3 ms·

> Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, th

by quink 13y ago

> Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm. He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. About the hasty generalisation, I didn't mean to indicate that these would be the effects across the world, and I though that much was obvious. Most of the world doesn't even have coral reefs, for example. It's just that a global perspective might be in order, and most people here aren't likely to live in Queensland.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago
>He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. Oh I won't refute that, perhaps he is unqualified. That doesn't however refute his argument. It only states that you'll have to look at the argument that much more carefully because he is not likely to be a great source. What is common with folks justifying the ad hominem is that it is really just a short hand for the argument from authority fallacy. It is implicitly advancing the idea that the merits of the argument rest on the person giving them as though if it were someone else it would be more correct, which of course is wrong. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people look at the person making an argument and if they are confident in the person, they will take the argument as a truthful assessment. To me though this is lazy and essentially delegates reason, so IMO it is always worth identifying.

by quink 13y ago

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

>He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. Oh I won't refute that, perhaps he is unqualified. That doesn't however refute his argument. It only states that you'll have to look at the argument that much more carefully because he is not likely to be a great source. What is common with folks justifying the ad hominem is that it is really just a short hand for the argument from authority fallacy. It is implicitly advancing the idea that the merits of the argument rest on the person giving them as though if it were someone else it would be more correct, which of course is wrong. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people look at the person making an argument and if they are confident in the person, they will take the argument as a truthful assessment. To me though this is lazy and essentially delegates reason, so IMO it is always worth identifying.