Some comments
about the circular reasoning and their avoiding of the key points: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/schmidt-mann-rutherford-just-clueless.html
and you talk to
me about circular reasoning when you're the one quoting scripture I haven't made any claims (except that god doesn't exist, but that does not impact my analysis of the article in any way..
It's perfectly clear — the poster is talking
about circular reasoning, and is correct.
Not exact matches
«The book
about my God says that my God was worshipped before the book was written» — this is
circular reasoning.
@Science»'m going to ignore your little
circular reasoning about the bible being true because the bible is true.»
I'm going to ignore your little
circular reasoning about the bible being true because the bible is true.
Another factor is the «sanctioning» of these models by the IPCC (with its statements
about model results having a high confidence level), which can lead to building confidence in climate models through
circular reasoning.
How is someone's inability to accept that their
reasoning is
circular irrelevant when that's what I'm complaining
about?
Her comments
about the probabilistic statements in IPCC,
circular reasoning, sensitivity, etc are all written down and easy to examine without beliefs, conflicting worldviews, or confidence in models being relevant in any form.
Example research papers on the impact of fossil fuel emissions on tropical cyclones, on sea level rise, and on the carbon cycle demonstrate that the conclusions drawn by researchers
about their anthropogenic cause derive from
circular reasoning.
so reinterpret Jones all you want, and by all means use
circular reasoning and parsing all you need
about what he said, if it helps you to continue...... avoiding...... a serious discussion on this.
But if one worries too much
about «
circular reasoning» there is a very simple technique to avoid it, proposed ten years ago in this very important paper: H. von Storch, Misuses of statistical analysis in climate research.