Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
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.
|
From my very first post on the subject of global warming and its cause, I have been undecided and stated that I was beginning the process of looking into the issue in greater detail. Given my initial ignorance I have been using this forum as a sound board and to find direction on information and sources I was not aware of. Simply the very act of asking questions on this subject I was immediately confronted with venomous attacks on my intelligence, character, and motives from those who believe the "question is settled".
It doesn't matter what your conclusion is regarding my position on the subject, because the point is that the tone of your comments suggests a serious discussion is not possible.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Another first, I have never been accused of being coy. Of course my question was a non sequitur. If you read what I wrote, it was clearly obvious that I was changing the subject. I came to the conclusion, which I also stated, that no matter what my response to the premise in your previous post, it would be pointless. You have pointed out the obvious.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Your argument was based on a misrepresentation of my position - that makes it a straw-man argument.
Quote:
|
So I guess we can add two non-sequiturs to the list of logical fallacies you’ve cogently displayed on this thread.
|
If proven wrong will you revisit this statement or pretend that you never made it?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Seems to contradict your above comments. Why should forgiveness be at issue for mistaken context of clear and consistent fallacious arguments?
One thing I am confused about is when you, in this case, refer to my arguments and posts without being specific. I am the first to admit that on this subject an argument that I make may be wrong or illogical. When you and others make these broad general accusations, it doesn't help me. What argument(s) are you talking about? Another was when I was accused of libel. I even asked fro specifics and got no response.
Quote:
|
But the general context seems pretty clear to me. It’s basically “Hansen is wrong – I just haven’t figured out why yet”.
|
My question - Is Hanson wrong? It is true I have not figured it out. Have you?
Quote:
|
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?
|
There are some things we know, and there are some things we suspect to be true with varying degrees of certainty. I have thought that to be true most of my life. It that is not true, then it is "new science" based on what I know.