Read my post. Read your post. There’s your proof. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
I thought so too, but here you are not grasping it.
Again, where is the straw man? Sarcasm? Yeah. False argument? Nope, not so much.
Solar is good economic and environmental policy. The suggestion that limiting yourself to a specific nations power (your own in this case) is foolish and jingoism. So your reading suggestion? You should try it!
Except this isn’t about me. Take five seconds and absorb context and you’d see that. No, a link to Google is not an argument nor a proof.
So your link to a fallacy that you obviously didn't understand and that wasn't used is an argument, but my link to a paper by NASA about scholarly consensus is not? Got it!
Any other lessons in logic you have for us tonight?
I charge my iPhone exclusively with solar energy. I should have told Tim about this so he could out in this report. It would have changed the numbers! ; - )
But seriously, how about Apple selling solar phone chargers? Or better yet, designing a cool one. I made mine out of two small panels and an external battery (the kind sold for phones). Practical, not expensive, but not elegant.
Political and economic motivations, my friend. Do you think that scientists work for free or out of the goodness of their hearts?
I am not a liberal, a person who subscribes to group think and who takes their marching orders from others. I am an independent free thinker who could give a rats ass about what the majority of anything believes. Historically speaking, the majority has been dead wrong a number of times in the past. I am able to assess information myself, and then draw my own conclusions. Anything can be fudged and cherry picked, including numbers, statistics and "scientific data" to fit particular agendas. Look at how Samsung fudges and cheats with their technical data for the specs and tests for their devices. The evidence so far does not support the views of the radical lunatics running around, fear mongering with their moronic doomsday scenarios.
If somebody wishes to believe in global warming or whatever else liberals are told to believe in at any particular time, then go right ahead. They are free to believe in whatever sorcery and witchcraft nonsense that they like, but they had better not involve me or force others to participate in their evil schemes.
Sorry, I understand this is difficult, I am just trying to understand.
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
Take a step back before replying in yet another thread.
Wrong answer, as usual.
Appeal to authority can't be cited here because the authority cited is an expert, unlike the landscape architecture professors and political scientists who comprise the anti-global warming "consensus."
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
Yeah, you’re really endearing yourself to everyone here.
The idea that I need to endear myself to anyone to be correct is a logical fallacy. It is a variation of the appeal to popularity. The fallicy you claimed (erroneously) that I was using.
Political and economic motivations, my friend. Do you think that scientists work for free or out of the goodness of their hearts?
So scientists, who many studies have shown find it easier to get grant money when they challenge the system, are all in agreement because somehow that makes them money. But the oil and gas companies that have been shown to fund the majority of anti-climate rhetoric, and which have billions to spend, are clearly not suffering from this problem....
I am an independent free thinker who could give a rats ass about what the majority of anything believes. Historically speaking, the majority has been dead wrong a number of times in the past. I am able to assess information myself, and then draw my own conclusions. Anything can be fudged and cherry picked, including numbers, statistics and "scientific data" to fit particular agendas. Look at how Samsung fudges and cheats with their technical data for the specs and tests for their devices. The evidence so far does not support the views of the radical lunatics running around, fear mongering with their moronic doomsday scenarios.
If somebody wishes to believe in global warming or whatever else liberals are told to believe in at any particular time, then go right ahead. They are free to believe in whatever sorcery and witchcraft nonsense that they like, but they had better not involve me or force others to participate in their evil schemes.
The important difference between your examples and climate change, is that climate change is simple science. There are greenhouses gases. It is easy to show that they are greenhouse gases. High school level labs can demonstrate this. The gases are increasing. We know how to measure them. The temperature is rising. Theses are pretty basic facts.
If you are able to assess information yourself, perhaps you should question where you are getting that information from, since you seem to think that information from oil companies, whose jobs depend on climate change being wrong, are a good source, but evil scientists, who will have jobs studying climate whether it is warming, cooling, or holding steady, are manipulating data for money.
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
You may choose to support solar for that reason. That is also a valid reason. If you feel that reason is more important than climate, that is your opinion. You may do so.
However, if you feel that there is no climate change, then you are simply wrong. That is an important difference.
But to answer your first question, nothing is difficult about what you said. I replied to Tallest. So the only thing hard to understand is why you think I didn't understand you when I replied to him.
He phrased a reply suggesting that he disagrees with solar, and only wants government buildings to be powered by "American power" which is either poor phrasing, because generating power from your own roof is local power, or he is bringing needless jingoism into a discussion about a single companies power generation. Or, third option, something else entirely, which he hasn't explained, because when it is pointed out that he is wrong his reply tends to be "Shut. Up."
At which point it is worth noting that "backwards, crappy countries" as you call them is also a needlessly judgmental and ignorant phrase.
Maybe you replied to my comment to Tallest because you are the same person? The same jingoism seems to be coming out...
Keep in mind that 'energy neutral', 'carbon neutral', etc. is not the same as "cheaper" or without great cost.
The upfront costs are highly, but you'll save on the monthly energy costs, and if you produce more energy than you use that extra energy goes out onto the grid and the power company pays you.
Again with the strawmen! Hey, enjoy your utter failure of comprehension. Though really, it’s a failure of reading.
Actually, no, that isn't the definition.
Quote:
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) oripse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
If anyone here is stating that the climate is warming only because a climate scientist said so, then that would be an issue. What is actually claimed is that trusting a majority of climate scientists to show data, models, studies, and evidence over FUD from oil billionaires is reasonable. They are not right because they study climate, but it does speak to their expertise. Further, since the shotgun approach of denier arguments frequently elf [edit: self, obviously. Legolas does not enter into the picture here] contradicts, and contradicts easily available data, their argument holds much less weight.
We can focus on your failure to understand the strawman once you get a grasp on authority and expertise.
The upfront costs are highly, but you'll save on the monthly energy costs, and if you produce more energy than you use that extra energy goes out onto the grid and the power company pays you.
Add to that the fact that solar is coming down in upfront cost, while longterm costs of most fossil fuels keeps rising..... The math gets easy.
Comments
Just seems to me that you could show some actual proof to him to tear his argument apart instead of repeating tag lines.
You know, since the doctors would be able to show me proof of heart attack, after all.
Seems to me that if you live in this day and age and haven't been exposed to that proof already, you are willfully ignorant.
Which you are proving yourself to be.
But hey, since you are special... http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=percentage+of+climate+scientists+who+accept+global+warming
But hey, since you are special...
Except this isn’t about me. Take five seconds and absorb context and you’d see that. No, a link to Google is not an argument nor a proof.
Read my post. Read your post. There’s your proof. This isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
I thought so too, but here you are not grasping it.
Again, where is the straw man? Sarcasm? Yeah. False argument? Nope, not so much.
Solar is good economic and environmental policy. The suggestion that limiting yourself to a specific nations power (your own in this case) is foolish and jingoism. So your reading suggestion? You should try it!
The suggestion that limiting yourself to a specific nations power…
Yep. Because nations (of none of which I was speaking) can only ever produce one type of power¡
Please stop talking.
Except this isn’t about me. Take five seconds and absorb context and you’d see that. No, a link to Google is not an argument nor a proof.
So your link to a fallacy that you obviously didn't understand and that wasn't used is an argument, but my link to a paper by NASA about scholarly consensus is not? Got it!
Any other lessons in logic you have for us tonight?
Yep. Because nations (of none of which I was speaking) can only ever produce one type of power¡
Please stop talking.
So when you said "American" you were speaking of any nation. Got it.
Sorry, I understand this is difficult, I am just trying to understand.
Well… no. Not at all.
Every government building should use American power.
I guess given the new revelation that you didn't mean a nation in this statement, you mean power with an American birth certificate?
Maybe power made from Americans? Soylent power!
But seriously, how about Apple selling solar phone chargers? Or better yet, designing a cool one. I made mine out of two small panels and an external battery (the kind sold for phones). Practical, not expensive, but not elegant.
Why is the climate any different?
Political and economic motivations, my friend. Do you think that scientists work for free or out of the goodness of their hearts?
I am not a liberal, a person who subscribes to group think and who takes their marching orders from others. I am an independent free thinker who could give a rats ass about what the majority of anything believes. Historically speaking, the majority has been dead wrong a number of times in the past. I am able to assess information myself, and then draw my own conclusions. Anything can be fudged and cherry picked, including numbers, statistics and "scientific data" to fit particular agendas. Look at how Samsung fudges and cheats with their technical data for the specs and tests for their devices. The evidence so far does not support the views of the radical lunatics running around, fear mongering with their moronic doomsday scenarios.
If somebody wishes to believe in global warming or whatever else liberals are told to believe in at any particular time, then go right ahead. They are free to believe in whatever sorcery and witchcraft nonsense that they like, but they had better not involve me or force others to participate in their evil schemes.
I guess given the new revelation that you didn't mean a nation in this statement, you mean power with an American birth certificate?
Maybe power made from Americans? Soylent power!
Yeah, you’re really endearing yourself to everyone here.
Sorry, I understand this is difficult, I am just trying to understand.
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
*cough*/*cough*
Take a step back before replying in yet another thread.
Wrong answer, as usual.
Appeal to authority can't be cited here because the authority cited is an expert, unlike the landscape architecture professors and political scientists who comprise the anti-global warming "consensus."
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
That's good enough for me.
Yeah, you’re really endearing yourself to everyone here.
The idea that I need to endear myself to anyone to be correct is a logical fallacy. It is a variation of the appeal to popularity. The fallicy you claimed (erroneously) that I was using.
Anything you want to add to that?
Political and economic motivations, my friend. Do you think that scientists work for free or out of the goodness of their hearts?
So scientists, who many studies have shown find it easier to get grant money when they challenge the system, are all in agreement because somehow that makes them money. But the oil and gas companies that have been shown to fund the majority of anti-climate rhetoric, and which have billions to spend, are clearly not suffering from this problem....
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
I am not a liberal, a person who subscribes to group think and who takes their marching orders from others.
Psychology tells us that the authoritarian or conservative mind is more likely to do this. You may want to look into that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
I am an independent free thinker who could give a rats ass about what the majority of anything believes. Historically speaking, the majority has been dead wrong a number of times in the past. I am able to assess information myself, and then draw my own conclusions. Anything can be fudged and cherry picked, including numbers, statistics and "scientific data" to fit particular agendas. Look at how Samsung fudges and cheats with their technical data for the specs and tests for their devices. The evidence so far does not support the views of the radical lunatics running around, fear mongering with their moronic doomsday scenarios.
If somebody wishes to believe in global warming or whatever else liberals are told to believe in at any particular time, then go right ahead. They are free to believe in whatever sorcery and witchcraft nonsense that they like, but they had better not involve me or force others to participate in their evil schemes.
The important difference between your examples and climate change, is that climate change is simple science. There are greenhouses gases. It is easy to show that they are greenhouse gases. High school level labs can demonstrate this. The gases are increasing. We know how to measure them. The temperature is rising. Theses are pretty basic facts.
If you are able to assess information yourself, perhaps you should question where you are getting that information from, since you seem to think that information from oil companies, whose jobs depend on climate change being wrong, are a good source, but evil scientists, who will have jobs studying climate whether it is warming, cooling, or holding steady, are manipulating data for money.
What's so hard to understand about "American" power?
The USA obviously needs to free itself entirely from importing any oil which comes from backwards, crappy countries that are not our friends. That's why I support solar and other such initiatives in the USA, not because of any environmental reasons.
You may choose to support solar for that reason. That is also a valid reason. If you feel that reason is more important than climate, that is your opinion. You may do so.
However, if you feel that there is no climate change, then you are simply wrong. That is an important difference.
But to answer your first question, nothing is difficult about what you said. I replied to Tallest. So the only thing hard to understand is why you think I didn't understand you when I replied to him.
He phrased a reply suggesting that he disagrees with solar, and only wants government buildings to be powered by "American power" which is either poor phrasing, because generating power from your own roof is local power, or he is bringing needless jingoism into a discussion about a single companies power generation. Or, third option, something else entirely, which he hasn't explained, because when it is pointed out that he is wrong his reply tends to be "Shut. Up."
At which point it is worth noting that "backwards, crappy countries" as you call them is also a needlessly judgmental and ignorant phrase.
Maybe you replied to my comment to Tallest because you are the same person? The same jingoism seems to be coming out...
Appeal to authority can’t be cited here because the authority cited is an expert…
That’s the definition, kiddo.
The idea that I need to endear myself to anyone to be correct is a logical fallacy.
Again with the strawmen! Hey, enjoy your utter failure of comprehension. Though really, it’s a failure of reading.
The upfront costs are highly, but you'll save on the monthly energy costs, and if you produce more energy than you use that extra energy goes out onto the grid and the power company pays you.
That’s the definition, kiddo.
Again with the strawmen! Hey, enjoy your utter failure of comprehension. Though really, it’s a failure of reading.
Actually, no, that isn't the definition.
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) oripse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
If anyone here is stating that the climate is warming only because a climate scientist said so, then that would be an issue. What is actually claimed is that trusting a majority of climate scientists to show data, models, studies, and evidence over FUD from oil billionaires is reasonable. They are not right because they study climate, but it does speak to their expertise. Further, since the shotgun approach of denier arguments frequently elf [edit: self, obviously. Legolas does not enter into the picture here] contradicts, and contradicts easily available data, their argument holds much less weight.
We can focus on your failure to understand the strawman once you get a grasp on authority and expertise.
We can focus on your failure to understand the strawman once you get a grasp on authority and expertise.
Or, no, you could just reply to what is written, not what is not. This is the first time you’ve actually done that, by the way.
The upfront costs are highly, but you'll save on the monthly energy costs, and if you produce more energy than you use that extra energy goes out onto the grid and the power company pays you.
Add to that the fact that solar is coming down in upfront cost, while longterm costs of most fossil fuels keeps rising..... The math gets easy.