Skeptical Science Analysis
- This topic has 34 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi All,
steve from virginia posted a link to skeptical science’s website.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html
I’d like to analyze their analysis to test my critical thinking and to learn something.
There are more than issue with regard to climate science. Once is the science itself, the other is what to do about it. The latter is being pushed by Big Finance Capital in order to enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else – same as it always was.
Instead of $1.00 gas in a boom time, we have $4.00+ gas in a depression. Some would argue that is bad for Big Oil, but Big Finance Capital owns and/or controls everything big – especially the U.N. types. They are controlled via Debt Dollar Tyranny and the selfishness and greed of the politicians and U.N. cronies.
An example is how Britain had its face ripped off and an insider pocketed a cool BILLION dollars while probably increasing overall carbon emissions…
https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/100223
Yeah, that’s how they roll.
That doesn’t mean AGW is real or not, it just means it is being leveraged by the oligarchs to brutalize everyone else.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UNhttps://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=38762.0
So, I plan to go through the evidence presented by skeptical science and share my thoughts on it.
As even they say, “Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding.”
1. What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Basic Tab
Paragraphs 1-2: Sceptical Science claims that climate change on Earth has a root cause. Absolutely.
P3: Somewhat deceptive – call it a partial Straw Man logical fallacy. While I’m sure some lazy, repeater types probably make the argument that prior natural temperature change makes it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to change the planet’s temperature now, most don’t make that absurd argument. Rather, the argument is that climate is always changing and one can’t assign a root cause to that change without strong empirical evidence.
Actually, that argument is mostly Straw Man logical fallacy and with only a small smidgen of truth to it.
“Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.”
This is setting up to be an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy in the context of this article – just trust US! We’ll see if they tie up this logical lie within this article.
Real skeptical scientists need the underlying data in order to reach conclusions, not some authority, who may well have a hidden agenda, dictating truth to the masses.
Mind you – even if this Appeal to Authority logical fallacy logical lie is left open in this article, it doesn’t mean the statement itself is false. It doesn’t mean it is real, either. It means we don’t know and the author used a logical lie in order to sway their audience to reach a false conclusion based on the data included in the article.
P4: They claim a level of measurement exactness that simply doesn’t exist. They can estimate temperature changes in the past within a certain degree of confidence, but the concept of estimate is left out, as is the confidence level and expected variation – but it sure does give the uninformed reader the impression this is some kind of exact science and these people are the authority of that science.
A claim is made that the past is understood and the following claim is made: “a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.” No evidence is presented. This is a logic deception called Appeal to Authority. Note, the logic is used to lie, but the information may or may not be true – you don’t know, nor can you know, from reading this article.
P5: “What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth’s history. They’re causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn’t tell us that humans can’t influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing.”
This is called Appeal to Authority “piled high.”
This article did little more than prove the author is well versed in sophistry and DID NOT have an agenda to actually educate the reader.
This author would also fail my third grade math class if they tried to pull this same crap on my third grade teacher.
“I don’t care what the answer is, what I want to know is HOW YOU DERIVED YOUR ANSWER.”
This author isn’t about to tell his/her readers in this article.
Again, the information itself may or may not be true, but the logic used to assert truth within this article was based upon logical lies.
This is why The Trivium is critical to evaluating information to determine whether someone is being up front or deceptive with you.
I noticed an Intermediate Tab – so let’s see if that clarifies the logical fallacies in the Basic Tab.
Intermediate Tab
P1: The same Straw Man logical fallacy is presented – the reality is that almost all the skeptics claim that a changing climate today doesn’t automatically mean humans did it. Rather, empirical evidence is required to establish that – and this would be a great place to present it. I’m not holding my breath. Are you? 😉 Why not be honest and address the actual argument instead of picking out a comically weak argument?
They then mentioned “peer reviewed science” in a sentence with no further information. This means nothing. I hope they provide additional information to clarify later in the article.
P2: More heat in than out means more heating – that’s seems pretty obvious. Internal variability deserves a mention and they mention it – sounds good to me. “Radiative forcing” is defined as “the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere.”
P3: Climate sensitivity is apparently defined as the amount of temperature change that occurs for given change in net energy at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing). “The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled.” NO support for this method provided. We have to trust their authority that this is the most relevent, most accurate method of describing climate sensitivity. Ah, yes, that’s a logical fallacy – Appeal to Authority. The author is using logic to lie.
Also note that the author DEFINED CO2 as being a critical part of this process without actually establishing it is a critical part of this process.
My third grade teacher would mark this author wrong – she wants to know THE DATA AND LOGIC behind making CO2 THE VARIABLE used to define climate sensitivity – which wasn’t presented here.
The rest of the paragraph has some links that basically make the case that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and that more Greenhouse gas means more absorbed heat and that this is quantified as 3.7 Watts/m^2. The chart presented at this link…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
..shows CO2 doubling from about 10,000 years ago – is there an extra 3.7Watts/m^2 now than 10,000 years ago? Seems like a quick check to make sure the “machinery” is working right.
Wait a minute… they claim “The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2)” and linked to…
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
The problem is that there is no actual detailed discussion of how that 3.7 Watts/m^2 was derived.
There is this…
The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in
Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are
based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric
adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of
+3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula
used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC
(1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF
increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) Collins et al. (2006)
performed a comparison of five detailed line-by-line models and
20 GCM radiation schemes. The spread of line-by-line model
results were consistent with the ±10% uncertainty estimate for
the LLGHG RFs adopted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) and a
similar ±10% for the 90% confidence interval is adopted here.
However, it is also important to note that these relatively small
uncertainties are not always achievable when incorporating the
LLGHG forcings into GCMs. For example, both Collins et al.
(2006) and Forster and Taylor (2006) found that GCM radiation
schemes could have inaccuracies of around 20% in their total
LLGHG RF (see also Sections 2.3.2 and 10.2).Unfortunately, there are no links to the references for easy access, nor are there any quotes from said articles to show the methodology used to arrive at 3.7 Watts/m^2. That’s why the link was provided and it failed to perform its provided function.
P4: “So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we’re talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2”
Uh, that’s not quite just as simple as “So…” More like, “Given these Appeal to Authority claims in this article and, assuming all else is equal (that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause mitigating effects – but they don’t mention that assumption), when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we’re talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2”
Again, this might be spot on, but this article is a cesspool of logical fallacy – faulty logic, lying logic.
“This forcing doesn’t necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.”
The grand extrapolation is just thrown in for good measure. No supporting data, no supporting logic, no discussion of complexity, nothing. Just an Appeal to Authority statement.
As before, the statement may or may not be true, but this article is WORTHLESS in determining the truth of the matter up to this point in the article.
P5: “How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990)”
Click on Lorius – “all other factors remain fixed.” Is this a valid assumption? This isn’t addressed at all. its just assume by the Authority.
They also mention water vapor as being a positive feedback look, as well as a negative feedback loop.
P6+: “Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations.” Uh, but including CO2 in the definition of climate sensitivity could be completely subjective. This article sure doesn’t present a logical case that it isn’t.
Another Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
I don’t just trust logical liars. They have to do better to convince someone who applies the Trivium method.
The rest of the article is built upon prior logical fallacy – perhaps most apparent is the assumption that “all else is equal” except what they want to choose as being unequal.
BTW, all this analysis, assuming this author ignorantly relied on logical fallacy and didn’t do so to be purposely deceptive, makes for a good hypothesis.
Hypothesises need to be tested.
So we need open source temperature data, collection locations and methods of collection in order to see if this hypothesis makes sense.
I prefer actual data to logical fallacy.
This link…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Claims an ~3 degree change for every doubling in CO2.
so I set out to see if see if the Earth’s temperature is 3 degrees higher when CO2 was half as high.
This Climatologist chart came up after a quick search…
https://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
It indicates temperatures are actually down where they were 2,400 years ago.
Is this real?
Here’s another chart (I included NASA in the search to get “establishment” temperature data)…
https://riversedge.hubpages.com/hub/Earths-Temperature-Brief-History-of-Recent-Change
In this chart at least, there is no 3 degree change in the last 10,000 years as predicted by the hypothesis presented in the article.
When it is admitted that temperatures in the last 15 years have not significantly increased enough to be able to claim a trend (and we don’t even know how all this data was collected and if collection changes significantly impacted result) with any degree of certainty,
One ought to be skepticalhttps://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
This doesn’t disprove AGW as some claim, but it surely wasn’t the predicted outcome from the alarmists (remember the hockey stick?).
It is recent phenomena that should be considered.
“Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC”
I need to see the data set and all a detailed description of how that data was collected before I can validate whether the data is anything more than GIGO.
We need to see the actual data and how it was derived and all the scientific skeptics of any data set need to air their grievances WRT to the data.
‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change
https://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change“It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.”
Why don’t you take these issues up directly with the folks at Skeptical Science? Or RealClimate.org?
sensato post=2486 wrote: Why don’t you take these issues up directly with the folks at Skeptical Science? Or RealClimate.org?
Probably because Triv is more interested in enlightening the readers of TAE on the Climate Change debate.
The Earth has been warmer in the past and cooler, but it has never experience runaway Greenhouse warming like Venus. The likelihood in my mind is that once it gets warm enough, the Oceans put so much water vapor up into the atmosphere that you get a permanent global cloud cover that reflects out sunlight, reversing the trend and ending up with an Ice Age rather than a positive feedback loop creating Venusian style overheating.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is likely an EFFECT of the core heating of the Earth, not the CAUSE of it. Core heating would cause clathrates to melt and release from the ocean floor, which likely would swamp the amount of CO2 released through combustion. Once the cycle plays itself out, that CO2 gradually gets retaken up by new plant life that flourishes once the clouds dissipate and the core heating diminishes.
What is heating the core during these cycles is open to conjecture, but vulcanism and increasing tectonic activity indicate clearly that it is heating up. The earth is releasing mega joules more energy in quakes and eruptions than it was 20 years ago, all the graphs show that clearly.
https://www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/2012/04/02/geotectonic-ocean-heat-transfer-theory/
A few degrees rise in temperature at the core would cause it to swell, pushing apart the surface of the earth atthe weak points, the plate junctions, which would distribute out all the vulcanism and quakes around these areas, and that is exactly the effect we see occurring. It isn’t just Japan getting thousands more quakes now, its the whole Ring of Fire. The quakes are also bigger on average, and all that energy is going somewhere. Where it is going is into the big Heat Sink of the world Oceans.
sensato post=2486 wrote: Why don’t you take these issues up directly with the folks at Skeptical Science? Or RealClimate.org?
First, I’m not interested in signing up on another website to post comments. 😉
Second, I want a rather peaceful environment in which to analyze their arguments (I’ve only done their first argument so far!) and methodologies. Clearly, they have an agenda there and agendas tend to blur one’s vision of the reality, which is why a website purporting to be about “science” can throw out non stop logical fallacies without blinking an eye.
Third, I think there is more of a mix of pre-conceived views at TAE that will be more open in their responses yielding better debate and more knowledge transfer.
Fourth, I may well post over there at some point, but it will probably be after a review of what I’ve posted here in order to make it more concise and easily debatable, lest I get little more than endless logical fallacy bombs tossed my direction. After all, the posters over their seem to be completely captured by logical fallacy based on that first “article.”
Fifth, who knows – maybe that crowd comes over here for logical debate, as opposed to logical fallacy spewing sophistry, and TAE gets more exposure and the Skeptical Science crowd can better get prepared for the engineered economic collapse (why should the bankers get it ALL? – Nicole Foss) that awaits them.
TheTrivium4TW post=2500 wrote: [quote=sensato post=2486]Why don’t you take these issues up directly with the folks at Skeptical Science? Or RealClimate.org?
First, I’m not interested in signing up on another website to post comments. 😉
Unfortunate. You would be a welcome addition in the Diner. 🙂Crap man, at the rate you write, I think you could handle at least 3 or 4 forums at one time. I think you keyboard out just about as fast as I do, so that is my limit.
Save as Many as You Can. Sticking to one Blog or Forum doesn’t accomplish the task. You gotta SHOTGUN the prose out there all over the net, rain it all down in just as much as you can handle, as fast as the keyboard fingers can go in as many locations as you can. I’m doing the Concierge thing at the Diner, but I am STILL out there Trolling the Web also and getting out my message in as many places as I can. Your Message seems to be focused on Debt-Dollar Tyranny, so don’t STOP at TAE as the venue, go SHOTGUN with it.
You have a Fast Gun. It’s a GIFT. Use it well.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN
Triv,
I believe you are throwing out the “logical fallacy” claim rather carelessly at this point. From your POV, Skeptical Science is lying through logic to promote an unspoken agenda. From my POV, you went to SS expecting to find a site that promotes TPTB agenda without any real science, and you found exactly what you were expecting to find by incorrectly identifying logical fallacies all over the place.
The appeal to authority fallacy results from someone claiming X to be true because some claimed “expert” said it was true, even though there is no reason to think that the person is actually an expert in the field and/or is within the scientific consensus. The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived. It might be practical for little kids to do that on their 3rd grade arithmetic exam, but it’s not at all practical for these types of complex scientific theories. Usually, extensive references must be used, and from what I see, the Intermediate tab provides plenty of those. It’s easy to sit back and criticize the way people construct articles, and obviously they will not be perfect, but it’s not at all easy to actually write the articles, especially when it comes to something like AGW.
You are also failing to understand how SS is organized, and therefore claiming that the article you linked is a straw man argument. SS clearly breaks down their articles by specific AGW critiques that actually exist and have been cataloged in their database. They even provide a rough measure of how “popular” each critique is. The one you chose (past climate change suggests natural, non-human factors are the cause of current climate change) is apparently the most popular, representing 4.6% of all critiques in their database.
“Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.”
There are plenty of other critiques addressed on the website. 153 of them to be exact. You seem to very critical of the fact that this particular article did not provide the data for why GHGs and CO2 contribute to warming, and simply assumed it was true (even though they did provide a reference). Perhaps you would find more of the specific you were looking for if you simply moved to a different critique, such as this one:
Thanks Ash, you saved me a bunch of reading. Trivium’s argument smelled that way to me, but I waited to check it out until after reading the whole thread.
An aside to Trivium. This is not the first time that IMO you’ve tried to use only the trivium to analyse subjects better illuminated by simultaneous application of the quadrivium, and maybe even some of that fancy Moorish al-Jabr.
FrankRichards post=2506 wrote: ]
An aside to Trivium. This is not the first time that IMO you’ve tried to use only the trivium to analyse subjects better illuminated by simultaneous application of the quadrivium, and maybe even some of that fancy Moorish al-Jabr.Is there a Hexavium, Octavium or Dodecavium methodology to apply here to these arguments? Whatever the method is, I want to have the Biggest Number in the prefix for my arguments! Bigger Guns are always better!
Then again, maybe the better method is to simplify it and just resort to Napalming the Living Shit out of your opponent? How big do the prefix numbers have to get in an argument before you bring on the Napalm anyhow?
ashvin post=2502 wrote: Triv,
I believe you are throwing out the “logical fallacy” claim rather carelessly at this point. From your POV, Skeptical Science is lying through logic to promote an unspoken agenda. From my POV, you went to SS expecting to find a site that promotes TPTB agenda without any real science, and you found exactly what you were expecting to find by incorrectly identifying logical fallacies all over the place.
1. If you think I misused my application of logic fallacy, point out and example and explain why it was used incorrectly. I was detailed for a reason. You have plenty of evidence to raise specific issues – so why not do it? I think I applied the principles exactly as intended.
2. Instead of actually pointing to data in order to make your first claim, you then question my motives. Again, my analysis was very detailed – you can question my grammar (maybe I misunderstood something or missed something) or my logic. This is what transparency is all about.
While my current opinion matches that of James Lovelock – that the system is so complex we don’t really know what is going on with any degree of certainty – I’m open to new information. I really am pursuing the truth – and my current best observation of the truth is that the system is complex and AGW adherents haven’t been able to simply prove what they claim and reality has not conformed to their hypothesis (got hockey stick?).
I’m also very clear in the analysis to claim that the use of logical fallacy doesn’t negate the truth or falsity of what is being alleged. It might be true, it might not be true, it is just that the logical fallacy ISN’T THE PROOF. You need more.
Instead you choose to impugn my objective instead of actually support your critique of what I wrote. At least at the beginning of your missive here.
BTW, the beauty of what I wrote is that my intent, however Machiavellian you will assume it is, doesn’t matter.
My analysis above is empirical.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
The appeal to authority fallacy results from someone claiming X to be true because some claimed “expert” said it was true, even though there is no reason to think that the person is actually an expert in the field and/or is within the scientific consensus. The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.That’s 100% totally false.
A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.
https://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm
In fact, Ash, the absolute best technique for applying purposefully deceptive Appeal to Authority logical fallacy IS TO HAVE AN EXPERT PRESENT IT.
Think Alan Greenspan, Ash. Then think Ben Bernanke, Ash.
Your definition is EMPIRICALLY WRONG IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE.
No data for the proles… we are the experts, shut up and sit down, proles.No, I’m a free person with intellect and I want to be respected. They haven’t stolen my intellectual dignity just yet.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
It might be practical for little kids to do that on their 3rd grade arithmetic exam, but it’s not at all practical for these types of complex scientific theories.You’ve completely fallen for Appeal to Authority – we have to trust our “masters” to tell us the truth (you know, guys like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke – because if this principle applies here, it applies elsewhere).
No evidence for the proles.
That *is* what you are arguing here, Ash – and that’s the the Shangri-La environment for Sohpists. They control you.
As for me, Ash, I need data. If they can’t provide the supporting the data – how can anyone know it exists? How can they know it wasn’t corrupted by the political process or financial gain?
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
Usually, extensive references must be used, and from what I see, the Intermediate tab provides plenty of those.I was detailed in my analysis, Ash. So critique what I said if you think it is wrong.
It is actually quite telling that you refuse to address specific issues in a way that your criticism can be critiqued. BTW, you might be right – maybe I missed something. Maybe I misunderstood something.
But impugning my intentions and providing a 100% false definition of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy isn’t gonna educate me, Ash.
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
It’s easy to sit back and criticize the way people construct articles, and obviously they will not be perfect, but it’s not at all easy to actually write the articles, especially when it comes to something like AGW.Especially when you make claims alleging to prove people wrong and the basis of that claim is “hey, just trust us, we’re experts!”
No, you provide the data that supports your view. They chose not to do this in case after case after case.
It’s a fact. It is what it is. Don’t blame me – I didn’t write the article!
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
You are also failing to understand how SS is organized, and therefore claiming that the article you linked is a straw man argument. SS clearly breaks down their articles by specific AGW critiques that actually exist and have been cataloged in their database. They even provide a rough measure of how “popular” each critique is. The one you chose (past climate change suggests natural, non-human factors are the cause of current climate change) is apparently the most popular, representing 4.6% of all critiques in their database.OK, you made a specific claim. That wasn’t too hard, now was it?
The specific issue is that SS claimed that people argue that past climate without human factors, BY DEFINITION, means that humans CAN’T be impacting climate now. I don’t know who votes or how they vote, but that, on the surface is an IDIOTIC argument on its face. It is completely irrational and illogical.
Yet, somehow, the idiotic gets puts forth and ranked #1. Fine.
However, the real argument skeptics make is that climate is always changing, therefore, you can’t automatically pin climate change now on human activity as in, “see temperatures are rising, therefore, humans are doing it.” In other words, we need to see the data, we need to know how it was collected and we need to know all the assumptions and we need to know all the logic to be able to verify the results being presented THE AUTHORITY.
That’s where the trouble tends to begin, based on my experience.
No mention of that argument, much more popular argument in this article. So, where is the much more popular argument listed on SS?
If I had to bet, it isn’t listed on SS, because any reasonable person would lump the actually popular argument in with the article linked at the #1 spot because they are so closely related. I haven’t looked – so I don’t know. I could be wrong – and I know Ash will point it out if I am. 😉
ashvin post=2502 wrote:
“Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.”There are plenty of other critiques addressed on the website. 153 of them to be exact. You seem to very critical of the fact that this particular article did not provide the data for why GHGs and CO2 contribute to warming, and simply assumed it was true (even though they did provide a reference). Perhaps you would find more of the specific you were looking for if you simply moved to a different critique, such as this one:
I’ll put that article next when I have some time do another review (s/b within a week or so). BTW, you missed the objective of this thread – I thought it was clear, maybe it wasn’t. I am reviewing articles one at a time, not the entire website or even AGW itself.
That article was, overall pathetic at achieving its goal – even if everything they said was true (and it might be – but they sure didn’t support the claim with that article).
First of all, this critique was about that article alone. Inferring beyond the article is not correct nor recommended. As I stated on multiple occasions, the articles use of epic logical fallacy doesn’t mean the claims are false – it just means that article, and that article alone, is basically useless at achieving its intended purpose.
Second of all, I went to the links and included them in the critique – I even quoted text from one of the links. Now, if I missed a link, do point out that link specifically so I can understand and address your concern. Otherwise, your comment is pretty useless other than to imply I didn’t do the research without any way for me to counter that point.
Let me tell you a little story, Ash. The Wall Street “experts” told everyone that they had “models” showing housing could rise forever.
The gullible believed these “authorities,” these “experts.”Now, we both KNOW those “models” were a joke because one can’t have exponentially growing housing prices when incomes are flat.
But they said it and the gullible believed it.
When guys like me said, “hey, I want to see the model, the data and the assumptions that went into it,” we were told we had ulterior motives.
Some things never change, do they, Ash?
BTW, this doesn’t mean imminent, catastrophic AGW is right or wrong. I don’t know – I’m still looking for the data, the assumptions and the models so I can critique them.
Like Wall Street’s permanently growing house price models, it is awful tough to get a hold of them.
FrankRichards post=2506 wrote: Thanks Ash, you saved me a bunch of reading. Trivium’s argument smelled that way to me, but I waited to check it out until after reading the whole thread.
An aside to Trivium. This is not the first time that IMO you’ve tried to use only the trivium to analyse subjects better illuminated by simultaneous application of the quadrivium, and maybe even some of that fancy Moorish al-Jabr.
Hi Frank, so you think the application of the Trivium is mutually exclusive to applying arithmetic, geometry, music theory and astronomy?
That’s an incorrect view, but it is meaningless enough that I don’t really have a clue what you are saying and can’t address your criticism.
If you would care to be more concise in explaining exactly how I can improve the approach, I’m all ears.
The best approach is:
“You said X, but I don’t think X is correct because of A,B and C.”
The meaningless approach is:
Instead I get stuff like “I think you have an agenda and should apply the Quadrivium instead of just the Trivium” (when they aren’t mutually exclusive – do you really think one can’t use numbers when applying the Trivium? Really?).
Yet I mostly get meaningless responses.
This quirk in human nature is very bizarre from my vantage point.
BTW, attacking the Trivium, in what appears to be a completely false way, is a Red Herring logical fallacy.
That is, unless you can cogently back up your originally claim that the Trivium is somehow lacking which, for those that understand the Trivium, should be entertaining when attempted.
Holy Shit!
I take back my original comment, Triv. I think you are actualy FASTER on the keyboard than I am! LOL.
Keyboarding speed notwithstanding here, you are bogging down in trivialities as far as the core argument is concerned, its rapidly becomin a contest between you and Ash of perceptions and interpretations of Data.
IMHO, at this stage of the argument you need to go BALLISTIC and Napalm the Living Shit out of Ashvin. You are pulling punches here and its getting you nowhere. When you bog down like this its time to bring on the Heavy Artillery, and if that isn’t good enough, go Thermonuclear Get SERIOUS and go for the JUGULAR here Triv! You are dancing around with trivium arguments, but what you really need to do is let LOOSE with the NAPALM! LOL.
OK, that’s JMHO. To each his own. LOL.
Instead you choose to impugn my objective instead of actually support your critique of what I wrote. At least at the beginning of your missive here.
BTW, the beauty of what I wrote is that my intent, however Machiavellian you will assume it is, doesn’t matter.
I was not claiming you have any bad intent or motives here. I was just briefly explaining one of the reasons that I feel you are incorrectly writing off everything written in the article as a “logical fallacy”, even though those fallacies don’t actually exist. You say this:
BTW, this doesn’t mean imminent, catastrophic AGW is right or wrong. I don’t know – I’m still looking for the data, the assumptions and the models so I can critique them.
Given your initial reaction to SS, I imagine that no amount of data, explanations, models or anything else will convince you that the theory of AGW is grounded in a lot of credible scientific evidence. You will always find “logical fallacies” strewn about, and will dismiss the science because you believe AGW advocates are biased and manipulated by TPTB (which I actually believe to be true in many cases). That is just my opinion, of course, based on experience with other skeptics, and it’s why I generally don’t like to debate AGW in the first place.
The reason I didn’t decide to address every single point you made is because I believe almost all of them can be attributed to the same general misunderstanding of logical fallacy and failure to identify the empirical support contained within links and other critiques on the site. I understand that you only meant to address one article on the site, but then you cannot criticize that article for not having all the information about AGW that you want or accuse it of being a straw man. That being said, I will get back to the specifics of your argument.
That’s 100% totally false. [my explanation of appeal to authority fallacy]
No, it’s not, and your own link shows that my definition is correct.
“Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. Example: ‘These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'”
If I was referencing Ben Bernanke to establish a fact about current Fed monetary policy, it would not be an ATA fallacy. Similarly, SS referencing respected climate scientists and their studies as support for definitions of climate sensitivity to CO2 absorption is not a fallacy. You cannot expect every single piece of supporting data to be included within the main text of the article, yet that is what most of your initial criticisms amounted to.
The specific issue is that SS claimed that people argue that past climate without human factors, BY DEFINITION, means that humans CAN’T be impacting climate now. I don’t know who votes or how they vote, but that, on the surface is an IDIOTIC argument on its face. It is completely irrational and illogical.
Yet, somehow, the idiotic gets puts forth and ranked #1. Fine.
However, the real argument skeptics make is that climate is always changing, therefore, you can’t automatically pin climate change now on human activity as in, “see temperatures are rising, therefore, humans are doing it.” In other words, we need to see the data, we need to know how it was collected and we need to know all the assumptions and we need to know all the logic to be able to verify the results being presented THE AUTHORITY.
SS did not claim that skeptics think that past climate change makes it impossible for humans to influence climate. What they DO claim is that past episodes of dramatic warming in pre-industrial society make it very unlikely that current warming trends are being driven by human CO2 emissions and industrial activity, despite what recent data shows. I’m not sure where you go for your anti-AGW arguments, but this one is definitely very popular. SS does not determine popularity by vote, but rather by how many times they find the argument popping up on various sites critiquing AGW.
Whether or not you believe it is a very weak argument (I do too), your claim that SS is presenting a straw man is completely invalid, and that’s the point I was trying to make. So there is one specific example of you incorrectly associating the SS article with a logical flaw.
Second of all, I went to the links and included them in the critique – I even quoted text from one of the links. Now, if I missed a link, do point out that link specifically so I can understand and address your concern. Otherwise, your comment is pretty useless other than to imply I didn’t do the research without any way for me to counter that point.
Yes, I see that you included the links. Then you go on to basically dismiss them as credible support for the claims made, even though they are very good sources of support. You say this:
Unfortunately, there are no links to the references for easy access, nor are there any quotes from said articles to show the methodology used to arrive at 3.7 Watts/m^2. That’s why the link was provided and it failed to perform its provided function.
I’m not sure why you make that statement after quoting the section explaining the 3.7Wm-2 doubling figure cited in the article. That part you quoted is also contained in a much larger section from that report dealing with the contribution of Atmospheric CO2 to warming. That also deals with this claim you made – “Also note that the author DEFINED CO2 as being a critical part of this process without actually establishing it is a critical part of this process.”, as well as this one – “Uh, but including CO2 in the definition of climate sensitivity could be completely subjective. This article sure doesn’t present a logical case that it isn’t.”
P5: “How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990)”
Click on Lorius – “all other factors remain fixed.” Is this a valid assumption? This isn’t addressed at all. its just assume by the Authority.
I’m not really sure what your issue is here. Lorius is cited for the 1.2 degree figure, which is admittedly what the most simple models show when assuming no feedbacks whatsoever. Obviously, this is not really the world we live in, but that is why “all other factors remain fixed” in that model. By definition, they must for purposes of the simple model.
“This forcing doesn’t necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.”
The grand extrapolation is just thrown in for good measure. No supporting data, no supporting logic, no discussion of complexity, nothing. Just an Appeal to Authority statement.
Once again, an incorrect application of ATA. The statement that climate forcing can occur from any factor that causes an energy imbalance is basically a tautology, meaning it is true by definition. How could something that causes an energy imbalance not be a factor in climate forcing?
ashvin post=2515 wrote: No, it’s not, and your own link shows that my definition is correct.
“Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. Example: ‘These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'”
Hi Ash, the quoted sentence says that people outside their expertise are committing Appeal to Authority. It doesn’t say all experts within their field CAN’T commit Appeal to Authority.
So we are back to square one – the only way to evaluate the veracity of the claim is to understand the detail of how they arrived at that claim.
IOW, it doesn’t say an expert in a field can’t commit an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy – and the only way to know is to verify the underlying data and logic.
That would be equivalent to saying that an expert in a field can’t lie or be wrong or be swayed into not telling the whole truth through financial or other incentive.
Only chumps would believe that, right?
The problem with that view is that it assumes 100% honesty and zero conflict of interest AND perfect knowledge on the part of the true authority – each invalid assumptions.
The whole point of the Trivium is to help one determine reality, not assume it into existence when it really doesn’t exist.
Only a chump would believe there are no conflicts of interest or dishonest people on the planet. I see nothing but a cesspool of conflict of interest and dishonest people. How is that “hope and change” working out? This is especially true on any politicized issue or where there are big pools of cash to be extracted from others.
Example #1: A doctor (in a lab coat, of course) used to do commercials saying smoking was safe and actually helped sore throats. MMMM, good!
Was the claim a fallacy? Absolutely. Smoking is harmful. it damages throats. Did the doctor say this? Nope. Did the doctor explain the limitations of the research and that a claim of being safe couldn’t reasonably be made? Nope. The advertiser wouldn’t pay him to do that, even though it was true, and he wanted the cash.
Did the doctor appeal to his authority as a medical professional? Absolutely. That doctor’s lab coat on TV appeared for an important reason. Doctors can be trusted.
That doctor would have failed my 3rd grade teacher’s math class – AND FOR GOOD REASON. So would all the naive people who believed that doctor based upon his position of authority AND NOT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.
The people who took your view smoked away and felt they were doing no harm to their health. Many of those people paid with their lives for making that error in judgement.
The people who took my view stepped back and asked, “while that is a nice lab coat, doctor, where can I find the actual safety data – I’d sure like to know what studies were done, how they were done and how those studies reached the conclusion you just claimed.”
This actually happened. This is REALITY.
An “expert” doctor in the medical field promoted something as healthy AND IT WASN’T. The ONLY way for the observer to be sure was to research the safety data themselves AND NOT RELY ON THE AUTHORITY ALONE! Even legitimate authority.
It is a simple concept. The person who added that addition to the definition is wrong. They ASSUME the expert has 100% actual data and is 100% honest. This is an invalid assumption that is trivial to prove false.
Millions of people who fell for this real world “Appeal to Authority” logical fallacy paid with their lives.
Did you know that Edward Bernays developed the Appeal to Authority using doctors and lab coats? He did so for its Appeal to Authority value – he knew people would be suckers for medical authority and set out to leverage this to enhance the profits of those who employed him. More info can be found by Youtubing “Century of Self.”
ashvin post=2515 wrote:
If I was referencing Ben Bernanke to establish a fact about current Fed monetary policy, it would not be an ATA fallacy. Similarly, SS referencing respected climate scientists and their studies as support for definitions of climate sensitivity to CO2 absorption is not a fallacy. You cannot expect every single piece of supporting data to be included within the main text of the article, yet that is what most of your initial criticisms amounted to.Example #2:
Ben Bernanke is a cesspool of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
Ben Bernanke says that the Federal Reserve Mandate has a dual mandate – to promote low unemployment and stable prices.
HE’S FACTUALLY WRONG AND LYING WHEN HE SAYS IT.
READ THE LAW FOR YOURSELF, ASH!
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm
He’s LYING. Since I don’t fall for Appeal to Authority, I KNOW THIS. I rely on the actual law, NOT THE WORDS OF AN “EXPERT.” Almost nobody else does, though, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY FALL FOR THIS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY LOGICAL FALLACY.
Lest you be deceived here, the expected results of following the mandate ARE NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF. Yes, it is Orwellian to fraudulently pawn off the expected results of the mandate as the mandate itself, but Ben Bernanke has a very good reason to do it, as did Alan Greenspan. You’ll see why shortly.
Bernanke is a lying, deceptive piece of trash and HE GETS AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE HE CLAIMS TO BE THE AUTHORITY ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE NAIVE TAKE HIM AT FACE VALUE!
Even smart guys like you fall for it and claim he can be trusted on all things Federal Reserve!
No, he can’t be trusted.
He’s a lying piece of trash who criminally participated in the creation of the world’s largest credit bubble which will lead to the world’s biggest depression.
He’s playing his role forking the entire planet by CRIMINALLY BLOWING THE WORLD’S LARGEST BUBBLE IN HUMAN HISTORY!
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k
BTW, in case you didn’t figure it out, Bernanke lies about his mandate BECAUSE THE FED HAS BROKEN ITS TRUE MANDATE FOR 25 YEARS RUNNING!
Taking monetary and credit aggregates PARABOLIC to the nation’s long term productive potential BREAKS Section 2A’s Federal Reserve mandate!
Oh, how nice it must be to have a “law” with no penalties. The “authorities” tell us that FinReg fixed everything, so we are safe now, right Ash? Feel warm and fuzzy yet – the experts have spoken, right?
Total BS, Ash. My understanding of FinReg is that there are no penalties for breaking it (they aren’t even laws without penalties). It’s all a hoax by the criminal insiders who continue looting everything not nailed down to this very day.
Don’t trust me – read it yourself and let me know if you find any penalties.
100s of millions are going to die, if not billions, because of his black letter law criminal activity he covers up by lying about the true nature of his mandate.
EVIL exists, Ash, and we can’t be chumps about it and expect good outcomes.
America is going to be sent into the greatest depression ever – as is the world.
But hey, Ash, IT WASN’T BERNANKE APPEALING TO HIS AUTHORITY SO HE COULD LIE ABOUT NOT FOLLOWING HIS TRUE MANDATE, right?
100% wrong.
That’s classical Appeal to Authority. Socrates would not be fooled like you were. It was an “expert” in the Federal Reserve and it was wholly within his expertise AND HE’S A LYING PIECE OF DECEPTIVE TRASH.
The Trivium will flush that out. That’s what it was DESIGNED TO DO!
That’s the entire point!
An adherent to the Trivium method would be able to identify his deception and have a better grasp on reality – the whole point of the Trivium is to help its adherents determine learn what is real and what is not.
But he lied, Ash. The expert lies through his teeth every time he speaks about his mandate. He uses Appeal to Authority to deceive people BECAUSE HE’S EVIL.
Arrrgh – that pOS upsets me almost as much as the apathy of my fellow citizens!
It’s right in plain sight, Ash.
How about Eric Holder – he says it is legal to send guns down to drug cartels so they can murder 1000s of people with them. Must be true – an expert has spoken!
Nobody gets in trouble – its a good program, Ash. The experts say so.
I guess those really were “paperwork” errors when the banks knowingly filed false paperwork with the court. Silly me, I thought that was perjury – filing known false documents with the court in order to deceive the court regarding standing and steal homes from people. But the “experts” say differently.
Believe the government experts, not my lying eyes, right Ash?
Oh, look, Corzine didn’t do anything illegal, including lying under oath, because the “experts” would prosecute him if he did anything illegal.
Oh, wait, I guess JP Morgan officials who bribed Jefferson County officials (the officials were sent to prison for accepting the bribes!) didn’t break any laws because they haven’t been pursued. The experts would surely pursue JP Morgan employees if they had done something wrong.
I guess it is possible to have someone guilty of accepting a bribe that without actually having been bribed. The “experts” believe it, so it must be true.
I guess Bernie Madoff actually ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme all by himself. After all, the “experts” would be pursuing the other people in involved in the scheme (cough, JP Morgan, cough – look it up!).
I mean, really Ash?
Really?
Of course the crooks running the system want their financed and promoted experts to have the “word of truth” without ever providing a shred of actual evidence.
The current definition is simply empirically wrong – experts in their field CAN AND DO LIE AND MISLEAD and use appeal to their authority as a key tool to carry out their deceptions. Sure, the reason may vary, but it happens and it happens all the time.
Bernanke lies. Guys who fall for Appeal to Authority will never bother to look up the data – exactly as the crooks running the system want it.
Me – “Uh, excuse me, Mr. Bernanke. You say your mandate is low unemployment and stable prices. I’d like to see the law so I can read it myself.”
Ash – “Oh, stop bothering Bernanke, dude, he’s an expert – there’s no need to see the stinking law.”
Me – “But that’s a logical fallacy – just because he’s an authority and says it doesn’t make it true.”
Ash – “Naw, it must be true – he’s an expert. That’s not logical fallacy. You just don’t seem to like Bernanke.”
And that’s one smooth deception aided through the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.
When someone says the Fed has a dual mandate because Ben Bernanke says so, what kind of fallacy is that if it is not Appeal to Authority? It is false and it is an appeal to Ben Bernanke’s authority… but somehow it isn’t an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy… Really?
One thing to point out is that I don’t see anyone who is educated on this matter on either side saying it is possible to get runaway global warming like Venus. We are burning carbon that was sequestered at a time when the earth was a bit warmer than it is today.
I do not side with the alarmists here, btw. Many of the claims appear to be demonstrably false. For example, all our archaeological and such data points to a medieval warming period that at least in the Northern Hemisphere left the arctic relatively free of ice. This relative lack of ice was important in the Norse expansion to Iceland and Greenland, and in the voyages over to the New World down the coast of Baffin Island. This says something about polar bear resilience that is not getting into the discussion.
This isn’t to say that AGW isn’t real. The problem though is that we don’t have enough data to say for sure. And rising sea levels could be a problem so we probably don’t want to wait until we can.
Uh, Triv, my actual phrasing was “simultaneous application of”. You are completely inverting the meaning of what I said. Not only did I not say you should use only the Q, I specifically said you should use both at once rather than just the T as you seem to prefer.
I will rephrase: You appear to be deliberately limitiing yourself to the use of a single analytical tool, when even in your context there are others available, which could ALSO be used.
Third time around. Sometimes a quantitative analysis can resolve an issue much more directly than the qualitative one that you seem to strongly prefer. I am not a particularly visual person, but I still frequently find that Analytic Geometry (which had to wait for Rene Descartes, somewhat after your period), in the form of a graph is just as dispositive and more readily comprehended [by me, ymmv] than a chain of syllogisms.
Wow, Triv, talk about using logical fallacies in an argument. What do you call it when someone tries to respond to another person’s argument by completely substituting that argument for another one and then attacking it? Oh yeah, STRAW MAN. Your last post is chalk full of them.
First of all, I never said that ATA fallacy cannot be present when an expert is involved. In fact, with regards to scientific discussions, I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced. Obviously, even that does not establish that the cited conclusion is CORRECT – it means no fallacy has been committed in the argumentation.
That last part is what you are really failing to understand. Instead of arguing the substantive points made/referenced in the SS article, you are trying to discredit the entire site by claiming they use logical fallacies, or “lie through logic”. The point of my responses were to tell you why that isn’t true, and why the examples you provided are not logical fallacies. None of that means we should automatically accept the data presented and assume it is true.
Same thing with BB and the Fed. If I write some conclusion about Fed policy and use some paper written by BB or even his comments in a speech as a reference, I am NOT committing a logical fallacy. BB could be the devil incarnate and lying through his teeth about everything related to the Fed, but that doesn’t mean my argument is logically incoherent in any way, shape or form. People must determine the legitimacy of Ben’s arguments/statements for themselves by consulting different sources and putting in the effort to understand macroeconomics, political corruption, etc.
You are committing a huge logical fallacy yourself when you try to manufacture logical fallacies by associating experts in climate science with experts in finance and pointing out how the latter have been responsible for so many destructive effects in the world. Same thing with the lab coat doctor example. Your logic is that “the SS articles are committing logical fallacies by referencing climate experts for their conclusions, because tobacco companies in the past have fallaciously appealed to people in lab coats (perhaps doctors, perhaps not) to promote false claims about smoking”.
There is really no logical connection between the two. Also,
the fact that many “experts” are heavily biased by academic pressures and monetary incentives cannot be used to discredit ALL experts as unreliable sources of information. If you can look at the specific sources cited by SS and find information about why those sources should not be trusted for whatever reason (other than generally saying they are “conflicted”), then that’s a different story. So far you have not done that. You have simply tried to discredit the site by the mere fact that they have appealed to authoritative sources for support.FrankRichards post=2522 wrote: Uh, Triv, my actual phrasing was “simultaneous application of”. You are completely inverting the meaning of what I said. Not only did I not say you should use only the Q, I specifically said you should use both at once rather than just the T as you seem to prefer.
I will rephrase: You appear to be deliberately limitiing yourself to the use of a single analytical tool, when even in your context there are others available, which could ALSO be used.
Third time around. Sometimes a quantitative analysis can resolve an issue much more directly than the qualitative one that you seem to strongly prefer. I am not a particularly visual person, but I still frequently find that Analytic Geometry (which had to wait for Rene Descartes, somewhat after your period), in the form of a graph is just as dispositive and more readily comprehended [by me, ymmv] than a chain of syllogisms.
Hi Frank – so you wanted a graph, eh? I agree – visuals representations can be much easier to see. I’m not sure how I would do that. I suppose I could graph the number of logically fallacy I identify per paragraph, but one wouldn’t have any way to validate are argue the legitimacy of the logical fallacy without actually reading the text.
If you have any ideas, I’m open to them. I could easily have a blind spot here.
ashvin post=2524 wrote: Wow, Triv, talk about using logical fallacies in an argument. What do you call it when someone tries to respond to another person’s argument by completely substituting that argument for another one and then attacking it? Oh yeah, STRAW MAN. Your last post is chalk full of them.
First of all, I never said that ATA fallacy cannot be present when an expert is involved.
Not empirically, but you strongly implied it by 1. taking issue with my approach in the first place and 2. when you typed this from a previous post…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
“The appeal to authority fallacy results from someone claiming X to be true because some claimed “expert” said it was true, even though there is no reason to think that the person is actually an expert in the field and/or is within the scientific consensus. The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.”You then cited this from a link I posted…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
“Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy.There is no mention by you that appealing to an actual authority on a matter can be an ATA. the implication is that you are arguing against that point.
You original argument, your statement and your citation all strongly imply that actual experts can be trusted and that when they make proclamations they aren’t ATA. After all, that was your criticism, no?
My response was against that criticism. Now you claim that wasn’t your criticism.
OK – but don’t go acting like you were crystal clear in your argument. there was no attempt at a Straw Man on my part – I read what you posted and that really sounded like what you were arguing.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Just because someone is an authority in area A doesn’t mean you can trust them implicitly if getting at the truth is the goal.Which was exactly the approach I took for that article – and you criticized that approach.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
In fact, with regards to scientific discussions, I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced. Obviously, even that does not establish that the cited conclusion is CORRECT – it means no fallacy has been committed in the argumentation.His work must be referenced. How does that square with this…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
The fallacy does not happen anytime someones states a scientific/empirical conclusion without going into detail about how that conclusion was derived.Do they have to present their work or not?
I think you might be a bit confused about the objective. The objective was to analyse the article in question. It made a certain claim that it could debunk an argument and then it argued its position. The context of the analysis was the article ALL BY ITSELF. Nothing was ever said to infer otherwise. In fact, I went out of my way to be clear that the use of ATA DOESN’T MEAN THE CLAIM IS FALSE! It just means the logic used was false and the article didn’t do much more than proclaim “trust us, we’re experts.”
Uh, no – if you claim to be able to prove something in an article, “just trust us, we’re experts” isn’t gonna cut it for me. It doesn’t mean their conclusions are wrong, it just means their article stinks.
My issue with the article was that the article didn’t cite the derivation of their conclusions. I was very specific in the criticism. Anyone is free to say, “no, they cited the actual data here – you must’ve missed it.”
Nobody did that. You now claim the actual data is required, yet you criticized my analyses for claiming logical fallacy when no data or methodology was reference.
In a previous post, you said,
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Usually, extensive references must be used, and from what I see, the Intermediate tab provides plenty of those.I don’t know how much more clear I can be… I was very specific about what I called ATA. If there are actual references when I claim there are not – do point them out. It would be trivial to do so. In fact, I’d appreciate it – I like analyzing data.
But you didn’t do that. Is it laziness or was my analysis correct? If my analysis was correct and there were no links to extensive references, why post that they are there?
It would be trivial to just expose the error I made… if there was an actual error made. If not, well, then it wouldn’t be so easy.
Your confusing me here, Ash. Maybe you could rephrase your contention in as concise a manner as possible to help “un confuse” me.
Show me one place where I was wrong in claiming that there was no complete supporting data and I will learn something new.
If yo can’t – fess up about it. I did try to be pretty thorough, but I do make mistakes.
Creating hypothetical mistakes and critiquing based upon them is, well, tacky.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
That last part is what you are really failing to understand. Instead of arguing the substantive points made/referenced in the SS article, you are trying to discredit the entire site by claiming they use logical fallacies, or “lie through logic”.Uh, no. I see I wasn’t clear in the first post, though, so I can see where my lack of clarity could easily cause your confusion.
My purpose was to evaluate the article as a stand alone entity. The website as a whole is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big so I have to go at it in bite sized chunks.
So the critique is about the article and NOTHING MORE.
The article did make specific claims. My analysis is that they failed rather spectacularly in meeting their claims.
Again, as I repeated over and over and over in the analysis, the use of logical fallacy (just trust me, I’m an expert, you don’t need to know why we did what we did) DOESN’T MEAN THE CONCLUSIONS ARE ACTUALLY IN ERROR.
Logical fallacy is synonymous with logical lie. They are the same thing. It is something that promotes itself as logic when it isn’t – that a lie.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
The point of my responses were to tell you why that isn’t true, and why the examples you provided are not logical fallacies. None of that means we should automatically accept the data presented and assume it is true.And I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis until you show me where where I erred in claiming that back up data data wasn’t presented when it was presented (and I missed it).
You haven’t done that. Until you do, your claim is no more valid than the doctor claiming smoking isn’t unhealthy or Ben Bernanke claiming he has a dual mandate.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Same thing with BB and the Fed. If I write some conclusion about Fed policy and use some paper written by BB or even his comments in a speech as a reference, I am NOT committing a logical fallacy. BB could be the devil incarnate and lying through his teeth about everything related to the Fed, but that doesn’t mean my argument is logically incoherent in any way, shape or form.When you argue the Fed has a dual mandate and claim Ben Bernanke’s words as the the authority, you ABSOLUTELY are using logical fallacy. One called Appeal to Authority.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
People must determine the legitimacy of Ben’s arguments/statements for themselves by consulting different sources and putting in the effort to understand macroeconomics, political corruption, etc.IMHO, you are being hypertechnical about the definition of Appeal to Authority.
The point of ATA is that the “authority” is promoted as all that is necessary to establish a fact. You know, this is correct because authority A says so.
“The Fed has a dual mandate because Ben Bernanke says so.”
That statement is an appeal to authority – the speaker is trying to say that it is logical to believe the statement is true based upon the authority presented AND NOT THE ACTUAL THE ACTUAL LAW, WHICH THEY KEEP WELL HIDDEN.
Guys like Edward Bernays took this logical fallacy and turned it into a science of manipulation – and their best manipulations occurred when they were able to get legitimate authorities, like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, to execute this fallacy.
You are correct about the typical application of ATA – a real authority can be trusted. The problem is that you don’t know someone is a “true authority” unless they can produce the inputs to their conclusion and they are available for analysis.
Well, that’s the exact same thing asked of everyone else, so there really is no distinction that ought to be made.
If you assume authority, you’ve fallen prey to ATA. If you don’t assume authority, you have the “grammar” anyway – because you can’t know whether someone is an authority or not unless they can prove it.
It is really a circular way to try and establish an “authority” without ever providing the EVIDENCE that they are an authority.
Not gonna work here. If you don’t like the rational given above, give me another name that makes sense and I will use it instead of ATA.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
You are committing a huge logical fallacy yourself when you try to manufacture logical fallaciesSince Ben Bernanke appealing to his authority in an effort to deceive the public about the Fed’s mandate, in order to trash his true mandate, is a “manufactured” fallacy in your view, what is the correct name for this logical fallacy?
The problem with the ATA definition is that it ASSUMES a legitimate “authority” is always honest. that’s a demonstrably false assumption.
Bernanke is an expert in the Federal Reserve and its mandate. He’s also a lying piece of trash. You seem to think this means that no ATA has been committed based on definition with a bad assumption built into it. I see Ben Bernanke, a legitimate expert at his craft, appealing to his authority in order to keep people from actually going to the data.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
by associating experts in climate science with experts in finance and pointing out how the latter have been responsible for so many destructive effects in the worldYou missed the point entirely. The point was that trusting accepted “authorities” doesn’t always lead to correct results. It says nothing about climate science at all.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Same thing with the lab coat doctor example. Your logic is that “the SS articles are committing logical fallacies by referencing climate experts for their conclusions, because tobacco companies in the past have fallaciously appealed to people in lab coats (perhaps doctors, perhaps not) to promote false claims about smoking”.No, my logic is that the SS article (not articles, I only reviewed one article that had two tabs) used logical fallacy when they appealed to an authority to make their point and withheld the actual data and methodology used to reach that conclusion.
Even though you admit…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced.I claimed appeal to authority when the author didn’t produce the derivation of their conclusions and settled for, “just trust us, we are the authority.”
The doctor and lab coat example was to point out that the logic used to “just trust us, we are experts,” even when they are experts, can turn out catastrophic.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
There is really no logical connection between the two.I was actually comparing the logic you apparently promoted initially – “just trust them, they are experts” and applied it to three different cases – two of which were known disasters. The third might be golden or it might be rusty. We need data.
On the one hand you argue that no data is needed (as my critique only came when relevant data was omitted or incomplete), on the other hand, you argue that…
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
I said the expert must be within the specific field at issue, within a scientific consensus and his/her work (i.e. the derivation of his conclusions) must be referenced.If they “must” produce the derivation of their conclusions, why are you criticizing me when I point out they don’t do that in that article?
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
Also, the fact that many “experts” are heavily biased by academic pressures and monetary incentives cannot be used to discredit ALL experts as unreliable sources of information.I didn’t do that.
I only addressed one article.
BTW, what percent of economists do you believe have a credible view of how the economy actually works?
Just curious. I’m sure you will claim some association that I didn’t intend and burn it up, but the intent here is that one can’t ASSUME a group of highly educated are “on the right track.”
ONE NEEDS DATA AND METHODOLOGY.
ashvin post=2524 wrote:
If you can look at the specific sources cited by SS and find information about why those sources should not be trusted for whatever reason (other than generally saying they are “conflicted”), then that’s a different story. So far you have not done that. You have simply tried to discredit the site by the mere fact that they have appealed to authoritative sources for support.Ash, i think you took the critique way to personal.
“The site” wasn’t part of the review. One, single, solitary article was.
I never said any of the information presented was inaccurate.
Not once. Not for one iota of information.
You are hear defending what wasn’t even at issue.
I repeatedly made it clear that the use of logical fallacy (defined as hey, trust me, you don’t get know stinkin’ data or methodology!) DOESN’T MEAN THE CLAIM IS FALSE.
Rather, it just means the logic is false, which it is.
Now, this SS review red herring has gone on long enough, wouldn’t you say?
I started a Logical Fallacy thread that is more appropriate for this discussion.
Do feel free to actually analyze what I wrote and point out were I missed the NECESSARY data and methodology behind a claim so that I can correct the ATA claim and update it to “provided sufficient evidence – claim certified!”
If you can’t, though, admitting it shouldn’t be hard.
Again, the ONLY issue I commented on was the logical fallacy embedded throughout the article.
You can claim that claims of “just trust us” aren’t logical fallacy all day long, but that’s ticky tack – I don’t know these people from Adam and people who review those articles likely don’t, either.
They can’t just proclaim themselves experts and demand worship of their views.
Should I trust them because you say so? How do I know you are an expert of judging climate science expertise?
I have no comment on the actual data presented (hint – which is why I didn’t comment on the actual data presented and made it clear that logical fallacy doesn’t mean the data is false… multiple times).
How could I – when they failed to present the data and methodology?
I can’t critique what I can’t access via the article.
And that was the take away from my analysis – the article was pretty empty and didn’t achieve its claimed objective, except for the “faith based community” that just wants to “believe” an “authority” that may or may not be a legitimate authority.
Having said that, embedding articles with “just trust us” isn’t a great way to win friends and influence others.
Hopefully, the quality of articles improve.
Some odd thoughts that come up reading through the accusations of logical fallacies.
The first is that the correct boundaries of the ATA fallacy are remarkably hard to define in part because every one of us has to go on other people’s authority on all manner of things. The idea that we can be an expert in everything is no longer really possible. Therefore in any work we end up having to aggregate other people’s conclusions. This thus strikes me as a problem. We can’t go verify every result of everyone ourselves. We can’t even memorize all the core research. And so we end up having to incorporate it by reference. In some cases this is harder because an authority is an authority over something by definition. If the Pope says something about Catholicism, it is by definition correct, so ATA in that area is a tautology, not a fallacy. Same with the Supreme Court and the state of federal law in the US. But even there you have to be careful.
But with science this problem runs into all sorts of issues, and it isn’t clear where lines can be drawn.
I wonder if this is a problem of social complexity and whether it essentially means that scientific progress is fundamentally unstable itself.
Triv,
“Aha”. I sincerely did not understand your methodology. My complaint was, and is, that you were ignoring all other means of deciding on the reliability of an article except the, to me, relatively sterile one of medieval scholastic logic. In particular, my reference to the Quadrivium, was implicitly to Arithmetic as a proxy for all math. A more direct phrasing would have been “And WTF isn’t there a flippin’ word about what they say, rather than how they say it?”
Your last message to Ash explains that this was a deliberate choice. It is not a choice that gives me confidence in what I thought was your goal of assessing the overall plausibility of the evidence for man made climate change. Based entirely on my 58 years of emperical and subjective experience, the three most plausible explanations (taken in a vacuum of only reading this thread) are:
1. It is a sterile exercise in “Look how smart I am.”
2. It is a homework assignment from an introductory course in Medieval Philosophy.
3. It is a rhetorical device, (I’m sure there is a name for it.) aimed at casting unwarranted doubt on the entire website by cherry picking one article with one set of weaknesses and jumping all over them while ignoring everything else.
By the way, I do find your extensive disquisition on Bernanke and the Dual Mandate to be a strawman. Any regular reader of TAE has read enough references to the Dual Mandate by politicians, economists and econobloggers to know that there are at least hundeds of “authorities” who claim to have seen it. Therefore, for him to give a reference in the middle of a speach or press conference (not a formal paper) would be bad oratory in that it would make him appear foolishly pedantic rather than someone attempting to convey information or impart understanding. Then again, the folks who did all that burbling about that totally meta stuff were pedants, so, hey.
And emperical backup: a google for ‘”Dual Mandate” “Federal Reserve”‘ got me a reference to Section 2a of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. My section of the interweb is being cranky this morning, but I know, again from emperical experience, that it would take me one google to find where the Federal Reserve Act is buried in the US Code, one to find the government website with the US code, and then a search for section 2a. Simple enough to not require breaking up the flow of a speach.
2. It is a homework
Triv,
I had a feeling we’d just end up running around in circles in this discussion.
Here is the short and sweet version of my argument to you:
The SS article you referenced does not contain the logical fallacies you have claimed that it does. All of the major conclusions that were stated in the article, and that you took issue within your original post, came with citations on the Intermediate tab. You have acknowledged these citations exist, but have not explained why you think they are inadequate or amount to non-credible expert sources, thus making the original argumentation in the SS article ATA fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to go through these sources and figure out what they are lacking in credibility, substance, methodology, whatever.
Your original post certainly took a tone that seemed to imply the entire SS site is a sham, filled with fallacious arguments that were not worthy of your 3rd grade math teacher’s class. Frank and I do not believe that is true at all, and also that you have failed to make a remotely good case for why it is. If you have another one to make, I’d like to hear it, but, if not, I’d rather not continue to go around endlessly in circles on this same issue of ATA logical fallacy.
einhverfr post=2560 wrote: Some odd thoughts that come up reading through the accusations of logical fallacies.
The first is that the correct boundaries of the ATA fallacy are remarkably hard to define in part because every one of us has to go on other people’s authority on all manner of things. The idea that we can be an expert in everything is no longer really possible. Therefore in any work we end up having to aggregate other people’s conclusions. This thus strikes me as a problem. We can’t go verify every result of everyone ourselves. We can’t even memorize all the core research. And so we end up having to incorporate it by reference. In some cases this is harder because an authority is an authority over something by definition. If the Pope says something about Catholicism, it is by definition correct, so ATA in that area is a tautology, not a fallacy. Same with the Supreme Court and the state of federal law in the US. But even there you have to be careful.
But with science this problem runs into all sorts of issues, and it isn’t clear where lines can be drawn.
I wonder if this is a problem of social complexity and whether it essentially means that scientific progress is fundamentally unstable itself.
ein, excellent insight. Regarding the Pope, he may be the “truth” when it comes to Catholicism, but he isn’t the “truth” when it comes to Christianity. Someone who conflates the two is committing a logical fallacy.
While we can’t all be experts at everything, we can admit that we don’t *know* something until we have become an expert in the data and logic used to reach conclusions.
IMHO, that’s the point.
Most people think they KNOW that ingesting fluoride is good for one’s teeth. The EPA scientist union thought they KNEW that, too – until they actually did the research.
https://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
I’ve tried to reverse engineer the what Thomas Jefferson called “tyranny over the mind of man” and the financial oligarchs LOVE to use “authorities” to spread fallacies, to control and manipulate populations to the benefit of the financial oligarchs and their corporate fronts. The fluoride issue is just one example.
Lying about Federal Reserve’s mandate so they can break it and destroy the economy is another.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
The flu shot is another.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html
Remember one thing – the “news” media has ZERO legal obligation to tell you the truth…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
Remember another… the think “news” viewers are “sheep” – it’s all one big inside joke on the American people…
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-news-zings-cnn-msnbc-holiday-card-just-164515834.html
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote: Triv,
“Aha”. I sincerely did not understand your methodology. My complaint was, and is, that you were ignoring all other means of deciding on the reliability of an article except the, to me, relatively sterile one of medieval scholastic logic. In particular, my reference to the Quadrivium, was implicitly to Arithmetic as a proxy for all math. A more direct phrasing would have been “And WTF isn’t there a flippin’ word about what they say, rather than how they say it?”
How can I comment on the validity of an article that doesn’t establish its data and logic? If they can’t transfer the information to me, my comment is worthless, as is anyone else’s. One MUST have data and logic in order to have a valid opinion. I fone has the data and logic it is simple to present it – or at least links to it.
That’s the point.
In addition, I said I would evaluate other articles, not just one “aimed at casting unwarranted doubt on the entire website by cherry picking one article.” I picked the #1 article and planned to go from there. I couldn’t “cherry pick” (is that an admission the article was actually very weak – why thank you! 😉 an article because I only read the first article.
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
By the way, I do find your extensive disquisition on Bernanke and the Dual Mandate to be a strawman. Any regular reader of TAE has read enough references to the Dual Mandate by politicians, economists and econobloggers to know that there are at least hundeds of “authorities” who claim to have seen it.And it is still a 100% completely false claim. I show you their mandate so you can SEE IT… Bernanke does not, the media does not, the politicians do not….
It’s right here…
Section 2A. Monetary Policy Objectives
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
[12 USC 225a. As added by act of November 16, 1977 (91 Stat. 1387) and amended by acts of October 27, 1978 (92 Stat. 1897); Aug. 23, 1988 (102 Stat. 1375); and Dec. 27, 2000 (114 Stat. 3028).]
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm
It is included in this PDF, along with PROOF POSITIVE that the Federal Reserve criminal broke its mandate.
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77
It is a PDF hosting site – I know people haven’t been conditioned to accept them by the social engineers, but it isn’t dangerous.
ATA is EXACTLY how so many people could be DECEIVED about the Fed’s true mandate, which they have CRIMINALLY BROKEN FOR DECADES!
Let me be clear… This is the SINGULAR mandate of the Federal Reserve per their own website…
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production,”
The expected results of following the SINGULAR mandate, BUT NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF, is here, from their own website…
“so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
Do A in order to get B result. A is mandate, B is result from following mandate, BUT NOT THE MANDATE ITSELF. A is the mandate.
In good old Orwellian deceptive fashion, the Federal Reserve liars have DECEIVED EVERY GROUP YOU’VE CITED into believing a fallacy.
This was EXACTLY my point! It is proved beyond all doubt BECAUSE I DIDN’T TRUST AN AUTHORITY, I WENT TO THE DATA AND APPLIED LOGIC TO IT.
You ASSUME it is impossible to deceive so many people, but you haven’t analyzed the data and logic, so I analyzed it for you.
Yes, they are all deceived. Every one of those “dual mandate” people are spreading fallacy BASED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN.
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
~42 FallaciesThis isn’t an intellectual exercise. I KNOW Bernanke is a fraud and I KNOW all those institutions are REPEATING THE LIES of the Federal Reserve. ALL OF THEM DUPED BY LOGICAL FALLACY, with some surely knowing to keep it quiet – someone has to keep accidental truth off the airwaves, lest the proles stop falling for this deceptive fallacy!
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
Therefore, for him to give a reference in the middle of a speach or press conference (not a formal paper) would be bad oratory in that it would make him appear foolishly pedantic rather than someone attempting to convey information or impart understanding. Then again, the folks who did all that burbling about that totally meta stuff were pedants, so, hey.It is a lie, a distortion, a deception, a fallacy – as proved beyond all doubt, above. Using their own law. Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act.
Why lie about their true, singular mandate? BECAUSE THEY CRIMINALLY BROKE IT FOR MORE THAN 2 DECADES! If they didn’t lie about it, and if people weren’t such ignorant suckers for believing the lie, THE WORLD’S POPULATION WOULD KNOW THAT THE FED CRIMINALLY CREATED THE WORLD’S LARGEST BUBBLE THAT IS LEADING TO THE WORLD’S LARGEST COLLAPSE.
Instead, the Fed pretends something else did this as the proles suck their ATA logical fallacy thumbs.
FrankRichards post=2562 wrote:
And emperical backup: a google for ‘”Dual Mandate” “Federal Reserve”‘ got me a reference to Section 2a of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended. My section of the interweb is being cranky this morning, but I know, again from emperical experience, that it would take me one google to find where the Federal Reserve Act is buried in the US Code, one to find the government website with the US code, and then a search for section 2a. Simple enough to not require breaking up the flow of a speach.Yet Appeal to Authority is enough to keep 99.9%+ people from actually doing the leg work, so they just repeat the FALLACY. The FALLACY FROM AN AUTHORITY.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
~Adolf HitlerYes, the social engineers studied the methods used to control populations throughout history… have you?
“When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”
~42 FallaciesGoogle “Bernanke dual mandate”
“I think…the dual mandate [there is no dual mandate – he’s lying!!!] has worked fine..we have as good an inflation record as any other central bank. I don’t think it’s been a major problem. So I think it’s served us well. That being said, Congress created the Fed, Congress gave us our mandate. If you determine that you want to change it, we will of course do whatever you assign us to do.”
~Ben BernankeThe mandate is singular.
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production,”
They didn’t follow their mandate, so now unemployment is high and going higher and inflation has been monstrous for some time (oh, yeah, The Fed lies about inflation, too… and its “stable” prices mandate, too – they are criminals!) and the economy is blowing up and Nicole and Ilargi have to run around the world telling everyone to prepare or they may end up dead.
If one can allow themselves to FULLY GRASP the logical inferences in this post, and most people simply can’t as evidenced by the historical non responses to it, one will recognize the POWER of ATA to deceive the masses.
The Trivium is ENGINEERED to protect one from such DECEPTIONS.
Ben Bernanke doesn’t fool me like he had you snookered. I know he’s a criminal, I don’t need an “authority” to tell me. I know many authorities are corrupt to the core, too – so relying on corrupt authorities is a fool’s errand.
Data and logic. Data and logic. Without that, you literally know nothing.
Yet, the average American has very strong opinions with almost no data and no logic, hence, the skids are greased for the social engineers to manipulate and control society in ways that will end killing hundreds of millions of them in due time.
Even so, most people will continue to look at the same crowd who criminally did this to them as “authorities.”
It is so sad to see this play out in real time.
ashvin post=2596 wrote: Triv,
I had a feeling we’d just end up running around in circles in this discussion.
Here is the short and sweet version of my argument to you:
The SS article you referenced does not contain the logical fallacies you have claimed that it does. All of the major conclusions that were stated in the article, and that you took issue within your original post, came with citations on the Intermediate tab. You have acknowledged these citations exist, but have not explained why you think they are inadequate or amount to non-credible expert sources, thus making the original argumentation in the SS article ATA fallacy. The burden of proof is on you to go through these sources and figure out what they are lacking in credibility, substance, methodology, whatever.
Ash, yet you still don’t (can’t?) cite an example where I was wrong – as in, you said there was no citation here, here it is and here is where it is and this is the data and logic that you say doesn’t exist.
I asked before… but we have to trust you that your claim is correct… and I’m guilty of ATA only if people fall for your ATA, is that it?
But I’ll bite, just to prove you completely wrong or, perhaps, I might learn something… let’s see.
I posted the following claim in the Intermediate tab analsyis….
“Paragraph3: Climate sensitivity is apparently defined as the amount of temperature change that occurs for given change in net energy at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing). “The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled.” NO support for this method provided.”
Please explain where the article allows me to verify that this “most common way” is actually the best way. In other words, where does the article support that this is the most valid way to describe climate sensitivity.
The links provided in P3 ASSUME “the most common way,” so please don’t misrepresent them as explaining why this “most common way” is the best way. I’m not interested in common, Ash, are you? I want to know what is best. It addresses “what this means” not how we get to the initial point of using “the most common way.” What other ways were considered? Why were they rejected?
Getting into specific details is the way to ferret out legitimate issues, Ash. NOT making general claims that nobody can possibly falsify without actually getting into specific details.
ashvin post=2596 wrote: Triv,
Your original post certainly took a tone that seemed to imply the entire SS site is a sham, filled with fallacious arguments that were not worthy of your 3rd grade math teacher’s class. Frank and I do not believe that is true at all, and also that you have failed to make a remotely good case for why it is. If you have another one to make, I’d like to hear it, but, if not, I’d rather not continue to go around endlessly in circles on this same issue of ATA logical fallacy.
Hi Ash,
Yes, I am skeptical, but I thought that was the point of science, no?
(yeah, skeptical… in the name… good thing…), that is because I KNOW the financial oligarchs are using climate change to push their agenda that isn’t friendly to humanity.How do I know this? Their round table think tank said it was so!
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UNOf course, they aren’t demonizing themselves, Ash – humanity is bad. Not the ruling oligarchs.
And, yes, Big Finance Capital (Big Oil is a subdivision) funds climate change hysteria…
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money
https://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
…so they can create artificial shortages to jack up profits and to use Big Government, another subdivision, to outlaw their competition and charge monopoly pricing.
Obama’s EPA Grants Carbon-Waiver to GE
https://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/obama-s-epa-grants-carbon-waiver-to-ge-t6780.html
They deny energy to third world populations and starve them to death, “to save the planet.”
Watch the video and then tell us where it is right, where it is wrong and why? Do you really support people in huts with children sucking in smoke? It is OK, it is “for the planet!”
All the while Big Finance Capital tootles around in their yachts that burn more fuel in a day than the average does in a year.
Yet, somehow, Big Finance Capital (BFC) funded initiatives are allowed to set policy to enrich BFC at the expense of everyone else.
All the while they are dumping their toxic waste into the water systems after filtering it through our children.
All the while they are toxifying our food supply with GMO and creating an environment where bees and bugs won’t thrive any more – and that could be a LOT worse for humanity than climate change. I could see this leading to famine… and global warming will be blamed and Big Oil will get $8 a gallon in a depression. “For the Earth,” of course.
Nothing could go wrong when the bugs have 5-10% to eat of what they used to have to eat, right Ash?
But few people think about that… it is global warming pushed as the narrative all day and night.
They lie to go to war and use tons and tons of depleted uranium – and then lecture us on climate change and shut down their “carbon” competition while giving themselves waivers and monopoly profits.
Depleted uranium is wicked stuff – it vaporizes, gets inhaled and then the countdown to an early death or children with birth defects begins.
They suck billions out of tax payers and lay them off while they send their plants to pollute elsewhere (billions for oligarchs, net pollution the same).
Al Gore cries about carbon in America and invests in China where it is Wild West levels of pollution and his slaves controllers have to put up nets around the facility that enriches Gore. Uh, yeah – he really cares, Ash.
Oh, lookee here…
Apple Board Member Al Gore Faces Conflict of Interest Shareholder Proposal
Apple’s Climate Change Policy Benefits Gore’s Personal Investments and Not Shareholders, says National Center for Public Policy Research
https://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Apple_022312.html
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is the “stop the wars because they are using to much carbon and oil” campaign, Ash?
Where is it?
have you ever asked yourself that question?
Why is a Rothschild out writing books on global warming and promoting it to kids?
Why do the Rothshchild’s own a carbon trading scheme to rip society off some more?
So, yeah, I think there are many, many environmental issues, but I don’t let the MSM (financial oligarchs) direct my line of thought because they *always* have an agenda – and it isn’t in your best interest.
They are out murdering people in the name of global warming to “save the planet” that they, themselves, are doing more to destroy than anyone else.
Honduran Farmers Slaughtered In Name Of Global Warming
https://www.infowars.com/honduran-farmers-slaughtered-in-name-of-global-warming/
Yes, the oligarchs found the enemy of humanity and it is you, Ash. It surely isn’t them, they are special. Too Big To Fail and all. You, you are the enemy and Too Small To Save. But they are experts at making people feel good while ripping their faces off.
I DON’T KNOW what impact carbon emissions (or any of thousands or tens of thousands of pollutants potential variables) are on the Earth’s overall temperature.
If someone wants to re-engineer society based on a claim, they have to provide the data and logic to support it, not claim it based on “authority” when we are up to our necks in false “authority.”
Who, exactly, do you think funds the United Nations? Do you really think they work in the interests of humanity?
Watch “The Empire In Africa” on Netflix to see how they roll.
The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money
https://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/
Even though Big Oil is behind climate change, they are often cited as the boogy men who oppose it…
https://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/
They manipulate people based upon ignorance. Of course, nobody wants to admit ignorance. Those that aren’t ignorant GLADLY cite “chapter and verse” as to why they believe what they do.
Those that don’t are suspect. They have to be. Otherwise, one is wide open to accept a fallacy as truth – and millions of people have given up their lives early for doing just that.
I couldn’t do it. I just couldn’t. Just say no to Trivium
I sat through a 4 hour baseball game yesterday (our guys won) and those plastic seats just took it out of me, the desire to read line after line after line of argument in favor of something, probably more automobiles and automobile waste.
The bottom line in America is always the car. It is the axle around which the entire stupid enterprise rotates. Anything that might restrict the hegemony of the car over every aspect of citizens’ lives is a threat. Climate change: it might add a few bucks to the price of a gallon of gas. That gigantic pickup truck might more worthless than it is now. Horrors! We cannot have that!
That American way is so flimsy that only lies and cowardice can keep it afloat. The approach is to take responsibility, to meet challenges and take necessary steps. This requires something other than rhetorical sleight of hand: simple courage.
Sorry, none of that here, just business-y gutlessness.
Some Americans aren’t interested in responsibility they want others to make the problems go away by sweeping them under the rug. Some of the lies are more subtle, they are word games that seek to evade responsibility, what is bizarre is anyone would do so for others’ benefits at the expense of their grandchildren.
steve from virginia said “Some Americans aren’t interested in responsibility they want others to make the problems go away by sweeping them under the rug. Some of the lies are more subtle, they are word games that seek to evade responsibility, what is bizarre is anyone would do so for others’ benefits at the expense of their grandchildren.”
I would say, from personal experience, that most Americans aren’t interested in responsibility. Anything of importance that should be dealt with, is swept under the rug in hopes that it goes away forever.
It is when someone finally stands up and makes an issue of it, and continues to make an issue, then the others start complaining of your whining and bellyaching. Because, of course, the issue was resolved in their eyes as it was already swept under the rug.
But a few people will continue to press forward because some issues are too important to be covered up, and suffer the consequences for exposing the truth.
FrankRichards post=2656 wrote: Dear Triv,
Snicker. Moving on.
Hi Frank, but did you “move on” believing the fallacy of a “dual mandate” or did you actually rely on data and apply logic to realize that the Federal Reserve has a singular mandate that it has broken for 25 some-odd years?
Or are going to rely on a set of “authorities” to spoon you your belief system without respecting you enough to share the data and logic they used to arrive at their conclusion?
Make the right choice… believe your “lying eyes.”
steve from virginia post=2669 wrote: I couldn’t do it. I just couldn’t. Just say no to Trivium
I sat through a 4 hour baseball game yesterday (our guys won) and those plastic seats just took it out of me, the desire to read line after line after line of argument in favor of something, probably more automobiles and automobile waste.
The bottom line in America is always the car. It is the axle around which the entire stupid enterprise rotates. Anything that might restrict the hegemony of the car over every aspect of citizens’ lives is a threat. Climate change: it might add a few bucks to the price of a gallon of gas. That gigantic pickup truck might more worthless than it is now. Horrors! We cannot have that!
That American way is so flimsy that only lies and cowardice can keep it afloat. The approach is to take responsibility, to meet challenges and take necessary steps. This requires something other than rhetorical sleight of hand: simple courage.
Sorry, none of that here, just business-y gutlessness.
Some Americans aren’t interested in responsibility they want others to make the problems go away by sweeping them under the rug. Some of the lies are more subtle, they are word games that seek to evade responsibility, what is bizarre is anyone would do so for others’ benefits at the expense of their grandchildren.
Steve, you seem to infer that I oppose conservation. That conclusion was based upon faulty logic stacked upon faulty logic.
Apparently, logic can’t compete with emotional satisfaction. At least, that’s what it appears to be from where I stand.
BTW, how is the walk to home and away baseball games?
Congratulations on the win – I sucked at baseball, but that’s a while back. Actually, I probably still suck.
You do walk to all the games and practices, right?
All that misplaced righteous indignation about the world and excuses coming from a guy who won’t give up a trivial baseball game to “save the planet,” well, that would be absurd, wouldn’t it?
I’m sure you do walk, though.
Thanks for setting that great example for everyone else. 🙂
PS – One either accepts SS or one is an energy pig is false argument. Perhaps Ash can stop by and explain which logical fallacy that encompasses.
A couple comments:
1. Nobody has pointed out a single instance in which I claimed data and/or logic didn’t exist where I was mistaken. Darn, I really wanted to learn something. I don’t suppose anyone will… 1. Admit they can’t or 2. Actually show such an instant so I can learn something. That’s too much to ask, isn’t it?
2. Looks like Frank bailed once he was cornered into “believing his lying eyes” and rejecting Appeal to Authority logical fallacy that he so embraced so tightly. I hope he makes the right choice and learns to trust his eyes and not the Big Finance Capital funded “authorities” that are robbing society blind.
3. This whole experience has only highlighted the general dearth of understanding regarding the Trivium method in general and logic in particular. Many people just don’t “get it.”
“Lots of people on TV, the newspaper and the internet said it was true, so it is true, I don’t care what the actual law says” isn’t acceptable “logic.”
“You are an irresponsible pig” just doesn’t logically follow “you have the nerve to require data and logic in order to be able to reach a conclusions regarding SS’s claims.”
There appears to be some “logic over ride” mechanism that literally short circuits the brain’s logic sequence. The Trivium is the anecdote. It is the fallacy “malware” remover. But many people don’t want it. They don’t want to go where the data and the logic lead, they simply want to go where the want to go – I don’t know how else to explain it.
It’s Bizarro world.
And this just burns me… to see my fellow countrymen being played as fools by the policies that surround climate change.
The Pentagon is out shilling for an increased national security threat (and budget increase – you know it) due to “climate change.” He cites the need for “humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
https://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116192
No mention of the fraudulent debt based societal asset stripping monetary system that effectively murders millions of children every year due to the impact of the poverty it inflicts on those it indebts.
Let’s assume (I must, nobody provides the data and logic so I can’t reach a conclusion one way or the other – Just can’t know without the data and logic) climate change is real and the hockey stick is about to hit and Al Gore’s beach front home is about to be submerged…
That still shouldn’t give the criminals running the monetary enslavement and starvation system a pass on the evil they perpetrate across the globe.
Nor should Panetta get a pass for funding al Qaeda to start civil wars and dark African genocides in sovereign countries that pose no external threat.
But the media wants to give the a pass and blame their evil deeds on “climate change” – it is *your* fault, you greedy pigs who won’t give up baseball for your children to “save the planet.”
Of course, only those people that don’t walk to all practices and games. They obviously would not qualify as “greedy pigs” that care more about juvenile entertainment than the planet.
Truthfully, it is a logical fallacy to call someone a pig for driving their kids to a baseball game. There isn’t enough data to reach that conclusion. However, if I didn’t understand the Trivium method, I might fall victim to that style of fallacy.
It’s all about reality, not what emotionally makes us “feel better.”
Feelings and emotions can be easily manipulated and controlled.
Data and logic can not.
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic EraJust for kicks…
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic EraHere’s a list of issue that almost nobody talks about because they are busy demonizing their neighbor (but not the mega corporations, other than Big Oil that – but they don’t care, they get monopoly pricing during a Depression!) over spewing carbon into the atmosphere… that’s what you exhale, folks. The financial oligarchs don’t claim to be able to tax your breath, just what you exhale.
Human race being terminated by ‘scientific suicide’
https://www.naturalnews.com/035790_scientific_suicide_humans.html
I basically agree with many of the issues brought up in this article.
Having said that, I have the EXACT SAME criticism with this article as I did with the SS article – supporting data and logic weren’t provided to establish the reality of the claimed issues. The big difference is that, unlike the SS article, this article didn’t claim to “debunk the deniers” of the issues raised, it just claimed to list what the author thinks are the biggest potential environmental disasters out there.
One beauty of the Trivium is that is REMOVES EMOTIONS from the analysis. “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Do note how the Big Finance Capital narrative avoids very real environmental disasters that can be blamed on their corporate fronts (Big Oil being excepted because the “blame” triples their profits – “for the Earth,” of course 😉 and focus the proles on issues that can be blamed on, well, the proles.
Yes, the prole is the problem, NOT THE MILITARY MACHINE WAGING ILLEGAL WARS OF CORPORATE AGGRESSION ALL OVER THE PLANET AND DUMPING DEPLETED URANIUM BY THE TONNAGE (AND THE AEROSOL BLOWS ALL OVER THE PLANET – AND THEY PRACTICE WITH IT RIGHT HERE IN THE USA!).
Then again, that’s the agenda as explained here…
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
~ in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Romehttps://thecounterpunch.hubpages.com/hub/Club_of_Rome
BTW, this doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real. The data shows warming has occurred, but at a rate just under statistical significance with a 95% confidence level. Given all the fear mongering of “hockey sticks,” this is obviously quite an “unexpected” result. Again, maybe something else caused some cooling effect that offset the warming – the climate, believe it or not, is quite complex.
The real value of global warming is that it…
1. Divides and conquers the proles.
2. Acts as an environmentalist “sink” (think heat sink) and distracts them from the MASSIVE Big Finance Capital mega corporate driven toxification of the entire planet.
3. Triples the profits of Big Oil, even in spite of an ongoing Depression.The Big Finance Capital narrative is that you are in a checkers game.
The Big Finance Capital criminal oligarchs are actually playing 3 dimensional chess and their goal is “more for them and less for you). Oh, and probably several billion of the population dead without being replaced and those left in one state of poverty or another (impoverished people are easier to control).
Exxon was trading at $17.90/share in 1995 and now trades at $84.44. But Mike, that’s not all (cheesy infomercial voice over). I’m not sure how to verify this, but is very likely that the number of shares has been significantly increased in the last 17 years… making the market cap increase even bigger (a guess).
“global warming” sure taught Big Oil a lesson!
Meanwhile, Monsanto is killing off the bugs, the honey bees are being destroyed by pesticides, the food supply is toxified, the water is toxified…. but nobody can talk about those issues because the Big Finance Capital sponsored narrative doesn’t make it “cool.”
Why? Because those issue won’t quadruple their companyies’ profits and stock values. In fact, those issues would destroy those corporations and their method of control over the population.
If you think within the Central Banker, or Big Finance Capital, provided “box,” you will get played for a sucker. Even if the issue is real!
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
~Henry Kissingerhttps://www.rense.com/general80/seedsofdestruction.htm
It’s 3-dimensional chess, people. NOT checkers.
“War is all about deception,” Sun Tzu, Art of War
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.