Sentences with phrase «herring argument»

Could McIntyre respond, perhaps by saying whether this is a red herring argument about the validity of the temperature hockey stick, or whether caerbannog actually has a valid point?

What a bogus red herring argument from Peabody.

Raising irrelevant issues is practically the definition of a red - herring argument.

That is a red herring argument and a straw man.

You have bought in to a huge red herring argument brought up by creationists.

The claim that funding infrastructure by the Bank of Canada is a red herring argument because there is absolutely no evidence of that.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

When I ask van Beurden about that argument, he calls it «a red herring,» saying Shell would decarbonize its portfolio to avoid any chance of stranded assets.

i love your slippery slope arguments, your red herrings, and circular reasoning.

Regarding your point # 6: Your argument is a bit of a red herring.

Red herrings and straw man arguments are everywhere.

The nanny - state argument is a red herring.

Frankly, I think the «constituency link» argument for PR is a red herring - you can have constituency links with forms of PR.

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.

«You are having an argument about something that is a red herring.

Paterson's veto message cited concern about incurring more expenses in a time of budget deficits, but Ward considers that argument a red herring.

He previously called the arguments against the defined - contribution proposal a «red - herring.»

After doing so, I can help investigators sharpen their logic by, for instance, suggesting information they should add to justify their proposed research activities more convincingly or identifying red herrings (arguments that are not centrally relevant to the grant topic and may confuse the reviewer).

Data plan arguments are also red herring.

However I will say this: the argument about quality of writing is really a red herring.

The whole argument about ebook production costs being lower than print book production costs is a complete red herring.

This observation reveals that the argument about confusing inflation hedging and long - term returns is a bit of a red herring.

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

This whole argument is just one big RED HERRING in the context of the scientific consensus that humans are influencing the climate and making it warmer

Your father uses similar red herring style arguments as well.

This is a irrelevant argument, and has always been a red - herring.

The nuclear war argument may be a red herring.

So this argument is a red herring.

That is a complete red herring, and nothing to do with the argument I am trying to explain.

From my perspective, this whole line of argument is a colossal red herring.

The comparison to asteroids is simply to show that reductio ad absurdum is an inappropriate argument, a red herring in this case.

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.

likeithot - Your most recent reply contains several logical fallacies, namely Argument from Authority (while Lindzen is a climate scientist, he is in a distinct and tiny minority on his views, with multiple papers debunked), Red Herrings (eugenics), the Argument from Uncertainty regarding the maturity of the field.

My having landed your «red herring», perhaps you would now be willing to address the fundamental issue which I raised, or is my explanation and argument so good that you are incapable of addressing it?

The argument about half the warming due to the oceans warming is a red herring.

Muller is right about the globe warming, but his framing of the debate is a red herring: arguments over climate change are not about whether one accepts or «denies» that the climate has warmed in recent years.

In that sense, arguments that the Keystone pipeline is just a «distraction» or «red herring» have some merit.

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).

Thank you Rasmus for clearing the air of rotten cherries and highlighting the latest red herring «something else» argument.

You can wave the red herring of «those that call it like it is are just big meanies» trying to bully those that are more interested in buying into bad methodology to support their own bias confirmation... but that just confirms for me that your argument is in itself a distraction from relevant facts in evidence.

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.

Goodbye, Mr. Coby, I once thought you had arguments and data, not just excuses, red herrings, and confusing assumptions with refutations.

A red herring is an irrelevant fact (or factoid) that serves to divert attention from the real point of an argument.

(And by the way, it is us who are insulted by you with your «trotting out one red herring after another, in lieu of a reasoned argument.»)

However, Stuesser, who has been a law professor at Bond University in Australia since July 2008, calls the two - tier argument a «red herring.»