Hands in the cookie jar about to get slapped

[Seth]

Just because they belong to a particular group of skeptics or critics does not mean that their statements are false. That is the very essence of the fallacy. If you believe their statements are false, then you attack their statements, not their persons, to avoid such fallacious reasoning.

This is a faultless argument, Seth. Now you'll just have to show me where I said that the conclusions of the panel is bound to be false.

It's highlighting the fact that the panel's findings is entirely predictable.

If you go on to claim that that is what I implied, please keep in mind that nowhere in this forum, any other forum or anywhere else for that matter have I ever opined that anthropocentric global warming is a fact.

Even if true, so what? The implication is perfectly clear. That you chose sarcasm as the vehicle doesn't change that fact.

Furthermore, keep in mind that I am of the opinion that even if it was a fact, it would be rather insignificant in terms of long term changes that we have a very good and reliable record of, and which go back a lot further than human industrialisation.

In particular I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere causes global warming. The ice core taken in the Antarctic indicates that warming precedes that increase by 700 to 900 years. A few years ago Macdoc tried to tell me that CO2 is a cause in so far as it has an amplifying effect on warming. It did not convince me because this claim is a scientifically untestable ad hoc modification of the original thesis that CO2 causes warming.

Great to hear, but your response was clearly a sarcastic slam of the people involved that amounts to a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

[Hermit]

Just because they belong to a particular group of skeptics or critics does not mean that their statements are false. That is the very essence of the fallacy. If you believe their statements are false, then you attack their statements, not their persons, to avoid such fallacious reasoning.

This is a faultless argument, Seth. Now you'll just have to show me where I said that the conclusions of the panel is bound to be false.

It's highlighting the fact that the panel's findings is entirely predictable.

If you go on to claim that that is what I implied, please keep in mind that nowhere in this forum, any other forum or anywhere else for that matter have I ever opined that anthropocentric global warming is a fact.

Even if true, so what? The implication is perfectly clear. That you chose sarcasm as the vehicle doesn't change that fact.

Furthermore, keep in mind that I am of the opinion that even if it was a fact, it would be rather insignificant in terms of long term changes that we have a very good and reliable record of, and which go back a lot further than human industrialisation.

In particular I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere causes global warming. The ice core taken in the Antarctic indicates that warming precedes that increase by 700 to 900 years. A few years ago Macdoc tried to tell me that CO2 is a cause in so far as it has an amplifying effect on warming. It did not convince me because this claim is a scientifically untestable ad hoc modification of the original thesis that CO2 causes warming.

Great to hear, but your response was clearly a sarcastic slam of the people involved that amounts to a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

[Seth]

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

"She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

"I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."

"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

"Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."

QED

[Animavore]

From the very article you quoted.

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not.

Hermit is merely pointing out that these people have vested interests and we should be prudent about accepting their claims. What he has definitely not done is say that we shouldn't believe them because they have vested interests. How can he when they haven't even said anything yet?

[mistermack]

The entire ''climate science'' industry is biased. Not by conspiracy, but by natural selection.
Unbiased people are not welcome, and it's such a well-known fact that anybody who didn't feel part of the current ''consensus'' would of course choose a different profession.

Back this up with evidence. And I mean real evidence. Not some opinion piece from a right-wing blog.

The evidence is the reception that any piece of sceptical writing gets. If you are unaware of that reception, then you must be totally ignorant on the subject.
In any other branch of science, disagreement is met with factual discussion and analysis.

In climate science, it's met with hate and derision. Who's going to become a climate ''scientist'' and volunteer for that kind of treatment? It's a matter of common sense. The climate ''consensus'' is self-perpetuating.
Some of the reaction to dissent might be sincere, but a lot of it is self-interest.
Climate science is a cushy little number, and it's not in the interest of anybody to play down their own importance. Academics don't want to see their budgets shrunk.

[pErvinalia]

Furthermore, keep in mind that I am of the opinion that even if it was a fact, it would be rather insignificant in terms of long term changes that we have a very good and reliable record of, and which go back a lot further than human industrialisation.

Do you need your arse schooled on this, H? Surely you've seen myself and others explain to Seth why this is an idiotic point?

[laklak]

Who cares? All global warming is going to do is raise sea levels, which means the trawler will belly right up to my favorite bars. I just need 4 1/2 feet clear.

[Seth]

From the very article you quoted.

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not.

Hermit is merely pointing out that these people have vested interests and we should be prudent about accepting their claims. What he has definitely not done is say that we shouldn't believe them because they have vested interests. How can he when they haven't even said anything yet?

That's exactly my point. The tone of his posts is dismissive and sarcastic and clearly intended to attack the very idea that these people would dare to challenge the AGW orthodoxy. It's classic circumstantial ad hominem for that precise reason. Even if he had waited for the results to be published it would still be circumstantial ad hominem, but it's all the worse for attacking the characters of the individuals before they have even done anything, much less somehow provided false or biased information.

And while it may be prudent to be suspicious of a person's claims because there is some chance of bias, that does not mean that the claims are false, nor that the personages are justifiably or rationally attacked before the fact!

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Hermit's comments were nothing more or less than a deliberate example of circumstantial ad hominem.

[Hermit]

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim...]QED

I made no assertion regarding their claim one way or another. All I said is that the tenor of the panel's report is entirely predictable. So, no circumstantial ad hominem and no QED.

[Hermit]

Furthermore, keep in mind that I am of the opinion that even if it was a fact, it would be rather insignificant in terms of long term changes that we have a very good and reliable record of, and which go back a lot further than human industrialisation.

Surely you've seen myself and others explain to Seth why this is an idiotic point?

And I was not convinced by the explanation.

[pErvinalia]

What was the explanation then, and why do you think it was wrong? Stop bullshitting. You don't have a clue what I am talking about.

[Animavore]

The entire ''climate science'' industry is biased. Not by conspiracy, but by natural selection.
Unbiased people are not welcome, and it's such a well-known fact that anybody who didn't feel part of the current ''consensus'' would of course choose a different profession.

Back this up with evidence. And I mean real evidence. Not some opinion piece from a right-wing blog.

The evidence is the reception that any piece of sceptical writing gets. If you are unaware of that reception, then you must be totally ignorant on the subject.
In any other branch of science, disagreement is met with factual discussion and analysis.

In climate science, it's met with hate and derision. Who's going to become a climate ''scientist'' and volunteer for that kind of treatment? It's a matter of common sense. The climate ''consensus'' is self-perpetuating.
Some of the reaction to dissent might be sincere, but a lot of it is self-interest.
Climate science is a cushy little number, and it's not in the interest of anybody to play down their own importance. Academics don't want to see their budgets shrunk.

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

[Hermit]

What was the explanation then, and why do you think it was wrong?

I mentioned one of my objrctions here: "In particular I am not convinced that the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere causes global warming. The ice core taken in the Antarctic indicates that warming precedes that increase by 700 to 900 years. A few years ago Macdoc tried to tell me that CO2 is a cause in so far as it has an amplifying effect on warming. It did not convince me because this claim is a scientifically untestable ad hoc modification of the original thesis that CO2 causes warming."

[JimC]

It's difficult to slap them when they are actually in the cookie jar - you have to wait till they've pulled out...

(as the actress said to the bishop...)

[macdoc]

The ice core taken in the Antarctic indicates that warming precedes that increase by 700 to 900 years. A few years ago Macdoc tried to tell me that CO2 is a cause in so far as it has an amplifying effect on warming. It did not convince me because this claim is a scientifically untestable ad hoc modification of the original thesis that CO2 causes warming."

I can't help it if you can't understand the difference between forcing and feedback.
That is your problem not mine.

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System Common Climate Misconceptions

Thursday, October 25, 2007
TOPICS
, ScienceBy Zeke Hausfather
A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.


It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks.

In the geologic past, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases acted primarily as feedbacks to external climate forcings. Our current and basically unprecedented experience is that we as humans are directly emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that affect climate change.

That distinction – greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks – is critical in understanding the behavior of these gases in the paleoclimatic and present periods.


The figure above shows changes in temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past 450,000 years. Four distinct ice ages occurred during that time. The strong correlation of the curves makes it immediately apparent that some relationship seems to exist between temperature and CO2.

During both the transition in to and out of a glacial period, CO2 concentrations appear to lag temperature changes by an average of between 600 and 1,000 years (though some recent research suggests that this lag may be shorter than previously thought).

If CO2 lags behind temperature changes, it stands to reason that some other mechanism is responsible for the initial temperature change. In fact, we do know just such a mechanism that does a reasonably good job accounting for the initial cause and end of ice ages: changes in orbital forcing known as Milankovitch cycles.

more for you to try and comprehend with your apparently limited skill set.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... te-system/

Get over it....
It's getting warmer
we're responsible

or go join the fucking flat earth club