News Flash: WUWT's Anthony Watts claims all Christians believe Bible 100% Inerrant

Politics and Social Issues
1

Edited to reflect a title change to the original blog post at WUWTW.

Hope you don’t mind me sharing my latest virtual broadside against Anthony Watts’ crazy-making
Here is an excellent example of the rhetorical sleight of hand WUWT’s Anthony Watts excels in:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Anthony starts with a question for Dr. Mann:

A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way? Posted at WattsUpWithThat on March 25, 2013] by Anthony Watts Watts says: Some days you have to wonder how supposedly rational and intelligent people who are considered professional scientists allow themselves to behave like this. From Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed: Watts continues: A simple “no" would suffice, but Dr. Mann seems determined to denigrate people that have different views than him such as Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. How unprofessional. It is yet another example of Climate Ugliness that pervades the mindset of AGW proponents.
================================== Notice Mann said not one word about "Christian faith." Please look at Michael Mann's words : "No, I'm not interested in "debating" climate change & evolution denier Roy Spencer on your "news" network." Seems simple, straight forward and polite. Roy Spencer rejects current climatological understanding. True, check out Roy's website]. Roy Spencer also rejects the scientific understanding regarding biological evolution. Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist] {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
Follow the logic here, it is Watts who drew the direct line between "rejecting evolution" and Christianity. Now, is it fair for Anthony to claim all who "reject evolution" are Christians? Incidentally, Anthony Watts' own "update" reaffirms such an impress. Raspberries may be fruit, but not all fruits are Raspberries.
Back to Anthony's complaint, seems to me Dr. Michael Mann ~ despite all the time wasted defending himself against frivolous attacks has remained a full time scientist. He budgets his time for science not for philosophical debates with someone who doesn't accept foundational precepts of modern scientific knowledge. Watts' wrong with that? To me it sounds like Spencer and Watts are over estimating their own worth; and getting upset cause the world doesn't agree. Hmmm, wonder why Watts is trying to exploit this whole silliness? I suggest he's trying to drown out the more important information being reported on these days. Shame on him. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ As to the other complaint: "Why won't you# debate me*?" # = scientists * = Spencer or Watts, or the Lord M or FOX, whoever's batting that meme around. ~ ~ ~
It's like this... that question coming from the likes Spencer and FOX is sort of like asking: "Why won't I participate in a friendly sparring match with you?" Even though I know you're wearing clawed brass knuckles, like fighting dirty, hate my guts and want to kill me.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Am I exaggerating? Let's consider the 1999 Mann et al paper, the one denialists want to destroy Mann's career over:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html Title: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations" Abstract: "Building on recent studies, we attempt hemispheric temperature reconstructions with proxy data networks for the past millennium. We focus not just on the reconstructions, but the uncertainties therein, and important caveats. Though expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400, our results suggest that the latter 20thcentury is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . and for this piece of pioneering scientific work Republican politicos want to lynch Professor Mann ! Interestingly enough, minor errors were found. The sorts of errors that are routine and part of the scientific learning process. Keep in mind that no scientific work is perfect. ~ ~ ~ But, back to Watts' latest and his political theater; look at the wording used by Mann et al.! Mann et al's study is all about uncertainties and caveats and focus on learning how to make future research more accurate - what more did/do Watts and McIntyre expect? Who knows, or cares, if with 20/20 hindsight Mann's team may have done a few things differently - because today, if you lay that 1999 graph across the many subsequent proxy studies, it has stood the test of time impressively well. Another one of those facts Watts and his fans do their best to hide from the public, rather embracing some global conspiracy parania than facing the down to Earth evidence. In reality Mann et al's study was a great step forward that's been unjustly slandered with endless Yellow Journalism tactics; resulting in a great step backward for society. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This brings me back to the question of why not debate. A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect. Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence. Scientific consensus skeptics have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views. Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing. Scientists aren't into any of that stuff - ignore real facts, avoid questions, attack with misdirection, Your done - times up!!! BS and salesmanship and deceptive wordsmithing is NOT their style. They don't have the time - life is too short! If you ain't got any integrity and base honestly they ain't got the time or interest. That, and more, is plenty enough reason for serious scientists to stay away from Watts/Spencer/LordMonckton style mud fighting... er "debates" wink, wink. But hey, I'm just a citizen and I been paying attention to the modern society driven global warming issue since the early seventies, I'd be happy to "debate" Roy Spencer or Anthony Watts, let's see where the pieces fall, ;-) My first question would be: "Can you describe your conception of our Global Heat Distribution Engine?"
[finally fixed that misspelling]
2

Incidentally, Watts has been spending most of this past month trying drown out the important facts from a new study
Marcott et al. 2013

. . .Marcott et al. took 73 proxy data sets distributed around the globe and combined them to form an historical temperature reconstruction. Their approach differs from that of others in some important respects. First, the proxy data were already converted to temperature estimates before being combined into a reconstruction. Second, since most dates were estimated by radiocarbon dating, dates were re-computed using the most up-to-date calibration (the “Calib6.0.1″ program using the “IntCal09″ data). Third, most of their proxy data sets are ocean-based rather than land-based, making for a more representative global picture. Fourth, since their purpose is to understand what happened in the past 11,300 years their data have a time coverage concentrated on the past rather than the present. In fact the data coverage is much better for the distant past then the last century, since all 73 proxies overlap in time during the period from 5500 to 4500 years ago (a.k.a. “BP" for “before present", where “present" is the usual choice in such studies, the year 1950) but only 18 proxies extend all the way to the year 1940 (the final year of the reconstruction). {as described by Tamino]}
For more see WattsUpWithThatWatts] "Marcott et al. 2013 - A Collection of Examinations and Reviews"
3

Your reasoning is sloppy.

Notice Mann said not one word about “Christian faith."
Watt didn't say Mann mentioned "Christian faith." He said Mann apparently had little respect for those who believe differently. The example is non-belief in evolution. Spencer doesn't believe in evolution (at least in part) because of his Christian faith. Watt's mention of the example of Christianity is legitimate. The point that Mann indulges in an ad hominem (circumstantial) attack is likewise legitimate.
Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
The linked material provides no evidence (AFACT) that Spencer is a YEC. Could you point out what part of the material led you to that conclusion? Is your passion for your subject matter making you a tad careless? Perhaps combined with an eagerness to publish quickly? You don't help yourself with these types of mistakes.
4
Your reasoning is sloppy.
Notice Mann said not one word about “Christian faith."
Watt didn't say Mann mentioned "Christian faith." He said Mann apparently had little respect for those who believe differently. The example is non-belief in evolution. Spencer doesn't believe in evolution (at least in part) because of his Christian faith. Watt's mention of the example of Christianity is legitimate. The point that Mann indulges in an ad hominem (circumstantial) attack is likewise legitimate.
Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
The linked material provides no evidence (AFACT) that Spencer is a YEC. Could you point out what part of the material led you to that conclusion? Is your passion for your subject matter making you a tad careless? Perhaps combined with an eagerness to publish quickly? You don't help yourself with these types of mistakes.
Yes it did make me a tad careless - why NO concerns about the gross distortions of scientific work that Watt's feels free to weave week after week - One directional skepticism equals denial. As for the Young Earth Creationist, Spencer believes in a 100% infallible Bible - that is totally accurate to his own words - he condones the notions Young Earth Creationists, that is obvious from advocacy. So before preaching about fidelity to facts How about some fidelity to the IMPORTANT facts regarding our Global Heat Distribution Engine and how humans are heaping extra insulation into our atmosphere has how that has and will continue tweeking the climate regime, society depends on ? ? ? Also, I've expanded my original post to in light of some of these cries of injustice I've hear from a few who like Watts approach to science. Me, I think learning is more important that the dog-chasing-tail arguments and crazy-making denialists seem to prefer ! http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/news-flash-anthony-watts-claims-all.html
5
Your reasoning is sloppy.
Notice Mann said not one word about “Christian faith."
Watt didn't say Mann mentioned "Christian faith."
Anthony starts with a question for Dr. Mann:
A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way? Posted at WattsUpWithThat on March 25, 2013] by Anthony Watts Watts says: Some days you have to wonder how supposedly rational and intelligent people who are considered professional scientists allow themselves to behave like this. From Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed: Watts continues: A simple “no" would suffice, but Dr. Mann seems determined to denigrate people that have different views than him such as Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. How unprofessional. It is yet another example of Climate Ugliness that pervades the mindset of AGW proponents.
With such slippery word-crafting is it any wonder . . . . . . .
6
Yes it did make me a tad careless - why NO concerns about the gross distortions of scientific work that Watt's feels free to weave week after week - One directional skepticism equals denial.
That closely resembles the appeal to silence version of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I assure you that if Watt was posting here and made a logical error that I recognized I would feel free to offer a corrective.
As for the Young Earth Creationist, Spencer believes in a 100% infallible Bible - that is totally accurate to his own words - he condones the notions Young Earth Creationists, that is obvious from advocacy.
What "notions Young Earth Creationists" does Spencer condone, please? If said notions are not distinctive to YECs then your claim continues to lack support. If you can't tell the difference between "creationist" and "young earth creationist" then you're better off using the former label exclusively. All YECs are creationists. Not all creationists are YECs.
So before preaching about fidelity to facts How about some fidelity to the IMPORTANT facts regarding our Global Heat Distribution Engine and how humans are heaping extra insulation into our atmosphere has how that has and will continue tweeking the climate regime, society depends on ? ? ?
Or you could bite the bullet, refrain from attacking me for pointing out errors, and clean up the mistakes. In the long run it helps you, doesn't it?
Also, I've expanded my original post to in light of some of these cries of injustice I've hear from a few who like Watts approach to science. Me, I think learning is more important that the dog-chasing-tail arguments and crazy-making denialists seem to prefer ! http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/news-flash-anthony-watts-claims-all.html
It seems to me that Watt does a better job than you when it comes to adopting a tone that appeals to global warming agnostics. Seriously, one expects the scientists to make the case with logic and reason, not with fallacious reasoning (such as argumentum ad hominem).
7

Bryan,
We go back a ways, I have respect for you as an individual and find myself sorta siding with your outlook more times then you’d suspect.
But, please understand if you come to me repeating talking points taught by the climate science denial echo-chamber - you walk onto a different playing field.
Not that I have any less respect for you, but because I can’t communicate with you on an individual level.
I can not help but to talk to you as though I were talking straight into the faces of the likes of Singer or Watts or McIntyre or the lord monckton - not like I’m talking to you the individual. Since I know you are repeating things you haven’t actually thought through.
Just saying: If you repeat their Talking-Points you are taking one for The Team and
all my comments will be aimed at the team and not you individually.
With that understanding here we go. . . . . . . 

<blockquote><span style="color:green"><strong>{#E}</strong></span>
Seriously, one expects the scientists to make the case with logic and reason, not with fallacious reasoning (such as argumentum ad hominem).</blockquote>
And that is exactly what real scientists are doing!
It is Dr. Spencer who is off in left field proving himself to be on the wild fringes of rational "Science"
Come on, the man believes the Bible is 100% inerrant.
That's every bit as extreme and irrational . . . and that is the issue!  "Young Earth Creationists" is a tiny part of the "headline that a irritated working-class guy plastered onto his essay to get attention.  So please don't you try to conflate those. with respectable scientist not wanting get into the "rink" with an intellectual, {even if soft spoken and polite}, thug.
And Dr. Mann is a serious climatologist who continues to work. Who's work continues to withstand the scrutiny of experts who are way more trained that dilettantes like Watts and McIntyre  et al. who's hubris makes them blind to the truth that a little knowledge intoxicated and a good deal of knowledge sobers.
So here I am, asking WHAT IS WRONG WITH Dr MANN NOT WANTING TO "DEBATE" A GUY WHO BELIEVES; THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE; <span style="color:red">AND THAT HE POSSESSES AN INTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF "GOD'S PERSONAL WORD AND WILL"...</span>  THAT HE, HIMSELF, KNOWS MORE THAN 92%+ OF ACTIVE PRACTICING CLIMATOLOGIES AND OTHER EARTH SCIENTISTS ! ! !
<em>DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY A SELF RESPECTING SCIENTIST DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME FOR SUCH A CHARACTER?</em>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<blockquote> Bryan <span style="color:green"><strong>{#A}</strong></span>
Yes it did make me a tad careless - <strong>why NO concerns about the gross distortions of scientific work that Watt's feels free to weave week after week - <em>One directional skepticism equals denial.</em></strong></blockquote>
That closely resembles the appeal to silence version of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.  I assure you that if Watt was posting here and made a logical error that I recognized I would feel free to offer a corrective.</blockquote>
Can you explain how you mean that ?
Seems to me - "One directional skepticism" IS sort of an argumentum ad ignorantian
. . . maybe not... sorry I'm not so schooled in all the fancy lingo, but I know when someone is bull-pooping me.  ;-)
<strong>One directional skepticism</strong> <em>{particularly as practiced by Watts/Spencer et al. and emulated by like minded}</em> is <strong>all about
having preconceived outcomes in mind and treating debate?dialogue like a contact-sport where winning is all that matters and genuine productive learning is treated with derision.</strong>
~ ~ ~ ~
<strong>Real human curiosity and learning and science requires skepticism towards one's own ideas and beliefs.</strong>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<blockquote> Bryan <span style="color:green"><strong>{#B}</strong></span>
<blockquote>As for the Young Earth Creationist,  Spencer believes in a 100% infallible - that is totally accurate to his own words - he condones the notions Young Earth Creationists, that is obvious from advocacy.</blockquote>
What "notions Young Earth Creationists" does Spencer condone, please?  If said notions are not distinctive to YECs then your claim continues to lack support.  If you can't tell the difference between "creationist" and "young earth creationist" then you're better off using the former label exclusively.  All YECs are creationists.  Not all creationists are YECs.</blockquote>
The real argument is not about YEC, it's about believing the Bible is '100% inerrant" Bible and with Dr. Spencer believing he has a special personal understanding of <strong>a personal God's</strong> Word and Will.  Rather than an appreciation for "God's incomprehensibility."
That is some scary stuff !  More than enough reason to stay away from and suspect the man, when serious learning and rational understanding is supposed to be the goal !
But, you're right Brian, I hadn't thought it through all the way.  <span style="color:green">So... I just run off for a few minutes to correct that sloppiness</span> over at my WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blobspot.com.  <em> I tip my hat.</em><span style="font-size:.75em"></span>
<a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/news-flash-anthony-watts-claims-all.html"><strong>News Flash: Anthony Watts claims all Christians believe the Bible 100% Infallible</strong></a>]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<blockquote> Bryan <span style="color:green"><strong>{#C}</strong></span>
<blockquote>So before preaching about <strong>fidelity to facts</strong> How about some fidelity to the IMPORTANT facts regarding our Global Heat Distribution Engine and how humans are heaping extra insulation into our atmosphere has how that has and will continue tweeking the climate regime, society depends on ? ? ?</blockquote>
Or you could bite the bullet, refrain from attacking me for pointing out errors, and clean up the mistakes.  In the long run it helps you, doesn't it?
</blockquote>
Bite what bullet?
How about you "Biting your Bullet" and turning a skeptical eyes towards the likes of Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer et al. ?
<em><strong><a href="http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/anthony-watts-up-with-those-wuwt.html">Anthony, Watts Up With Those WUWT HotWhoppers?</a>]
An Index of posts rationally deconstructing Anthony Watts' misrepresentations
of the actual scientific community and the discussions going on within it.
</strong></em>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<blockquote> Bryan <span style="color:green"><strong>{#D}</strong></span>
<blockquote>Also, I've expanded my original post to in light of some of these cries of injustice I've hear from a few who like Watts approach to science.
<strong>Me, I think learning is more important that the <em>dog-chasing-tail arguments</em> and crazy-making denialists seem to prefer !</strong>
</blockquote>
It seems to me that Watt does a better job than you when it comes to adopting a tone that appeals to global warming agnostics.
</blockquote>
Before you start with the "argumentum ad hominem" schmalz remember Anthony Watts' fraud that started all of the?
<span style="color:red"><strong>WHAT ABOUT THAT !</strong></span>
Anthony starts with a question for Dr. Mann:
<blockquote><span style="color:brown">A question for Dr. Michael Mann – Would a professional scientist behave this way?
Posted at WattsUpWithThat on March 25, 2013</a>] by Anthony Watts
Watts says: Some days you have to wonder how supposedly rational and intelligent people who are considered professional scientists allow themselves to behave like this.
From Dr. Mann’s Twitter feed:
<img />
Watts continues: A simple “no" would suffice, but Dr. Mann seems determined to denigrate people that have different views than him such as Dr. Spencer’s Christian faith. How unprofessional.
It is yet another example of Climate Ugliness that pervades the mindset of AGW proponents.</span>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8
Bryan, We go back a ways, I have respect for you as an individual and find myself sorta siding with your outlook more times then you'd suspect.
Thanks. Please pardon me for making my replies brief. I'm trying to stay busy with other stuff, so I'm going to end up repeating the point from my previous post.
But, please understand if you come to me repeating talking points taught by the climate science denial echo-chamber - you walk onto a different playing field. Not that I have any less respect for you, but because I can't communicate with you on an individual level.
What talking point have I repeated? That Mann used a fallacious ad hom attack? That's not really in dispute, is it? With science it's all about the evidence relevant to a given area of inquiry, right? So it doesn't matter if you're Mormon, Objectivist, Hindu or Breatharian: The point is how one hypothesizes and accounts for the evidence regardless of other beliefs. In an area like science, attacking the non-relevant beliefs of the other party is a clearly fallacious ad hominem attack.
I can not help but to talk to you as though I were talking straight into the faces of the likes of Singer or Watts or McIntyre or the lord monckton - not like I'm talking to you the individual. Since I know you are repeating things you haven't actually thought through.
Again, what am I supposedly repeating that I haven't thought through? How much more thinking do I need in order to (wrongly!) determine that Mann did not engage in a fallacious ad hominem attack? Or have my many years of study ill equipped me to see the manifestly obvious differences between creationism and young-earth creationism?
Just saying: If you repeat their Talking-Points you are taking one for The Team and all my comments will be aimed at the team and not you individually.
It's kind of like guilt by association] without the association. ;-)
With that understanding here we go. . . . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{#E} Seriously, one expects the scientists to make the case with logic and reason, not with fallacious reasoning (such as argumentum ad hominem).
And that is exactly what real scientists are doing!
Using Dr. Spencer's non-relevant beliefs as an excuse for debating Spencer on a scientific issue is not logic and reason.
So here I am, asking WHAT IS WRONG WITH Dr MANN NOT WANTING TO "DEBATE" A GUY WHO BELIEVES; THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE;
There's nothing necessarily wrong with Mann not wanting to debate a guy who believes the Bible is inerrant (Spencer probably doesn't believe in Biblical infallibility as theologians use the term), any more than there's something wrong with Mann not wanting to debate a person with a tattoo. But if Mann uses the excuse "He believes in the Bible!" or "He's got a tattoo, for cryin' out loud!" then he's providing a fallacious excuse in that neither belief in the Bible nor having a tattoo is relevant to the science of global warming. That's what's wrong with his response.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY A SELF RESPECTING SCIENTIST DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME FOR SUCH A CHARACTER?
If Mann believes he can win the debate in a way that will significantly help his cause then his excuse makes him look pathetic. If, on the other hand, he shares the view of some evolutionists that debating the other side, though the other side is wrong, uses debate techniques that work on the undecided population, then his response is more understandable (though no less fallacious). In that case, he's using the ad hominem distraction in lieu of admitting that his correct view is difficult to communicate to the average Joe. Though he could still have refused without elaborating, as Watt suggested.
~~~~~~~
Bryan {#A} Yes it did make me a tad careless - why NO concerns about the gross distortions of scientific work that Watt's feels free to weave week after week - One directional skepticism equals denial.
That closely resembles the appeal to silence version of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I assure you that if Watt was posting here and made a logical error that I recognized I would feel free to offer a corrective.
Can you explain how you mean that ? I'm not sure I can express it more simply. I ran across your post. I evaluated the argument and found it flawed. I communicated my findings to you. You express to me indignation that I'm not going after the other guy. In the context of what I'm looking at, Watt hasn't done anything that needs correction. You have. You should fix your errors quickly and completely without repeating them regardless of what Watt does or what I think of Watt.
Seems to me - "One directional skepticism" IS sort of an argumentum ad ignorantian . . . maybe not... sorry I'm not so schooled in all the fancy lingo, but I know when someone is bull-pooping me. ;-)
I can't imagine anything in the broader context that would even potentially excuse your errors. To think otherwise is to indulge in a tu quoque fallacy]. I'm telling you I do not believe I am engaged in one-directional skepticism. My criticism of your argument is neutral as to the AGW dispute. If you correct what you've written in accordance with my suggestions then it improves the accuracy of your argument. It's possible to view that as a good thing.
One directional skepticism {particularly as practiced by Watts/Spencer et al. and emulated by like minded} is all about having preconceived outcomes in mind and treating debate?dialogue like a contact-sport where winning is all that matters and genuine productive learning is treated with derision. ~ ~ ~ ~ Real human curiosity and learning and science requires skepticism towards one's own ideas and beliefs. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bryan What "notions Young Earth Creationists" does Spencer condone, please? If said notions are not distinctive to YECs then your claim continues to lack support. If you can't tell the difference between "creationist" and "young earth creationist" then you're better off using the former label exclusively. All YECs are creationists. Not all creationists are YECs.
The real argument is not about YEC, it's about believing the Bible is '100% inerrant" Bible and with Dr. Spencer believing he has a special personal understanding of a personal God's Word and Will. Rather than an appreciation for "God's incomprehensibility." That is some scary stuff ! More than enough reason to stay away from and suspect the man, when serious learning and rational understanding is supposed to be the goal ! But, you're right Brian, I hadn't thought it through all the way. So... I just run off for a few minutes to correct that sloppiness over at my WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blobspot.com. I tip my hat.
Thanks. In my opinion that ultimately strengthens your argument, helping to immunize you from having the other side focus on errors that have little to do with the subject of dispute.
Before you start with the "argumentum ad hominem" schmalz remember Anthony Watts' fraud that started all of the? WHAT ABOUT THAT !
I'm not familiar with the fraud you're alleging, and as two wrongs do not make a right and the other person's wrong cannot justify yours, it is irrelevant. I've tried to consider that Watt could be guilty of a fallacious ad hominem in your example, but it doesn't quite work. One thing you need to remember is that it's possible to insult a person (which is "ad hominem" in a sense) without committing a fallacy. One can produce a brilliant argument meant draw a response from somebody else with accompanying epithets such as "fatso" or whatever. Ad hominem is a fallacy when it is used to attack the other person's argument or credibility in a non-relevant way. Mann's response to a debate challenge is relevant to the strength of his argument so long as a large segment of the public doesn't buy Mann's views on climate change. Mann should be motivated to change minds, and public debate may serve as an effective means toward that purpose. Thus his mode of response is relevant. If he fails to address the issue in terms of logic and reason then it is reasonable to question the true grounds for his refusal to debate.
9

I think an ad hominem attack is perfectly valid here.
A scientist refusing to discuss science with a climate change & evolution denier is perfectly ok.
It makes no sense to discuss with somebody who repeatedly has shown to defend undefendable standpoints, like anti-evolutionism, if you have better things to do, e.g. to improve your climate models.

10
I think an ad hominem attack is perfectly valid here. A scientist refusing to discuss science with a climate change & evolution denier is perfectly ok.
Refusing to debate with anybody is okay, including climate change and evolution deniers. But using the very point at issue as the reason for not engaging the debate, you should agree, is clearly fallacious (validity isn't at issue). In Mann's case, he chose a clearly irrelevant issue. Your opinion to the contrary could use some support. Are creationism and good climate science incompatible? If so, how? If a creationist is simply a bad debater then it's all the more reason for Mann to accept the debate *if* it advances his case effectively to the public.
It makes no sense to discuss with somebody who repeatedly has shown to defend undefendable standpoints, like anti-evolutionism, if you have better things to do, e.g. to improve your climate models.
In that case, Mann should respond that he does not wish to debate but rather to dedicate his time to improving his climate models. If that's what he thinks then the response would represent the epitome of logic and reason.
11

I screwed up - scrolled too fast,
give me a few moments… I’ll be back

12
But, please understand if you come to me repeating talking points taught by the climate science denial echo-chamber - you walk onto a different playing field. Not that I have any less respect for you, but because I can't communicate with you on an individual level.
What talking point have I repeated? That Mann used a fallacious ad hom attack? That's not really in dispute, is it? With science it's all about the evidence relevant to a given area of inquiry, right? So it doesn't matter if you're Mormon, Objectivist, Hindu or Breatharian: The point is how one hypothesizes and accounts for the evidence regardless of other beliefs. In an area like science, attacking the non-relevant beliefs of the other party is a clearly fallacious ad hominem attack.
Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Believing the Bible is the perfect Spiritual Guide is an altogether different thing... and I think you are arguing that above - but it is not a valid argument in this Wattzian situation. The point is Dr.Spencer who has a long track record of misrepresenting his own science along with believing the Bible is "Innerant". And a serious scientist who has no time for that non-sense - was set up by FOX (media-spin professionals) for exactly the type of bullpoop Anthony is dishing out and that you are defending. ~ ~ ~ As for "Guild by association"... well OK, that is my attitude. And I'm just being honest in explaining how my replies should be read... that is, not as an attack on your person, but as critiques on the crazy-making Anthony and the troupe of climate science denialists has turned into a high art form. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I'm not sure I can express it more simply. I ran across your post. I evaluated the argument and found it flawed. I communicated my findings to you. You express to me indignation that I'm not going after the other guy. In the context of what I'm looking at, Watt hasn't done anything that needs correction. You have. You should fix your errors quickly and completely without repeating them regardless of what Watt does or what I think of Watt.
Ah this is sort of the tactic the climate science denialists have learned to exploit quite well. Reduce and isolate - so that nothing has anything to do with anything else. Then, focus on tiny flaws of the opposing side, hyper-inflate them to "represent" the entire issue - thus successfully ignoring the atrocities to science the denialists camp are guilty of. Bryan I'm not saying that was your tactical intent, I'm just saying that's the end-result substance of how you've chosen to judge this matter. Something that many have subliminally learned from uncritically accepting what folks who are politically more acceptable {right wing leaning contrarians... folks who assure us we need change nothing and that consumption should have no limits.} have to say about climate science... instead of listening to the actual climate experts
Thanks. In my opinion that ultimately strengthens your argument, helping to immunize you from having the other side focus on errors that have little to do with the subject of dispute.
Yes, yes it did and I sincerely thank you for the critique and welcome further critique, that's why I'm constantly exposing myself and dare I say constantly reevaluating and self-scrutinizing and growing. ======================== But now I'm going to get back to FOX, Watts and Spencer. And this episode which was nothing but a set-up for another substance-less attack on Dr Mann ~ and why I think it's worth pushing back and calling Watts on it. I'm not a scientist and I certain don't represent Mann, this is my own indignation at the crap Watts' keeps getting patted on the back for by folks who refuse to rationally look at what scientists understand about our global heat distribution engine. If you are unaware of Watts' long string of atrocities toward serious science, just means you haven't been paying attention - so forgive my over awareness of and resentment towards Anthony Watts' treasonable politicizing and crazing-making of climatology when what society NEEDS is a sober learning process. Not people desperate to keep their profits-über-alles paradigm in place ! As for all the silliness Watts has been shown to publish on his blog - that's can't be swept under the carpet and proclaimed irrelevant, since that is exactly what this is all about. Case in point - the man is still a great booster of Lord Monckton - that alone disqualifies one as an intellectually honest and rational thinker. Also don't forget, it's Watts, not Mann who's trying to make a big deal... well and perhaps me now.
13
Now, back to understanding the real reasons Mann refused to climb into the FOX "debate rink" with Roy Spencer. It is simple Roy Spencer is not a credible witness, nor is he interested in a constructive conversation as revealed by his track record! ========================= If Spencer proclaims himself to believe the Bible is one hundred percent innerant - it means he also believes in a personal conscious God {in man's image}. And reading the way Roy Spencer has written about the Bible makes clean, he's convinced himself that he has an inside track to GOD and understands God's Word and Will. And as I've said above that is a very scary self-assessment for someone who is supposed to study Earth Sciences to have. It is reflected in his contrarian science, even down to the way he has handled his own errors regarding processing satellite data at UAH. But it takes a little serious reading to full appreciate what's going on with that.
UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence Posted on 27 December 2011 by dana1981, Albatross http://SkepticalScience.com November 2011 marked the 33rd year of atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change.
Here is a selection of search results for Roy Spencer: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Roy+Spencer&x=0&y=0 Roy's Risky Regression 7 July 2012 by Dikran Marsupial ~ ~ ~ Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues 3 April 2012 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer's Bad Economics 15 March 2012 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer's Junk Science 5 March 2012 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 2 - Of Cherries and Volcanoes 28 December 2011 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence 27 December 2011 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell 20 September 2011 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer 3 September 2011 by John Cook ~ ~ ~ Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game 4 August 2011 by dana1981 ~ ~ ~ Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback 3 August 2011 by Kevin Trenberth ~ ~ ~ Just Put the Model Down, Roy 2 August 2011 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer on Climate Sensitivity - Again 1 July 2011 by Chris Colose ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet 22 May 2011 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3 3 March 2011 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2 1 March 2011 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1 27 February 2011 by bbickmore ~ ~ ~ A history of satellite measurements of global warming 12 September 2010 by dansat ~ ~ ~ there's more . . . ==================================== And don't forget the interesting lessons you can learn over at HotWhopper.com see "Anthony, Watts Up With Those WUWT HotWhoppers? AN INDEX" http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/anthony-watts-up-with-those-wuwt.html
14
Seems simple, straight forward and polite. Roy Spencer rejects current climatological understanding. True, check out Roy's website]. Roy Spencer also rejects the scientific understanding regarding biological evolution. Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist] {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
If thats true someone should show him the "misconceptions of evolutions" page on the University of California's website
15
Seems simple, straight forward and polite. Roy Spencer rejects current climatological understanding. True, check out Roy's website]. Roy Spencer also rejects the scientific understanding regarding biological evolution. Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist] {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
If thats true someone should show him the "misconceptions of evolutions" page on the University of California's website
you brought it up, please share a link. :cheese:
16

Who needs the Universrity of California when you have the Koran? Haven’t you heard the Muslims say that Jews have evolved from apes? That is correct, isn’t it? :wink:

17
Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Believing the Bible is the perfect Spiritual Guide is an altogether different thing... and I think you are arguing that above - but it is not a valid argument in this Wattzian situation.
This is the stumbling block right here, I think. Let's take Boyle's Law. How does an inerrantist view of the Bible create a conflict with Boyle's Law (to name just one of many convenient examples)?
18
Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Believing the Bible is the perfect Spiritual Guide is an altogether different thing... and I think you are arguing that above - but it is not a valid argument in this Wattzian situation.
This is the stumbling block right here, I think. Let's take Boyle's Law. How does an inerrantist view of the Bible create a conflict with Boyle's Law (to name just one of many convenient examples)? I'm not sure what your example is supposed to tell us. But, seems to me an innerant view of the Bible seems to... ... make it impossible for believers to get their heads around the reality of evolution. {without wrapping one's head around the concept of our planet spending billions of years forming and developing - it's impossible to wrap one's head around the complexities and dynamics of our Global Heat Distribution Machine.} ... make people think "God" is in control of the future and plans to destroy all this anyways; so we need not worry about what we are doing to our planet ... make people think humanity can't possibly be a destructive evolutionary force; after all "God" said multiply like rats and subjugate and consume all. ... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who's whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth's processes. ... indicated a frightful amount of hubris
19
I'm not sure what your example is supposed to tell us.
It is supposed to show the absurdity of your assertion that "Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Climate change is like Boyle's Law in that there is no apparent reason, in principle, why a creationist, even a young-earth creationist, could not argue the science on a scientific basis.
But, seems to me an innerant view of the Bible seems to... ... make it impossible for believers to get their heads around the reality of evolution.
Pish-posh. It's commonplace for an inerrantist to accept evolution as a process embedded in the design of the universe. "Inerrantist" and "Wooden-literalist" are not necessarily synonyms.
... make people think "God" is in control of the future and plans to destroy all this anyways; so we need not worry about what we are doing to our planet
Relevant how to the discussion of climate change science?
... make people think humanity can't possibly be a destructive evolutionary force; after all "God" said multiply like rats and subjugate and consume all.
That's a laughable straw man and even if it was true it would likewise provide no reason why an the individual could not discuss the science of climate change.
... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who's whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth's processes.
Isn't that just an excuse for pre-judging the debate? As I explained above, if Mann thinks he can win the debate and positively affect public acceptance by that strategy, then Spencer's lack of a rational grasp of the reality of the earth's processes provides a heightened attraction for the debate, all other things being equal.
... indicated a frightful amount of hubris
Again, hubris in one's opponent is a reason to engage the debate. Pride does come before a fall--don't we agree on that? You're providing another reason to engage the debate, not avoid it. You've got me repeating myself: If defeating the opposition in debate can increase public acceptance of Mann's views on climate change then you're not offering any reason at all why he should avoid the debate. Earlier, you mentioned some rational reasons, including the desire to dedicate time to science rather than debate. Mann will appear more rational if he publicly uses such rational reasons for avoiding the debate. Using personal attacks makes his position look weaker to those who do not agree with him already (allies may buy Mann's expressed reasoning with enthusiasm, as you appear to do). Mr. Watt, judging from the post we've looked at, appears to understand public communications rather well. He sees the weakness in Mann's rhetoric and exploits it. And he has a good point. Mann's answer at best suggests that the outcome of the debate would prove equivocal for the undecided persons in the audience regardless of the merits of Mann's position. Watt could argue fallaciously that the reluctance proves that Mann's argument would lose, but Watt stops well short of doing that, so far as I can tell. At the bottom line, Mann's not playing effectively to the undecided middle. And bluntly, you're not either. Perhaps you get the most enthusiastic feedback for your posts when they're hard-hitting and expressed in something beyond the calm language of logic and rationality (that's one reason I can imagine you're motivated to share them here among a (mostly!) friendly audience). On the plus side, there's a place for that. But if your goal is to swing the opinions of climate change agnostics and skeptics then I'd question whether you're going about things the right way. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html
20
you brought it up, please share a link.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ In particular see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIEflawed.shtml http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml I tried to post them initially but they were marked as spam