On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you

But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...

Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?

You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]