EDIT: lol
Well, whoever reported this post is the winner:
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=67539605&f=119&p=452701432#p452701432 I got the suspension at 3 in the morning while I was still out drinking, so I win. You lose. Again.
Quote (Skinned @ May 24 2013 08:00pm)
A small minority of world scientists. You believe that they are right and everybody else (95+%) are conspiring for whatever reason?
From the page you linked:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
And come on guys, lets not degenerate down to calling each other stupid heads...you are both very intelligent people. Smart people can disagree.
Here's what no one understands about that study: it was to compare the agreement amongst scientists who actually specialized in climate science vs. other scientists.
This is the original study:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009%5FDoran%5Ffinal.pdf. It is unequivocal that it was designed to compare the beliefs of the public and a spectrum of scientists with varying degrees of specialization in climate change science.
Their conclusion was that the more specialized a scientist was in the field of climate change, the more likely they were to agree that humans are causing climate change. It DOES NOT conclude that 98% of
all scientists agree that humans cause climate change. This is a misinterpretation of the study that has been captured by denialists and used as a strawman argument to refute the scientific consensus argument.
The fact that at the top end of the spectrum (the scientists most qualified in climate change science) they only got 77 replies is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
This is simply a denialist cherry picking strategy to distract from the main point of the study. It's a strawman argument. It's baseless rhetoric and purports to have a legitimate point when there really is no legitimate one at all. I feel sorry by anyone who gets sucked in by such tepid logic, and anyone using such an argument is a moron who hasn't even read the actual study.
I pointed this out to lifebane in a previous thread. He chose to ignore it because it conflicted with his one and only argument that he uses to support his misguided opinion. He was presented with clear, unequivocal evidence that he was wrong. And he chose to ignore it.
This is why he should be ridiculed. He is a defective mind that out right disagrees with science. He puts forth no legitimate debate and no one should waste their time arguing with him. There is no legitimate debate in this thread. That's why I mocked him from the outset. I encourage any one with 1/2 a brain to do the same. We should not tolerate this type of gross idiocy. In fact, you're an idiot if you get sucked in by his denialist debate.
I encourage everyone to go here and educate yourselves about denialism:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/. How to identify it (it is prevalent on this forum) and how to combat it.
Quote
Further, some fallacies, like ad hominem are poorly understood, so when an opponent says you’re wrong because of this this and this therefor you’re an idiot, the poor victim of the ad hominem feels like they can claim victory over the argument. When in reality ad hominem refers to the dismissal of an argument by just insulting the person. Time and time again you see someone exasperated by the crank who won’t turn despite being shown again and again where their error is, and finally just call the guy an idiot. That’s actually not an ad hominem. That might be totally true and highly relevant to the argument at hand. Sometimes people are just too stupid or too ignorant to realize when they’ve been soundly thrashed, and true cranks will stubbornly go on, and on and on…
This post was edited by Wakeskater77 on May 25 2013 11:43am