ITN's completely irrational comments...
Click to expand...

The definition Lord of Planar brought up (a different dictionary) argues the same exact thing, that "climate change" IS "climate change"... Circular definition... meaningless... a void argument.
 
Phys251 said:
:2funny: :2funny:
I knew it! I provided you with a DICTIONARY DEFINITION of climate change and you rejected it! You will accept NOTHING that doesn't suit your agenda. :lamo

You are dismissed. Nothing you have to say is of value any more. :)
Click to expand...

False Authority Fallacy. You are making dictionary.com to be an authority over the definition of climate change when it is NOT an authority. No dictionary is an authority over any word definition. Words are not defined by dictionaries.

He rejected it because it is a circular definition, thus meaningless, thus void argumentation... It would be illogical to accept such a definition...

Also a Bulverism Fallacy, as his assumed motives are irrelevant (his argument is not magickally wrong because of his suspected motives).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom