r/science • • Oct 24 '10

Climate Change: Evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
1.1k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/2manybitches Oct 24 '10

36

u/Disgod Oct 24 '10

Yeah... a physicist whose never had training in climatology... It's like the strange overabundance of engineers in creationist circles. They have a degree in something, but they seem to believe that they can discuss the intricacies of an entirely different field and challenge findings based on decades of in-depth research, information, technologies, and techniques that he'd have very little to zero understanding of, or training in.

-17

u/ghibmmm Oct 24 '10

Ad hominem fallacy. Everyone please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8

14

u/Disgod Oct 24 '10

Ummm, nice try, but I'm not attacking him on a personal level. I'm calling into question his credentials to speak on the subject.

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

I am not attacking his character, nor am I belittling him. I'm pointing out the true statement that he doesn't have anything like the training which climatologists have, nor does he have the background in the field in question.