Mike Rosen on Al Gore & global warming
One thing that is worth pointing out is Mr. Rosen’s misunderstanding of science. He says he is not a scientist, but neither is Al Gore. I’ve met both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Gore in person and discussed global warming with both. Mike Rosen, on global warming, you are no Al Gore. Al Gore has a clear and deep understanding of global warming issues; Mr. Rosen simply parrots long discredited skeptical claims. Mr. Rosen fundamentally doesn’t grasp that scientific credibility is not determined by the fame of a scientist (be it Copernicus or Galileo, to cite Mike’s examples), or even whether one is a scientist or not. Science is decided simply on the evidence. Copernicus and Galileo are respected because the evidence supports their theories. The evidence of global warming and mankind’s hand in it is unequivocal. Regardless of the few (and yes they are few) skeptical scientists, credible evidence in support of their viewpoint is non-existent.
This letter has not been edited.
I have checked many of the so called facts, to include the fallaicies at realclimate.org, and find that no one organization or respected scientist can prove global warming is strictly man's fault. One active volcano puts out more harmful pollutants than New York City in a day. Every planet in the solar system is seeing an increase in temperatures. Finally every respectably scientist will tell you that the computer models they use can not take every variable into account or accurately predict how the various variables interact. This is why we can not even accurately predicte the weather for the next 72 hours, much less for the future. So grow up and quit letting yourself be spoon feed your information.
Posted by Chris on October 27, 2007 02:55 PMAfter visiting "reaclimate" it was obvious to me that they are a cheerleader for Al Gore and global warming;
the U.S. and most other major countries (except for maybe China maybe India) over the last quater century cleaned-up their air significantly; I suspect that we will continue to find better technologies in the next quater century that will clean-up our air even more. Walt's assertions in his letter about Rosen I believe reveals a bias - pro Al Gore and global warming -
In my opinion (and I'm no scientist either) humans may or may not be the cause of global warming either way we should continue to find reasonable solutions to cleaner air for our good health.
Posted by brain on October 27, 2007 05:20 PMChris said a lot of things
” no one organization or respected scientist can prove global warming is strictly man's fault.”
Quite true on two grounds: Science doesn’t work that way, and in science “prove” simply means to “test”. In this sense it has been “proven” many times that human activities are the significant cause of the current warming event. However science will never “prove” anything in the sense that I suspect you mean the word – veridical and absolute.
”One active volcano puts out more harmful pollutants than New York City in a day. “
That would be irrelevant even if true. Firstly, it’s not “harmful pollutants” that are relevant, but gases and particulates that result in trapping infra-red radiation in the ecosystem. There are also a whole lot more cities and manufacturing plants coughing out greenhouse substances than there are volcanoes.
”Every planet in the solar system is seeing an increase in temperatures.”
Really? I would like to see a citation for that. Even if it were true though, it’s not necessarily relevant. They may be heating for very different reasons. Some of the planets, for instance, mostly get their heat from inside, and not from the sun.
”Finally every respectably scientist will tell you that the computer models they use can not take every variable into account or accurately predict how the various variables interact.”
Sure. Why would you think that the models would need to? We use models because climate is so darned complex and simpler methods don’t have the power to tease apart multi-variate mechanisms. So models are the best we can do, and the only tool we have precisely to “accurately predict how the various variables interact”. As to accuracy, they are actually surprisingly good these days, and continue to improve.
”This is why we can not even accurately predicte the weather for the next 72 hours, much less for the future. So grow up and quit letting yourself be spoon feed your information.”
Weather prediction and climate are not the same thing, and you are mistaken about weather prediction too. It’s a common bit of folklore that weather prediction is inaccurate, but yet when you look at the records, they are actually highly accurate within the bounds of variability. When the forecaster says that there is a 72% probability of snow, that likelihood doesn’t tell you that it will or won’t, but what the chances are. Those calculations are quite accurate. As far as climate goes, predictions of average annual rainfall, or expected count of days above or below a certain maximum or minimum temperature, etc. are actually quite stable and accurate.
Our ability to predict climate is actually quite highly developed and as technology and computing power increases, it improves and allows us to tease apart trends and events and cyclical processes.
I suggest that it is you who are “spoon fed” the pablum that makes up the denial of climate change, and it is you who have failed to do any thoughtful evaluation, but have rather taken the lazy and cowardly way out, and relied on the assertion and talking-points of people whose only credentials are that their political associations are agreeable to you.
Grow up and read the reports by the joint academies and the national science bodies, and stop basing your evaluation of facts on how well they align with political preference.
Start here:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
“The evidence of global warming and mankind’s hand in it is unequivocal.” Yeah , I’m sure, if Al Gore the scientist and inventor says so, it must be true.
So liberal California (later follower by other states) a wile back made outlawing cigarette smoking a priority in the name of clean air. Enjoy the smoke Calis, couldn’t happened to nicer people.
Uno old bean, you seem to have rather a fetish for this Gore fellah.
Is it a sex thing, or a daddy thing?
Who you calling old bean, Skunk, I have a fetish for pointing out liars and hypocrites on the left, and your living god Al Gore is one of them. I see your busy body liberal friends had a great idea of dumping used tires into the ocean, and now spending millions trying to clean up that mess, why don’t you go help them, see if you can hold your breath for 6 minutes.
Posted by Uno on October 28, 2007 08:54 AMThe one issue where liberals and left wingers are ultra conservative is global warming. On every other issue they embrace they want change, they say the old ways are bad and the new way(s) has to be better, that to be 'progressive' is to be open minded and forward looking. They berate and belittle conservatives for embracing the past and as being too afraid of the future. Maybe they're right. But on global climate matters God help you if you do not want to keep things exactly as they are right now and that change is bad and it is the end of the world if the climate heats up or cools down or whatever their choice is today. Does anyone know if the world being warmer is bad for us? Lots of chickenlittles (not chickenhawks) certainly think so.
Posted by Michael on October 28, 2007 09:31 AM Even if global warming is a farce, can't we all agree that using oil from extremely unstable countries isn't a very good idea? Providing terrorists in Arab countries
seems counter-productive to me. Here we are fighting them while at the same time providing them with billions of dollars! It's time to find better energy sources and the first step would be throwing the oil barons out of the White House.
"can prove global warming is strictly man's fault."
this is a common misconception on the far right.
NO ONE is saying that GW is "strictly" man's fault. Man is adversely influencing a normal warming pattern. The warming we are experiencing is not normal.
"Every planet in the solar system is seeing an increase in temperatures"
Another myth borne from far right wing media
"The claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."
Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim in September 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph in July 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."
Two days before Gore testified, Drudge purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!" One question asked:
How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?"
"every respectably scientist will tell you that the computer models they use can not take every variable into account or accurately predict how the various variables interact"
yes another myth:
"It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.
Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change."
" Yeah , I’m sure, if Al Gore the scientist and inventor says so, it must be true."
Here again we see an ad hominem attack on Gore. You know why the far right wingers attack Gore? Because if they say they simply refuse to believe every peer-reviewed, field-appopriate scientist on the planet it makes them sound like uneducated lunatics.
"Does anyone know if the world being warmer is bad for us? "
Yet ANOTHER myth
"Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected"
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 10:20 AMBangalore Skank,
Thank you for proving my point. When you go talking about just on volcanoe versus the many cities you fail to realize that the gases and pollutants produced by the volcanoe are much more toxic, many are the same types produced by man, and reach much higher in the atmosphere than normal pollutants. Second do you even realize how many active volcanoes there are in the world. Third the planet has many sources of naturally occuring pollutants besides volcanoes, i.e there are plants, trees, and animals that produce green house pollutants.
When you try to argue about climate prediction versus weather predicition you fail to realise that weather prediction has to be accurate to produce acurate climate predicitions. Climate predicition variables are at present even more difficult to predict than weather predictions, therefore without proper weather predictions you can not have proper climate predicitons. Then you have the obvious lies in Al Gore's and many of the climate fanatic's claims that you happen to be convienantly forgetting about. As for the websites you claim are good sources take a good long look at both their funding and (contrary to what you will obviously state they are not politcally unbiasesed) political bias (the get their funding from taxpayers's thus must try and scare the populace).
Yes, Banglore Skank, I do take the time to do proper analysis of topics. I do believe there is Global Warming, however, I believe that mankinds contrubutions are not as significant as the Global Warming Gurus would have us believe. After All these are the same people who just decades ago were telling us that global cooling was going to occur, that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle, etc. only later to find the evidence was incorrect and flawed. Remember to that many of their previous solutions often lead to greater problems.
Bangalore Skank,
Thank you for proving my point. When you go talking about just on volcanoe versus the many cities you fail to realize that the gases and pollutants produced by the volcanoe are much more toxic, many are the same types produced by man, and reach much higher in the atmosphere than normal pollutants. Second do you even realize how many active volcanoes there are in the world. Third the planet has many sources of naturally occuring pollutants besides volcanoes, i.e there are plants, trees, and animals that produce green house pollutants.
When you try to argue about climate prediction versus weather predicition you fail to realise that weather prediction has to be accurate to produce acurate climate predicitions. Climate predicition variables are at present even more difficult to predict than weather predictions, therefore without proper weather predictions you can not have proper climate predicitons. Then you have the obvious lies in Al Gore's and many of the climate fanatic's claims that you happen to be convienantly forgetting about. As for the websites you claim are good sources take a good long look at both their funding and (contrary to what you will obviously state they are not politcally unbiasesed) political bias (the get their funding from taxpayers's thus must try and scare the populace).
Yes, Banglore Skank, I do take the time to do proper analysis of topics. I do believe there is Global Warming, however, I believe that mankinds contrubutions are not as significant as the Global Warming Gurus would have us believe. After All these are the same people who just decades ago were telling us that global cooling was going to occur, that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle, etc. only later to find the evidence was incorrect and flawed. Remember to that many of their previous solutions often lead to greater problems.
P.S. By the way computer models still show that Bumble Bee's and Helicopter's shouldn't and can not fly.
Bangalore Skank,
Thank you for proving my point. When you go talking about just on volcanoe versus the many cities you fail to realize that the gases and pollutants produced by the volcanoe are much more toxic, many are the same types produced by man, and reach much higher in the atmosphere than normal pollutants. Second do you even realize how many active volcanoes there are in the world. Third the planet has many sources of naturally occuring pollutants besides volcanoes, i.e there are plants, trees, and animals that produce green house pollutants.
When you try to argue about climate prediction versus weather predicition you fail to realise that weather prediction has to be accurate to produce acurate climate predicitions. Climate predicition variables are at present even more difficult to predict than weather predictions, therefore without proper weather predictions you can not have proper climate predicitons. Then you have the obvious lies in Al Gore's and many of the climate fanatic's claims that you happen to be convienantly forgetting about. As for the websites you claim are good sources take a good long look at both their funding and (contrary to what you will obviously state they are not politcally unbiasesed) political bias (the get their funding from taxpayers's thus must try and scare the populace).
Yes, Banglore Skank, I do take the time to do proper analysis of topics. I do believe there is Global Warming, however, I believe that mankinds contrubutions are not as significant as the Global Warming Gurus would have us believe. After All these are the same people who just decades ago were telling us that global cooling was going to occur, that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle, etc. only later to find the evidence was incorrect and flawed. Remember to that many of their previous solutions often lead to greater problems.
P.S. By the way computer models still show that Bumble Bee's and Helicopter's shouldn't and can not fly.
Jay, since you exhale some spiritus sylvestre also, please save the environment and put a trashbag over your head to keep it from escaping. Also run your car only in your garage, you are ruining everybody’s air.
Posted by Uno on October 28, 2007 01:35 PMwow walt says Mike recycles stuff and I guess algore the bore brings new ideas all the time. if algore believed in anything he said why does he live the way he does and expect all of his sheepist followers to give up their lives because he says so? when algore stops emitting co2 I will think about listening to him.
Posted by on October 28, 2007 01:43 PM"Climate predicition variables are at present even more difficult to predict than weather predictions,"
Still a myth
"these are the same people who just decades ago were telling us that global cooling was going to occur"
also still a myth
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 01:46 PMjay, "Here again we see an ad hominem attack on Gore. You know why the far right wingers attack Gore?"
Here, you complain about an ad hominem attack, but then immediately engage in one yourself.
"Because if they say they simply refuse to believe every peer-reviewed, field-appopriate scientist on the planet it makes them sound like uneducated lunatics."
No, jay. If Al Gore adopted a more modest lifestyle befitting someone who believes that living too large is killing the planet and really wants to save it, then I might take him and his cause seriously. But he doesn't, so I can't.
He has two mansions that measure about 14,000 square feet between them. He uses about 20 times more electricity than the average person. He flies around in a private jet which, on a per passenger basis, uses more fuel and emits more pollution than a commerical airline, when flying commercial would do.
When he refuses to debate any skeptic, that tells me that he knows what he's been preaching is a fraud and is fearful of being exposed.
Uno asked ”Who you calling old bean, Skunk,”
You, ducky.
” I have a fetish for pointing out liars and hypocrites on the left”
So that’s what you think you are doing.
Go figure.
So what do you do about liars and hypocrites on the right or in the middle?
”… and your living god Al Gore is one of them.”
Say what?
I think you reckon that since you are into idolatry, everybody else also is.
Global warming and climate science aren’t dependant of what Gore says, and I don’t give a rat’s arse what he does or what he thinks, I care about the science.
Savvy?
” I see your busy body liberal friends had a great idea of dumping used tires into the ocean”
Not my friends bub, but at least they tried something and we can learn from the failure, whereas Conservatives tend to just do “more of the same” in response to pressure.
You lot have a tendency to think that relying on tradition will always see you through.
Dave said ” If Al Gore adopted a more modest lifestyle befitting someone who believes that living too large is killing the planet and really wants to save it, then I might take him and his cause seriously. But he doesn't, so I can't.”
Dave, do you know how insane your position is?
Hypocracy is a moral failing, not a failure of truth. Saying you won’t accept the truth of what Gore says about climate change until he aligns his lifestyle with what he says, shows that you confuse facts with morals.
You should take what he says seriously based on its scientific merit, not on Gore’s personal habits.
Look up the logical fallacy of ad hominem
“fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it.” at www.philosophypages.com
jay, "NO ONE is saying that GW is 'strictly' man's fault."
But there are claims that it is primarily man's fault, which I find dubious at best.
From http://www.calforestfoundation.org/
"The Forest Foundation said today that the Angora Fire, which charred 3,100 acres near South Lake Tahoe, caused an estimated 190,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. The decay of trees killed by the fire could bring total emissions to 794,000 tons, putting the fire's impact on global warming at the equivalent of driving 143,000 cars for a year."
This was just one relatively small (less than 5 sq. miles) forest fire that happened last July. When it comes to global warming from "greenhouse gases", the impact that humans have as compared to the rest of nature is miniscule.
One thing I find odd is that environmentalists, on the one hand, point to automobiles as a major cause of GW. Yet on the other, when it comes to forest fires that have a much greater impact, the attitude is "Let them burn!".
Posted by Dave on October 28, 2007 06:30 PMBangalore Skank,
But even Al Gore said of the "climate crisis", "It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue. "
And we're not talking about hypocrisy from some personal quirk of his. We have been told repeatedly that our living large, the very kind of lifestyle that he enjoys, is what's killing the planet.
If he insists on continuing the very behavior that, we are told, is doing this damage, how in the world can anyone take his views or his remedies seriously? Particularly, when the rest of us are expected to live more modestly.
Posted by Dave on October 28, 2007 06:57 PMDave, you are still running two distinct things together. Hypocrisy is a failing of character and behaviour and has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of a claim.
Gore’s moral or ethical or behavioural failings have nothing at all to do with whether what he or anybody else says about climate change is true or not.
” If he insists on continuing the very behavior that, we are told, is doing this damage, how in the world can anyone take his views or his remedies seriously? “
You would take them seriously based on their factual content, not on the characteristics of the person saying them.
If one thief accuses another of being a thief, we are to judge the claim on its own merits and not discount it because of who says it. By your water a thief is not a thief if another thief accuses him of being one!
That is an irrational way of approaching facts.
The bigger question is why you are paying so much attention to Gore rather than the science bodies who represent the considered scientific position?
This is a childish game of “gotcha” where each political grouping ignores the facts as long as they feel they can score petty points off each other, while opportunities to remedy the problem are missing.
Mr.Gore’s lifestyle is regrettable and probably immoral, but is irrelevant to whether what he says about climate change is true or not.
Again, Mr.Gore does not decide what science will find or conclude, and his position as pillory-boy for the right, and poster-boy for those who call themselves left, is wholly and entirely a distraction from the real business of the science and what it is telling us.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 28, 2007 07:17 PMHey Skunk, ““fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it.””, it worked in the OJ trial.
Seriously, if the disqualifying feature of that person’s actions is the direct opposite of the proposition, than it does qualify for disqualification on the premise, that the credibility and truthfulness of the proposition has been diminished by that person’s own actions. I think that “fallacy” argument meant to cover cases where the proposition in it’s self and the disqualifying feature of the person do not directly contradict.
Uno, yeah sure, butto the extent that it “worked” in the OJ trial is an indication of how flawed the justice system can be rather than an indication that it is a rational method of handling facts.
”… if the disqualifying feature of that person’s actions is the direct opposite of the proposition, than it does qualify for disqualification on the premise, that the credibility and truthfulness of the proposition has been diminished by that person’s own actions”
Nope.
It tells you that they are a hypocrite, but not that they are wrong. As humans we judge the book by its cover and indeed tend to judge the truth of what somebody says by (a) how much like us they are, and (b) by their actions.
While these are (very) rough guides, they are still basically irrational.
So no, it would not be justification to dismiss Gore.
Call him a wanker for sure, but ignoring climate change because he says something about it, is nuts.
Bang galore, I’m dismissing Gore’s credibility on this matter based on his own actions, and the climate science community based on the fact that they guessing, and don’t have a straightforward answer as to how much human activity is contributing to the climate change. Based on this, I definitely wouldn’t support any government action which may have a crippling effect on the economy. There is nothing wrong with looking at alternate energy sources and cutting back energy use, as long as it’s not a large-scale government mandate. As the cost of energy keeps rising, it will take care it’s self on the long term, without Gore’s mouth.
Posted by Uno on October 28, 2007 08:19 PM"the climate science community based on the fact that they guessing, and don’t have a straightforward answer as to how much human activity is contributing to the climate change. "
Yet another myth
" I definitely wouldn’t support any government action which may have a crippling effect on the economy."
No one is asking you to, chicken little
"There is nothing wrong with looking at alternate energy sources and cutting back energy use, as long as it’s not a large-scale government mandate."
corporate self policing has shown to be a failing policy many times over...what happens when you don't learn from history, uno?
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 09:23 PMBangalore Skank , "You would take them seriously based on their factual content, not on the characteristics of the person saying them. "
Odd. Earlier, you didn't give the same courtesy to skeptics when you accused them of "[relying] on the assertion and talking-points of people whose only credentials are that their political associations are agreeable to [them]." After all, if what the skeptics are claiming is true, their political associations shouldn't matter.
Posted by Dave on October 28, 2007 11:40 PMUno said ” I’m dismissing Gore’s credibility on this matter based on his own actions, and the climate science community based on the fact that they guessing, and don’t have a straightforward answer as to how much human activity is contributing to the climate change”
Science is at its best just a better and more reliable form of guessing.
So you have a choice, sit and do nothing and hope it all goes away, or face the high probability that science is right and that something needs to be done.
I choose science over ideology when it comes to describing what is happening in nature, you evidently choose ideology and hope that science is wrong.
” I definitely wouldn’t support any government action which may have a crippling effect on the economy’
Why not?
What if that’s what it takes to keep a livable ecosystem?
Crippling the economy may be the best option you get – or would you prefer death to a bad economy? ;)
” There is nothing wrong with looking at alternate energy sources and cutting back energy use, as long as it’s not a large-scale government mandate.”
That makes no sense.
What if large-scale government mandates is what it will take?
We don’t yet know what it will take to maintain a comfortable ecosystem or even if that is going to be an option – seems to me that ruling out options based on ideological preferences at this stage would be premature.
” As the cost of energy keeps rising, it will take care it’s self on the long term, without Gore’s mouth”
Half right, it has nothing to do with Gore.
As far as self-regulation through energy costs, this is what you hope, not what is likely.
Dave, so now what you want to do is shift the same faulty reasoning over to me?
I see you still don’t quite get the concept.
If I dismiss arguments on the basis of who utters them, then I am guilty of fallacious reasoning and that is a failing on my part, not a reason for you to think that I must be wrong about ad hominem arguments.
Bangalore Skank,
Oh, I get the concept. The problem is that by your refusing to adopt your own advice says that even you don't believe in it. It's a waste to follow your advice, when even you won't follow it yourself.
Posted by Dave on October 29, 2007 09:21 AMDave said ”Oh, I get the concept. The problem is that by your refusing to adopt your own advice says that even you don't believe in it. It's a waste to follow your advice, when even you won't follow it yourself.”
Evidently you are now saying that if I don’t follow my own advice then it can’t be true, which is exactly where you started off – claiming that truth is determined by the personal attributes of the speaker, rather than by the factual value of the claim itself.
So no, you don’t get the concept and you are happy to be irrational.
All you are doing is recursing the same faulty thinking in on itself and producing more faulty reasoning.
Do you perhaps hold that belief determines truth?