Quote:
Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires
smh you don't seem to know better to reply to people posting bad faith arguments
|
I'm not the type to ignore any argument, up to a point of course.
TommyW hasn't really participated much in this thread, so I don't know if he is truly unaware of what I have said or unaware of the entire body of evidence that has been presented in this thread. Regardless, his statement is fallacious on its own because his argument presupposes that the presenter, by presenting only A, is unaware of B or is ignoring B for the sake of making an argument. Even if this was likely done in bad faith, I think it is worth pointing out because many people don't understand logic fallacies. For them, a fallacious argument can sound as good as an argument that is sound and logical. If that is the case then it is worth clarifying whether we have a knowledge deficit or someone who is being a jerk. I'll assume the former until it is more obvious he is the latter.
He could be trying to make a specific point that the presenter hasn't considered the temperature over billions of years, which is almost irrelevant because obviously climate scientists have considered it because that is precisely what they study, and they still conclude we have anthropogenic climate change. He could be trying to say that scientists are just cherrypicking this period because they are tree-hugging alarmists, or because they are pawns who must do as their financial backers wish, and bla bla bla conspiracy theories, but if he said that, it is a point that is, as it sounds, full of conspiracy theories and not demonstrable, so that could be why we got just a bad one liner. I prefer to identify those that are just guilty of lazy thinking with those that are conspiracy theorists, so that is also part of why I replied.