fabrication

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > fabrication

fabrication02-12-2019 19:56
keepit ★★★★★ (3074)	Too much made up stuff. Then the person that made up the imaginary point argues against their own imaginary point and then pretends to win the argument. It's kind of like creating a crisis and then solving the crisis they caused in the first place. Bogus!
02-12-2019 20:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	keepit wrote: Too much made up stuff. Then the person that made up the imaginary point argues against their own imaginary point and then pretends to win the argument. It's kind of like creating a crisis and then solving the crisis they caused in the first place. Bogus! Welcome to my world. tmiddles assigns to me a bogus position that I don't have, typically about one per day on average. He then argues against that bogus position and declares me to be wrong and himself a genius. He then points to all the times that I have been "wrong" and him a genius as reasons I am just always wrong. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2019 05:22
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	keepit wrote: It's kind of like creating a crisis and then solving the crisis they caused in the first place. Bogus! Sounds EXACTLY like a certain political party that I particularly detest. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
03-12-2019 10:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Too much made up stuff. Then the person that made up the imaginary point argues against their own imaginary point and then pretends to win the argument. It's kind of like creating a crisis and then solving the crisis they caused in the first place. Bogus! It's called "straw manning" "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"." My favorite example is in "Thank you for smoking" Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong? Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong. Joey: But you can't always be right. Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong. Joey: But what if you are wrong? Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say...? Joey: "No, chocolate is." Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you? Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other. Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it? Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty. Joey: But that's not what we're talking about. Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about. Joey: But ... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best. Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right. ITN/IBD and the "Deniers" for lack of a better term are not interested in making any scientific progress, discovery or anything productive of any kind. They are simply interested in proving "the enemy" wrong. When that is your goal it's almost impossible not to stoop to this fallacy. Edited on 03-12-2019 11:31
03-12-2019 18:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: Too much made up stuff. Then the person that made up the imaginary point argues against their own imaginary point and then pretends to win the argument. It's kind of like creating a crisis and then solving the crisis they caused in the first place. Bogus! It's called "straw manning" "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"." My favorite example is in "Thank you for smoking" Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong? Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong. Joey: But you can't always be right. Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong. Joey: But what if you are wrong? Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say...? Joey: "No, chocolate is." Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you? Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other. Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it? Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty. Joey: But that's not what we're talking about. Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about. Joey: But ... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best. Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right. ITN/IBD and the "Deniers" for lack of a better term are not interested in making any scientific progress, discovery or anything productive of any kind. They are simply interested in proving "the enemy" wrong. When that is your goal it's almost impossible not to stoop to this fallacy. The only one stooping to this fallacy is YOU, and other liberals. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate fabrication: