Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

BriPat-

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.

It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid. That's what you just did.

 

[bripat9643]

He explained in his paper that I posted what data he used.

Closing your eyes does not make things go away.

He listed his data sources, and we have discussed them ad nauseum in this thread. Before the year 2000, he basically has nothing.

As compared to the conservative position which is based on having nothing before, during and after, 2000.

That doesn't change the fact that Trenberth has nothing before the year 2000. Yet, he conjures up a magical chart that goes all the back to 1960.

That, my friend, is what intelligent people call obvious bullshit.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid. That's what you just did.

Actually, no that is patently not what a fallacious appeal to authority is.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

- cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
- cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
- any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In this case, both the IIPC and the wider scientific community are very clearly legitimate authorities on this topic.

You are not.

 

[mamooth]

Bri is the appeal-to-authority expert, being his only tactic is parroting the bogus claims of his DearLeaderMcIntyre. McIntyre is not a subject matter expert, as demonstrated in the way he gets everything wrong. But the cult tells Bri that DearLeaderMcIntyre is always correct, and so Bri believes, and to heck with what the rest of the planet says. The world attacks DearLeader, so the world must be evil.

 

[bripat9643]

That you, with virtually NO science education, believe the conclusions of thousands of actively researching PhD scientists, working on the same issue for 25 years now, to be "idiocy", only tells us that your opinion on the matter is utterly, and to be honest, contemptibly, lacking worth.

The logical fallacy you just committed is known as the Appeal to Authority. It seems to be the favorite of warmist cult members.

The logical fallacy that conservatism is based on is called blind obedience, cultism, or worship of massive media mythology.

You have described liberalism, not conservatism.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri is the appeal-to-authority expert, being his only tactic is parroting the bogus claims of his DearLeaderMcIntyre. McIntyre is not a subject matter expert, as demonstrated in the way he gets everything wrong. But the cult tells Bri that DearLeaderMcIntyre is always correct, and so Bri believes, and to heck with what the rest of the planet says. The world attacks DearLeader, so the world must be evil.

What has McIntyre gotten wrong? You keep attacking him, but you haven't provided a single fact to support your neurotic hostility towards the man.

The ad hominem is a logical fallacy also. So far, that seems to be your personal favorite.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

It means that saying something is true because some authority says so is invalid. That's what you just did.

Actually, no that is patently not what a fallacious appeal to authority is.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

- cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
- cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
- any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In this case, both the IIPC and the wider scientific community are very clearly legitimate authorities on this topic.

You are not.

There is no such thing as a "legitimate" appeal to authority.

You just proved you are unable to commit logic.

 

[itfitzme]

A friend calls it AAS, Artificial Authority Syndrome. They want to claim some artificial authority that they simply don't have.

 

[PMZ]

He listed his data sources, and we have discussed them ad nauseum in this thread. Before the year 2000, he basically has nothing.

As compared to the conservative position which is based on having nothing before, during and after, 2000.

That doesn't change the fact that Trenberth has nothing before the year 2000. Yet, he conjures up a magical chart that goes all the back to 1960.

That, my friend, is what intelligent people call obvious bullshit.

I certainly agree that making assertions on the basis of zero evidence is obvious bullshit.

 

[itfitzme]

The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects. "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection. It is pretty meaningless.

It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.

 

[bripat9643]

As compared to the conservative position which is based on having nothing before, during and after, 2000.

That doesn't change the fact that Trenberth has nothing before the year 2000. Yet, he conjures up a magical chart that goes all the back to 1960.

That, my friend, is what intelligent people call obvious bullshit.

I certainly agree that making assertions on the basis of zero evidence is obvious bullshit.

What "assertion" have I made without evidence?

 

[bripat9643]

The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects. "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection. It is pretty meaningless.

It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.

What "appeal to authority" of ours are you referring to?

 

[PMZ]

That doesn't change the fact that Trenberth has nothing before the year 2000. Yet, he conjures up a magical chart that goes all the back to 1960.

That, my friend, is what intelligent people call obvious bullshit.

I certainly agree that making assertions on the basis of zero evidence is obvious bullshit.

What "assertion" have I made without evidence?

That the IPCC is not the expert source of climate science.

 

[PMZ]

The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects. "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection. It is pretty meaningless.

It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.

What "appeal to authority" of ours are you referring to?

The depth of insertion of your nose in the ass of conservative media entertainers is certainly a clue.

 

[itfitzme]

The mean is the sum of the data divided by the number of data points.

The variance is the average square distance of each data point from the mean.

The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

Depending on if we are discussing the estimate or the population, the degrees of freedom is important.

The likes of BiBrat are actually quite boring.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BriPat-

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.

Ah, because true science is based on consensus....

AGW "scientists" reach a consensus on a new hockey stick graph

 

[RollingThunder]

BriPat-

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.

Ah, because true science is based on consensus....

No, Unhinged, as usual you have everything upside down and backwards.

Actually, the consensus is based on the true science.

Ah, science - something you know nothing about. Too bad you're such an ignorant brainwashed retard.

 

[bripat9643]

I certainly agree that making assertions on the basis of zero evidence is obvious bullshit.

What "assertion" have I made without evidence?

That the IPCC is not the expert source of climate science.

ROFL! I claimed that saying AGW is true because the IPCC says it's true is a logical fallacy. In other words, you're trying to claim that pointing out your appeal to authority is an appeal to authority.

You're a buffoon, PMS.

 

[bripat9643]

The thinking process is that of connecting objects based on some emotional connection, rather than the actual structure of the objects. "I like it" and "I don't like it" is the typical connection. "I like this authority" and "I like this idea" becomes the connection. It is pretty meaningless.

It's funny how, when their appeal to authority gets trounced, they get all upset.

What "appeal to authority" of ours are you referring to?

The depth of insertion of your nose in the ass of conservative media entertainers is certainly a clue.

In other words, nothing. I have never claimed anything is true simply because Rush Limbaugh says it's true. The appeal to authority is your stock in trade, not mine.

 

[bripat9643]

The mean is the sum of the data divided by the number of data points.

The variance is the average square distance of each data point from the mean.

The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

Depending on if we are discussing the estimate or the population, the degrees of freedom is important.

The likes of BiBrat are actually quite boring.

Was your post supposed to be a response to something I said?