5 ms·

> He's not a scientist. He works in Public Relations. Really? How is this relevant AT ALL? It is a logical fallacy to invalidate an argument based on the mes

> He's not a scientist. He works in Public Relations. Really? How is this relevant AT ALL? It is a logical fallacy to invalidate an argument based on the messenger [0]. You have to argue against the evidence, not the person's qualifications. If a criminal yells "Fire!" you don't ignore him because of who he is. You look at the evidence and act accordingly. If you want to argue against what he is saying in this video you have to invalidate the evidence he is proposing. Saying "he is just a..." is absolutely meaningless. Math and science do not operate this way. Which is precisely my point. We need to start to discuss the truth. So much of what we do is based on personality worship, it's sick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
It's relevant because you said: > Another request: Please argue with the facts as presented by scientist who are speaking up. And had a bit about how we can't trust politicians and need the truth. edit to add: apparently he did PR for the Venezualan government! Ha that's even lower than I expected of him. https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/ https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/
- robomartin 5y ago
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Ok, > Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger
    - robomartin 5y ago
      I reviewed those references. Not one if them addresses the argument and claims being made here. In a nutshell: That solar and wind cannot solve climate change and are worse than nuclear across a range of criteria. You continue to argue against the man. This is meaningless. Here’s a simple example of what you could be doing instead: He claims that a solar farm that matches the output of a nuclear power plant requires 17 times more land than a large solar farm in California. Well, is this true? The math is simple. And yet, no math is necessary. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate... Quoting: “A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.” That’s how you analyze a claim if your objective is to ascertain the validity and soundness of the argument. Once again, attacking the man (or irrelevant statements) is pointless.
      - robomartin 5y ago
        I should add to this that attacking the person instead of the argument is, sadly, something that is all too common today and possibly exacerbated by the Pavlovian reactions of the unthinking masses in social media. It is far easier to attack the person than to do the sometimes difficult work involved in truly evaluating what they might be proposing. This is a particularly cruel and unfair fallacy as well. What it means is that if a person makes a mistake someone can put their finger on nothing that person says or does ever in their entire lives will be deemed worthy of evaluation. Everything they do or say from that point forward is false, invalid, wrong, not acceptable. Why? Because of who they are. That is not a society of which anyone would want to be a part. Anyone who has ever made a mistake or said something wrong in life should be able to understand just how wrong it is to look at the world in this manner. Not one human being on this planet can claim not having been wrong one or, more than likely, hundreds, if not thousands of times. This is why in Logic we are taught that arguments have be be evaluated for correctness and soundness (two different things) without any regard for the source.
      - elahieh 5y ago
        Shellenberger RE land use claims debunked, assuming good faith just once. After that, the experts get tired and cite Brandolini's Law. https://twitter.com/simonahac/status/1446605374119759873 https://twitter.com/simonahac/status/1446605374119759873

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

It's relevant because you said: > Another request: Please argue with the facts as presented by scientist who are speaking up. And had a bit about how we can't trust politicians and need the truth. edit to add: apparently he did PR for the Venezualan government! Ha that's even lower than I expected of him. https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/ https://www.desmog.com/michael-shellenberger/

robomartin 5y ago
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Ok, > Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger
  - robomartin 5y ago
    I reviewed those references. Not one if them addresses the argument and claims being made here. In a nutshell: That solar and wind cannot solve climate change and are worse than nuclear across a range of criteria. You continue to argue against the man. This is meaningless. Here’s a simple example of what you could be doing instead: He claims that a solar farm that matches the output of a nuclear power plant requires 17 times more land than a large solar farm in California. Well, is this true? The math is simple. And yet, no math is necessary. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate... Quoting: “A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.” That’s how you analyze a claim if your objective is to ascertain the validity and soundness of the argument. Once again, attacking the man (or irrelevant statements) is pointless.
    - robomartin 5y ago
      I should add to this that attacking the person instead of the argument is, sadly, something that is all too common today and possibly exacerbated by the Pavlovian reactions of the unthinking masses in social media. It is far easier to attack the person than to do the sometimes difficult work involved in truly evaluating what they might be proposing. This is a particularly cruel and unfair fallacy as well. What it means is that if a person makes a mistake someone can put their finger on nothing that person says or does ever in their entire lives will be deemed worthy of evaluation. Everything they do or say from that point forward is false, invalid, wrong, not acceptable. Why? Because of who they are. That is not a society of which anyone would want to be a part. Anyone who has ever made a mistake or said something wrong in life should be able to understand just how wrong it is to look at the world in this manner. Not one human being on this planet can claim not having been wrong one or, more than likely, hundreds, if not thousands of times. This is why in Logic we are taught that arguments have be be evaluated for correctness and soundness (two different things) without any regard for the source.
    - elahieh 5y ago
      Shellenberger RE land use claims debunked, assuming good faith just once. After that, the experts get tired and cite Brandolini's Law. https://twitter.com/simonahac/status/1446605374119759873 https://twitter.com/simonahac/status/1446605374119759873