• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For The Deniers

are you begining to believe that the right has lied to you about man made global warming

  • yes

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • no

    Votes: 25 73.5%
  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
slick said:
These "distinguished" authors, scientists, et. al. get paid off by the Globalists. That's how they distribute the spoils for doing their
favors. None of their work product has ANYTHING to do with excellence or honesty.
...

The times are a changing what a difference 3 years make. People are wising up
Click to expand...

Yup it's just a huge worldwide conspiracy of millions of corrupt scientists and every major science institution worldwide is 'faking the data' so they can all drive Ferraris or ... take or take over the world in a 'lefty Marxist' coup for One World Order or....something. They'd have to fake the laws of physics too, but never mind a few little details like science right?

Sheesh do you guys ever listen to yourselves?
 
slick said:
Thanx for the tip.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. That was 12 years ago
when he said that, how long will it take before you realize it's all a hoax?

So tell me, I'm about 25 feet above sea level about 20 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. How much time do I have before
my house is affected by rising waters? Should I get out when the gettings good?
Click to expand...

i believe i would wait till its beachfront. you will get more for it.
 
rickc said:
Are you begining to feel you were lied to about this man made global warming thing?
Click to expand...

The poll isn't for me, but I'm going to pick at the title, anyway. By saying, 'the right', instead of being a bit more specific, you've essentially asked a bunch of what I assume are mostly right-wingers, if they feel like they've lied to themselves. A great deal of right-wing climate-change-deniers beleive their own menure, and some here have gone as far as to suggest that almost the entire (relevant) scientific community is bought and sold in some sort of massive, globe-spanning, cladestine conspiracy, but they aren't lying.

Most of the right-wing are being lied to, rather than doing the lying, and if we're to be specific, they're being lied to by people with obvious conflicts-of-interest, such as advocates of the fossil-fuel energy, 'pro-business' *cough*get money out of politics*cough* and the same mother-****ing assholes who sustained doubt in regards to the health risks of tobbacco.
 
rickc said:
Are you beginning to feel you were lied to about this man-made global warming thing?
Click to expand...
AGW is real AND we are also being lied to about it. Both are true at the same time. Politicians are making the problem appear to be greater than it is so they can pass intrusive policy.
 
Wayne Jr said:
AGW is real AND we are also being lied to about it. Both are true at the same time. Politicians are making the problem appear to be greater than it is so they can pass intrusive policy.
Click to expand...

In what way are politians exaggerating the problem, what are these intrusive policies do you speak of, and why do these politicians want to implement them?
 
rickc said:
Are you begining to feel you were lied to about this man made global warming thing?
Click to expand...

The problem with this question is that I have always believed that the right was misinformed about this, some might call that lying I just say they are dead wrong about this issue.
 
gfm7175 said:
Ummmm, I don't...


Ummmm, I don't...

.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you DO believe in an imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics, or you just don't understand it. Go read a textbook on heat transfer. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about NET flows of energy, not an individual flow of energy.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Not a fallacy. Fallacy Fallacy.


Squawk!/

Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!
Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!
Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!
Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!
Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!
Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy! Fallacy!

/end Squawk!
Click to expand...

Argument of the Mindless Parrot Squawk.
 
Quaestio said:
Yeah, you DO believe in an imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics, or you just don't understand it. Go read a textbook on heat transfer. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about NET flows of energy, not an individual flow of energy.
Click to expand...

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who believes in an imaginary law...

Define global warming...
 
gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one who believes in an imaginary law...
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Please demonstrate how this imaginary "Inversion" fallacy that you seem to believe in, means "projection" and give an example of your own like I have using the correct logical form below.

You have posted before that you know it is the 'Denying the Antecedent' fallacy which is actually called the Inverse fallacy. Do you need me to post them here too?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent

Denying the Antecedent fallacy (also known as: inverse error, Inverse fallacy)

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true.
​

The Logical Form is:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

An example (my own) is:

If it's raining (P), I must be wet (Q)
It's not raining (not P)
Therefore, I am not wet (Therefore, not Q)

The above is a logical fallacy because I could be wet (eg just had a shower,) even if it's not raining.

If you can't demonstrate this simple bit of logic yourself, stop squawking logical fallacy! logical fallacy! all the time.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Not a fallacy. Fallacy Fallacy.
Click to expand...

Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about using logic. How many times do I need to post this before it sinks in that you are using the Fallacy fallacy claim incorrectly?


Argument from fallacy(also known as: disproof by fallacy, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, bad reasons fallacy [form of])

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/51/Argument-from-Fallacy

Description: Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Logical Form:

Argument X is fallacious

Therefore, the conclusion or truth claim of argument X is false.

Example #1:

Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight.

Sidney: If you really think that, you’re an idiot.

Ivan: That is an ad hominem; therefore, I can’t be an idiot.

Sidney: I beg to differ.

Explanation: While it is true that Sidney has committed the ad hominem fallacy by calling Ivan an idiot rather than providing reasons why Ivan’s car won’t turn into a pumpkin at midnight, that fallacy is not evidence against the claim.

​
 
Quaestio said:
Yeah, you DO believe in an imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics, or you just don't understand it. Go read a textbook on heat transfer. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about NET flows of energy, not an individual flow of energy.
Click to expand...

and in a closed system. the earth is not a closed system.
 
rickc said:
and in a closed system. the earth is not a closed system.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only does he 'forget' the energy from the sun, he ignores the fact that the earth is surrounded by the cold of space. What's even funnier, is that he's just parroting someone else who doesn't have a clue, so he will just keep mindlessly repeating the same nonsense instead of trying to explain something he isn't capable of explaining. Like a Creationist yapping on about evolution.
 
Quaestio said:
Incorrect. Please demonstrate how this imaginary "Inversion" fallacy that you seem to believe in, means "projection" and give an example of your own like I have using the correct logical form below.

You have posted before that you know it is the 'Denying the Antecedent' fallacy which is actually called the Inverse fallacy. Do you need me to post them here too?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent

Denying the Antecedent fallacy (also known as: inverse error, Inverse fallacy)

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true.
​

The Logical Form is:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

An example (my own) is:

If it's raining (P), I must be wet (Q)
It's not raining (not P)
Therefore, I am not wet (Therefore, not Q)

The above is a logical fallacy because I could be wet (eg just had a shower,) even if it's not raining.

If you can't demonstrate this simple bit of logic yourself, stop squawking logical fallacy! logical fallacy! all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're describing Denying The Antecedent... I'm describing Inversion Fallacy (projection)... It is a form of the contextomy fallacy...
 
Quaestio said:
Once again, you demonstrate you know nothing about using logic. How many times do I need to post this before it sinks in that you are using the Fallacy fallacy claim incorrectly?


Argument from fallacy(also known as: disproof by fallacy, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, fallacist's fallacy, bad reasons fallacy [form of])

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/51/Argument-from-Fallacy

Description: Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.

Logical Form:

Argument X is fallacious

Therefore, the conclusion or truth claim of argument X is false.

Example #1:

Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight.

Sidney: If you really think that, you’re an idiot.

Ivan: That is an ad hominem; therefore, I can’t be an idiot.

Sidney: I beg to differ.

Explanation: While it is true that Sidney has committed the ad hominem fallacy by calling Ivan an idiot rather than providing reasons why Ivan’s car won’t turn into a pumpkin at midnight, that fallacy is not evidence against the claim.

​
Click to expand...

Logically Fallacious does not define fallacies... Logic does... False Authority Fallacy.

A fallacy is an error of logic. Therefore, a Fallacy Fallacy is an error of logic concerning an error of logic. For example, claiming that someone is committing a fallacy that doesn't exist is an error of logic.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, you're describing Denying The Antecedent... I'm describing Inversion Fallacy (projection)... It is a form of the contextomy fallacy...
Click to expand...

NO it's not. There is no such fallacy as an "Inversion" fallacy and "projecting ones own flaws onto someone else" has nothing to do with contextomy. Laughably, you tried to pretend it was the Inverse Fallacy (aka Denying the Antecedent fallacy), then got pulled up on that as well.

Into the Night made it up and you just mindlessly parrot him.

But thanks for making it clear you can't demonstrate a logical form for it (there is none) or provide any reference for it (because it doesn't exist)

Give it up. You just dig yourself a deeper hole and look even more foolish when you don't just admit you are wrong.
 
gfm7175 said:
Logically Fallacious does not define fallacies... Logic does... False Authority Fallacy.

A fallacy is an error of logic. Therefore, a Fallacy Fallacy is an error of logic concerning an error of logic. For example, claiming that someone is committing a fallacy that doesn't exist is an error of logic.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The Logically Fallacious website is the online version of a textbook written by Dr Robert Bennet PhD who teaches logic. It's a valid authority. You can find ANY textbook or an authoritative source on logic as well and they will show pretty much the same thing. You refuse to cite a reference because you've probably already realized that there are none that define a Fallacy fallacy in the incorrect way you do. (or Into the Night does)

Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition)
https://www.amazon.com.au/Logically-Fallacious-Ultimate-Collection-Fallacies/dp/1456607529


If you want to learn how to construct logical arguments, take a couple of classes in logic instead of using a list of logical fallacies and using them incorrectly. Especially your overuse of them as a blunt instrument to bash everyone on the head all the time, instead of actually presenting a valid argument or having a discussion. It's pretty clear you've never studied anything at an academic level where you have to cite references.

Just saying 'Logic' is your "source" is ridiculous and illogical. It's just a way of you saying "because I said so" and not having to back up anything you claim. You are not a valid authority, so you yourself are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to False Authority.
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Nonsense. The Logically Fallacious website is the online version of a textbook written by Dr Robert Bennet PhD who teaches logic.
Click to expand...
Whoopity doo...

Quaestio said:
It's a valid authority.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

Quaestio said:
You can find ANY textbook or an authoritative source on logic as well and they will show pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...
False Authority.

Quaestio said:
You refuse to cite a reference
Click to expand...
Logic is the reference.

Quaestio said:
because you've probably already realized that there are none that define a Fallacy fallacy in the incorrect way you do.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant how they define it. They deny logic.

Quaestio said:
(or Into the Night does)
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Quaestio said:
Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition)
https://www.amazon.com.au/Logically-Fallacious-Ultimate-Collection-Fallacies/dp/1456607529
Click to expand...
False Authority.

Quaestio said:
If you want to learn how to construct logical arguments, take a couple of classes in logic instead of using a list of logical fallacies and using them incorrectly.
Click to expand...
Inversion Fallacy.

Quaestio said:
Especially your overuse of them as a blunt instrument to bash everyone on the head all the time,
Click to expand...
Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically Bigotry in this case. I am not interested in your bigotry. Strike one was your continued argument by repetition fallacy in the other thread... This bigotry of yours is strike two.

I only bash people who repeatedly deny logic, such as yourself.

Quaestio said:
instead of actually presenting a valid argument or having a discussion. It's pretty clear you've never studied anything at an academic level where you have to cite references.
Click to expand...
'You've never studied' mantra dismissed on sight...

Quaestio said:
Just saying 'Logic' is your "source" is ridiculous and illogical.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. When speaking about whether something is logical or not, one should be referencing logic. That's what I am doing. You are referencing come crackpot dude with a phD who wrote a textbook as if he has any effect on the axioms of logic.

Quaestio said:
It's just a way of you saying "because I said so" and not having to back up anything you claim.
Click to expand...
Argument by repetition fallacy.

Quaestio said:
You are not a valid authority, so you yourself are committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to False Authority.
Click to expand...
Strawman Fallacy. Fallacy Fallacy.

I am not presenting myself as a valid authority. Logic is the valid authority. No fallacy is being committed on my end.
 
gfm7175 said:
Whoopity doo...


No, it's not.


False Authority.


Logic is the reference.


Irrelevant how they define it. They deny logic.


Irrelevant.


False Authority.


Inversion Fallacy.


Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically Bigotry in this case. I am not interested in your bigotry. Strike one was your continued argument by repetition fallacy in the other thread... This bigotry of yours is strike two.

I only bash people who repeatedly deny logic, such as yourself.


'You've never studied' mantra dismissed on sight...


No, it's not. When speaking about whether something is logical or not, one should be referencing logic. That's what I am doing. You are referencing come crackpot dude with a phD who wrote a textbook as if he has any effect on the axioms of logic.


Argument by repetition fallacy.


Strawman Fallacy. Fallacy Fallacy.

I am not presenting myself as a valid authority. Logic is the valid authority. No fallacy is being committed on my end.
Click to expand...

Complete bollocks. I think most people who have had an exchange with you on this forum know that your posts are irrational, illogical parroted nonsense, and that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong, even when it is clearly demonstrated over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Idiometer said:
Science is neither left or right.

And if those who support the move from polluting fuels to renewables need to get from point A to point B, and passenger planes that run on solar power or batteries have not yet been invented or perfected, I'm okay with that.

The "conflicting information" is mostly coming from shady pseudo-scientists getting their funding from companies like ExxonMobil. 97% (or more by now) of scientists all over the world are in agreement on the facts of AGW. The consensus is quite solid. The problem is one of dissemination. Climate science is complex and involves physical, biological and information sciences, including ecology, biology, physics, chemistry, plant science, zoology, mineralogy, oceanography, limnology, soil science, geology, geography, and atmospheric science. You can't just ask a meteorologist, and you can't just watch that moron Jim Inhofe toss around a snowball in congress and claim it disproves global warming.
Click to expand...

Fine. Why can't we do renewables at an affordable price tag? Do you think that science is beyond us? Is there any chance the proponents have a selfish interest?
Regards,
CP
 
Quaestio said:
Incorrect. Please demonstrate how this imaginary "Inversion" fallacy that you seem to believe in, means "projection" and give an example of your own like I have using the correct logical form below.

You have posted before that you know it is the 'Denying the Antecedent' fallacy which is actually called the Inverse fallacy. Do you need me to post them here too?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent

Denying the Antecedent fallacy (also known as: inverse error, Inverse fallacy)

Description: It is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the “if”) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the “then”) is not true.
​

The Logical Form is:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

An example (my own) is:

If it's raining (P), I must be wet (Q)
It's not raining (not P)
Therefore, I am not wet (Therefore, not Q)

The above is a logical fallacy because I could be wet (eg just had a shower,) even if it's not raining.

If you can't demonstrate this simple bit of logic yourself, stop squawking logical fallacy! logical fallacy! all the time.
Click to expand...

You're acting like one of these scientist who are losing their grant and are hoping mad about it. Ease up!
 
gfm7175 said:
Logically Fallacious does not define fallacies... Logic does... False Authority Fallacy.

A fallacy is an error of logic. Therefore, a Fallacy Fallacy is an error of logic concerning an error of logic. For example, claiming that someone is committing a fallacy that doesn't exist is an error of logic.
Click to expand...

A false premise doesn't make an argument false, but rather unsound as stated.
Regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom