Disagreement Pyramid

[IanC]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

 

[Crick]

As you've just done.

 

[Moonglow]

I was hoping for an environmental pyramid....or at least a circular cycle...

 

[mamooth]

I don't see where Ian's "There's a vast global conspiracy to commit fraud!" arguments would fit in on the pyramid. I think it needs a new layer tacked on the bottom.

 

[jc456]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Interesting article I completely enjoyed it. Too bad too many of us don't realize where we fall on the pyramid I'm not always on the bottom and I'm not always on the top I can at least be honest.

 

[jc456]

Central point. CO2, CH4, NOx, and various industrial gases are GHGs. Mankind has been adding them to the atmosphere for over 150 years. For 150 years we have seen an increase in temperatures.

Bullshit asshole, GHG's are also water vapor shall we go to Wikipedia and look up GHG's old brother?

 

[IanC]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Interesting article I completely enjoyed it. Too bad too many of us don't realize where we fall on the pyramid I'm not always on the bottom and I'm not always on the top I can at least be honest.

hahaha, I think we have all touched every one of those bases. I try to take the high road.

 

[jc456]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Interesting article I completely enjoyed it. Too bad too many of us don't realize where we fall on the pyramid I'm not always on the bottom and I'm not always on the top I can at least be honest.

hahaha, I think we have all touched every one of those bases. I try to take the high road.

Some of us are at least a little honest

 

[flacaltenn]

So Ian -- is there a part of this pyramid method where you can compensate when your debate opponents then keep asserting the same refuted propositions? Do you get extra points if you just WHACK them with the sharp tip of the pyramid?

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Re-Read the OP -- Stay ON the topic. I'm striking every post that has NOTHING to do with OP..
You want to change the topic?? Start a thread for it..

FlaCalTenn

UPDATE: 25 posts deleted. 3 warnings go out. What's left is a discussion of THIS THREAD's OP topic..

 

[Kosh]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Yes this is the formula for most of the disagreements on this board, but in many cases they start at the bottom..

 

[IanC]

So Ian -- is there a part of this pyramid method where you can compensate when your debate opponents then keep asserting the same refuted propositions? Do you get extra points if you just WHACK them with the sharp tip of the pyramid?

I must admit I get discouraged when Old Rocks or crickham just ignore evidence, and then go on to make the same rebutted statement at a later time and then demand that it be proven wrong all over again.

it is possible that we all ignore and forget evidence that goes against our worldview of how things work but I know for myself that my position has changed a lot since I first started commenting on climate change. my thoughts have evolved as I weed out false or even dubious evidence. some of the others here simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again. no interest in learning I guess.

 

[mamooth]

Check it out, Ian's hilarious projection is on display. The guy who only parrots the CultofMcIntyre is accusing everyone of behaving like himself.

The cultists always run from my destruction of their conspiracy theory. They're too emotionally invested now in their precious, precious conspiracy theory. They've personalized the issue too deeply, and no way will they ever give the dirty hippies the satisfaction of admitting that the dirty hippies have been right the whole time. So, they'll bitterly cling to that conspiracy theory until the end, no matter how crazy and dishonest it makes them look.

In stark contrast, we here on the rational side aren't emotional invested in anything except the truth. If global warming actually was disproved, we'd all be out dancing on the rooftops, overjoyed that the threat wasn't actually a threat.

Back to that destruction of the conspiracy theory ...

The temperature adjustments make the overall warming look _smaller_. No honest person can dispute that. The land adjustments go a little the other way, but they're totally overwhelmed by the ocean adjustments.

Therefore, the conspiracy is stupid. Deniers are claiming that scientists are going through great effort to fake land adjustments, and then immediately spinning about and cancelling those efforts out with ocean adjustments going much farther the opposite way. Needless to say, they've never explained why the scientists are going through all that effort to make the warming look smaller.

What do they do? They wave their hands around wildly and try divert from the failure of their senseless conspiracy theory. I'll be amused to see how they run from the point again this time.

 

[flacaltenn]

So Ian -- is there a part of this pyramid method where you can compensate when your debate opponents then keep asserting the same refuted propositions? Do you get extra points if you just WHACK them with the sharp tip of the pyramid?

I must admit I get discouraged when Old Rocks or crickham just ignore evidence, and then go on to make the same rebutted statement at a later time and then demand that it be proven wrong all over again.

it is possible that we all ignore and forget evidence that goes against our worldview of how things work but I know for myself that my position has changed a lot since I first started commenting on climate change. my thoughts have evolved as I weed out false or even dubious evidence. some of the others here simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again. no interest in learning I guess.

I've often considered "socking in" as a CAGW fanatic and debating the other side. I haven't forgotten the arguments from the other side of AGWarming. In FACT, I wouldn't have confidence in my position if I didn't know them.. But I figure, in the end, we might meet at some REASONABLE middle ground and ruin all the fun of this forum..

And for the record, I have no socks. Any you can't prosecute thought crimes on USMB yet..

 

[flacaltenn]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Yes this is the formula for most of the disagreements on this board, but in many cases they start at the bottom..

Almost nailed it Kosh -- but take a closer look.. I think most of the supporting arguments on CAGW are in the bottom 3 floors of that pyramid..

 

[Billy_Bob]

So Ian -- is there a part of this pyramid method where you can compensate when your debate opponents then keep asserting the same refuted propositions? Do you get extra points if you just WHACK them with the sharp tip of the pyramid?

I must admit I get discouraged when Old Rocks or crickham just ignore evidence, and then go on to make the same rebutted statement at a later time and then demand that it be proven wrong all over again.

it is possible that we all ignore and forget evidence that goes against our worldview of how things work but I know for myself that my position has changed a lot since I first started commenting on climate change. my thoughts have evolved as I weed out false or even dubious evidence. some of the others here simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again. no interest in learning I guess.

Alarmists will never get beyond stage 1 or 2. They have no evidence to support their position which will stand review and replication. They hide their work and run from open and honest scientific review. One need only look at the actions of Dr Tom Peterson of NCDC who recently published a private letter of dissent and questions about his work. He went to a left wing hack blog known for lies and deceit allowing them to publish the letter instead of answering the questions. By doing what Peterson did he outed himself as a liar and a deceiver. He lost all professional credibility as a scientist.

Sadly Ian this is SOP of the alarmist shills.

 

[Billy_Bob]

via Willis and Verity

based on Graham's essay How to Disagree

it's a good start but it should have a separate section for Strawman arguments where someone (purposefully or not) argues against something that was not even said.

Yes this is the formula for most of the disagreements on this board, but in many cases they start at the bottom..

Almost nailed it Kosh -- but take a closer look.. I think most of the supporting arguments on CAGW are in the bottom 3 floors of that pyramid..

97% are in the bottom 2.... just sayin...

 

[mamooth]

So, as expected, none of the deniers were willing to address the fact that their conspiracy theory is senseless gibberish.

That is, all of them here are flaming hypocrites who are projecting their own lemminglike nature on to honest people. Deniers ALWAYS discard and ignore any info that contradicts their religion. It's basically what defines them. After all, if a person honestly looks at all the data, it isn't possible for them to be a denier.

If any denier disagrees, they need to discuss why they keep pushing a nonsense conspiracy theory about supposedly faked temperature adjustments, given that in the real world, the temperature adjustments make the warming look smaller. That is not arguable by any honest person. The temperature adjustments make the warming look smaller, period.

Deniers, why are you all claiming the direct opposite of reality, and then refusing to talk about why you do that?

 

[mamooth]

One need only look at the actions of Dr Tom Peterson of NCDC who recently published a private letter of dissent and questions about his work.

Horseshit, Billy. You're flat out lying.

This "private letter" Billy talks about was previously published by Anthony Watts on his WUWT blog, with Watts bragging about the hostile letter he had just sent to the dirty warmer, and putting the letter on display. That's a very peculiar definition of "private".

It was also an openly abusive letter, which nobody ever has any duty to keep private.

Watts publicly promised to post any reply to that letter on WUWT. Peterson gave him a polite and very detailed response, showing just how Watts got all the science wrong. Watts refused to post it.

That's the kind of liar Billy sucks up to, and lies on behalf of. Birds of a feather.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One need only look at the actions of Dr Tom Peterson of NCDC who recently published a private letter of dissent and questions about his work.

Horseshit, Billy. You're flat out lying.

This "private letter" Billy talks about was previously published by Anthony Watts on his WUWT blog, with Watts bragging about the hostile letter he had just sent to the dirty warmer, and putting the letter on display. That's a very peculiar definition of "private".

It was also an openly abusive letter, which nobody ever has any duty to keep private.

Watts publicly promised to post any reply to that letter on WUWT. Peterson gave him a polite and very detailed response, showing just how Watts got all the science wrong. Watts refused to post it.

That's the kind of liar Billy sucks up to, and lies on behalf of. Birds of a feather.

And the hairball lies.

You really should get your time line straight. The letter was a private communication protected under federal law from distribution without the authors consent. Watts sent the letter to Peterson and his boss Karl as with all potential disciplinary matters the direct supervisor is included in all communications. Peterson refused to respond to Watts and instead choose to relay that letter to Miriam Obrien, in violation of both the records act and government agency policy.

It was only AFTER Peterson violated the law and policy, publishing Watts letter, that Watts allowed another guest to place an explanation on his Blog.

Snagletooth likes to lie about things involving Watts. The facts and time line simply show it a liar. In this case I believe it is intentional.