Littleshop. You have logic problems with your posts here. Here are a couple...
If I was in a message board trying to have a discussion and a small group was yelling about how the earth was flat or 2+2=5 I would want to shut them up too. Putting up debunked junk journal links proving 2+2=5 that link to further lies does not help.
False equivalence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence You seem to imply that people who doubt AGW theories, or see a political angle are like those who believe 2+2=5. This is also an oversimplification and a bit of ad hominem.
You are doing badly. Try again,
If I was in a message board trying to have a discussion and a small group was yelling about how the earth was flat or 2+2=5 I would want to shut them up too. Putting up debunked junk journal links proving 2+2=5 that link to further lies does not help.
False equivalence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence You seem to imply that people who doubt AGW theories, or see a political angle are like those who believe 2+2=5. This is also an oversimplification and a bit of ad hominem.
Quote
Just like cigarettes don't cause cancer right because you can't put 2 + 2 together. The evidence is overwhelming. The only thing not certain is the extent and what to do about it.
False equivalence again, with ad hominim again, but this time with the added bonus of a strawman. A hat trick!You are doing badly. Try again,
Just because you claim false equivalence does not make it so. For instance, I could accuse you of that logic fallacy in your post. You are falsely equating his assertion with false equivalence, thereby using it yourself.
Really it comes down to biases for me and what is the underlying cognitive defect of you people to be so nonsensical. We got 45 pages and Wilky telling us some video is great... the video by a guy who has issues with vaccines. Now I'm sure some of you will be like 'hes a free thinker', but a lot of us will be like..
Logical fallacies actually work pretty well in politics, and even in common speech, but on text driven Internet forums they ring false. And that's where we are. AGW by the way is a common place for discussion of logical arguments because so many of them by the true believers are not at all logical (and yes, a smaller but recognizable group are not logical by the skeptics of the global warming theory-that-is-not-a-theory).
tl;dr
Are you the logic professor?
So is every analogy a "false equivalence" ? lol.
Maybe I should ask again what the basic fallacy with the basic science of man made global warming is, but I'm sure I'll once again hear nothing but crickets.
Thank you for the link.
