Paul Krguman on climate change

Taxcutter says:
I don't have to. every time my sources are impugned by ad hominem, I am empowered to use it on anybody else's stuff.

 

Your sources? You have no sources for anyone to impugn. You have provided nothing but opinions of others which is worth zero.

 

Well, basically Krugman, by his first paragraph, is providing only opinions of others.

 

Taxcutter says:
Your post empowers me to apply ad hominem at my leisure.

 

If you take a look at the link that was posted, there is a measurable graph of a percentage of emissions falling due to cap and trade. That is not an opinion by Krugman.

 

Worldwide emissions are not falling so what Krugman posted is irrelevant.



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

 

He is not making a fallacy of authority. A fallacy of authority arises when one cites a non-expert or unrelated expert on a specific topic. Climate scientists are experts of climate science.

The ratio represents the opinion of the expert community.

Yes they can and have. And yes there are realistic solutions.

Learn the physics of CO2 and other chemicals.

You just contradicted yourself by making an anti-intellectual argument.

 

You evidently do not understand what 'authority' means.

The 97% is a review of papers not scientists and it does not differentiate between AGW and CAGW but portrays itself as CAGW and it totally irrelevant to science anyway.

 

Yea, do as you normally do. Run away from the nuts and bolts of the debate. Ad hominen is a classic tool used for folks who have nothing to offer. Pick any topic on climate change you prefer, and there will be those who will forever destroy you with it, while you limp away with ad hominen.

 

Taxcutter says:
A graph prepared by government-paid stooges.

 

You don't know what your even talking about; instead, you're citing garbage from blogs you have read.

You need to spend time learning logic before throwing around fallacy accusations.

 

No it is not. Krugman had a graph that was not world wide. You want to talk about worldwide okay. I haven't researched that, but the graph you showed, I would not even try and argue. You are trying to change the argument to oranges when I'm talking apples.

 

It is still irrelevant if it makes no difference.

 

It's normally years and even decades after one publishes that one receives a noble prize. For example, Einstein published in 1905, but he didn't receive the noble prize until 1921. Another example is the recent higgs boson discovery. Peter Higgs published in the 60's but was just awarded a nobel prize last year.

Einstein was a leftest as well. Do you really think he got the nobel prize because of his political views?

In addition, I need to be careful about using words like left and right. They are very broad generalizations. Normally, people are left or right on specific views.

For example, Krugman has been critical of Obama's fiscal policy in the past. And not all people who identify as liberal like kurgman.

 

Cap and trade was designed for chlorine based gasses that were damaging the ozone layer. And it worked very well. It could work for CO2 as well.

 

Compared to the ones the "stooge accusers" never show that counter the ones the stooges show, only proves that the stooges have something to show while the "stooge accusers" prove their ignorance, with no counter arguments.

 

Plenty of counter arguments based on hypothesis but most true believers never take the time to pay attention to them then spout of your kind of proof of such.

 

That makes absolutely no sense from what I explained to you.

 

Dude, if you can't make sense with proper word usage and grammar, I'm not going to spend time trying to understand this riddle of a so called sentence of yours. Have a good day.

 

Taxcutter says:
Stooges do what they are paid to do.

 

I remember one time years ago, Krugman was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Krugman said something quite nonsensical and O'Reilly went after him. Krugman was so stunned that he just sat there looking like the proverbial deer in the headlights. When he tried to respond, he just stuttered out some incoherent mumblings and O'Reilly slammed him again. It was hilarious.

People on the left think that Krugman is some intellectual giant. He's actually a blathering partisan hack.

 

A fallacy of authority arises under three conditions.
1. Citing a non-expert.
2. Failing to account for the expert community.
3. Trying to make something unconditionally true.

There is only the science of climate change.

 

Again, more unequivocal proof showing low information ignorance, by attacking the messenger. Go get em. You're on a roll.

 

Why? Because you say so? silliness.

 

He is simply point out that Krugman is a lying shill who has a history of contradicting himself depending on who is paying him and/or which way the wind is blowing.