Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

[back2basics]

He is eminent but not did not live recently and fails the criteria of over being alive in the last ten years.

 

Then all appears to consensus fail. Skeptics have no problem with scrutinizing the science, something alarmists desperately wished they did not do.

 

Don't flatter yourself by calling yourself a skeptic.

 

A skeptic wouldn't be committing so many logical fallacies as you are.

 

You are a person who is going through a process of confirmation bias. Far from being a skeptic you take your opinions from other people and copy and paste their work.

[back2basics]

Your argument is a strawman as the scientists I presented have all been alive in the last ten years. So do you reject all appeals to authority via "consensus"?

 

 

As Obelix keeps pointing, its a fallacy. It’s not for me you or Obelix to reject, its wisdom we are not qualified to reject. You make the argument; you do not hang dead effigies of authority and expect people to agree.

 

If these men really believed, so strongly, the opinion being bestowed upon them, and they understood the science why did they never publish? Why could they not make the argument? Belief is one thing, but if they had this all figured out, then publish and allow the peer review process take its place. They didn't, so we cannot check their arguments. We cannot asses their work. So half of them died with an opinion, which may or may not be different now. But none were able to push forward the science, none even tried.

 

These are men who understood the scientific method, they know that without a published paper you can say what ever you want, but it means nothing.

[Obelix]

As Obelix keeps pointing, its a fallacy. It’s not for me you or Obelix to reject, its wisdom we are not qualified to reject. You make the argument; you do not hang dead effigies of authority and expect people to agree.

 

If these men really believed, so strongly, the opinion being bestowed upon them, and they understood the science why did they never publish? Why could they not make the argument? Belief is one thing, but if they had this all figured out, then publish and allow the peer review process take its place. They didn't, so we cannot check their arguments. We cannot asses their work. So half of them died with an opinion, which may or may not be different now. But none were able to push forward the science, none even tried.

 

These are men who understood the scientific method, they know that without a published paper you can say what ever you want, but it means nothing.

 

Oh I don't know - I've done a fair bit of climate modelling recently and know a meagre amount about the subject....

[Poptech]

Don't flatter yourself by calling yourself a skeptic.

 

A skeptic wouldn't be committing so many logical fallacies as you are.

 

You are a person who is going through a process of confirmation bias. Far from being a skeptic you take your opinions from other people and copy and paste their work.

I have yet to commit a single logical fallacy. You are confusing a strawman argument with what is actually being discussed. The only people I have seen demonstrate a confirmation bias are alarmists such as yourself. When presenting someone else's opinion you usually have to copy and paste it.

 

As Obelix keeps pointing, its a fallacy. It’s not for me you or Obelix to reject, its wisdom we are not qualified to reject. You make the argument; you do not hang dead effigies of authority and expect people to agree.

 

If these men really believed, so strongly, the opinion being bestowed upon them, and they understood the science why did they never publish? Why could they not make the argument? Belief is one thing, but if they had this all figured out, then publish and allow the peer review process take its place. They didn't, so we cannot check their arguments. We cannot asses their work. So half of them died with an opinion, which may or may not be different now. But none were able to push forward the science, none even tried.

 

These are men who understood the scientific method, they know that without a published paper you can say what ever you want, but it means nothing.

He has yet to point out anything other than his strawman argument. Actually four of them have published which is irrelevant to their position. If their opinion is of no importance then you and Obelix would not be spending so much energy attempting to discredit it. Again,

 

So do you reject all appeals to authority via "consensus"?

[Obelix]

Well firstly you are making the other fallacy of ad hominem which weakens your case.

 

Secondly, as I have said before, appeal to authority, especially authority which is not reall authoritative is another of the classical logical fallacies and your argument has no foundation to rest upon.

 

The only thing that matters is the science. Just because some eminent man *says* it is so doesnt mean that it *is* so. When I publish papers, I don;t say "this is right" I *prove* it is right by scientific reasoning.

 

Your claim that "this is so" because "these people say so" is a fallacious argument and always will be.

[Poptech]

So do you reject all appeals to authority via "consensus"?

[Obelix]

If you havn't already realised that I reject them due to the reasons I have already given there is little hope you will realise that now. Your question above btw makes no sense, and yopu appear to change the accepted meaning of the quoted words - 2 more excellent reasons for ignoring it.

[Poptech]

Your failure to answer the question is all I need to know.

[Obelix]

It is not possible to answer a question that is as nonsensical as a plankton cigar. Come back with a question that makes sense and you can try again

[Poptech]

The question makes perfect sense but admitting this would cripple your position. Like I said you failure to answer it is all I needed to know.