The only thing that keeps that post from being his thirteenth logical fallacy (strawman) is that he didn't bother to deride AGW.
As it is, it was simply inaccurate. Let's see if he can actually get it right, if I ask.
Frankly, I have no idea.
The only thing that keeps that post from being his thirteenth logical fallacy (strawman) is that he didn't bother to deride AGW.
As it is, it was simply inaccurate. Let's see if he can actually get it right, if I ask.
Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.
You give the "peer review" process WAAAY too much credit. Early in my career, I published a few technical papers that were presented at the SAE World Congress. Every year, you'd see the same dozen or so presenters, and their papers would be reviewed, mostly, by the same handful of guys who were all well known in that particular discipline. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that all those guys knew each other and were pretty friendly with each other, or at least cordial. I very rarely saw a heavy-handed review.
So, you're a fan of skepticism now?
You're right. It is PERCEIVED as tough, but, in many cases, it's anything but.
By the way, the worst case I've ever seen of direct manipulation of the peer-review process is the climategate emails.
Phil Jones
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Michael Mann
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Phil Jones
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor."
Your entire thread starts with an ad hominem attack on skeptics. Way to go!
Video shown on first day of Copenhagen climate summit.
Please demonstrate how exactly the OP fits into the ad hominem logical fallacy form as given below:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
(edit)
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases)[emphasis mine] have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-02-2011 at 06:38 PM.
One should not dismiss outright the claims of people who are skeptical of the body of work supporting the theory of global warming.
But given the quality of arguments, and the overall lack of any demonstrable critical thinking skills, one should be VERY skeptical of accepting any of the "denier" claims as a given without fact checking it first.
Indeed. So strong is their position that they feel the need to cook up bogus papers.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1]
It is? Since you know so much about journal access and peer review, please share your insight.
I already did a few posts back.
Please support assertion #3 with a link to the IPCC report.
Thanks mouse.
That's a you-tube video Darrin.
Why didn't the editor of Nature resign after Michael Mann's "hockey stick" paper?
you once again made a false claim. You do that often, liar.
... and what negative charcteristic am I pointing out Darrin?
why are you incapable of addressing items you get called on? Lol Darrin the victim.
wait so addressing relevant negative characteristics is ad hominem? Lololololololol
Missed it. My bad.
Reviewers and editors dont want to be associated with any article or paper which might have been cooked. They will do their due dilligence in determining whats fit for publication or not. Reviews may or may not be "heavy handed", but that hardly determines if a paper gets seleced for publication.
The "attack" is that much of what passes for "science" in the denier camp, isn't actually science.Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
Deniers aren't wrong because they are idiots. If I said that, it would be ad hominem.
They are wrong because their science is very poor. (i.e. the quality of their arguments and data are so bad)
I think you're a bad basketball player because you can't shoot, dribble, and pass.
ad hominen!
To answer your question, no. The paper I dissected a few pages back made an attempt to do that but used the wrong set of assumptions.
We also need to be careful about translating what we see in a lab to what we see "out there". Unfortunately for climate science, the physics is not scale invariant. Hence we necessarily see a preponderance of modelling to supplement experimentation.
The stick only hits one way.
I'm surprised an incorrect paper is such news. For years, the IPCC and their scientists have been making false claims. Every time they come out with a new assessment report, deniers point out the shortcomings, and the next report is revised.
Mistakes happen.
Why is it when the AGW crowd does it, it's OK, but when a scientific skeptic does so, he's chastised?
Now I didn't see his paper to make a sound judgement on, but I'll bet there is no intention mistakes in it.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
