Quote:
|
But, I will ask you a question, since you suggest I am a "global warming denialist". What is my stated opinion on "global warming"? If you can find a quote where you have been able to determine my position on "global warming", please share it with me. If you can't, what does that say about your "straw man?"
|
Well, let’s see if we can dissect this argument. You’re saying that since you’ve always been coy about your position on “global warming”, that my conclusion that you’re a denialist is false. I hate to say it, but that particular claim is also a logical fallacy, known as the “non-sequitur” It’s a non-sequitur because your coyness has absolutely no logical relevance to my argument, which is based entirely on your behavior in this thread.
Secondly, you claim that if my conclusion that you are a denialist is false, then my conclusion must be a “straw man”. Hate to say it again, but that’s also a non-sequitur. That’s because my claim would be a strawman only if (1) it is false; and (2) I used it incorrectly in an argument, as for example to argue that you’re, say, closed-minded or anti-science. Since I haven’t used it in any argument (yet), it’s nothing but a conclusion for now.
So I guess we can add two non-sequiturs to the list of logical fallacies you’ve cogently displayed on this thread.
Quote:
|
No matter my response it will be inadequate, and can be taken out of context.
|
I think anybody can be forgiven for mistaking the context of any particular post of yours, since it’s been wiggling all over the landscape like a shimmy worm at high tide.
But the general context seems pretty clear to me. It’s basically “Hansen is wrong – I just haven’t figured out why yet”.
I’d say that applies to at least 90% of your posts here, which, hey, makes it “unequivocal in our new science". Have I gotten it about right?