Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Senator Harry Reid arrives at a clean energy summit in a fleet of SUV's.

Here's a beautiful picture of Senator Harry Reid arriving to address a clean energy summit. 

Pay no attention to that fleet of SUV's in the background.  Go here and here for details. 
Irony is so lost on those people. 
I'll say it before, and I'll say it again.  NONE of our politicians believe ANY of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Horsecrap.  NONE. 
It is an easy way for them to gain power from the gullible. 


Cedric Katesby said...

This post is commiting a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Hypocrisy.

This is not the first time you have do this.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

I don't believe this is a fallacious argument... This is more of a simple pointing out that 'HARRY REID IS EITHER A) A LIAR or B) A PERSON WHO CARES NOT ABOUT HIS OWN KILLER CARBON FOOTPRINT!

I'm just curious why they didn't show up in a caravan of individually occupied Army Humvees and Blackhawk Helicopters. Like Nancy Pelosi and her fleet of private government jetcraft, these too are at their disposal. Why not take advantage of it? It's like the bowling alley at the White House. Why not use it if you got it??

Nick Rowe said...

Cedric, you are wrong.

WS did not say or imply anywhere in his post that "AGW is wrong because proponents of it are hypocrites."

He merely stated that they do not actually believe the things they are saying, a much more modest proposition.

At best, his characterization of AGW "bullcrap" might lead you to believe he's making that statement, but that's another fallacy. Everything ever said in evidence of AGW might be 100% bullcrap, yet it still exists. The fact that false premises lead to a correct conclusion does not turn bullcrap into gold.

So you have committed the "Straw Man" Fallacy.

You have also committed the "I didn't completely read the argument I'm countering with highfalutin philosophical concepts I looked up on the internet" Fallacy, also known as the Emily Litella Fallacy.

This is not the first time you have do this.

Actually, I believe Harry Reid, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi DO believe in AGW out of total ignorance and political indoctrination. The real crime is that they believe they are above any remedy. Remember, these are the people who regularly exempt themselves from the laws they make and the standards by which they judge others.

Cedric Katesby said...

He merely stated that they do not actually believe the things they are saying, a much more modest proposition.

The word you are looking for here is...hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches.

WS did not say or imply anywhere in his post that "AGW is wrong because proponents of it are hypocrites."

Yes he did.
All you have to do is mention Global warming somehow, whack on a question mark or say something sarcastic and then make note of some supposed hypocrisy.
Job done. It doesn't need to be too sophisticated.

Here's another example:


Just look at Al Gore.
He bought a big house.
Oceans will boil. (Oh how spooky)
Har har!

The formal term for this is an Appeal to Hypocrisy.

It's a classic for climate deniers:

No 8: Any IPCC participant that claims that CO2 can affect the climate must, in order to be credible, abstain from travelling in airplanes and in cars, living indoors, eating warmed food and breathing.

Sam said...

"Fallacies: Appeal to Hypocrisy" Nice video..

Cedric Katesby said...

Nice video..

Glad you liked it.
For those of you who are confused about what a "Strawman" is, here's another video from the same creator...


By accusing Allen of using an Appeal to Hypocrisy, I am not attacking a strawman.

I could simply be wrong.
No fallacy is applicable here.

However, as the video explains, attacking a strawman would happen IF I set up a distorted misrepresentation of Allen's argument.

I didn't do that.
I didn't "creatively re-word" anything so as to easily knock it down because the real thing was too good.

I could just be wrong.
(Yet so far I have no reason to believe that I am.)

However, strawmen do pop up from time to time around here.
For example:

"Surely, all these people who are scientists and wear lab coats and have PhD's couldn't ALL be wrong and doing anything nefarious."

Never actually said this nor did I ever want to imply this....because this is bad thinking.
It's not logical.

Yeah, science is tentative.
Yeah, people make mistakes and that includes scientists but...

It's normal and reasonable to accept that NASA went to the moon.
That not following a "religious orthodoxy".

It's normal and reasonable to accept what NASA is saying about global warming.
That's not a bad thing.
It's normal.

It's normal and reasonable to accept what my doctor is saying about my risk of lung cancer.

It does not make me a communist.
It does not make me naive.

NASA has a reputation.
A well-earned scientific reputation.
They are the best.
For a non-scientist like myself, listening to what NASA has to say about climatology is...reasonable.

There's no zealotry or blindness required.
Further, it's wrong to label it an Argument from Authority.

NASA does the work.
That's how they know stuff.
They follow the scientific process.
I like the scientific process.
There's no good alternative to figure out reality.
(That includes obsessing on how Al Gore chooses to spend his money.)

Yes, NASA could be wrong.
I get it.
Yet I have no good reason to think that NASA is a den of liars or commies.
The work that they do looks solid.

All other scientific communities that are totally independent of NASA fully support their work.
That's a good sign.
It doesn't get any better.

I don't get my science from no-name blogs or "Institutes" or the TV.
I don't do conspiracy theories.

The AG of Virginia is performing an investigation right now and has requested even more emails from the good doctor. With that said, the GOP AG has to look good to their voting block too, so I know that has some political currency attached to that as well.

It didn't work out so well. Just letting you know.

Dr Ralph said...

Cedric - this isn't about facts, this about ideology (but you knew that).

Someday soon I expect our friend the WS to argue the earth is flat: the special interests behind globe-manufacturing are responsible for pushing the "round world" mind-set.

Just wait - it's coming.

Tim Lebsack said...

The Earth is flat. That's why we have global warming, because the Sun's rays absorb directly into the flat side of the disc God made for us. If the Earth was spherical, as some deniers claim, the sun's rays would slide around it and careen off into space possibly causing harm to our friends on Vulcan and Giedi Prime. We wouldn't want that to happen.