I'm asking you to compare the methods of creationists with the global warming deniers, and then explain why you accept the same techniques when used by one group (the AGW deniers) but not when used by the other group (creationists).
Thats a ridiculous argument. The techniques are the same only in the most general sense, and in that very generals sense arguments for all sorts of things use the same techniques.
Evolution has similar holes just like AGW
Similar perhaps but much smaller, and the data has been coming in the same way for much longer.
Also "AGW" isn't one thing. To really logically address the issue you have to break down the different points that people think are true, think are false, or think are uncertain. Lumping all opponents of any global warming related claims in to one big lump and calling them "global warming deniers" isn't accurate or reasonable.
Regarding strawmen and arguing. Go read the creation/evolution debate. People argue many points of that all the time. The fact that degreed individuals argue does not mean the arguments have merit. They can still be strawman arguments, with one side not thinking clearly.
I am already pretty familiar with the creation/evolution debate, and I'm not interested enough in the debate to try to become more familiar, to become some sort of expert on it.
I agree, the fact that degreed individuals argue for something does not mean the arguments have merit. And degreed individuals can and do use straw man arguments. Those points are true, but they are almost entirely irrelevant. I didn't argue, and don't support, either the idea that degreed individuals are always right, or that they never use straw man arguments.
What I did point out is that the arguments you called straw man arguments where not straw man arguments. A straw man argument is when you make a fake argument for the other side and then proceed to knock it down. The arguments I was talking about where not false, they are actual arguments and where not made up by the people who argued against them. You can argue if you want that the counter arguments where week, faulty, not important, irrelevant, whatever, but they aren't straw men. |
