Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Man-made global warming is anything but a fact. Claiming it to be fact -- and the beat goes on -- is yet another significant logical fallacy (major reasoning error) that is best known as "begging the question", which netted out means that you are assuming what you wish to prove.
And for the record, what I appreciate is not false claims or assumptions but rather real evidence that is relevant, competent and material.
No, I'm not assuming anything except that the consensus of climate scientists around the world is to be taken more seriously than some guy on the internet posting some cherry-picked data and "reasoning". I'm not assuming what I wish to prove, because others have already proved the matter, so I don't need to prove it.
I don't need to personally present evidence, because that would take huge amounts of time and effort, be beyond the patience of the administrator ........ and then you'd keep denying. On this and other threads, lots of people have nonetheless presented evidence in a vain effort to educate you about the matter.
Such obtuseness in a seemingly intelligent person often indicates being paid to sell a position to the public.
So why do we continue to debate with someone who holds an intractable though irrational opinion? Most of us wouldn't bother to debate, say, Young Earth Creationists after trying once or twice. The science on the age of the earth is basically settled, give or take a billion years ...... it's certainly not about 6000 years old as the YECs claim. We don't debate them because it's beyond reasoning or appealing to the authority of the consensus of scientists, it's a religious matter. And yet even they can present graphs and anomalies (eg the dinosaur tracks alongside of seemingly human footprints) and various quotes of supposed scientists to back up their point of view. But anyone who has read the scientific point of view vs the yec, if objectively and not religiously, will conclude that the scientists are right.
The difference is that this issue is actually relevant to the future of mankind and this planet, while Yecism isn't. We need to counter the political viewpoint that humans don't impact the environment significantly, because it's held by perhaps the most influential political party in the world, the Republicans (and other conservatives.) Not all Republicans are deniers, but almost all deniers are Republicans ....... and they wield massive influence on global policies.
That causes us to debate an already settled matter, for those who may be on the fence in their beliefs.
Man-made global warming is anything but a fact. Claiming it to be fact -- and the beat goes on -- is yet another significant logical fallacy (major reasoning error) that is best known as "begging the question", which netted out means that you are assuming what you wish to prove.
And for the record, what I appreciate is not false claims or assumptions but rather real evidence that is relevant, competent and material.
Let's all agree that the earth is warming (contrary to the original post), before we move on to the topic of blame.
No, I'm not assuming anything except that the consensus of climate scientists around the world is to be taken more seriously than some guy on the internet posting some cherry-picked data and "reasoning". I'm not assuming what I wish to prove, because others have already proved the matter, so I don't need to prove it.
I don't need to personally present evidence, because that would take huge amounts of time and effort, be beyond the patience of the administrator ........ and then you'd keep denying. On this and other threads, lots of people have nonetheless presented evidence in a vain effort to educate you about the matter.
Such obtuseness in a seemingly intelligent person often indicates being paid to sell a position to the public.
So why do we continue to debate with someone who holds an intractable though irrational opinion? Most of us wouldn't bother to debate, say, Young Earth Creationists after trying once or twice. The science on the age of the earth is basically settled, give or take a billion years ...... it's certainly not about 6000 years old as the YECs claim. We don't debate them because it's beyond reasoning or appealing to the authority of the consensus of scientists, it's a religious matter. And yet even they can present graphs and anomalies (eg the dinosaur tracks alongside of seemingly human footprints) and various quotes of supposed scientists to back up their point of view. But anyone who has read the scientific point of view vs the yec, if objectively and not religiously, will conclude that the scientists are right.
The difference is that this issue is actually relevant to the future of mankind and this planet, while Yecism isn't. We need to counter the political viewpoint that humans don't impact the environment significantly, because it's held by perhaps the most influential political party in the world, the Republicans (and other conservatives.) Not all Republicans are deniers, but almost all deniers are Republicans ....... and they wield massive influence on global policies.
That causes us to debate an already settled matter, for those who may be on the fence in their beliefs.
You don't need to personally do anything. Still, the quality of your argument is based on the quality of the evidence supporting your argument as well as the quality of your argument on its own, neither of which are at all convincing to me. And I know a great deal about assessing the quality and sufficiency of evidence against a standard of proof.
Though I don't know what certainty level you set for your standard of proof, the certainty level I use in my standard of proof is very high indeed -- think proof that exceeds 99% certainty. And I certainty hold that the greater the importance, the higher the certainty level should be for the attendant standard of proof, such as the standard of proof most states use to place a defendant on death row; i.e., no lingering doubt whatsoever. Which truly represents an ugly national reasoning abortion, because for every ten inmates who are taken off death row and executed, one inmate is released from death row via exoneration (an acid level wrongful conviction).
Obviously, this points to a massive failure and inability by jurors -- most of whom are everyday people that are not very experienced in evidence assessment against a standard of proof -- to properly assess evidence in the most important of all matters; i.e., condemning a person to death row.
Unfortunately, people are prone to leap to conclusions all too often as is clearly evidenced by the incredibly high rate of false accusations and wrongful convictions that occur in high-profile criminal cases, much of which results from a shallow analysis of the evidence against the required standard of proof and/or a simple rush to judgment.
In his Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope wisely wrote:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Though I don't know what certainty level you set for your standard of proof, the certainty level I use in my standard of proof is very high indeed -- think proof that exceeds 99% certainty. And I certainty hold that the greater the importance, the higher the certainty level should be for the attendant standard of proof, such as the standard of proof most states use to place a defendant on death row; i.e., no lingering doubt whatsoever. Which truly represents an ugly national reasoning abortion, because for every ten inmates who are taken off death row and executed, one inmate is released from death row via exoneration (an acid level wrongful conviction).
Do you have 99% certain proof the earth isn't warming? That would seem reasonable with the fate of humanity at risk.
Do you have 99% certain proof the earth isn't warming? That would seem reasonable with the fate of humanity at risk.
Just as a defendant in a criminal trial has no burden of proof whatsoever -- the burden of proof is entirely on the maker of the theory that a crime was committed; i.e., the prosecutor -- there is no burden of proof on people who do not hold that the evidence supports man-made global warming. If you have a theory, the burden of proof rests with you.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
You don't need to personally do anything. Still, the quality of your argument is based on the quality of the evidence supporting your argument as well as the quality of your argument on its own, neither of which are at all convincing to me. And I know a great deal about assessing the quality and sufficiency of evidence against a standard of proof.
Though I don't know what certainty level you set for your standard of proof, the certainty level I use in my standard of proof is very high indeed -- think proof that exceeds 99% certainty. And I certainty hold that the greater the importance, the higher the certainty level should be for the attendant standard of proof, such as the standard of proof most states use to place a defendant on death row; i.e., no lingering doubt whatsoever. Which truly represents an ugly national reasoning abortion, because for every ten inmates who are taken off death row and executed, one inmate is released from death row via exoneration (an acid level wrongful conviction).
Obviously, this points to a massive failure and inability by jurors -- most of whom are everyday people that are not very experienced in evidence assessment against a standard of proof -- to properly assess evidence in the most important of all matters; i.e., condemning a person to death row.
Unfortunately, people are prone to leap to conclusions all too often as is clearly evidenced by the incredibly high rate of false accusations and wrongful convictions that occur in high-profile criminal cases, much of which results from a shallow analysis of the evidence against the required standard of proof and/or a simple rush to judgment.
In his Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope wisely wrote:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
I wholeheartedly agree with Pope.
First of all, the analogy to jurors is wrong because unlike them, climate scientists are highly trained individuals who have studied reams of evidence and debated analyses all their adult lives - they not people chosen at random from a list of citizens.
Second, the likelihood of their proofs being accurate is greater than 99% by now. There were some skeptics a few years ago, but not anymore. If you doubt me, I ask you once again to produce links to at least 1% of the climate scientists' published papers over the last 5 years that deny a human contribution to global warming ...... heck, let's make it just one paper.
Third ...... I agree with Pope ...... you really don't see the absurdity of amateurs sipping shallow draughts by cherry-picking a few pieces of data out of context ...... vs the trained professionals who have drunk deeply?
First of all, the analogy to jurors is wrong because unlike them, climate scientists are highly trained individuals who have studied reams of evidence and debated analyses all their adult lives - they not people chosen at random from a list of citizens.
Second, the likelihood of their proofs being accurate is greater than 99% by now. There were some skeptics a few years ago, but not anymore. If you doubt me, I ask you once again to produce links to at least 1% of the climate scientists' published papers over the last 5 years that deny a human contribution to global warming ...... heck, let's make it just one paper.
Third ...... I agree with Pope ...... you really don't see the absurdity of amateurs sipping shallow draughts by cherry-picking a few pieces of data out of context ...... vs the trained professionals who have drunk deeply?
I referenced your arguments and the evidence to which you have referred as proof of man-made global warming and also your unknown (to me) standard of proof. I then noted my thoughts on the ability of everyday jurors to assess evidence against a defined standard of proof.
I never mentioned or referred to scientists, never. Nor did I intend to refer to them.
Such obtuseness in a seemingly intelligent person often indicates being paid to sell a position to the public.
So why do we continue to debate with someone who holds an intractable though irrational opinion? Most of us wouldn't bother to debate, say, Young Earth Creationists after trying once or twice. The science on the age of the earth is basically settled, give or take a billion years ......
This is my big problem with your side of the debate and despite your attempts to claim otherwise it IS a debate. Your side seeks to paint any skeptic, first in the pejorative term "denier" and then you make an assumption that they are either paid off by big oil or an old testament religious believer who denies modern science. Meanwhile you ascribe nothing but professionalism and good intentions to the scientists who support the alarmist position whereas any scientist who comes out a skeptic *must* have ulterior motives.
This notion of a consensus and shutting down the debate is not a new one. It's been going on almost since the beginning when this first became an issue that entered public awareness in the late 80s, early 90s. Science should WELCOME skepticism and debate! It makes for better science. What we have instead here is intractable DOGMA. We are essentially being told : "We know best, we have science on our side, don't ask questions, don't think for yourselves, just shut up and believe what we tell you to believe".
Sorry. That doesn't float with me. I started becoming skeptical once I noticed the alarmists attempting to shut down the debate and attacking anyone who didn't comply with their dogma.
My problems?
* Climate science is still a very young discipline. It relies on computer models and our incomplete understanding of all of the influences of the climate to make, often alarming predictions. The reason for the alarming predictions is that the alarmists believe that frightening people gets attention, gets more funding and moves people into action. Too bad it makes for lousy science and it only works for so long before people start becoming deaf to it or skeptical of it.
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
Then we have politicians and policy leaders who cynically use this *crisis* as a pretext for environmental activism, raising taxes, wealth distribution, and a host of other policies which would not be very popular without the threat of an impending catastrophe.
“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Al Gore
DO I think the Koch brothers and big oil seek to diminish climate science to protect profits, sure I do.
However, that is only HALF of the story. I also think the alarmist side has become corrupted with the billions of dollars flowing into research predicated on alarmism as well as the chance to use this issue to advance their political and activist goals. Neither side has their hands entirely clean, the casualty here is the TRUTH and the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
I don't think this is a non-issue and I do think we need to clean up the environment and get off of our reliance on oil and coal, however, alarmism and shutting out skepticism and debate is NOT the way to accomplish those goals.
My final issue with this argument is that even if we were for the sake of argument to assume that the alarmist view is correct, I have not heard from anyone how raising taxes and increasing government is going to change the climate back to normalcy *whatever that is*.
How do we assure China, India and the developing economies of the world all comply? Our efforts will be moot if they do not.
How do we change an infrastructure, economy and society built upon access to cheap energy in the form of oil and coal to an alternative that emits less CO2 within the small window of time the alarmists say we have to act?
I have not heard any good ideas on these issues all I keep hearing is "listen to us, we know what's best"
Just as a defendant in a criminal trial has no burden of proof whatsoever -- the burden of proof is entirely on the maker of the theory that a crime was committed; i.e., the prosecutor -- there is no burden of proof on people who do not hold that the evidence supports man-made global warming. If you have a theory, the burden of proof rests with you.
You also have a theory. And if you're wrong about it, the entire human race might literally die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
This is my big problem with your side of the debate and despite your attempts to claim otherwise it IS a debate. Your side seeks to paint any skeptic, first in the pejorative term "denier" and then you make an assumption that they are either paid off by big oil or an old testament religious believer who denies modern science. Meanwhile you ascribe nothing but professionalism and good intentions to the scientists who support the alarmist position whereas any scientist who comes out a skeptic *must* have ulterior motives.
This notion of a consensus and shutting down the debate is not a new one. It's been going on almost since the beginning when this first became an issue that entered public awareness in the late 80s, early 90s. Science should WELCOME skepticism and debate! It makes for better science. What we have instead here is intractable DOGMA. We are essentially being told : "We know best, we have science on our side, don't ask questions, don't think for yourselves, just shut up and believe what we tell you to believe".
Sorry. That doesn't float with me. I started becoming skeptical once I noticed the alarmists attempting to shut down the debate and attacking anyone who didn't comply with their dogma.
The scientists are the skeptics. You are just a cynic.
You also have a theory. And if you're wrong about it, the entire human race might literally die.
The scientists are the skeptics. You are just a cynic.
How is it not cynical to assume that anyone who questions the alarmist view is either a religious nut or in the pocket of big oil?
I happen to believe there is good and bad on BOTH sides of the debate.
-There are those who truly want what's best for the environment and see AGW as a huge problem.
-There are those who use AGW to gain funding, wealth, political power, influence and advance activist and socialist causes, they distort or manipulate the science to meet these ends.
-There are those who are legitimately skeptical of alarmist AGW and the ability of current climate science to predict the future climate
-There are those who use their money to diminish AGW research for big oil profits or because they are hardcore conservatives and this is something that liberals have championed, so they oppose it.
Your notion that this is a battle of "good versus evil", of liberals and scientists fighting to save the planet versus the greedy and/or stupid conservatives out to obstruct the effort for partisan/religious/profit motives is both simplistic and naive.
There are good intentions on both sides, there is politics, activism and corruption on both sides.
The truth probably lies in the middle somewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
