Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Nonsense. It's a clear indication of IPCC fraud. You're just too stupid to see why so I'll spell it out.
Saying that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is NOT just an "incorrect number," it's HUGE. So either that was fraud or, if it was accidental, Pachauri's almost 3 years of boasting about "+2500 scientific expert reviewers" is fraud because it totally misrepresents the scrutiny IPCC's report was subject to.
Yet again you showcase your inability to think which makes you the ideal stooge.
Liar. You must be getting truly desperate. First, the data are NOT "garbage," they're from NOAA and for severe winters as I've explained and the chart title shows. Second, I never said that. Here's what I really wrote and it was to point out YOUR logical contradiction:
You contradict yourself here. Random and cherry picked are mutually exclusive, littledaviedumbass.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2974562&#post2974562
Oh please. You made my point on this one several posts back without even realizing it. Now you're lamely trying to save face.
Saying that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is NOT just an "incorrect number," it's HUGE. So either that was fraud or, if it was accidental, Pachauri's almost 3 years of boasting about "+2500 scientific expert reviewers" is fraud because it totally misrepresents the scrutiny IPCC's report was subject to.
Yet again you showcase your inability to think which makes you the ideal stooge.
Liar. You must be getting truly desperate. First, the data are NOT "garbage," they're from NOAA and for severe winters as I've explained and the chart title shows. Second, I never said that. Here's what I really wrote and it was to point out YOUR logical contradiction:
You contradict yourself here. Random and cherry picked are mutually exclusive, littledaviedumbass.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2974562&#post2974562
Oh please. You made my point on this one several posts back without even realizing it. Now you're lamely trying to save face.
Quote from Trader666:
Drop the "climatologist" red herring littledaviedumbass. Not everything climatologists claim about climate change is correct, nor does one need to be a climatologist to recognize bad science in climatology. More fallacious reasoning from the self-proclaimed "big fan of logic."
Actually the fallacious reasoning is yours and it's called "appeal to authority" -- which is fine if you have an authority.
You don't.
Quote from Trader666:
No it's NOT necessarily "fine if you have an authority." That's what the "appeal to authority" FALLACY is about. Yet more fallacious reasoning from littledaviedumbass, the "big fan of logic."
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified.
Once again you've proven that you're a dumbass and you lack integrity. Sites listing the six points YOU PLAGIARIZED add the following:
"It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."
Citing an expert who's commenting on something within his/her area of expertise, etc., is fallacious when it is implied that said authority is beyond criticism because of their authority. For the simple reason that even authorities speaking within their realms can affirm falsehoods. It's also fallacious to dismiss the criticism of someone because they're "not a climatologist" as you have done ad nauseum, because facts and the truth don't depend on the credentials of the one stating them.
"It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger."
Citing an expert who's commenting on something within his/her area of expertise, etc., is fallacious when it is implied that said authority is beyond criticism because of their authority. For the simple reason that even authorities speaking within their realms can affirm falsehoods. It's also fallacious to dismiss the criticism of someone because they're "not a climatologist" as you have done ad nauseum, because facts and the truth don't depend on the credentials of the one stating them.