On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,220
With regards to wind power. You can make the technology as efficient as you want, it won't matter, if the wind isn't blowing.

Lol the author is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Why dont you just source talking points from KSA while you're at it?
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
553
Lol the author is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Why dont you just source talking points from KSA while you're at it?
Doesn't matter where they're a senior fellow at, what matters is if they are correct or not.

You keep repeating this same logical fallacy over, and over again.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,220
Doesn't matter where they're a senior fellow at, what matters is if they are correct or not.

You keep repeating this same logical fallacy over, and over again.
no, no that's not all that matters at all. why is it you find my logical fallacies to be wrong when you just spout the same dumb statements over and over again? doesn't that make you just as blinkered as i am in this example?
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
553
no, no that's not all that matters at all. why is it you find my logical fallacies to be wrong when you just spout the same dumb statements over and over again? doesn't that make you just as blinkered as i am in this example?
There is NOTHING is that link that is controversial, NOTHING. If you knew anything about energy generation (I do) you would know that. But you don't. And because you don't know anything about it and can't comment on it in any meaningful way, you attack the source.

It doesn't fucking matter who you work for, it doesn't fucking matter who funds your work. What matters, what always matters, is whether or not you are correct. The facts off the matter will out.

The historian Richard Hofstadtler wrote a book 50 odd years ago about the paranoid style of American politics...Aye!!
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,220
There is NOTHING is that link that is controversial, NOTHING.
That is a complete and total lie


If you knew anything about energy generation (I do) you would know that. But you don't. And because you don't know anything about it and can't comment on it in any meaningful way, you attack the source.
Im not just attacking the source but the entire premise. And if you, with ALL of your supposed knowledge, cant grasp the very basic idea that the authors financial and political incentives could color the article's premise in any way makes me think you're even more full of shit that you appear online. Hell even Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith gets this basic idea.
It doesn't fucking matter who you work for, it doesn't fucking matter who funds your work. What matters, what always matters, is whether or not you are correct. The facts off the matter will out.
This is just so ideologically insane. Honestly, I want some of the drugs youre on.
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
553
That is a complete and total lie



Im not just attacking the source but the entire premise. And if you, with ALL of your supposed knowledge, cant grasp the very basic idea that the authors financial and political incentives could color the article's premise in any way makes me think you're even more full of shit that you appear online. Hell even Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith gets this basic idea.

This is just so ideologically insane. Honestly, I want some of the drugs youre on.
Do you know what a ad hominem argument is?

'Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. [...]' (emphasis mine)

What matters is whether or not the argument, or point is is correct or not. Now if someone is lying, spinning, bullshitting or whatever, then what they are saying is incorrect (its not truthful, it is wrong) and that deception will be exposed by fact checking. The truth will out.

My point isn't whether or not someone can be deceitful (of course they can) its whether or not they are being deceitful.

This is fundamental.
 
Last edited:

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
30,220
The truth will out.
no, no it wont. by what magic will this come about? unless you're able to properly read through the bullshit then you aren't able to dissect arguments by these think tank ghouls.

My point isn't whether or not someone can be deceitful (of course they can) its whether or not they are being deceitful.
and my point is that an article in forbes by a think tank ghoul is, by its very natures, meant to give the imprimateur of being truthful. if you're unable to read between the lines then that is ok, most people aren't. but you should always consider the source of the article and not whether their supposed arguments are constructed in a way to give the appearance of truth.
 

formby002

Well-Known Member
Messages
553
no, no it wont. by what magic will this come about? unless you're able to properly read through the bullshit then you aren't able to dissect arguments by these think tank ghouls.


and my point is that an article in forbes by a think tank ghoul is, by its very natures, meant to give the imprimateur of being truthful. if you're unable to read between the lines then that is ok, most people aren't. but you should always consider the source of the article and not whether their supposed arguments are constructed in a way to give the appearance of truth.
Again, what matters is whether or not something is correct. You're adopting the mind set of a conspiracy theorist.

If someone proffers an argument, fact check and rebut. If you don't, and you rely on ad-hom attacks this will be pointed out to you and you will lose credibility, and then the bullshitters will get away with bullshitting by accusing you have have no credible arguments.

This is an example of your line of argument:

Me: "Why am I wrong?"

You: "because you work for so and so"

Me: "Yes I know, but tell me why what I wrote is wrong?"

You: "because you have to read between the lines"

Me: "Tell me why what I wrote is wrong?"

and so on...

This is one of the reasons the Left keeps losing, it refuses to deal with the substance of arguments, playing the man, rather than the ball.
 
Top Bottom