DrCaleb DrCaleb:
andyt andyt:
Caleb you're not using the term projection correctly if it's meant in the psychological sense, so no wonder he's confused. If he was projecting the term "Chicken Little" it would mean he himself foresees doom but claims others do. I think what you mean is he's making strawman or reductio or ad absurdum arguments.
Ah, ok. I are Engeneer. Not brane guy.
I am saying that he's using the same tactics that the Deniers use, to cloud the issue with things nobody said and arguments from the fringe that no one was using. Reductio ad Absurdum fits just fine.
Actually you're both wrong. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacious argument and I'm pretty sure you want one of those. I think what you're looking for is "Appeal to Extremes". Reductio ad absurdum is a way of pointing out fallacies within statements.
Appeal to extremes is a kind of a cousin of reductio ad absurdum. I take an observation like the tendency to distort prediction towards catastrophe and I exaggerate it to an absurd abstraction which is purposely false.
For example with the study we are discussing here we have a computer model designed to predict heat beyond what is currently seen.
I exaggerate that to say "chicken little blatherings of boiling oceans." Now, there wasn't really a Chicken little and the study does not say oceans would actually boil.
It's not pointing out a fallacy like classic Reductio ad absurdum. It's more just exaggerating to mock. You know, like calling a Global Warming Catastrophe skeptic a denier.