global warming

[danieLion]

the foremost scientists in the world

Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.

I borrowed the word "opinion" from the source you cited. All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic. Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.

Now tell me, have you ever heard or read of any statistical study by a real scientist suggesting that a data sample of this minuscule size ought be used as the basis for accurately predicting the probability of future results or events? NO. Of course not. It would be and is preposterous, laughable really. Yet the U.N. and countless countries around the world are budgeting trillions of dollars (US) and considering bankrupting themselves and their citizenry on the basis of such statistical lunacy.
Global Warm Up for Totalitarianism

[Alex123]

Yeah we're coming out of an ice age and into the heat age

Look at the graphs, current temperature is almost near bottom.

See




The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years,
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/ ... q-6.2.html

Check how high C02 levels have been in the past 500 million years. We are actually at the near bottom of CO2 and temperature levels.

[danieLion]

As for Global Warming, it is quite astounding to me that Daniel, for example, thinks that the foremost scientists in the world are unaware of basic rule of reasoning, but there you go...

Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.

[LonesomeYogurt]

Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.

I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.

[danieLion]

Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.

I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.

See above post. Maybe you can't make them coherent because they contradict your prejudice.

[Alex123]

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful.

-Some assume that climate has to be what is best for humans and current life-forms forgetting that climate was changing for 4.5 billion years and it doesn't care for humans, animals or other life forms.

-compare current temperature to some of the coldest temperatures (a rarity!!!) and when it is obviously higher, they scream "doom!!!!".

Within past 600 million years there have been only 2 times when temperature was as low as today. For hundreds of millions of years, the temperature was much higher.

If we were to compare temperature of today with more USUAL temperature for earth, we are actually still in downward trend and closer to ice age. Cold weather of today is the extreme event.

- Making predictions from few chosen decades, rather than few MILLION years. It is like guessing an outcome of the football game by first split second of action.

[Cittasanto]

Here is a playlist of videos about climate change starting at #6 about the hacked e-mails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2f ... PfAIyI7VAP

[chris98e]

Look at the graphs, current temperature is almost near bottom.

I don't understand that graph. But if its against global warming then the scientists were probably the same kind of scientists that were under the Bush administration.

I'm not trying get you people to copy and paste a whole bunch of stuff for or against global warming we can do that until the cows come home. I'm just saying is your whether drastically changed from when you were a kid like the whether in philly pa where I live.

[Alex123]

I don't understand that graph.

The chart shows that for 100s of millions years, the global temperature was MUCH higher than today. So when it comes to more usual, today's temperature is clearly extreme. It is unusually low.

There have been times when C02 was almost 7,000ppm, and for 100s of millions of years C02 levels were above 1,000ppm, while today, C02 is at 396.80.... Wow, another C02 extreme. It is unusually low.

I'm just saying is your whether drastically changed from when you were a kid like the whether in philly pa where I live.

Weather changes every day. Considering how uncharacteristically cold the current temperatures are, it would be strange if they didn't back off. I hope we don't get into another ice age which could be a catastrophe for us. But I think that AGW proponents will say that global cooling is due to global warming...

The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history. -Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich (1971)

A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:
-Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.

The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes:
For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight.

[LonesomeYogurt]

I apologize, I didn't see this post Daniel.

All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.

You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science. Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism and then complaining that a scientific process doesn't have enough data is as intellectually dishonest as the libertarian who calls the fire department when his house goes up in flames.

Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.

Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"

The fact is, the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that greenhouse cycles, atmospheric dimming, particulate accumulation, and deforestation are undeniably capable of causing global warming. We also know that global warming is occurring, and that this new round of warming began to manifest around the time that our activities began generating these conditions. Your recourse to statistics is fatally misguided; arguing that we can't know the reality of AGW because our sample size doesn't represent the entire course of the planet's climate is like arguing that Nate Silver can't predict the outcome of an election without considering the voting records of the Whigs in early 1800. We are worried about present conditions and their ability to bring about artificially distorted near-future events. We are using the last century to predict the next century, based on the influence of conditions that we know to be detrimental to a healthy planet.

[Alex123]

The fact is, the planet is warming,

Compared to unusually cold period called "ice age", yes. But not compared to more usual temperatures.

[daverupa]

All science is opinion.

I'm surprised at your disingenuous approach. Personal opinion and scientific opinion are very different animals, as I expect you know:

A "scientific opinion" is the general opinion of a professional scientific body gained through extensive research with a reproducible, unbiased conclusion soundly based upon the facts derived from the experiment. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.

Anyway, you appear to be up on your logical fallacies, so I'm surprised you didn't notice yourself committing this false equivalence fallacy.

(Glaring fallacies abound, it would seem, except I have provided a direct quote to help with the glare. Your earlier list of fallacies, by way of contrast, criticizes only your own straw men and not any cited findings of climate science.)

So, as I predicted, this thread is going to end up predictably. I shall strive to renounce it.

[Kim OHara]

I apologize, I didn't see this post Daniel.

All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.

You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science. Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism and then complaining that a scientific process doesn't have enough data is as intellectually dishonest as the libertarian who calls the fire department when his house goes up in flames.

Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.

Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"

The fact is, the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that greenhouse cycles, atmospheric dimming, particulate accumulation, and deforestation are undeniably capable of causing global warming. We also know that global warming is occurring, and that this new round of warming began to manifest around the time that our activities began generating these conditions. Your recourse to statistics is fatally misguided; arguing that we can't know the reality of AGW because our sample size doesn't represent the entire course of the planet's climate is like arguing that Nate Silver can't predict the outcome of an election without considering the voting records of the Whigs in early 1800. We are worried about present conditions and their ability to bring about artificially distorted near-future events. We are using the last century to predict the next century, based on the influence of conditions that we know to be detrimental to a healthy planet.

[polarbuddha101]

So what's more important, stopping deforestation and planting new trees or somehow banishing SUVs from this earth and taxing companies extra for their carbon emissions? (not that they're mutually exclusive, just wondering what people think is more important, protecting the biosphere through conservation or reforming human use of resources)

Maybe I'll make this a new topic and anyone else is of course free to start it as well. That might actually be constructive

[Kim OHara]

So, as I predicted, this thread is going to end up predictably.

Is that a case of validation of a scientific theory or mere confirmation bias in operation?

I shall strive to renounce it.

Aw, don't go away, Dave ... it's nice to have another voice speaking for reason.


Kim

[danieLion]

All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.

You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science.

You've got it backwards (and there's no need to remind me of my liberties--it betrays your emotionalism about climate change "science."). Understanding that science is just another word for knowledge de-mystifies reification of science, exposes dogmatic scientists, and establishes a basis for utilizing science in ways that keeps it as far away from politics as possible.

Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism....

So you're back to mis-labelling me again? Do you not recall the last time you tried to accuse me of being an epistemological anarchist? Are you taking your apology back now?

Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data.

How is this different from what I wrote?

The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.

Please tell me you at least understand the difference between thoeries and hypotheses?

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.

Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"

That's a very useless analogy. Your deductions and inductions would match the available evdidence in this case, unlike climate change "science."

"The fact is....,

How do you define "fact".

...the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically

How do you define "science"?

...to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that...

How do you define "knowledge"?

We are worried about present conditions....

We are? Where does the present begin and end? Isn't worry rooted in the defilement of delusion?

The so-calle "recourse to statisics" you mentioned is not my doing. I'm not "recoursing". Please tell me you at least understand the difference between discrete statistics and inferential statistics. Have you even taken a college level satistics course?

[tiltbillings]

This thread is going nowhere the previous climate change thread(s) went. Is there any reason why space here needs to be used here to cover the same ground, using same arguments, influencing no one?

[danieLion]

All science is opinion.

I'm surprised at your disingenuous approach. Personal opinion and scientific opinion are very different animals, as I expect you know:

How do you define "know" (are you aware that science just means "knowledge"?). Do you really believe science is about coming to "unbiased conclusions"? That violates the principle of interation. Science is not about consensus, the peer-review process is politcized and corrupt, and comparing "scientific opinion" to "public opinion" devalue the utility of science.

Anyway, you appear to be up on your logical fallacies...,

It's a work in progress, like science or any other epistemic pursuit.

...so I'm surprised you didn't notice yourself committing this false equivalence fallacy.

What two things do you think I'm trying to make equivalent? It'd be more accurate to call what I've been doing as pointing out in-equivalences and non-equivalences.

(Glaring fallacies abound, it would seem, except I have provided a direct quote to help with the glare. Your earlier list of fallacies, by way of contrast, criticizes only your own straw men and not any cited findings of climate science.)

It's awfully easy to label something you don't understand as a "strawman" but if you're going to do so you'd also better be prepared to delineate the strawman argument in its actual form. Can you do that?

[Alex123]

So what's more important, stopping deforestation and planting new trees or somehow banishing SUVs from this earth...

I am ALL for good use of environment. I myself try to avoid using paper, paper towels (feel bad about the trees), and try to stop water running needlessly.
I am against contaminating the environment. I do recycle.

However: Where are we going to find LOTS of new space to grow vegetables to feed the growing population? Where are we going to find more space for more solar powered batteries, or wind generators?

[danieLion]

This thread is going nowhere the previous climate change thread(s) went. Is there any reason why space here needs to be used here to cover the same ground, using same arguments, influencing no one?

Prolly not. I promise to stop starting right now. I need a nap anyway.