quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here.
You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Garbage in, garbage out. I posted this to another climate thread. It obviously applies here too:

The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeal to Popularity
Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.

And just to save time, here are the counter arguments that one person posted:

To the Genetic Fallacy: there is no shortage of evidence
To the Appeal to Authority fallacy: this isn't a real logical fallacy
To the Appeal to Popularity fallacy: also, not a real logical fallacy

I mean, jeeez, where the fuck do go from there?

Lordy, let's sing. All rise.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Garbage in, garbage out. I posted this to another climate thread. It obviously applies here too:

The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeal to Popularity
Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.

And just to save time, here are the counter arguments that one person posted:

To the Genetic Fallacy: there is no shortage of evidence
To the Appeal to Authority fallacy: this isn't a real logical fallacy
To the Appeal to Popularity fallacy: also, not a real logical fallacy

I mean, jeeez, where the fuck do go from there?

Lordy, let's sing. All rise.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts.

Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head.

However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence. It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard.

My worry is ... are they thinking hard about the facts, or are they thinking hard about how they can overcome the facts?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales



Well, speaking for just myself, Firm, I am considering that there are a lot of questions to be answered and I want a lot more information than I have before I make up my mind on the issue. Therefore I am keeping quiet and l listening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here.
You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine?

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts.

Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head.

However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence. It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard.

My worry is ... are they thinking hard about the facts, or are they thinking hard about how they can overcome the facts?

Firm

Well, speaking for just myself, Firm, I am considering that there are a lot of questions to be answered and I want a lot more information than I have before I make up my mind on the issue. Therefore I am keeping quiet and l listening.

Others, who shall remain nameless, have made up their minds long ago that AGW was a liberal plot to destroy capitalism as we know it see no need to ask questions, think or consider, so they can use their time to crow over their "marvelous victory".

Just one man's opinion, of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here.
You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine?

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Firm

More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here.
You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine?

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Firm

More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American.

How would you feel if the fucking New York Times was the only paper anybody outside of your country ever read?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here.
You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine?

So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with?

Firm

More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American.

How would you feel if the fucking New York Times was the only paper anybody outside of your country ever read?

Or if the Mail was the only one we got!

quote:

I guess, though, spinner, my question to you is pretty simple.

If you believe that science should be the process to arrive at knowledge, and science is based on facts and data, and the free flow of facts and data, along with the process you used to make them meaningful so that others can replicate and test your conclusions ... how can you square either the refusal of many of the main AGW proponents to release their data, or the processes that they used to pull meaning out of that data?

This, my friend, is the ultimate debasement of science. What do you call people who give conclusions, but refuse to release the raw data and processes they used to arrive at their conclusions? Not only that, who have been caught in deleting that data when forced to release it, and who have attempted to squeeze out anyone who dares question their "facts", their processes, or their conclusions?

Regardless of whether or not the earth is growing warmer, and the reason why - even if it is due to CO2 and human activity ... the way that Phil Jones and his posse approached it, and tried to sell it IS NOT SCIENCE, and anything that they have to say, based on their "work" is contaminated.
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales




First, I do not square any of the nonsense that I see from either side as right. I am rather skeptical of both. Mostly I see a lot of people with a lot of interests and a lot of money paying for a bunch of scientists to say what they want to hear rather than the truth. I don't have much faith in the AGW proponents. I certainly don't have much faith in the AGW opponents who are being bankrolled by those who stand to make more money if AGW is discredited than they do if it's proven. But science doesn't require faith. That's why it's science.

quote:

I am not in either camp on this one. Before this started, I felt that there were a lot of questions that weren't being answered to my satisfaction. This entire "climategate" thing, to my mind, has raised more questions, rather than providing any answers.

quote:

I find this a damned shame. Not because I believe mankind would do anything about AGW if it was proved as surely as 2+2=4. That would require a level of care over something other than personal profit and I haven't seen much of that happening anywhere, even if you do go back to the middle ages. It's a shame because this should be a matter of science rather than politics.

I see a lot of politics over this matter. I see very little in the way of better science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I meant to say in my last post the Pope's commission did not lessen or diminish the beauty of the Bernini altar. "lesson" was a mental hiccup caused by a double sambucca on the rocks with a splash of water.

I have read somewhere that the OPEC nations are in Copenhagen with the agenda of seeking reparations for their future loss of oil revenues. I wonder if there is truth in the report.

Vincent