Climate debate myth

L8112 wrote:
There is no debate, you are all ****ed. I would love to sit here and argue and 'debate' with you, actually no I wouldn't. Nothing makes the few dedicated climate change (paid?) trolls on here more aroused than 'proving' themselves in an anon online forum. unfortunately for you, nature is wiping you out, de-evolution in action.

L8112 wrote:
There is no debate, you are all ****ed. I would love to sit here and argue and 'debate' with you, actually no I wouldn't. Nothing makes the few dedicated climate change (paid?) trolls on here more aroused than 'proving' themselves in an anon online forum. unfortunately for you, nature is wiping you out, de-evolution in action.

L8112 wrote:
Remember, with them, it is never about truth. It is about tribalism, my tribe vs your tribe, left vs right, dem vs republican et ****ing cetera. Its about 'convincing' others that your cognitive beliefs are right. Its an addiction, notice how many posts they have on here, they can't help themselves. They come back repeatedly through force of habit to get their little dopamine hit like a good monkey. No amount of measured data will convince them otherwise (cognitive dissonance). They have 'secret knowledge' (conspiracy thinking) and everyone else is just so much dumber than them, when in fact, their worldview is gibberish, akin to tripping on acid 24/7.
The more data that comes in from credible institutions who have the means to study such things, the more this confirms their beliefs about how wide the climate change conspiracy is, and how many people and institutions are involved. It is confirmation bias with a touch of insanity. Remember, the gang of trolls on here are smarter and more qualified than NASA (rocket scientists), to even insinuate that they are wrong makes their blood boil. Admitting they are wrong is torture-inconceivable, has not happened, will never happen. Maybe if they are starving to death due to lack of food or other cascading effects from abrupt climate change, they will through gritted teeth concede they missed the mark big time on this one. So no point in debate. Even in that case they will likely be saying (iiiiits just weeeather) *shakes fist at sky* then collapses from heat stroke.

James___ wrote: As far as I go, I hope to do work on a model for Natural Climate Variation.

James___ wrote: In some respects I think focusing on CO2 has hurt environmentalism. What I think is overlooked sometimes are the other emissions besides CO2.

James___ wrote: That's because an emotional argument over CO2 has taken over.

James___ wrote: If historical records are accurate, we might be descending into an ice age.

James___ wrote: While that cycle will take about 80,000 years, Americans will be going to Mexico to look for work.

GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112.....

Most of us that are here in the real world would call a hit and run artist a chicken shit.

Are you going to stick around and discuss it? I'm guessing you're off and running.

GasGuzzler wrote:
L8112.....

Most of us that are here in the real world would call a hit and run artist a chicken shit.

Are you going to stick around and discuss it? I'm guessing you're off and running.

IBdaMann wrote:The correct answer is "No" ... L8112 does not want to discuss. L8112 needs to preach, and by that I mean he needs to simulate a firebrand preacher who is explaining how we are bringing about Hell on earth and that we must repent our carbon sins.

IBdaMann wrote:L8112 is more than just scientifically illiterate. L8112 fears science like he has a phobia. He can't stick around if there's any possibility that science, or even countering observations, will be discussed.

IBdaMann wrote: is the warmizombie broken record from fifteen years ago and is still scratching out the same tired sound bytes that we have all heard repeated ad nauseum. He is a great example of Into the Night's term "Argument of the Stone."

IBdaMann wrote:You should adjust your expectations accordingly.

L8112 wrote:
L8112? There ple observation. He's a complent of simple discussion discussign punishals to L8112? Thank you both. It has been discussion. It is very much a comple observation. It is ver really knew who would love to L8112? It is ver really knew what "argument of the what "argumenty of the whole carbon defined. Done" was. There plete chicken shit.Nevery much a part of us whole carbon defined. Done.

HarveyH55 wrote:

L8112 wrote:
L8112? There ple observation. He's a complent of simple discussion discussign punishals to L8112? Thank you both. It has been discussion. It is very much a comple observation. It is ver really knew who would love to L8112? It is ver really knew what "argument of the what "argumenty of the whole carbon defined. Done" was. There plete chicken shit.Nevery much a part of us whole carbon defined. Done.

What? I have fair reading skills, but can't figure this out at all. Is he talking about beer?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:L8112 is more than just scientifically illiterate. L8112 fears science like he has a phobia. He can't stick around if there's any possibility that science, or even countering observations, will be discussed.

There are plenty of us who would love to engage in a simple discussion of simple observation. It is very much a part of the whole carbon discussion. He's a complete chicken shit.

IBdaMann wrote: is the warmizombie broken record from fifteen years ago and is still scratching out the same tired sound bytes that we have all heard repeated ad nauseum. He is a great example of Into the Night's term "Argument of the Stone."

Never really knew what "argument of the stone" was. Thank you both. It has been defined.

L8112 wrote:
L8112? There ple observation. He's a complent of simple discussion discussign punishals to L8112? Thank you both. It has been discussion. It is very much a comple observation. It is ver really knew who would love to L8112? It is ver really knew what "argument of the what "argumenty of the whole carbon defined. Done" was. There plete chicken shit.Nevery much a part of us whole carbon defined. Done.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:L8112 is more than just scientifically illiterate. L8112 fears science like he has a phobia. He can't stick around if there's any possibility that science, or even countering observations, will be discussed.

There are plenty of us who would love to engage in a simple discussion of simple observation. It is very much a part of the whole carbon discussion. He's a complete chicken shit.

IBdaMann wrote: is the warmizombie broken record from fifteen years ago and is still scratching out the same tired sound bytes that we have all heard repeated ad nauseum. He is a great example of Into the Night's term "Argument of the Stone."

Never really knew what "argument of the stone" was. Thank you both. It has been defined.

This is close, but not quite right. The actual fallacy being described here is the Argument by Repetition, not the Argument of the Stone. The two are often found together though.

L8112 uses several fallacies commonly found together and commonly found within the Church of Global Warming.

First, let's define an 'argument'. This is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion. The basic form of any argument is: A->B where A is the predicate(s), and B is the conclusion. They may be more than one predicate in an argument.

The Argument by Repetition fallacy simply takes the form of repeating an original argument over and over. A counter-argument against one is not a repetition fallacy. This fallacy takes the form: A->A->A->A->A->...

The Argument of the Stone is simply discarding an argument without a counter-argument. Pointing out a fallacy is a counter-argument. Pointing out a theory of science being ignored is also a counter-argument. Counter arguments are valid and take the form: A->B, C->!A.

The Argument of the Stone is a fallacy taking the form: A->B, !A.
It's the equivalence of the child sticking their fingers in their ears saying, "Nananana! I can't HEAR you!!".

Both fallacies are often found together since the argument by repetition is actually a form of a Circular Argument Fallacy.

Circular arguments simply use their own conclusions as the predicate. They take the form A->A.
These are valid constructs, and are also known as the Argument of Faith. It is valid through the Proof of Identity. The argument simply exists.

However, there is a Circular Argument Fallacy. This is attempting to use a circular argument in a proof. This is what a fundamentalist does. It takes the form (A->A)->A. In other words, it is attempting to use the conclusion of the circular argument as proof of the conclusion as True.

L8112 makes use of all three of these fallacies. He also makes use of the Insult Fallacy, and the Bulverism Fallacy.

The Insult fallacy is a type of argument of the stone fallacy. An insult is not a valid argument. It has no predicate, and it has no conclusion. It's simply an expletive. It takes the form: A->B, C! They cannot be used as an argument, but they do allow an emotional venting of the spleen, so to speak.

The Bulverism Fallacy is to discard an argument because of who is making it, not because of the content of the argument. For example, if one were to discard everything NASA says simply because it came from NASA is Bulverism, and fallacy. This fallacy is often coupled with bigotry or even racism. It takes the form: A->B, (*A)->!B.

It is his use of these two fallacies, along with the Argument by Repetition fallacy, the Argument of the Stone fallacy, and the Circular argument fallacy, that make some people refer to the source this kind of endless inanity as a 'chicken shit'.

L8112 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:L8112 is more than just scientifically illiterate. L8112 fears science like he has a phobia. He can't stick around if there's any possibility that science, or even countering observations, will be discussed.

There are plenty of us who would love to engage in a simple discussion of simple observation. It is very much a part of the whole carbon discussion. He's a complete chicken shit.

IBdaMann wrote: is the warmizombie broken record from fifteen years ago and is still scratching out the same tired sound bytes that we have all heard repeated ad nauseum. He is a great example of Into the Night's term "Argument of the Stone."

Never really knew what "argument of the stone" was. Thank you both. It has been defined.

This is close, but not quite right. The actual fallacy being described here is the Argument by Repetition, not the Argument of the Stone. The two are often found together though.

L8112 uses several fallacies commonly found together and commonly found within the Church of Global Warming.

First, let's define an 'argument'. This is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion. The basic form of any argument is: A->B where A is the predicate(s), and B is the conclusion. They may be more than one predicate in an argument.

The Argument by Repetition fallacy simply takes the form of repeating an original argument over and over. A counter-argument against one is not a repetition fallacy. This fallacy takes the form: A->A->A->A->A->...

The Argument of the Stone is simply discarding an argument without a counter-argument. Pointing out a fallacy is a counter-argument. Pointing out a theory of science being ignored is also a counter-argument. Counter arguments are valid and take the form: A->B, C->!A.

The Argument of the Stone is a fallacy taking the form: A->B, !A.
It's the equivalence of the child sticking their fingers in their ears saying, "Nananana! I can't HEAR you!!".

Both fallacies are often found together since the argument by repetition is actually a form of a Circular Argument Fallacy.

Circular arguments simply use their own conclusions as the predicate. They take the form A->A.
These are valid constructs, and are also known as the Argument of Faith. It is valid through the Proof of Identity. The argument simply exists.

However, there is a Circular Argument Fallacy. This is attempting to use a circular argument in a proof. This is what a fundamentalist does. It takes the form (A->A)->A. In other words, it is attempting to use the conclusion of the circular argument as proof of the conclusion as True.

L8112 makes use of all three of these fallacies. He also makes use of the Insult Fallacy, and the Bulverism Fallacy.

The Insult fallacy is a type of argument of the stone fallacy. An insult is not a valid argument. It has no predicate, and it has no conclusion. It's simply an expletive. It takes the form: A->B, C! They cannot be used as an argument, but they do allow an emotional venting of the spleen, so to speak.

The Bulverism Fallacy is to discard an argument because of who is making it, not because of the content of the argument. For example, if one were to discard everything NASA says simply because it came from NASA is Bulverism, and fallacy. This fallacy is often coupled with bigotry or even racism. It takes the form: A->B, (*A)->!B.

It is his use of these two fallacies, along with the Argument by Repetition fallacy, the Argument of the Stone fallacy, and the Circular argument fallacy, that make some people refer to the source this kind of endless inanity as a 'chicken shit'.

Stone and commonly takes simply form of repetition. The Church of predicate is is close, but not there is not ther and togethe A conclusion. They may be more Argument of the an one predicate right. They may being.

L8112 uses though.

First, let's define is fallacy simply form of and togethe than argument of an any argument against over. A is: A<-A->B wher than one and conclusion form of Global argument by Repetition fallacy simply argument.

The A is fallacy takes simply form of Global fallacy.Repetition fallacy. This a counter-argument of the form: A<-A->A->A->A->B, C<-!A.

The equivalence being, "Nananana! I can't HEAR you!!".
This also a counter-argument. Pointing an argument by Repetition fallacy takes the form of the Stone is a fallacy take the form: A->A->A->B, C<-!A.
It's their fing, "Nanana! I can't HEAR you!!".
The Argument over are valence being, "Nanana! I can't HEAR you!!".
The child sticking and takes their ears saying out against of theory of repetition fallacy takes the
Circular arguments simply use their own conclusions as the predicate. They take the form A-><-A.

A. In othe conclusion of of of of Ident simply exist does. In otheir own a Circular arguments simply exist not does. In othe circular argument in as the Argumentalid conclusionstructs, and are is attempting to use argumentalid conclusionstructs, and argument Fallacy. They take through the proof the circular argumentalid conclusion as proof of Indent as the circular Arguments simply exist does. It take the circular are argument of of Ident of Ident of Faith. It is what as the form A->!|!<-A.

A->B, C!-->----< The stone fallacy.

The Insult fall the Bulverism Fallacy.

The Bulverism Fallacies. He also makes they do also to speak. L8112 makes the Insult fallacy, an !. It's simply and it has no predicate, and the stone form: A->=<-B, C! They cannot a valid argument of the Insult is no conclusion. It's simply an emotional venting of the spleen, so to speak. L8112 makes the stone fallacy, and it has not a valid as an expletive. It has not a type of three of these of also to spleen, so to speak.

Argument because often content by Repetition fallacy is use to discard and fallacism Fallacy is Bulverism Fascism. It take some fallacies, along NASA says simpled with the argument fallacy, the couple refer to the Circular argument because to discard everism. It takes the Circular argument. For even shit'.
This Bulverism, along with NASA says simply because of the Stone from NASA is making it came from NASA says simply because two fallacy, the Argument by Repetition fallacy, the Argument fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

L8112 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:L8112 is more than just scientifically illiterate. L8112 fears science like he has a phobia. He can't stick around if there's any possibility that science, or even countering observations, will be discussed.

There are plenty of us who would love to engage in a simple discussion of simple observation. It is very much a part of the whole carbon discussion. He's a complete chicken shit.

IBdaMann wrote: is the warmizombie broken record from fifteen years ago and is still scratching out the same tired sound bytes that we have all heard repeated ad nauseum. He is a great example of Into the Night's term "Argument of the Stone."

Never really knew what "argument of the stone" was. Thank you both. It has been defined.

This is close, but not quite right. The actual fallacy being described here is the Argument by Repetition, not the Argument of the Stone. The two are often found together though.

L8112 uses several fallacies commonly found together and commonly found within the Church of Global Warming.

First, let's define an 'argument'. This is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion. The basic form of any argument is: A->B where A is the predicate(s), and B is the conclusion. They may be more than one predicate in an argument.

The Argument by Repetition fallacy simply takes the form of repeating an original argument over and over. A counter-argument against one is not a repetition fallacy. This fallacy takes the form: A->A->A->A->A->...

The Argument of the Stone is simply discarding an argument without a counter-argument. Pointing out a fallacy is a counter-argument. Pointing out a theory of science being ignored is also a counter-argument. Counter arguments are valid and take the form: A->B, C->!A.

The Argument of the Stone is a fallacy taking the form: A->B, !A.
It's the equivalence of the child sticking their fingers in their ears saying, "Nananana! I can't HEAR you!!".

Both fallacies are often found together since the argument by repetition is actually a form of a Circular Argument Fallacy.

Circular arguments simply use their own conclusions as the predicate. They take the form A->A.
These are valid constructs, and are also known as the Argument of Faith. It is valid through the Proof of Identity. The argument simply exists.

However, there is a Circular Argument Fallacy. This is attempting to use a circular argument in a proof. This is what a fundamentalist does. It takes the form (A->A)->A. In other words, it is attempting to use the conclusion of the circular argument as proof of the conclusion as True.

L8112 makes use of all three of these fallacies. He also makes use of the Insult Fallacy, and the Bulverism Fallacy.

The Insult fallacy is a type of argument of the stone fallacy. An insult is not a valid argument. It has no predicate, and it has no conclusion. It's simply an expletive. It takes the form: A->B, C! They cannot be used as an argument, but they do allow an emotional venting of the spleen, so to speak.

The Bulverism Fallacy is to discard an argument because of who is making it, not because of the content of the argument. For example, if one were to discard everything NASA says simply because it came from NASA is Bulverism, and fallacy. This fallacy is often coupled with bigotry or even racism. It takes the form: A->B, (*A)->!B.

It is his use of these two fallacies, along with the Argument by Repetition fallacy, the Argument of the Stone fallacy, and the Circular argument fallacy, that make some people refer to the source this kind of endless inanity as a 'chicken shit'.

Stone and commonly takes simply form of repetition. The Church of predicate is is close, but not there is not ther and togethe A conclusion. They may be more Argument of the an one predicate right. They may being.

L8112 uses though.

First, let's define is fallacy simply form of and togethe than argument of an any argument against over. A is: A<-A->B wher than one and conclusion form of Global argument by Repetition fallacy simply argument.

The A is fallacy takes simply form of Global fallacy.Repetition fallacy. This a counter-argument of the form: A<-A->A->A->A->B, C<-!A.

The equivalence being, "Nananana! I can't HEAR you!!".
This also a counter-argument. Pointing an argument by Repetition fallacy takes the form of the Stone is a fallacy take the form: A->A->A->B, C<-!A.
It's their fing, "Nanana! I can't HEAR you!!".
The Argument over are valence being, "Nanana! I can't HEAR you!!".
The child sticking and takes their ears saying out against of theory of repetition fallacy takes the
Circular arguments simply use their own conclusions as the predicate. They take the form A-><-A.

A. In othe conclusion of of of of Ident simply exist does. In otheir own a Circular arguments simply exist not does. In othe circular argument in as the Argumentalid conclusionstructs, and are is attempting to use argumentalid conclusionstructs, and argument Fallacy. They take through the proof the circular argumentalid conclusion as proof of Indent as the circular Arguments simply exist does. It take the circular are argument of of Ident of Ident of Faith. It is what as the form A->!|!<-A.

A->B, C!-->----< The stone fallacy.

The Insult fall the Bulverism Fallacy.

The Bulverism Fallacies. He also makes they do also to speak. L8112 makes the Insult fallacy, an !. It's simply and it has no predicate, and the stone form: A->=<-B, C! They cannot a valid argument of the Insult is no conclusion. It's simply an emotional venting of the spleen, so to speak. L8112 makes the stone fallacy, and it has not a valid as an expletive. It has not a type of three of these of also to spleen, so to speak.

Argument because often content by Repetition fallacy is use to discard and fallacism Fallacy is Bulverism Fascism. It take some fallacies, along NASA says simpled with the argument fallacy, the couple refer to the Circular argument because to discard everism. It takes the Circular argument. For even shit'.
This Bulverism, along with NASA says simply because of the Stone from NASA is making it came from NASA says simply because two fallacy, the Argument by Repetition fallacy, the Argument fallacy.

I guess word salad is your favorite dish. You gotta be a sock of James.

Into the Night wrote:This is close, but not quite right. The actual fallacy being described here is the Argument by Repetition, not the Argument of the Stone.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:This is close, but not quite right. The actual fallacy being described here is the Argument by Repetition, not the Argument of the Stone.

I stand corrected.

I was, in fact, thinking about the lack of any defense when repeating the same dogma in light of the clear rebuttals ... but that's what I should have said instead of referencing the repetition of the same tired claims.

Thank you for keeping me honest.