of Logical Fallacies and other labels

General Discussion
1

OK, so I don’t have a college degree, nor am I up on my polemics instruction.
So, I’m known to step into my own doodoo sometimes and I was wondering if anyone out there might be into offering some opinions.
See I wrote a post over at SKEP and besides the usual inane off-topic one liners, I received the following comment:

"How are all of these logical fallacies?"
To my simple mind, I'm thinking that the first line does not justify the second line of thinking... and in fact that the second line conclusion is very illogical to believe simply because of one's faith in the first line. The gent replied only listing the last item - which I can see not particularly belonging on this list ~ but given events of the past couple days over there - it still belongs at the bottom of the list, if only to remind folks what this is about]. So I've relabeled that malicious vandalism. But other than that??? Since it's a tough crowd over there, with constructive discussion being at the bottom of most their priorities I thought I'd see what some of you thought about it.
. . . but, if you want to talk Logical Fallacies, lets. What about the logical fallacy of: Using our love affair with the comfort and wonders of progress - to ignore the damage and destruction it's inflicting on our life support system? What about the logical fallacy of: Extrapolating forward using the history of the Green Revolution - while ignoring how the developing new climate regime is currently adversely impacting farming? What about the logical fallacy of: Thinking because the future is unknown - that perhaps increasing GHG induced warming in our atmosphere might still lead to near future turn around and cooling {And that we should just wait and see.} ? What about the logical fallacy of: Demanding levels of perfection from Earth Sciences - that have never been achieved and are in fact impossible for Earth Sciences to achieve? What about the logical fallacy of: Focusing on fringe uncertainties - while ignoring the body of evidence and the direction it's pointing? What about the logical fallacy of: Pretending we need to know everything to a tee - before making decision on how to proceed into the future? What about the logical fallacy of: Merging a thread that discusses a specific aspect of climatology and denialist claims - with a thread that musses on why some people have adapted and cling to their denialism? What about the logical fallacy of: Believing graphics of exploding heads are a valid contribution to a discussion on science?
2

Well, a logical fallacy is a form of argument from premises to a conclusion, where the premises don’t justify the conclusion. That is, the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false.
E.g.:

(P) A book says that X is true ----------- (C) X is true
Clearly, it's possible for a book to say that X is true and X be false. Hence this form of argument is fallacious. This is so even if in fact the specific "X" in question were, in fact, true. Conventionally, there are a limited group of classic logical fallacies. If you want to know them, just Google the phrase or look in Wiki. But the thing to keep in mind is that logical fallacies are fallacies of logical argumentation, which always works explicitly from premises to conclusion. The issues you talk about aren't written in that form, so it's not clear how they are fallacies. They might well be fallacies, but if you're going to use the phrase, you have to do the work to make explicit how the phrase is relevant. Otherwise it's just confusing.
3

Tell me more.
I follow what you’re saying and I’ll be honest I have looked at some of those resources you mention, but reading that stuff, I’m sorry but it turns into white noise mucho blahblah to me. If I were in an actual classroom I might do a little better, but still :grrr:
Don’t suppose you care to offer an example using one of those points I made?

4

Well I solved my dilemma by striking out " What about the Logical Fallacy of"
and replacing it with: “Where’s the logic in”
8-/