Nice find Baron.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:


Thanks Bobby

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:


Keep up the good work. 

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:


Really.....and you reckon you are Moderator material.....sneakily altering what people post....(in this case....me.)  Nah.  Not on Bobby.

No Moderator post for you!

Aussie wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:



OK - in future - I will just point out your disrespect for attacking David DuByne as a snake oil salesman.

Otherwise - I'll just ignore your nasty trolling posts.

Once again - Aussie attacks the man not the message.

Why do posters take the easy way out-
just put labels on someone they don't like?

Call them a snake oil salesman - don't say why -
that would be too intellectually difficult.

Think of any form of abuse -
argumentum ad hominem.




http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem


ad hominem


"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:50am:



Yes. And it still does.

California - 200 year drought -  before AGW. So plenty of natural variation.

Claims of AGW for Cyclone Harvey - but Harvey stalled over Houston for 4 days, constantly being replenished. But it was AGW "wot dunnit".

From your link -

"Today, scientists still generally agree that it's impossible to attribute any individual weather phenomenon solely to climate change. Storms, fires, droughts and other events are influenced by a variety of complex factors. And they're all acting at once, including both natural components of the climate system and sometimes unrelated human activities. For instance, a wildfire may be made more likely by hot, dry weather conditions, and by human land-use practices."

"New scientific data debunks the hyperventilating journalists suggesting the latest hurricanes to hit the United States, Harvey and Irma, were the cause of man-made Climate Change.

As explained by environmental analyst Nicholas Loris — who cites findings and analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Hurricane Center — "Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma."

"As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls," states Loris. "Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years." "
https://www.dailywire.com/news/21289/study-no-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma-were-no...

And then there were the claims that the four hurricanes at one time was confirmation of AGW.

Damn JM you are getting sillier and sillier.