Put another nail in the coffin of "Global Warming."

[Crick]

The mother may well make an appeal to ignorance but only up until her husband provides his testimony. That is not analogous to our situation. Deniers have had decades now to present other viable cases. They have failed to do so. The evidence for AGW, in the meanwhile, has grown mountainous.

You have not supported your claim that AGW proponents were making a appeal to ignorance.

Do you believe you have evidence superior in quantity and quality to that found in the five IPCC assessment reportsm, supporting some alternate hypothesis?

 

[SwimExpert]

Mustang is correct. You are not.

Fallacy is never correct.

Theories supported by evidence are not "arguments to (sic) ignorance".

Well, you're right. Unfortunately, you're committing a red herring fallacy. The question is whether acceptance or rejection of the theory is done in a logical manner. Just because evidence supports a "working theory" does not mean that it must be accepted as true, simply because a second person does not have an alternative to offer. Doing so is arguing to ignorance.

BTW that should be "argument FROM ignorance" or "APPEAL to ignorance". We have gone over this exact point in discussions past.

For someone who is throwing around ad hominems, you really ought to drop ridiculously petty (and incidentally false) objections. First of all, the Latin phrase is argumentum ad ignorantiam. This translates into English as argument to ignorance. Here's a pro tip: Take a Latin course before you try correcting another person's Latin. Also, if you'd but browse an introductory logic book you would know that both English forms (argument to ignorance, argument from ignorance) are used to identify this fallacy, as arguing either to or from ignorance is essentially the same thing. Another course you might want to take.....

It is not being argued here that AGW is correct because the alternative theories lack evidence. It is being argued that the alternative theories are untenable because they lack evidence. AGW is extremely well supported by evidence. Alternative theories are not.

Actually, if you would but read, you will see that Mustang's precise argument was that refuting a working theory requires presenting an alternate theory, and evidence to support it. So it seems that reading comprehension is yet another course you need to take.

In fact, it would be better if you would go back to grammar school entirely.

God are you stupid.

After all of that, you actually say nothing of substance anywhere, and affirm for everyone the maximum potential of your intellect. Congratulations.

 

[SwimExpert]

The mother may well make an appeal to ignorance but only up until her husband provides his testimony. That is not analogous to our situation. Deniers have had decades now to present other viable cases. They have failed to do so. The evidence for AGW, in the meanwhile, has grown mountainous.

You have not supported your claim that AGW proponents were making a appeal to ignorance.

Do you believe you have evidence superior in quantity and quality to that found in the five IPCC assessment reportsm, supporting some alternate hypothesis?

You're demonstrating creationist level reasoning, as does nearly every person who subscribes to AGW theory. You're confusing occurrence with causality. Creationists reject the big bang theory (an explanation of occurrence) because it does not sufficiently explain causality. Conversely, you're endorsing an explanation of causality with nothing more than evidence related to occurrences.

 

[Mustang]

It is supported by the evidence. That's why the theory has overwhelming acceptance among climatologists and other scientists who are working in the field. And try as they might, people who espouse alternate theories have been unable to present adequate evidence to support their different theories.

That a theory is supported by some body of evidence does not preclude argument's to ignorance. For example:

A man walks into his house soaking, dripping wet. His wife raises a hypothesis - He tripped over their son's bike and fell into the pool. The wife subsequently chastises the son for leaving his bike outside. The evidence supports the wife's hypothesis. However, if she demands the son accept that hypothesis because no alternative has been presented, then her logic is flawed. This can be easily seen when it turns out the man took a walk down the street before coming inside, and got caught in a neighbor's lawn sprinklers, which turned on suddenly without warning.

Once the wife developed her hypothesis (which, frankly seems more like conjecture) of how her husband got wet, it doesn't sound like she did anything at all to test that theory before she simply assumed it was true. Keep in mind that a simple test can often eliminate the theory in question. So, was the bike outside near the pool? Was there even any water around the pool on the cement? How about the water IN the pool? Did it appear disturbed, or was it calm? The wife didn't need to prove the theory was absolutely true. At that point, she only needed to prove it was possible it happened based on more than simple conjecture. Hell, maybe it was raining.

 

[SwimExpert]

Once the wife developed her hypothesis (which, frankly seems more like conjecture) of how her husband got wet, it doesn't sound like she did anything at all to test that theory before she simply assumed it was true. Keep in mind that a simple test can often eliminate the theory in question. So, was the bike outside near the pool? Was there even any water around the pool on the cement? How about the water IN the pool? Did it appear disturbed, or was it calm? The wife didn't need to prove the theory was absolutely true. At that point, she only needed to prove it was possible it happened based on more than simple conjecture. Hell, maybe it was raining.

*shakes head*

You need to educate yourself, because you're so far off the mark it's disturbing. Your position on "working theories" is the very definition of argument to ignorance fallacy. Your attempts here to make excuses for your fallacy are a desperate grasping of vanity. Just reformulate your position in a logically sound structure.

 

[Mustang]

Once the wife developed her hypothesis (which, frankly seems more like conjecture) of how her husband got wet, it doesn't sound like she did anything at all to test that theory before she simply assumed it was true. Keep in mind that a simple test can often eliminate the theory in question. So, was the bike outside near the pool? Was there even any water around the pool on the cement? How about the water IN the pool? Did it appear disturbed, or was it calm? The wife didn't need to prove the theory was absolutely true. At that point, she only needed to prove it was possible it happened based on more than simple conjecture. Hell, maybe it was raining.

*shakes head*

You need to educate yourself, because you're so far off the mark it's disturbing. Your position on "working theories" is the very definition of argument to ignorance fallacy. Your attempts here to make excuses for your fallacy are a desperate grasping of vanity. Just reformulate your position in a logically sound structure.

It's not a working theory if you're not working on it. Otherwise, it's just speculation which is little better than the imaginings of daydreaming because "in my imagination, all things exist, and all things are true."

 

[SwimExpert]

It's not a working theory if you're not working on it. Otherwise, it's just speculation which is little better than the imaginings of daydreaming because "in my imagination, all things exist, and all things are true."

 

[Crick]

The mother may well make an appeal to ignorance but only up until her husband provides his testimony. That is not analogous to our situation. Deniers have had decades now to present other viable cases. They have failed to do so. The evidence for AGW, in the meanwhile, has grown mountainous.

You have not supported your claim that AGW proponents were making a appeal to ignorance.

Do you believe you have evidence superior in quantity and quality to that found in the five IPCC assessment reportsm, supporting some alternate hypothesis?

You're demonstrating creationist level reasoning, as does nearly every person who subscribes to AGW theory. You're confusing occurrence with causality. Creationists reject the big bang theory (an explanation of occurrence) because it does not sufficiently explain causality. Conversely, you're endorsing an explanation of causality with nothing more than evidence related to occurrences.

You have still done nothing to support your charge that AGW supporters are arguing from ignorance. But you just don't want to talk about that, do you.

Creationism and the Big Bang have no bearing on this question.

AGW theorizes that greenhouse gases - which have been thoroughly demonstrated to behave precisely as postulated wrt infrared radiation and the Earth's temperature - are responsible for the observed warming. Given such a detailed and verifiable mechanism, this goes well beyond coincidence. BTW, "occurrence" was not the word you were looking for.

 

[MaryL]

I will say, that as born again Conservative, I am not anybody's shill. But, I remember when health experts used to endorse smoking as healthy, when the evidence in front of our eyes said otherwise. Yes, Global warming is like that, it's happening and you don't need a fancy pants glorified weather man to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Crick]

It's not a working theory if you're not working on it. Otherwise, it's just speculation which is little better than the imaginings of daydreaming because "in my imagination, all things exist, and all things are true."

Are you actually accusing Mustang of throwing up a red herring? He has directly addressed and accurately described the nonsense you've thrown up here in your utterly failed attempt to make an argument. Your wet husband is a red herring with which you hope to draw us away from your complete failure to support your original charge that AGW supporters are making arguments from ignorance.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But 97% of all scientists AGREE there is man made global warming!
Kerry called it the biggest security threat we have. If you can't believe Kerry, whom can you believe?

You believe a bunch of fucking liberal morons?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's not a working theory if you're not working on it. Otherwise, it's just speculation which is little better than the imaginings of daydreaming because "in my imagination, all things exist, and all things are true."

Are you actually accusing Mustang of throwing up a red herring? He has directly addressed and accurately described the nonsense you've thrown up here in your utterly failed attempt to make an argument. Your wet husband is a red herring with which you hope to draw us away from your complete failure to support your original charge that AGW supporters are making arguments from ignorance.

.

Nope.. Its a sucker fish...

 

[Mustang]

I will say, that as born again Conservative, I am not anybody's shill. But, I remember when health experts used to endorse smoking as healthy, when the evidence in front of our eyes said otherwise. Yes, Global warming is like that, it's happening and you don't need a fancy pants glorified weather man to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

Once the dangers of smoking became more apparent, I don't recall any health experts endorsing smoking. However, I DO remember that certain PAID spokespersons would endorse one cigarette over another on certain grounds. For example, the addition of filters was considered a way to make cigarettes 'safer.'

 

[mamooth]

Billy, you've been caught lying and fudging data so much, everyone now correctly assumes everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

I suggest you now do the standard WUWT troll move of crawling back to WUWT and crying about how the mean liberals "censored" you. ("Censored", in denierspeak, means "all my crazy conspiracy theories got laughed at".)

 

[Mustang]

It's not a working theory if you're not working on it. Otherwise, it's just speculation which is little better than the imaginings of daydreaming because "in my imagination, all things exist, and all things are true."

Are you actually accusing Mustang of throwing up a red herring? He has directly addressed and accurately described the nonsense you've thrown up here in your utterly failed attempt to make an argument. Your wet husband is a red herring with which you hope to draw us away from your complete failure to support your original charge that AGW supporters are making arguments from ignorance.

.

Nope.. Its a sucker fish...

Only a sucker believes that's a sucker fish. Guess what? I don't believe it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you actually accusing Mustang of throwing up a red herring? He has directly addressed and accurately described the nonsense you've thrown up here in your utterly failed attempt to make an argument. Your wet husband is a red herring with which you hope to draw us away from your complete failure to support your original charge that AGW supporters are making arguments from ignorance.

Wow, that's alot of tantrum. Not to mention deranged detachment from reality.

 

[mamooth]

What's the matter Swim, not capable of discussion any more?

Even for a denier, you're acting craven and gutless, and that's saying something. As soon as someone refutes you, you soil yourself, throw up a picture and run.

Don't worry, you're not disappointing anyone, because nobody ever expected better from you.

 

[SwimExpert]

What's the matter Swim, not capable of discussion any more?

Even for a denier, you're acting craven and gutless, and that's saying something. As soon as someone refutes you, you soil yourself, throw up a picture and run.

Don't worry, you're not disappointing anyone, because nobody ever expected better from you.

That's what you call "discussion"?

 

[bripat9643]

The mother may well make an appeal to ignorance but only up until her husband provides his testimony. That is not analogous to our situation. Deniers have had decades now to present other viable cases. They have failed to do so. The evidence for AGW, in the meanwhile, has grown mountainous.

You have not supported your claim that AGW proponents were making a appeal to ignorance.

Do you believe you have evidence superior in quantity and quality to that found in the five IPCC assessment reportsm, supporting some alternate hypothesis?

We aren't obligated to "present other viable cases." Such statements only serve to demonstrate your ignorance about science. Poking holes in your theory is all that is required to demonstrate that it's false, and AGW theory has holes big enough to drive a semi through.

 

[bripat9643]

I will say, that as born again Conservative, I am not anybody's shill. But, I remember when health experts used to endorse smoking as healthy, when the evidence in front of our eyes said otherwise. Yes, Global warming is like that, it's happening and you don't need a fancy pants glorified weather man to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

Once the dangers of smoking became more apparent, I don't recall any health experts endorsing smoking. However, I DO remember that certain PAID spokespersons would endorse one cigarette over another on certain grounds. For example, the addition of filters was considered a way to make cigarettes 'safer.'

The evidence against smoking was 10,000 times more solid than the evidence supporting global warming. Every time an AGW cult member brings up the smoking argument, they only prove what morons they are.