|
|
A YouTube Video of a 2006 Talk, Entitled "Global Warming: Fallacies and Substantial Doubt" www.youtube.com/watch?tim. . .
In my first public presentation on my own choice of topics since my Ph.D. defense, I focused on elements of IPCC arguments for AGW, finding multiple fallacies. The presentation was before an audience of about 50, at Bergen Community College, in a public room. Since "Logically Fallacious" was created to examine fallacies, I thought the title of my presentation made it an apt topic for member consideration. |
| asked on Sunday, Jun 02, 2019 10:17:22 AM by DrBill | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
I must wonder whether this forum has been hijacked or trolled. I am not prepared to waste my time on a shill for the fossil fuel industry. The science is in, and has been in for a long time. The facts of the matter are beyond dispute, except for those prepared to prostitute their intellectual integrity. It is my belief that the vast majority of climate change deniers are dishonest liars. I do not know whether this accusation can legitimately be levelled at this particular person or his presentation: but his taking this stance gives succour to those who are legitimately so accused and at the same time contributes to dooming future generations to catastrophe. This is not any more a question of scientific method or arguing models. It is a question of making a moral choice. And this presentation has made the wrong moral choice.
I speak as a supporter of Extinction Rebellion, and I am prepared to break the law in actions of civil disobedience and go to prison in consequence. The catastrophe I speak of is already underway, and I am astonished and dismayed that some people blessed with a functioning intellect that surpasses the mere average and not uncommonly greatly surpasses it should see fit to, not just to let this catastrophe run on unchallenged but worse than that, take a line that supports and promotes those practices and attitudes that are active in making it worse. |
| answered on Monday, Jun 03, 2019 06:07:27 AM by Keith Seddon |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I don’t see that the answer gives a name to the fallacy, only an opinion on the debate. Is there a fallacy in the title of the presentation?
|
| answered on Monday, Jun 03, 2019 01:11:10 PM by Baja Jim |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
It's not a long video. The idea of fallacies of IPCC is presented in it. Perhaps it could be watched.
|
| answered on Tuesday, Jun 04, 2019 10:57:47 AM by DrBill |
Comments |
|
| |
