raveneye

This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument. The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science.

The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach.

In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist.

Q.E.D.