Hi, Sure, nothing wrong with sanitizing the other side of the argument from air-headery.
I must say that I am disheartened by the number of “sheep” led to slaughter by global warming “scientists” such as Al Gore.You claim this to be a “no B.S. thread” but by staking “a defense of man made global warming” you stand smack dab in the middle of said B.S. To add to that irony, you submit for reference formulas of logical fallacies which, I will demonstrate, you should have applied to “sanitize out the bad argument” of defending man made global warming. Allow me to site just a few examples from the formulas you provided:
1. Appeal to Authority: You make the assertion that QVP is appealing to the authority of Ian Clark, so let’s apply the same rationale in your response to him to the position you defend.
You appeal to the authority of Al Gore? Let me just pause here for a moment of silence…. I’m sorry, I just couldn’t stop laughing. Those of your camp also conveniently ignore that the scientists feeding information to this paper tiger are government-funded. Please don’t ignore that information in the 20/20 video QVP provided while you’re sanitizing fallacious reasoning.
This is not starting very well. Al Gore is not an authority, he is a spokesperson. Resorting to him as an authority would be fallacious indeed but I never once mentioned is name in that way. Your being dishonest right off the bat. I don't give a rats behind about Al Gore.
I submit also this question... why do you think that government founded research would yield positive confirmation that it's man-made. ? Isn't there a bit of cynicism in that remark ? Also, Who do you suggest should found research ?
2. Appeal to Belief/Popularity: First of all, I don’t know that man made global warming is now, or ever was, the majority/popular opinion. I do know that Al Gore and the global elite made wise use of the liberal media to create that image/fear (kind of like the fear of mutually assured self destruction during the Cold War era). Given your response in another thread
, I know you are aware of the broadening grasp of the media but it would appear that you are unaware of, and have fallen prey to, the danger of such (mind) control.
Could you demonstrate that it has ? Mass media control is much more pervasive in the U.S. then elsewhere (to my knowledge) and it's also in the U.S. that you find the most vocal scepticism. So, no, I do not see the correlation.
Furthermore, if you want to call a specific argument fallacious, you need to identify the argument. Just pointing out to media conglomeration is not sufficient. However, if one was to say... Global warming is true, since most people say it is... it would be fallacious indeed.
3. Appeal to Fear: ‘Man made global warming is causing polar bears to drown and if it continues, sea levels will rise twenty feet and drown you too.’
I agree that if this was to be rephrased in the form of an argument (as it stand above, it's an explication, not an argument) it would be a fallacious. The fallacious argument would read something like "Man made global warming is true because polar bears are drowning and if it continues, sea levels will rise twenty feet and drown you too."
4. Begging the Question: Man made global warming is destroying the planet.
From your reference, “This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." “
Same problem, the above is not an argument. If your able to somehow rephrase that into an argument it would be fallacious. I suspect in this case it would sound silly and ineffective. I don't care to try and write it. The above is a statement that is either true or false, but it's not an argument. If you are inspired however, and do find the way to write it in the form of an argument, I would agree with you that it would be a fallacious argument.
5. Biased Sample: “The debate is over.”
Same problem, that is not an argument but a statement, which can be true or false.
Without wanting to be to condescending, you need to bone up on the difference between an argument
, or a simple statement. I am not however against the idea of weeding out the fallacies on the other side of the fence. I just don't think it has has much value since I don't read such errors propagated here.