tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6192507305359210313..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Paul Homewood builds a strawman at WUWT and sends it off to ChinaSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54267705547365364402013-11-29T03:04:53.459+11:002013-11-29T03:04:53.459+11:00Better leave the trench fighting at Deltoid, methi...Better leave the trench fighting at Deltoid, methinx it has its uniqueness value there.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46725773828169122952013-11-28T01:44:52.385+11:002013-11-28T01:44:52.385+11:00I would note that discussions of logical fallacies...I would note that discussions of logical fallacies would be more productive if everyone (and I mean M. Anonymous in this case) understood what they were. Two resources I've found useful are <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/" rel="nofollow">the listings at the Nizkor Project</a> and the <a href="http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html" rel="nofollow">Fallacies page by Don Lindsay</a>. It would behoove M. Anonymous to know what exactly (s)he is accusing people of. <br /><br />Lindsay has a quote on his page I've found quite relevant in many a discussion:<br /><br /><i>"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."</i><br />--- Richard Nixon<br /><br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4373318062572001092013-11-27T19:53:53.891+11:002013-11-27T19:53:53.891+11:00Another false claim. I repeat once more: argument ...Another false claim. I repeat once more: argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, Anon.<br /><br />Get it through your none-too-bright skull. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73721037656141800012013-11-27T19:43:29.445+11:002013-11-27T19:43:29.445+11:00Anonymous is a goose. Don't pay him any attent...Anonymous is a goose. Don't pay him any attention.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74201082293107072682013-11-27T16:48:16.947+11:002013-11-27T16:48:16.947+11:00See my comment above. M. Anonymous does not appear...See <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/paul-homewood-builds-strawman-at-wuwt.html?showComment=1385531088171#c9130672657503632545" rel="nofollow">my comment above</a>. M. Anonymous does not appear to understand the definition of <i>ad hominem</i>.<br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91306726575036325452013-11-27T16:44:48.171+11:002013-11-27T16:44:48.171+11:00An ad hominem argument has the form of "A is ...An <i>ad hominem</i> argument has the form of <i>"A is an idiot, therefore do not listen to A's argument"</i>. It is a logical fallacy because someone's personal attributes do not form part of the argument logic. <br /><br />On the other hand, the sequence <i>"A asserts this poor argument, therefore A is an idiot"</i> is _not_ a fallacy, but rather a judgement based upon the argument presented. M. Anonymous has been the subject of this latter formulation, followed by a query as to whether M. Anonymous frequents sites where those poor arguments are commonly <i>(mis)</i>asserted. <br /><br />Note the cause-effect relationship. This mistaken claim of <i>ad hominem</i> when arguments are judged is one of the most common complaints on denial <i>(a judgement of mine based upon the specious if not absurd arguments presented)</i> websites.<br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14709582738566598752013-11-27T10:43:16.412+11:002013-11-27T10:43:16.412+11:00I am worthless? That just hurts like you have no ...I am worthless? That just hurts like you have no idea. I didn't say all activity is achieving nothing at all. Just your activity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56392781850228138362013-11-27T10:18:16.507+11:002013-11-27T10:18:16.507+11:00Anon. persists in advancing the false claim that a...Anon. persists in advancing the false claim that all activity today - political and technical - aimed at the eventual decarbonisation of the electricity supply is achieving nothing at all. This despite being told that it was a lie the last time he said it. A worthless individual. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45258851069796217132013-11-27T09:34:01.549+11:002013-11-27T09:34:01.549+11:00Well BBD, you ought to be free to hire or not hire...Well BBD, you ought to be free to hire or not hire whomever you want. I have employed up to 500 people at one time, and let me ask this. Would you want your employee to engage in action all day long that made no bit of difference? Or, would you prefer they spend their time and your money engaging in activity that is actually productive? Is there a difference between doing nothing and abstaining from unproductive activity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87379035299456073892013-11-27T03:07:33.412+11:002013-11-27T03:07:33.412+11:00Nothing ever got done by complaining "it'...<i>Nothing ever got done by complaining "it's all too hard".</i><br /><br />But that's why Anon. is whining. That's his 'argument'. Do nothing - nothing can be done. Not someone I would employ under any circumstances whatsoever. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25416064860513614212013-11-27T00:20:52.566+11:002013-11-27T00:20:52.566+11:00Anonymous, you'd come across as having somethi...Anonymous, you'd come across as having something to contribute other than moaning that "it's all too hard" and showing your supreme naivety in intergovernmental relations and global economics, if you weren't just talking off the top of your head. If you weren't so insistent that rest of the world has to suck it up and stay poor. If you did some fact checking. <br /><br />Or if you made a positive suggestion. <br /><br />(I wouldn't mind betting you're a litterbug too. After all, why should you not litter when there is always going to be someone else who does it?)<br /><br /><a href="http://theconversation.com/solar-power-is-the-only-answer-to-light-up-rural-africa-19174" rel="nofollow">Solar power for sub-Saharan Africa</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pay-as-you-go-solar-energy" rel="nofollow">Pay-as-You-Go Solar Energy</a> Finds Success in Africa<br /><br /><a href="http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/11/bring-solar-powered-light-to-africa/" rel="nofollow">One of the many solar by donation</a> to Africa - <br /><br /><a href="http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solar_energy_to_undercut_coal_in_south_africa_frost_sullivan" rel="nofollow">Electricity from solar power could be the cheapest in South Africa by 2020</a>, according to a new report by Frost & Sullivan.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/india/2013/07/08/383183/Bangladesh-builds.htm" rel="nofollow">Solar is powering city buildings in Bangladesh</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/20111230112731633200.html" rel="nofollow">More than one million solar units for people off grid in Bangladesh</a> - in 2011.<br /><br />There are many options other than coal. Better, cleaner and if not now then rapidly approaching cheaper, too.<br /><br />Get off your butt and make a contribution and quit your whining. Nothing ever got done by complaining "it's all too hard".<br /><br />I have very little tolerance for people who give up so easily and say "it can't be done". Especially when the rest of the world is showing it can be done.<br /><br />You do know we're all in this together, don't you. Denying science won't stop climate change.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31740816740017123832013-11-27T00:19:36.139+11:002013-11-27T00:19:36.139+11:00With regard to your use of ad hominems, they are n...<i>With regard to your use of ad hominems, they are not about me. They are about you and your inability to articulate an effective convincing argument.</i><br /><br />Will you learn what "ad hominem" actually means please? Repeating falsehoods is tedious and clear evidence of bad faith. Bad faith is *your* problem here and something you need to address directly, urgently and effectively.<br /><br />You have not demonstrated that I (or anyone here) is incapable of articulating an effective argument yet you assert it, which is of course both further evidence of intellectual dishonesty and a logical fallacy. <br /><br /><i>There is no progress.</i><br /><br />This is, of course, simply a lie. We can say there is slow progress, but arguing for no progress crosses a very clear line into dishonest misrepresentation for rhetorical purposes. This has been discussed already. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46102973281211072642013-11-26T23:40:42.537+11:002013-11-26T23:40:42.537+11:00"The slow progress towards decarbonisation of..."The slow progress towards decarbonisation of electricity supply isn't evidence that the science is in doubt or that developing economies will not make better progress going forward. It's just where we are today. It isn't the basis for an argument for inaction. "<br /><br />There is no progress. There is only growth. Fossil fuel use is growing, and coal use is growing the fastest of any fossil fuel. <br /><br />Check out this list of countries and the % of their populations that have access to electricity. Look at countries like India and Indonesia. Then take a look at the countries in Africa. Coal will supply those people the electricity they need. It is just barely getting started. <br /><br />http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS<br /><br />Ineffective action is no action at all. <br /><br />With regard to your use of ad hominems, they are not about me. They are about you and your inability to articulate an effective convincing argument. If you are really planning on changing anything, that is the first place you should start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17340756319372904812013-11-26T22:19:57.269+11:002013-11-26T22:19:57.269+11:00Notice that we now have a whole thread of unjustif...Notice that we now have a whole thread of unjustified whining about ad hominem. Playing the victim fills up the column inches with the rhetoric of distraction which is why those without any coherent arguments resort to it incessantly. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70268087569355818022013-11-26T22:16:10.419+11:002013-11-26T22:16:10.419+11:00As I said, those afflicted by the pathology of den...As I said, those afflicted by the pathology of denial are unable to recognise the symptoms in themselves. It's a mental illness, after all.<br /><br />Pointing this *fact* out is not ad hominem. Your denial of this is only to be expected and can now cease as it is redundant.<br /><br />Paul has no point. The slow progress towards decarbonisation of electricity supply isn't evidence that the science is in doubt or that developing economies will not make better progress going forward. It's just where we are today. It isn't the basis for an argument for inaction. <br /><br />What China does today may be very different from what China does as the effects of climate change bite hard into its agricultural productivity and infrastructure. You seem to assume otherwise, which is, at best, limited thinking. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-92080180368087891252013-11-26T22:02:03.642+11:002013-11-26T22:02:03.642+11:00BBD, I have no idea whether you are a dumbass, nor...BBD, I have no idea whether you are a dumbass, nor do I have any idea what scientific training you have. However, your engaging in ad hominem's does nothing to support the quality thereof. Sou is correct that gratuitous name calling alone is not an ad hominem. But that is not the case here, is it? Turning the conversation towards derogatory comments about one's mental capacities during an argument is a classic ad hominem, especially the mental illness comments. <br /><br />Paul's point remains valid. He asks a valid question in the section entitled "footnote" of his article. He could have even further asked why China is building so many coal power plants if it thinks we are really in the midst of a mass extinction. In fact, if you don't answer those questions pretty quickly, the world will quickly see that, even if everything you say is true, there is nothing any individual country can do to have even a token measurable effect. <br /><br />For what it is worth, I think there are several factors here. Firstly, I think the world doesn't genuinely comprehend what is coming from the developing world in terms of CO2 emissions. 20% of the world's population has no access to electricity. They are going to get it. And they are not going to stop there. They are going to want iPads, social media, and flat screen televisions. The other thing at play is confirmation bias. China talks a good game about investing in clean energy, etc., and you want to believe them. But don't let them fool you. They seek world domination, and they know that building themselves economically is the only way.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72868480594933133452013-11-26T19:17:36.574+11:002013-11-26T19:17:36.574+11:00But I'm not a dumbass, Anonymous. I'm capa...But I'm not a dumbass, Anonymous. I'm capable of understanding enough Earth system science to recognise that we have a problem. And I'm smart enough not to retreat into denial in the face of this recognition. And I'm astute (and honest) enough not to confuse politics with physics. Nor do I rely on endless rhetorical diversions in lieu of core arguments, but then, I don't have to. I am not obliged to resort to intellectual dishonesty with virtually every comment I make. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48157105041831971832013-11-26T14:17:37.118+11:002013-11-26T14:17:37.118+11:00Not understanding the concept of ad hominem is one...Not understanding the concept of <i>ad hominem</i> is one of the distinguishing features of <i>Homo contrariensis</i>.<br /><br />They constantly claim they're victims of cruel, cruel injustice because they just looooooove to play at being persecuted, despite the fact that they're also the 'anti-PC' brigade and regularly whine that <i>other people</i> unfairly claim undeserved special treatment.<br /><br />This is the root of all the melodramatic 'see, I'm a victim, a victim I tell you!' crap surrounding being labeled 'deniers'. Entirely justly, I might add.<br /><br />All-in-all, this happens because they are irony-challenged. <br /><br />And mentally ill. ;-)billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50436481855631825072013-11-26T13:47:32.575+11:002013-11-26T13:47:32.575+11:00Anonymous is wrong there. Just calling me or anyo...Anonymous is wrong there. Just calling me or anyone else a dumbass is simple name-calling. It's not an ad hom.<br /><br />It would be an ad hom if Anonymous said "because Sou is a dumbass everything (or something) that she says is incredible/wrong" etc.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16556680325377180482013-11-26T12:30:55.407+11:002013-11-26T12:30:55.407+11:00If I call you a dumbass, it is still an ad hominem...If I call you a dumbass, it is still an ad hominem even though you are, in fact, a dumbass. Truth is no defense to the fallacy of using an ad hominem. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45405698324136197292013-11-26T09:36:39.152+11:002013-11-26T09:36:39.152+11:00No, it's an accurate description of what is go...No, it's an accurate description of what is going on. Unfortunately, those afflicted with the pathology of denial are unable to see this for themselves.<br /><br />I'm not losing any arguments. We aren't having one. You are hammering a strawman, as has been demonstrated clearly above. Your blank denial of this *fact* tells us all we need to know about the state of your mind. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25194802697326742332013-11-26T08:59:19.672+11:002013-11-26T08:59:19.672+11:00Saying that those who disagree with you have menta...Saying that those who disagree with you have mental illnesses is an ad hominem. I think what you mean to say is that you don't give a stuff whether or not you use ad hominems. And that is fine as there is no law against it.<br /><br />As far as whether or not you give a stuff about the rhetoric of the opposing view, I suspect that might by why you are losing the argument. You are losing the argument because you are not convincing people to reduce CO2 emissions. The problem presented by Paul is your problem. China will probably double its CO2 emissions by 2030. India is not far behind. CO2 emissions will rise considerably each and every year from now through 2025. That is you losing the argument.<br /><br />Calling Paul's article a strawman is a waste of your time. He points out an issue that is valid regardless of which side one is on. Paul's point is valid. If those groups really understand what is happening in China and other places, they should be doing much more. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82308138393778833742013-11-26T08:51:19.051+11:002013-11-26T08:51:19.051+11:00Yes they are. They are turning the discussion tow...Yes they are. They are turning the discussion towards the person instead of the argument. Classic ad hominem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67910419094632860212013-11-26T08:13:41.119+11:002013-11-26T08:13:41.119+11:00Calling somebody a denier is making a statement ab...Calling somebody a denier is making a statement about their position. Saying that somebody is trolling is making a statement about their behavior and intentions. None of those are ad hominems.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61255874787607420772013-11-26T06:54:57.015+11:002013-11-26T06:54:57.015+11:00"Where did he misrepresent someone's posi..."Where did he misrepresent someone's position?"<br /><br />I've shown above in the article. Didn't you read it? People <b>are </b>"jumping up and down". The UN, Greenpeace, the UNFCC are all agitating for China specifically and countries in general to curb greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />(You may want people to jump up higher in China than they jump up in the USA or the UK or Australia or wherever you're from. But jump they are.)<br /><br />The fact that you can't see the strawman only proves my point of association that you think is ad hom. People who write "CAGW" typically are not very good at logic. So much so that it could be a definition.<br /><br />As for the rest - +1 what FrankD and BBD said.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com