Sentences with phrase «arguments as red herrings»

Not exact matches

I would say, those who don't care about what's causing it, who see the argument of «are humans causing it» as a red herring, are focused on solutions, and how to fix it.

Arguments both for and against often appear somewhat tangential and include more than a few red herrings as well.

Your father uses similar red herring style arguments as well.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

According to the Sightline Institute, «As an argument against I - 732 the «revenue hole» case is a red herring.»

It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

The argument to «learn what else drives climate» is a complete red herring, as if scientists are not already figuring out everything they can (which in turn is then being repeatedly re shaped to use to try to refute Climate Change by «skeptic» websites, as is everything), and is just used as another false refutation of, or confusion on, the basic assessment and risk range that the at this point fairly well known and well substantiated general concept of Climate Change represents.

What I find particularly insidious in the largely manufactured debates over hockey sticks, Climategate, and similar red herrings, is the attempt to portray the real scientific issues as merely matters of opinion, as though choosing to believe Wegman vs. Mann, or Hansen vs. Lindzen, has no more objective validity than one's choice of favorite sports teams (I was going to use political parties, but that's another argument).

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.