Quote from: Spendulus on May 17, 2014, 09:19:42 PM

Quote from: KonstantinosM on May 17, 2014, 05:16:05 PM

......
Climate change is fucking up a whole lot of people's lives already. It has killed a lot of people. This is not an unsubstantiated claim. During a catastrophic event the extra water may be all that knocked over and killed a lot of people's families. Same thing goes about heatwaves, drying out of certain areas and wild-fires. We only have one planet so we can't afford to be careless with it.

The false attribution of human death or misery to climate change BY HUMANS is the issue.

Exactly. They think claiming that it is not the issue, makes us magically not have our own opinions and conclusions, because "I say so." Sounds like a actual scientific review to me!

Quote from: dwma on May 18, 2014, 10:33:48 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 18, 2014, 10:07:17 AM

Quote from: dwma on May 18, 2014, 07:44:04 AM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on May 18, 2014, 06:49:29 AM

Littleshop. You have logic problems with your posts here. Here are a couple...

Quote from: Littleshop on May 17, 2014, 04:06:44 PM

If I was in a message board trying to have a discussion and a small group was yelling about how the earth was flat or 2+2=5 I would want to shut them up too. Putting up debunked junk journal links proving 2+2=5 that link to further lies does not help.

False equivalence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence You seem to imply that people who doubt AGW theories, or see a political angle are like those who believe 2+2=5. This is also an oversimplification and a bit of ad hominem.

Quote

Just like cigarettes don't cause cancer right because you can't put 2 + 2 together. The evidence is overwhelming. The only thing not certain is the extent and what to do about it.

False equivalence again, with ad hominim again, but this time with the added bonus of a strawman. A hat trick!

You are doing badly. Try again,

Just because you claim false equivalence does not make it so. For instance, I could accuse you of that logic fallacy in your post. You are falsely equating his assertion with false equivalence, thereby using it yourself.

Really it comes down to biases for me and what is the underlying cognitive defect of you people to be so nonsensical. We got 45 pages and Wilky telling us some video is great... the video by a guy who has issues with vaccines. Now I'm sure some of you will be like 'hes a free thinker', but a lot of us will be like..

Actually, yes it is a false equivalence. You will find that rules of logic in debate are universally agreed upon. That is why there can exist things like college debating teams, which have winners, and losers. Ad hominem, which you mostly use, puts you squarely in the "debate loser category". Regarding the call of a false equivalence, you can't just claim it is not so. The burden of proof is on you - you need to go read the definition think up why it isn't a FE and state your reasons for others to review. When the comparison is the (commonly used) 2+2=5 equivalence argument you will not be able to do this.

Logical fallacies actually work pretty well in politics, and even in common speech, but on text driven Internet forums they ring false. And that's where we are. AGW by the way is a common place for discussion of logical arguments because so many of them by the true believers are not at all logical (and yes, a smaller but recognizable group are not logical by the skeptics of the global warming theory-that-is-not-a-theory).

tl;dr

Are you the logic professor?

So is every analogy a "false equivalence" ? lol.

Maybe I should ask again what the basic fallacy with the basic science of man made global warming is, but I'm sure I'll once again hear nothing but crickets.

So you want us to provide evidence of you having no evidence? Thats not how science works.

Here is a free lesson on how science works since you clearly weren't paying attention in grade school.

1. A scientist creates a hypothesis based on personal observation.

2. These observations based on measurable empirical data are composed into a prediction and a theory.

3. A repeatable experiment is composed under which demonstrable and dependent empirical data is observed and logged in order to support the theory.

4. A conclusion is made by the scientist.

5. The scientist publishes the data publicly for the world to review and repeat the experiment.

6. Peer review results in a conclusion of the debate of the validity or lack of validity in the scientist's methods, theory, and data.

7. Scientists continue to repeat these steps to refine data and conclusions.

Here are some colorful pictures in case you can't wrap your head around this.