Calling someone an "Alarmist!" is also an ad hominem attack. True.
I would agree with you that the vast majority of people simply do not have access to untainted information on the subject at this point. There are huge sums of money to be made on both sides of the fence on this one. There has been absurd claims made from both sides of this debate. I have yet to be called an "Alarmist" for making that kind of statement though.
There is no doubt that humans could alter our environment if they put their minds to it. The question is whether we are doing it without putting their minds to it.
This kind of statement doesn't meet with a cry of "Alarmist!". It is met with a cry of "Denier!"
It is not slightly inflammatory. It is on the same scale as calling someone a Holocaust denier. As someone that does not even claim to understand the science, and is only taking their stance because it is the mainstream position, and bows to appeals to authority, your use of inflammatory, Godwinnian ad hominem attacks is exactly what I am talking about. You don't end up arguing for the AWG theory. You inadvertently argue against it.
No doubt that any large group will have those who are 'less than polite'. I can honestly say that the AWG proponents are the first to jump to ad hominem attacks though. Because of it's mainstream acceptance, they don't feel that they need to carry on civilized conversations. After all, the "experts" have declared their team correct, and "if you're going to challenge a massive scientific orthodoxy without a competing theory then you have to accept that you will attract a certain amount of ridicule".
Yes, it would be amazing if there was wide scale intimidation of climate scientists. Given that the pro AGW crowd consistently states that there is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is happening, the anti-AGW crowd would have to be intimidating virtually the entire scientific community. Are you saying that the entire scientific community is being intimidated, or are you saying that there isn't a consensus?
"Denier" is an ad hominem attack that clearly was popularized because of the association to holocaust "deniers". Its use is a Goddwinning of the discussion. It is used by people that have no reasonable argument themselves, but feel they MUST be right because they are going along with the majority. Thus they resort to name calling.
Spoken like a true troll who is Godwinning a thread. Of course using ad hominem attacks doesn't change the validity of the science. It does however change whether a reasonable person would take your argument as coming from someone who understands the science. You clearly know that calling a person a "denier" is an inflammatory ad hominem attack, yet you use it anyway. As I said, this shows a lack of good faith in the discussion, doesn't help your argument. It just makes you a troll.
Do you also apply those rules to people who drive their cars for non-necessity reasons? So, if you get in a 6 car pile-up on your way to the movies, do you get turned away that the emergency room? How about AIDS from non-procreative sex. If you have had a vasectomy, and show up with AIDS, do you get turned away?
Spoken just like a Godwinning troll. Rationalize all you want, but your use of a Godwin ad hominem attack actually supports the idea that AGW theories are politics instead of science.
That's not true, it would also take the event of some people developing AIDS when they don't have HIV. So, to correct your smoking analogy, it would require some people to develop cancer even when they don't smoke.
The use of the term "deniers" in itself shows a lack of good faith in any conversation. It is in essence Godwining the conversation. It is an attempt to imply that Global Warming "Deniers" are similar to Holocaust "Deniers". Use of the term doesn't help your argument. It just makes you a troll.
You would think that when they form a comic book villain organization that they would have the sense not to name it as one. Seriously. VIPR??? It isn't even an original league of evil name. Marvel should sue the US government for trademark violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Command
As a general rule of thumb, you can take any Slashdot post that calls out the laws of thermodynamics, and dismiss them as being written by someone who does not understand the laws of thermodynamics.
That is the kind of rationalization Apple fans always use. "Apple does it this way because it's the best way." Then when Apple changes, "Apple doesn't do it that way anymore because the way they do it now is the best way."
If you want the internals of a Galaxy SII you don't even have a choice of 1 if you buy an iPhone. I would think that putting the requirement of "It must have Galaxy SII's internals" would be even less favorable to Apple than to Samsung.
I have to wonder what the crossover is between Slashdot posters who complain about corporations only look at the next quarter, yet themselves only look at the short term when it comes to technology.
You are changing your tune now. That doesn't make me a troll or an idiot. I don't remember EVERY ad, but I remember a lot of them. YOU are claiming that YOU don't. I suspect that YOUR claim is a lie. I suspect that you remember tons of ads for all sorts of products. I wasn't going to call you a liar though.
Well, there you go. That is a single person that claimed Y2K wasn't a problem. Well, he didn't actually say that, he said that by the time the public heard about it, it was pretty well already solved. Close enough to be a denial, as many businesses didn't even start to look at it until the doom saying started. I will still maintain those who deny the problem existed are rare enough to be statistically non-existent. Claims that there are hordes of people that deny there was a problem are far more common.
br.
You need to be careful not to categorize claims that Y2K would lead to the end of the world as we know it and claims that Y2K would create large problems, as the same claim. Remember, there were a lot of people that thought planes would stop functioning mid flight, and that Bank records would evaporate, unable to be reconciled. There was never any chance of these things happening.
I would say that the huge number of people that build statistical models for a living that claim they could not have predicted the housing collapse when it was completely obvious it was going to happen, invalidates your claim that making statistical models for a living inherently gives you credibility over those that don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling someone an "Alarmist!" is also an ad hominem attack. True.
I would agree with you that the vast majority of people simply do not have access to untainted information on the subject at this point. There are huge sums of money to be made on both sides of the fence on this one. There has been absurd claims made from both sides of this debate. I have yet to be called an "Alarmist" for making that kind of statement though.
There is no doubt that humans could alter our environment if they put their minds to it. The question is whether we are doing it without putting their minds to it.
This kind of statement doesn't meet with a cry of "Alarmist!". It is met with a cry of "Denier!"
So, an ad hominem attack against those who disagree with you. Check.
It is not slightly inflammatory. It is on the same scale as calling someone a Holocaust denier. As someone that does not even claim to understand the science, and is only taking their stance because it is the mainstream position, and bows to appeals to authority, your use of inflammatory, Godwinnian ad hominem attacks is exactly what I am talking about. You don't end up arguing for the AWG theory. You inadvertently argue against it.
No doubt that any large group will have those who are 'less than polite'. I can honestly say that the AWG proponents are the first to jump to ad hominem attacks though. Because of it's mainstream acceptance, they don't feel that they need to carry on civilized conversations. After all, the "experts" have declared their team correct, and "if you're going to challenge a massive scientific orthodoxy without a competing theory then you have to accept that you will attract a certain amount of ridicule".
Yes, it would be amazing if there was wide scale intimidation of climate scientists. Given that the pro AGW crowd consistently states that there is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is happening, the anti-AGW crowd would have to be intimidating virtually the entire scientific community. Are you saying that the entire scientific community is being intimidated, or are you saying that there isn't a consensus?
"Denier" is an ad hominem attack that clearly was popularized because of the association to holocaust "deniers". Its use is a Goddwinning of the discussion. It is used by people that have no reasonable argument themselves, but feel they MUST be right because they are going along with the majority. Thus they resort to name calling.
Spoken like a true troll who is Godwinning a thread. Of course using ad hominem attacks doesn't change the validity of the science. It does however change whether a reasonable person would take your argument as coming from someone who understands the science. You clearly know that calling a person a "denier" is an inflammatory ad hominem attack, yet you use it anyway. As I said, this shows a lack of good faith in the discussion, doesn't help your argument. It just makes you a troll.
Do you also apply those rules to people who drive their cars for non-necessity reasons? So, if you get in a 6 car pile-up on your way to the movies, do you get turned away that the emergency room? How about AIDS from non-procreative sex. If you have had a vasectomy, and show up with AIDS, do you get turned away?
Spoken just like a Godwinning troll. Rationalize all you want, but your use of a Godwin ad hominem attack actually supports the idea that AGW theories are politics instead of science.
That's not true, it would also take the event of some people developing AIDS when they don't have HIV. So, to correct your smoking analogy, it would require some people to develop cancer even when they don't smoke.
The use of the term "deniers" in itself shows a lack of good faith in any conversation. It is in essence Godwining the conversation. It is an attempt to imply that Global Warming "Deniers" are similar to Holocaust "Deniers". Use of the term doesn't help your argument. It just makes you a troll.
Only if you live in a snapshot in time, frozen at that moment.
Larger screens. Multi-tasking. Cut and paste. Native applications. x86. Maximize buttons....
You would think that when they form a comic book villain organization that they would have the sense not to name it as one. Seriously. VIPR??? It isn't even an original league of evil name. Marvel should sue the US government for trademark violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Command
As a general rule of thumb, you can take any Slashdot post that calls out the laws of thermodynamics, and dismiss them as being written by someone who does not understand the laws of thermodynamics.
Hurray! My city has been upgraded to a Major Metropolitan area!
That is the kind of rationalization Apple fans always use. "Apple does it this way because it's the best way." Then when Apple changes, "Apple doesn't do it that way anymore because the way they do it now is the best way."
If you want the internals of a Galaxy SII you don't even have a choice of 1 if you buy an iPhone. I would think that putting the requirement of "It must have Galaxy SII's internals" would be even less favorable to Apple than to Samsung.
The weight of an object makes it fit in skinny jeans better? Strange.
I have to wonder what the crossover is between Slashdot posters who complain about corporations only look at the next quarter, yet themselves only look at the short term when it comes to technology.
Your phone is broken.
You are changing your tune now. That doesn't make me a troll or an idiot. I don't remember EVERY ad, but I remember a lot of them. YOU are claiming that YOU don't. I suspect that YOUR claim is a lie. I suspect that you remember tons of ads for all sorts of products. I wasn't going to call you a liar though.
If the only things your remember are things that you try to remember, you have serious memory problems.
Well, there you go. That is a single person that claimed Y2K wasn't a problem. Well, he didn't actually say that, he said that by the time the public heard about it, it was pretty well already solved. Close enough to be a denial, as many businesses didn't even start to look at it until the doom saying started. I will still maintain those who deny the problem existed are rare enough to be statistically non-existent. Claims that there are hordes of people that deny there was a problem are far more common.
br. You need to be careful not to categorize claims that Y2K would lead to the end of the world as we know it and claims that Y2K would create large problems, as the same claim. Remember, there were a lot of people that thought planes would stop functioning mid flight, and that Bank records would evaporate, unable to be reconciled. There was never any chance of these things happening.
Well, that and there is absolutely no money involved in climate prediction. It is only done for altruistic reasons.
I would say that the huge number of people that build statistical models for a living that claim they could not have predicted the housing collapse when it was completely obvious it was going to happen, invalidates your claim that making statistical models for a living inherently gives you credibility over those that don't.