The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Three facts about climate change > Comments

Three facts about climate change : Comments

By Michael Kile, published 20/11/2015

With all the headline-grabbing alarmism, how can one form a view on the myriad alleged threats posed by climate change?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. All
(cont.)

2. You keep wanting to persuade others - by argumentation – to believe what you believe. But you won’t allow any other method of proof than that, before anyone enters the discussion, everyone must have already accepted that your beliefs are conclusive, without any reason or proof, and only referring off to absent persons. That’s what you and ant are arguing.

I’ll show you why it’s fallacious by refuting ant to his own standard, okay?

Ant

Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific.

There.

Now according to the intellectual methodology and standard of proof of ant and Aidan, we have just established, by all-sufficient proof, that your arguments have no basis in science.

This would only be “sophistry” if appeal to authority were *not* a fallacy. But since it is, and you agree, we have established by agreement, by your own methodology and to your own standard of proof, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs that we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve.

On the other hand, if you argue that whether the fallacy of appeal to authority is fallacious, depends on the appeal to authority itself, then you deny that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is what you’re doing.

So your argument boils down to nothing but
“It is, because it is, because it is”
which is not scientific. The sophistry is all your own.

Now. Just answer my question directly on point without evasion. Do you understand, or do you not understand, that a scientific proof cannot rest on logical fallacy including appeal to authority?

Ant and Aidan
What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?

The most that could be said about your argument is that you deny that science must be logical, and you will never accept that argumentation could possibly settle the question in this forum, so you need to shut up.

Q.E.D.
You're talking circular, illogical, gibberish.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 17 December 2015 6:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine

What exactly does your rant/sophistry have to do with science?

The Arctic is in poor shape as evidenced by referenced article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/arctic-noaa-report-record-high-temperatures-diminishing-sea-ice?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=f813c48ee1-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-f813c48ee1-303429069

The deliberations in Paris moved the guardrail from an increase 2C to 1.5C over pre industrial times. There are good reasons for that change. The reference below dovetails into the one above; the state of permafrost being a concern.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/09/a-paris-climate-agreement-is-supposed-to-help-save-the-planet-but-the-planet-may-have-other-ideas/
Posted by ant, Thursday, 17 December 2015 7:13:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,
Appeal to authority is not intrinsically a fallacy. However:

It is a fallacy to claim that appeal to authority amounts to scientific proof.
It is a fallacy to use appeal to authority to claim something MUST be true.
It is a fallacy to use appeal to authority to ignore evidence.
It is a fallacy to appeal to a non-authority (like in your 2+2=9 example)

And it really should go without saying that it's a fallacy to fraudulently misrepresent the position of an authority, like when you said to Ant: "Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

What appeal to authority is most useful for is establishing the burden of proof. You seem to think that whenever you participate in a discussion the burden of proof should always be entirely with your opponents – and worse still, if any one of their arguments contains a fallacy, you declare that proves you right (even though there is no logical basis for this conclusion).

When experts reach a consensus, it makes more sense to presume them to be correct unless you actually have evidence that they're wrong.

"What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?"
A very large amount of environmental damage is being done by those who believe, despite overwhelming evidence, that their actions and decisions won't affect the outcome.

BTW your deluded assumptions about what I think are proof of illogicality on your part, not mine.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 18 December 2015 2:01:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan

Okay so we have just established to your own standard that what you're saying is fallacious.

You are affirming these propositions:
1. whether an appeal to authority is fallacious, is to be determined by the party making the appeal to authority,
2. that party can use the appeal to authority itself, to determine whether it's fallacious
3. appeal to authority is NOT acceptable as proof in the debate over climate.

It's no use telling me I must accept your beliefs i.e. "consensus" of "experts" etc. That's precisely the issue! What if I don't agree, and for good reason? What are you going to do then? You need to prove. All you're doing now, is endlessly repeating the same loop: assume it's true before entering the discussion, appeal to authority, and when challenged, assume it's true again, and appeal to authority again. And so on! That's all the warmists have ever done!

Therefore we have just established, by your own standard, that your argument is fallacious. Therefore it is not scientific. And therefore you have just lost the entire argument about climate.

The onus of proof is on anyone who advocates coercive means to violate the personal or property rights of others; plus it's on anyone advocating legislative or policy change. Which means you
a) have, and
b) have never discharged
the onus of proof.

Just look at ant's last post. It would only make sense if a) we assume he's right in the first place, and b) his appeal to authority constitutes scientific proof. Irrational!

If you are concerned about the environmental damage being caused by unbelievers, then you need to do something other than just endlessly insist that you are right, and that no discussion will be brooked. You need to prove. You need to answer the questions that you evade answering because you know they prove you wrong.

Do NOT reply by again insisting that your appeal to authority settles the question; it's just too idiotic for words. Answer my questions!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 19 December 2015 11:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And it really should go without saying that it's a fallacy to fraudulently misrepresent the position of an authority, like when you said to Ant: "Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

I'm only doing what you're doing. That's what you're calling "fraudulent misreprsentation."

Can't you see that either:
a) the appeal to authority is valid as a form of argumentation, in which case you accept that my doing what you're doing - referring off to absent authority - settles the question, and you are just "denying the science" if you don't agree,
OR
b) the appeal to authority is not valid.

So either way, you must lose the argument.

You can't just insist that a fallacy is scientific proof and settles the general issue in your favour, if you use it, but fraudulent misrepresentation if I do it.

You have to use the same standard on both sides of the equation.

There is NO requirement for me to just agree with your conclusion as a precondition of entering the argument.

You are openly telling me that you do not accept argumentation as a method of determining what is true or not. So what are you doing here?

You need to prove what you are saying, by answering my questions.

I have repeatedly shown that the warmists are not able to maintain their claims in favour of any climate policy whatsoever. You have failed to answer them. You have lost the argument because you admit that argument - appeal to authority - is fallacious.

End of discussion. You lost. No climate policy whatsoever is justified.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 19 December 2015 11:30:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Okay so we have just established to your own standard that what you're saying is fallacious."
No, you have reached that conclusion based on false assumptions.

"It's no use telling me I must accept your beliefs i.e. "consensus" of "experts" etc."
I didn't. I was under the impression your position was that those experts were wrong on the consensus they reached. If instead you want to argue they haven't reached a consensus, or that they're not really experts, you're welcome to do so.

"The onus of proof is on anyone who advocates coercive means to violate the personal or property rights of others; plus it's on anyone advocating legislative or policy change. Which means you
a) have, and
b) have never discharged
the onus of proof."
You seem to have contrived that so the onus of proof is never on you! I suppose that position would be credible if we were discussing proposed courses of action. But we're not; we're discussing (or at least trying to discuss) scientific reality. So the onus of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

"I'm only doing what you're doing. That's what you're calling 'fraudulent misreprsentation.'"
Really? What experts do you think I claimed said something completely different from what they actually said?

"Can't you see that either:
a) the appeal to authority is valid as a form of argumentation, in which case you accept that my doing what you're doing - referring off to absent authority - settles the question, and you are just 'denying the science' if you don't agree,
OR
b) the appeal to authority is not valid."
No. There's an enormous difference between an honest appeal to authority and a fraudulent appeal to authority (lying about what that authority says).

"So either way, you must lose the argument."
An honest appeal to authority is unlikely to be sufficient to win an argument, but it's even less likely to be sufficient to lose one.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 20 December 2015 9:39:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy