Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 Next
Comments 115251 to 115300:
-
Sean A at 10:56 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Regarding the University's response posted above. Apparently there was an omission (apparently by Jo Nova), and according to Rabett Run, here's the proper reading: "Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further about your decision to sully the University of St. Thomas, Professor Abraham, and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham." -
michael sweet at 10:40 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
On the other hand, the average ocean depth is only about 3700 m. According to: Kohl A, Stammer D: Decadal sea level changes in the 50-Year GECCO ocean synthesis. J Clim 2008, 21:1876-1890. the energy in the deep ocean has only penetrated to the 3000 meter level so far. When I eyeball your graph it seems to me that the average of 0-700m compared to the average of 700-3000 is not that far from what Trenberth stated in Chris's reference in #33. It is difficult to decide the best way to average the values. Why don't we just use Trenberth's numbers, since he has probably spent a lot of effort checking it? Personally, I value a number from a peer reviewed paper more than one that I see in an on-line blog. The authors put in a lot of time writing and reviewing the published calculation and it is not possible for bloggers to match that effort. If an error can be clearly shown that is one thing, but just offering a calculation or a graph and saying the paper is wrong is not convincing to me. If Trenberth is wrong, cite a paper that points out the correct answer. -
thingadonta at 10:31 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
#6: there's one other source of extra water in the oceans worth mentioning: emptying of underground reservoirs. As I, somewhat unreliably, remember it it's a measurable contribution but not huge." There is another source of extra water in the oceans,which is the origin of most of the world's oceans- when magmas in the earths crust cool, they expel water. The Mid Ocean Rifts are several times the length of the earth's circumferance, and cooling, rising magmas expel water all along these locations. Water is also extracted from oceans in subduction zones by descending crust. The overall balance is thought to be neutral, but it may not always be, especially during violent volcanic periods. -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
"We still can't be sure there is a problem, but if there is one, the solution was ready thirty years ago." Well obviously I strongly disagree with you about perception of the problem and I can only assume that your reluctance to consider consilience is the basis of such belief. However, you find it strange that you gloss over problems associated with your "30 year old" solution, while nitpicking on renewables. "Sorry, I can never trust people who emphasize the problem but ignore the solution." Pardon? You wouldnt trust an astronomer who was telling you about an asteroid heading for earth because he/she couldnt propose a solution? I find this laughable. A climate scientist is the right person to be telling you what the physics of climate is and how current action will affect it. This is pretty much guaranteed to be the a different person to that to inform on energy alternatives and economic/political solution to such a problem. "Who were actually careful enough to eliminate the solution in advance from public discourse, R+D and business before they've started advertising the problem." Sorry, you are accusing climate scientists of working to ensure that discourse and R&D on nuclear was eliminated before springing AGW on the public? Really? -
kdkd at 09:17 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Looking at the graph in #192 it looks like a bit over 19 billion dollars are wasted on crappy solutions, which is three times less than the fossil fuel subsidy, and a little less than double what "proper" renewables get in subsidy. -
kdkd at 09:15 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #191 "I have a strong distaste against all non-solutions run on taxpayer's money, destroying the environment very visibly here and now, justified by projection of disaster a hundred years from now, perhaps, with some probability, based on speculation and measurements where signals get lost in noise." So let's see. On the tax payer's money furfy:
The "destroying the environment" claim is laughable, and has been corrected for you on a number of occasions.
Your second point is on the possiblity of disaster around the end of the 21st century.
Well, if we take your distinctly reductionist view, and selective reporting of the evidence - generally avoiding an integrated view of the topic (another one of my points that you've avoided addressing, again presumably because you can't), and a fair amount of mis-reporting apparently because you feel the need to confirm your preconceptions, then yes you might have a point. But the balance of the evidence, when viewed holistically suggests, very strongly, that if we haven't got on top of the fossil fuel problem by some time between 2020 and 2050, then it will be very hard to avert disaster that threatenes the infrastructure on which civilisation depends by 2100.
-
adelady at 09:04 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
@KR Thanks for that - straight into favourites. Easy, concise, absolutely terrific. -
Berényi Péter at 08:52 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#189 scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 16 July, 2010 I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills! :-) (I am joking) I have a strong distaste against all non-solutions run on taxpayer's money, destroying the environment very visibly here and now, justified by projection of disaster a hundred years from now, perhaps, with some probability, based on speculation and measurements where signals get lost in noise. We still can't be sure there is a problem, but if there is one, the solution was ready thirty years ago. Sorry, I can never trust people who emphasize the problem but ignore the solution. Who were actually careful enough to eliminate the solution in advance from public discourse, R+D and business before they've started advertising the problem. -
DarkSkywise at 08:43 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #187: OK, so it looks a bit like pink noise. ;) But is there any proof that it continues at 9 dB/octave below 1Hz? And can you imagine the horrors at, say, 0.001 Hz if it did? We wouldn't have any buildings left standing! scaddenp #189: "I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills!" Windmills are cool. (I'm Dutch.) :P In fact, there's even one quite close to my house, well within BP's 2 km safety range. (It's a Classic Turbineless Wooden Windmill, though, which probably explains why I'm not dead yet.) -
Hypnos at 08:25 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Now I know why the cockroaches comment irked me so. There is an historic precedent. A radio openly calling for a "final war" to "exterminate the cockroaches Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines. The main Hutu broadcast from Kigali, Rwanda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm -
scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP - so another reason why you dont like wind power. Got any more you can dredge up? I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills! :-) (I am joking). More seriously though your objections dont seem to scale up against the problems associated with nuclear. For what's worth, I think we need both. Everything we do has problems associated with it but somehow we need a habitable planet with sufficient energy supply so you have to choose your poison. Moreover, I don't like the risks and costs associated with postponing action on climate change and windpower is more desirable than fast breeder nuclear for now. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 08:11 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
robhon & dhogaza yes, Wiki is a good resource. Nice quote: "Several studies have suggested a high prevalence of neuropsychiatric disorders and mental symptoms in Graves' disease (and thyroid disease in general), which are similar to those in patients with organic brain disease" -
kdkd at 08:04 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #187 "And yes, these low frequencies, even if inaudible, influence hearing of every able person." However, you have not managed to show much, if any clinical significance here, with the possible (but unclear) exception that some people with pre-existing conditions may have a rather poorly defined problem. And it does amuse me very much that you are avoiding addressing my comments on your very selective use of the precautionary principle. -
Hypnos at 08:02 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
WUWT has a "comment of the week" post where scientists and AGW supporters are called cockroaches and rats, and their extermination is actively called for. The comments are unreadable. It sounds like a lynch party. This is out of control. And who the hell knows if the next Timothy McVeigh is lurking out there. -
dhogaza at 07:42 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Regarding #57, this section of the abstract seems relevant: "A substantial proportion of patients have an altered mental state even after successful treatment of hyperthyroidism, suggesting that mechanisms other than hyperthyroidism, including the Graves' autoimmune process per se and ophthalmopathy, may also be involved. When psychiatric disorders remain after restoration of euthyroidism and after treatment with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, specific treatment for the psychiatric symptoms, especially psychotropic drugs, may be needed." -
Berényi Péter at 07:36 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#184 DarkSkywise at 01:10 AM on 16 July, 2010 The red line in your graph sure looks a lot like "pink noise", doesn't it? Not really. It is much steeper (something like 9 dB/octave).
The main point is you can't measure wind turbine noise with a microphone, you need a microbarometer. And A-weighted filter is out of the question (although noise regulations use it). And yes, these low frequencies, even if inaudible, influence hearing of every able person.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:25 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Cornelius... That's incredible. It explains so much!! There's also a good wiki page on Graves Disease. -
tobyjoyce at 07:09 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
@KR, Excellent website. Another site you might like is Massimo Piglucci's Rationally Speaking Piglucci is an an evolutionary biologist turned professor of philosophy. He has many online talks about common logicla fallacies and distringuishing science from non-science. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 07:09 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Although I am not trying to evoke sympathy for the man, Monckton is an unfortunate sufferer of Graves disease, a nasty and uncomfortable condition that is the cause of his enlarged eyes. The psychiatric symptoms are well worth looking up. -
scaddenp at 06:52 AM on 16 July 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
AWoL - I hope that is sarcasm. As to scientists response - I suppose a deep respect for the truth is holding them back. -
Berényi Péter at 06:32 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
#49 michael sweet at 09:43 AM on 15 July, 2010 Since deep water is colder then surface water, the graph you copied with constant temperature is not relevant to the discussion. It is not quite so. Volumetric thermal expansion coefficient as a function of depth with an approximate global average temperature profile looks like this:
This is the temperature profile used (it is 3°C below 2000 m):
The curve above has a minimum around 1000 m. You can only decrease sea level by a simple redistribution of heat if it does not go too deep.
On the other hand we know (e.g. from 14C) almost all the water at intermediate levels is several thousand years old (the time since it has seen surface). It is also the case the deeper you go the less water is in a specific layer. On top of that specific heat of water decreases slightly with increasing pressure.
It is not easy to find a realistic heat redistribution pattern that does not increase sea level while sucking in more heat from above.
But global ocean is not a very good thermometer, that much is true.
-
KR at 06:28 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Logical Fallacies overview: After some poking around I found my favorite link on this (which I keep forgetting to bookmark!). Dr. Michael C. Labossiere - Fallacies in logic, via The Nizkor Project This is a great set of descriptions of various logical errors, including Strawman, Appeal to Common Practice, Ad hominem, Burden of Proof, Slippery Slope, etc. I highly recommend this or similar sources as basic reading when evaluating the quality of a particular debate, or a collection of a particular debater's arguments. As a personal aside, I often see the "Burden of Proof" error committed on the 'skeptic' side when asserting unscrupulous science or data manipulation, such as "All the data has been tweaked to make your conclusion true!". -
KR at 06:04 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
shdwsnlite - "...there are instances when the persons motives and character do reflect on the argument" (emphasis added) Well, that's true when what you are discussing is why someone is making a particular argument. A persons motives and character do not, however, affect the validity of their argument. I've heard perfectly valid arguments from homeless drunks, and perfectly invalid arguments from pillars of the community. The issue with ad hominem arguments (and other logical fallacies) is that you have to pay attention to discount them. It's entirely too easy to get caught up in these debating tricks and get carried along. These tactics are dishonest - but sadly they are often effective in the public arena... -
AWoL at 06:04 AM on 16 July 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Just read through Monckton's reply to Dr Abraham.Must say I found it pretty impressive. Abraham doesn't come out of it well at all(IMHO). In fact overall, despite,allegedly, having this overwhelming consensus of some 3000 scientists, isn't it odd that they can't find some one with the erudition and panache to match his Lordship? A curious lack of passion and interest seems to pervade the scientists...or so it seems to me. -
villabolo at 05:33 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Just another thought. We should start saving videos posted on You Tube like the one that NickD mentioned and others where he makes any inane comment. The reason is because there's the strong likelihood that they may be removed. This is very likely to happen if our 'Lord' ever gets sued himself and his attorneys advise him to do the George Orwell thing. This should be a serious consideration, all the more, if the Oil Companies and their connection to their puppet(s) get any public exposure. Furthermore, in view of the way things are going with Global Warming, these videos and other internet archived information will make for good Historical documentation. They could also be used in future Crimes against Humanity Trials. Seriously. -
tobyjoyce at 04:51 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
I saw Monckton on video telling an audience that President Obama was on the way to Copenhagen to help set up a Communist world government. He is also on video (I think it is caught on one of Peter Sinclair's Climate Crocks) joking about "needing only a freshly minted Hawaiian birth certificate" to become President. Monckton clearly studies his audience. I have a small acquaintance with the art of giving presentations, and for all you may say about Monckton, he is a master. He clearly positions himself above the audience, but also seeming to explain clearly some difficult concepts. My guess is that he rehearses incessantly in front of a video camera and strives to set the right tone. Clearly, some of his scientific "facts" are rote-learned and here Abraham has struck a real nerve. Monckton has teh nerve and chutzpah to win debates, but to be challenged in the cold light of day is a different proposition. His efforts are primarily sales presentations. Truthfulness and sincerity are not the strong points, nor is modesty. I actually sympathise with some of the rubes at WUWT who have been conned by a master practitioner. Peter Sinclair's two videos are excellent deconstructions. -
shdwsnlite at 04:37 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
KR at 01:48 AM on 16 July, 2010 Thank you for posting that link. It seems sometimes in these discussions terms like "straw man", " ad hominem" and others are tossed in without a real understanding of their meaning. In addition an ad hominem is not necessarily inappropriate as there are instances when the persons motives and character do reflect on the argument. -
robert way at 04:14 AM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Peter Hogarth, I actually quite like the format of the image you showed. Next time I put together something like that I will have to consider putting something similar together as I find it shows a lot things. Thank you for pointing this out. I ended up adapting a figure from the copenhagen diagnosis for my one that you will see tomorrow. It will actually look kinda messy because of so many results being included. I don't remember which paper I saw it in but a recent paper shows a nice plot which just uses dots with error bars. I think that format is more visible. Your scott polar research institute link was interesting too. I had not really kept up with the literature and advances in Autosubs but it seems to me that this is the drection of the future for not only paleoclimatic research but for mineral resources and so on. I find the work really interesting but I must admit that I find it surprising that more grant funding isn't available for missions such as these considering their importance for scientific advancements. -
villabolo at 04:11 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
robhon at 01:51 AM on 16 July, 2010 "As others have suggested here, I think he is only going to bring the house down on himself." ******************************************************* Why not help bring down the house upon him? I strongly suggest we go on the offensive against Lord Monckton and company instead of just lying still and taking his abuse. The obvious has been been brought up on the Support John Abraham site as well as this one, namely, that our 'Lord' has a Narcissistic Disorder. We should study that disorder. Knowing his weakness is the first step necessary. Then we must think of ways to flip his lid. Perhaps an expose video, calculated to irk him at a critical moment, might help? And/or sending him a friendly e-mail X a zillion? This is war. It has been war. We need to treat it accordingly. ******************************************************* http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms -
NickD at 03:23 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Toby, glad you found it! Visiting that site makes my head hurt. It was pointed out by another poster at Rabett's place that part of the response from the University was probably based on things Mr. Monckton had previously said on the public airwaves regarding Father Dease and the University, such as: From the Alex Jones show, 24 June 2010 part 5/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQdKDeDjqI) "...that, on its own, would be an offense for which he would be dismissed from a real university, but then he only belongs this half-assed Catholic Bible college" (1:10) "...but apparently in this Bible college, lying is part of what they regard as their Christian mission..." (2:45) "...I want you to email this creep of a President, Father Dennis J. Dease..."(08:30) I imagine many more comments like this (such as his Nazi references) will be coming out into the public domain and his claims of being the victim of ad-homs will become evermore ridiculous. He's spent years digging his hole without any serious pushback. Time for him to reap what he has sown. -
Peter Hogarth at 03:18 AM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Robert Way at 23:47 PM on 15 July, 2010 Another informative and purposeful piece of science writing. Thanks. I tracked down this image but it is regional (GPS may also merit mention in your elevation discussion as yet another independent check and control). Sorry about resolution, it's better on original.
It is from this rather nice SCAR presentation. I do remember another more comprehensive image like the IPCC one, but can't remember where from!
-
robert way at 03:12 AM on 16 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
HumanityRules Thank you for your kindness, 1) Without detailed paleoclimatic knowledge of glacier velocities we cannot make any assumptions. That being said it is important to note as mspelto pointed out that what we do know is that glacier velocities have significantly increased across many regions on both ice sheets. In Pine Island Bay velocities have nearly doubled in the last 20 years. This evidence points to more than just velocities fluctuating over time. 2) The Bell Review is a good paper and there are many others. Frankly I could of pointed to papers which discussed each topic directly but that is overly time consuming when a Review such as Bell’s exists. Overall I can say that scientists are never going to make definitive statements without 100% certainty. If Bell at some point made statements with that certainty, then he would be blasted the one time where things don’t work as he explained. The effects of buttressing and grounding line retreat are well known though and have been measured tangibly. Rignot et al. 2004 and Rignot et al. 2008 b are two papers I can think of that are interesting on the topic. 3) The hypothesized link to AGW is through changes in wind patterns bringing warming ocean water into the regions where glaciers occur. Essentially the consensus view is that it is the oceans which are causing the grounding line retreats and ice losses in the most dynamic regions. Just a theory but yet evidence supports it. If current Antarctic losses are caused by AGW or not is irrelevant because if we cause oceans to warm in the future we know that it will have effects on ice sheet mass balance. Once again, no certainties but pretty good estimates. 4) Part three will address your concerns and note that melt isn’t the primary mechanism that glacier accelerations occur in Antarctica. Melt is an important thing to consider in other regions however. -
tobyjoyce at 02:53 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
To answer my own question, the correspondence between Monckton and the University can be read here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/warm-abraham-correspondence.doc You can see that Monckton came across as so high-handed that the U had no choice but to give him the bum's rush. -
Alexandre at 02:45 AM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
I agree with pkm #3. Every line of evidence in the science that backs up AGW is in agreement with the other ones. Multiple lines of evidence agreeing with each other. Deniers pick one apparently disagreeing lonely sutdy (usually not even a study, but a mere blog or op-ed text)and bandy it out as the uncovered revelation of "The Truth". Different approaches, consistent results. What else can we demand in terms of scientific evidence? -
snapple at 02:38 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
The Catholic Church believes that global warming is happening. They also accept evolution. Monckton reminds me of the those charlatans in Huckleberry Finn---Duke and Dauphin. They got tarred and feathered when people caught on. -
robert way at 02:31 AM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, with respect to the 2nd paper. It is an interesting result but lets consider that melting is of little concern in Antarctic when compared with calving and its effects on mass balance. I suggest you read http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-One-Why-do-glaciers-lose-ice.html for more information if you like. Either way, interesting paper. -
tobyjoyce at 02:28 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
NickD Where is the USt.Thomas statement posted? Monckton did not help his case by called the institution a "Bible college" in one of his earlier effusions. I imagine Father Dease as a down-to-earth Irish-American, a rather unlikely stereotype to be impressed by a blustering English Lord. It is amazing how the contributors at WUWT really lap up the "Lord" stuff. Watts has done up a condensation of Monckton's screed (a condensation consisting of 99 pages!), but the word "Lord" is repeated about 40 times a page. It's "Lord Monckton this ..." and "Lord Monckton that" - you can almost see the forelock being touched. Some "Republicans"! -
robert way at 02:28 AM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Arkadiusz Semczyszak, I suggest you in fact read the paper you just cited. Wingham et al. 2006 uses a low resolution radar altimeter for its analysis. Notice the description given for radar altimetry above. Radar altimeters of low resolution are not as accurate as other measurement types. Thomas et al. 2008 compares radar and laser altimetry over Greenland and finds that radar underestimates the mass loss there by 75±15 km3. So with all due respect I understand that you may not know these things about remote sensing but you should take the time to at least read up on the subject before trying to rub it in someones face. -
DarkSkywise at 02:16 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
robhon #36: A nice read indeed (thanks for the link!), although the Peter Taylor quote about the healing powers of plutonium because of being "borne of Plutonic dimension" left me somewhat speechless. :D -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:05 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
John Brooks, here is an example: Mr Monckton farts in elevators and scares little children off his lawn, therefore his views on climate are wrong. That would be an ad-hom argument, i.e. attacking the person in order to invalidate their argument. Note that this is logically false regardless of the veracity of the personal allegations. Whether they are true or not has no bearing on the substance of the argument. Disclaimer: the personal attacks are for the sake of the example and not based on any actual knowledge of Mr Monckton's habits. Here is an example of an argument that is not ad-hom: Mr Monckton presents data in such and such way, which does not reflect the full reality because of such and such reasons. His argument is incomplete because of such and such, misleading because of such and such, etc... -
NickD at 02:03 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Monckton tried but failed magnificently. See the response from the University of St. Thomas: "We received your email response to our June 25, 2010 letter. The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham's right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The Univerity of St Thomas. Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham. Signed: Phyllis Karasov, Moore Costellow and Hart, P.L.L.P." -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:03 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
And don't you just love Monkton's use of ad hom to complain about ad hom that is not actually ad hom? -
KR at 01:55 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Here's a more extensive list of fallacies; each with a brief description and a link to a more extensive definition and examples. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:51 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
And I expect shortly that Nova will also employ her vitriolic following to bombard St Thomas University as well. The Monbiot article linked at CP is definitely worth the read. George suggests that Monckton exhibits a paranoid personality disorder, and I think he is right on target. When an individual shows such a deep inability to see any of his own shortcomings, and so viscously defends any and every statement they've ever made, no matter how ludicrous (we all say stupid stuff now and again, it's to be human) then that person surely has a serious mental condition. Like Carl Jung once said: "Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt." The irony of this is, when Dr Abraham put his material up on Youtube he only got maybe 600 views. That's opposed to the 30k+ that Peter Sinclair got for both of the videos that he did on Monckton. But John Abraham set off some switch in Monckton's head and now he wants to bring down the house over it. As others have suggested here, I think he is only going to bring the house down on himself. -
CBDunkerson at 01:49 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
John Brookes, 'ad hominem' means roughly 'to the person' in latin. An ad hominem argument is thus one which focuses on the individual making a claim to discount that claim. For example, 'Global warming is a hoax because Michael Mann is a jerk'. It's a logical fallacy... whether Michael Mann is or is not a jerk really has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of global warming. Ad hominem argument is thus considered 'bad' both because it is inherently faulty logic and also rude. -
KR at 01:48 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
John Brookes - decent question. "Argumentum ad hominem", or more briefly "ad hominem", means "Argument against the person". This is a classic logical fallacy, wherein you dismiss someones argument by stating that perceived personal faults invalidate their reasoning. For example: "Joe says that the new bypass is too expensive for the supposed traffic benefits. But Joe's an uneducated slob, you can't trust him; the bypass is worth it." This is a fallacy because personal faults (real or imagined) have nothing to do with the logical merits of an argument. This is but one of a list of logical fallacies that are often employed, particularly in emotionally charged issues. It's worth becoming familiar with these so that you can properly evaluate whether an argument makes logical sense, or is instead an appeal to emotions or just complete b**l. -
adelady at 01:45 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
sime at 23:15 PM on 15 July, 2010 Your remark about 2 year olds matches neatly a domestic discussion this evening. Why??? do toddlers throw tantrums. They know daddy won't allow them to have choc bars while shopping, they know that daddy has the money to pay for such things and they have none. In short, daddy sets the rules and daddy has the power. Denialistas have an exactly parallel problem. They have no way to control the ocean, the atmosphere or nature in general. They have no way of doing any real intellectual work to advance their own or anyone else's understanding. So they go the toddler route in displaying frustration and anger at their own powerlessness in the face of the world not being as they want it. -
villabolo at 01:43 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
John Brookes at 01:24 AM on 16 July, 2010 "But what are ad hominem attacks?" ***************************************** John, "ad hominem" is a Latin phrase which means "against the person". In other words, it refers to personal attacks as opposed to addressing the issue. -
DarkSkywise at 01:43 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
JB #28: it's indeed a kind of sudden diarrhoea, but coming from the top vent instead of the bottom vent. The disease may be as old as mankind, with first reports going back as far as 500 BC. The cause is probably viral, but the virus is highly elusive and escapes every attempt to isolate it, if the attempt shows even the tinyest bit of common sense. The virus is sometimes airborn, sometimes bodyborn, and can even be communicationborn, which makes it the first disease ever to do so. It's also highly contagious, although there is a 87.6% correlation between immunity and above-average IQ values. Sime #23: yes, the thought had occurred to me too. :) -
lord_sidcup at 01:33 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Just to remind people, Lord Monckton has previously succeeded in having criticism censored: Is the Telegraph censoring criticism of climate-change deniers? I think he will fail this time, but if he does succeed it will be a very black day for science.
Prev 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 Next
