Talk-Polywell.org

With Micheal Mann:

From Watts. of course:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/a ... amination/
BTW, it doesn't look good for the IPCC according to Nature:
Sociologists of science wish to study the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the same reason that they want to examine other loci at which scientific knowledge is made — whether in a laboratory, the field, a museum or at a conference. We too approached the IPCC in autumn 2010 with a request to study it from the inside; we too were told ‘no’ (see Nature 502, 281; 2013).



We therefore had to rely on self-reported accounts. Using document analysis and interviews with lead authors, we analysed how authors navigate the distinction between scientific description and value judgements, for example when offering information pertaining to the definition of ‘dangerous climate change’.

The IPCC has become a dominant institution in climate science — in the assessment of knowledge for policy-making, and in how assessment practices alter empirical and computer-simulated climate science. Global knowledge assessments such as those undertaken by the IPCC call for carefully documented systematic studies by trained ethnographers.

Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.

Could it be that they are hiding the decline?

Considering what's happened on this board, I can't believe you'd have the balls to bring up ad hominem.

Unbelievable.

You do understand that libel and slander are ad hominem arguments, right?

And that your guy Willard is getting sued for them? Along with National Review magazine and the Competitive Enterprise Institute? And Mann is winning?

This is foolishness.

Jccarlton wrote:With Micheal Mann:

Ah. So That's what Scheisser looks like!

Science becomes more certain as time goes on.

This is called "research."

Apparently you've never heard of it.

In addition, that's not an argumentum ad misericordiam; there's no appeal to pity. So that one is an outright lie.

The third one is also a lie; the argumentum ad vericundiam is only a fallacy if the authority referred to is not really an authority, like Willard "Tony" Watts, for example.

However, they're actual atmospheric and oceanic geophysicists, not weathermen without degrees.

It's false authority, not just authority, that is suspect. Most anti-science crackpots tell that lie, not just climate cranks. Darwin deniers for example.

Argumentum ad populum is essentially just another form of argumentum ad vericundiam. But it's not a fallacy, again, if the "populum" in question is all experts in the particular field in question, in this case atmospheric and oceanic geophysics.

This assertion is a lie, in that the general population is not being asked to vote on it, only the experts. If all the experts agree, and feel the evidence is strong enough they'll all stand up and say so, that's pretty much it, especially these days. You might have gotten away with that a couple centuries ago.

Where are you recycling these arguments from, Soapy Sam Wilberforce? This one is a lie too: it's not the whole populace.

Diogenes wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:With Micheal Mann:

Ah. So That's what Scheisser looks like!

That's actually his hero, Mann. Who has to be disappointed at the turn of events lately. Turns out the Medieval Warm period WAS global:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/n ... more-96578
Who would have thought?

I think there's a spammer rolling in the mud.

And the last one is the dumbest lie of all: Scientists are stupid.

Ridiculous.

Foolish.

And so very, very anti-science.

And yet again a lie: they can think of lots of other things and they checked them all and they're not happening.

Solar variation. Nope.
Cosmic rays affecting cloud formation. Nope.
Volcanic eruptions. Nope.
Particulate pollution. Nope.
Earth orbital variations, AKA Milankovic cycles. Nope.

So where's the heat going?

Spammer selfie:

enough with the ad hominems people
it is getting tiresome
if you don't like getting caught in lies, stop lying.
if you don't like getting called out on erroneous definitions of standard fallacies, don't use the erroneous definitions.

no more parroting
no more whackamoles

please?

Jccarlton wrote:Spammer selfie:

Yes, that's my mental image of scheisser.

Stubby wrote:enough with the ad hominems people
it is getting tiresome
if you don't like getting caught in lies, stop lying.
if you don't like getting called out on erroneous definitions of standard fallacies, don't use the erroneous definitions.

no more parroting
no more whackamoles

please?

But he said "please", so it's alright that he accused us of lying.

Diogenes wrote:

Stubby wrote:enough with the ad hominems people
it is getting tiresome
if you don't like getting caught in lies, stop lying.
if you don't like getting called out on erroneous definitions of standard fallacies, don't use the erroneous definitions.

no more parroting
no more whackamoles

please?

But he said "please", so it's alright that he accused us of lying.

There is a big difference between actually telling a lie, which is an intent to deceive and what our spammer calls lying, which is anything that his god like self doesn't agree with. Frankly after the comments he made when I posted the picture of my friend at the national lab, a nationally known scientist, everything thing he posts on one my threads is going to get the treatment I 've been using, that is ignoring whatever he says and just posting a snarky comment or picture about how he is spamming the thread. As for lying, I don't lie, period. I may not know everything and I may be wrong, but I will call out things as I see the facts.