re: #194 avanti

Here’s a great link on why arguing with a denier is a waste of time. Yours would be the fake expert tactic.

1.conspiracy
2. selectivity (cherry-picking)
3. fake experts
4. impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts)
5. general fallacies of logic.

BTW, works for every kind of denier.

link

So a physics professor- someone with intimite knowledge of thermodynamics, which is quite relevant- is by definition a “fake expert”, but anyone endorsed by the IPCC is a legitimate expert?

But let’s turn your little theory around, shall we?

The AGW proponents:

1. Conspiracy. Those with even the most remote connection to the energy industry are part of a grand scheme to cover up AGW, and thus can’t be listened to, no matter what their credentials or factual argument.

2. Selectivity. AGW types excel here; pick a historic low temperature, compare it to a more recent and higher temperature to raise alarm. Ignore periods in history such as the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age that do not conform to the AGW theory.

3. Fake experts. Al Gore. The legions of IPCC scientists with little qualification beyond the willingness to board the AGW bandwagon.

4. “Moving the goalposts”. Just recently they lowered their predictions on what level of warming would be catastrophic, almost certainly because earlier predictions of warming have failed miserably. When predictions fail, cite a previously unconsidered and unprovable factor.

5. General fallacies of logic. Rarely do AGW advocates accurately predict trends regarding extreme weather events, but after the event will cite AGW as contributing to it. Flood, drought, warm weather, cold weather, snow, lack of snow, hurricanes, lack of hurricanes- all are cited as evidence of AGW, but only after the event.