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
You have not assessed the evidence, nor have you reasoned and/or measured it against a standard of proof. You have simply chosen to let others do this and you have simply accepted an alleged consensus position without at all vetting the sources upon which you are relying or understanding the level of certainty upon which they are basing their individual findings.
This a huge reasoning error and represents a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".
All bow to the King. The King can do no wrong. Long live the King.
Yes, I appeal to authority, that's not a logical fallacy except in a few instances. For example, even in your legal profession (I think you said you were in it), you might appeal to authority. You might insist to a bedroll lawyer (hobo who thinks he knows a lot about the law, and keeps interjecting irrelevant small cases into a discussion) that you are a trained, say, lawyer, and know a lot more about law than he does (not that the appeal to your own authority will work). Similarly judges usually refer to the authority of previous higher court decisions.
In the case of science, I don't try to evaluate all the huge amount of evidence, nor do I cherry-pick as skeptics do. The basic idea of human-caused factors increasing global temps gibes with what I know of undergraduate chemistry (that there is a greenhouse effect from increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases), but that is relatively small compared to what the professionals know - so I defer to their judgment, just as I do in many fields of scientific knowledge. I haven't directly observed protons or prions, nor did the experiments to prove the seemingly paradoxical nature of quantum processes, but I simply choose to believe that the entire community of scientists have come to a consensus about those things for good reasons, rather than personally go through all the papers and historical arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
How about three of them? There are plenty more.
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Nicola Scafetta We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin.
The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
Syun-Ichi Akasofu A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA).
These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
John R. Christy 1,* email, Benjamin Herman 2email, Roger Pielke Sr. 3email, Philip Klotzbach 4email, Richard T. McNider 1email, Justin J. Hnilo 1email, Roy W. Spencer 1email, Thomas Chase 3email and David Douglass 5email
There IS still some debate about the accuracy of the models (which do indeed take into account other processes than gases). That's because models are continually refined ...... they've gotten better than 20 years ago, for example. At this time I believe they mostly agree quite a bit in predictions - over lengthy time, not over a few years. Let's see: How reliable are climate models?
Quote:
I never said they were denying AGW, they are exaggerating it's impact though and therein lies the rub! It is no longer science if you exaggerate your conclusions in order to get attention or raise awareness. It becomes advocacy at that point. Such behavior would be immediate grounds for the dismissal of evidence in a court of law. Science should be impartial and it should be blind. It should NOT be exaggerated or misrepresented in order to gain funding, public attention or for any other reasons.
Yes, true, but scientists are human. A very few of them let their eagerness get the best of them.
The earth warms, the earth cools , thus the term change. The climate has changed drastically throughout history long before man could be blamed or take credit. Many factors other than CO2 levels influence global climate , moreover many factors influence CO2 levels other than man. But we are now to believe the increased CO2 output from mans activities is the driving force in warming the globe? If so , this is the best news in the history of mankind! Think of the potential benefits from being able to control the earths climate merely by controlling our CO2 output!
My standard of proof is objective reality. The temperature is going up. Period. The earth is round, it has one moon, and it is warming.
The issue has been and remains whether or not man-made global warming has been and is happening.
Even if there was clear and unyielding proof of a rising temperature over a period of time, on that basis alone there certainly could be no proof that it was caused by the activities of mankind.
Moreover, I have never heard of "objective reality" as a standard of proof. Please enlighten me as to what this is, exactly.
Most importantly, what is the level of certainty that you allegedly use to when you measure the evidence to see if it hurdles your burden of proof level?
Frankly, since it very much appears to be personalized to you, it comes across as "subjective reality".
Yes, I appeal to authority, that's not a logical fallacy except in a few instances.
SNIP
In the case of science, I don't try to evaluate all the huge amount of evidence, nor do I cherry-pick as skeptics do. The basic idea of human-caused factors increasing global temps gibes with what I know of undergraduate chemistry (that there is a greenhouse effect from increasing amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases), but that is relatively small compared to what the professionals know - so I defer to their judgment, just as I do in many fields of scientific knowledge. I haven't directly observed protons or prions, nor did the experiments to prove the seemingly paradoxical nature of quantum processes, but I simply choose to believe that the entire community of scientists have come to a consensus about those things for good reasons, rather than personally go through all the papers and historical arguments.
There IS still some debate about the accuracy of the models (which do indeed take into account other processes than gases). That's because models are continually refined ...... they've gotten better than 20 years ago, for example. At this time I believe they mostly agree quite a bit in predictions - over lengthy time, not over a few years. Let's see: How reliable are climate models?
Yes, true, but scientists are human. A very few of them let their eagerness get the best of them.
As regards applied logic, reaching a personal conclusion based on an appeal to authority is always a logical reasoning error (logical fallacy).
Moreover, since you admit that you knowingly and willfully have deferred your assessment judgment on the alleged evidence of man-made global to others -- an alleged consensus of alleged experts with no vetting whatsoever -- then don't offer the evidence that they purport to use and that you have not evaluated and apparently do not understand as dispositive proof of man-made global warming. It's not.
Moreover, you have absolutely no idea what level of certainty you allegedly support, because you are knowingly willfully blind to the assessment and measurement of the evidence that supports your holding.
You asked for a link to a paper by a climate scientist in the last 5 years that either denies AGW or is skeptical that at least some of it happens. I provided three skeptical papers. I doubt ANY scientist is going to deny AGW but that is not what is in contention here. What is in contention is the level of severity and man's level of contribution. Despite your efforts to deny it, there IS a debate and there IS disagreement about that.
Are you REALLY going to split hairs over Nicola Scafetta?
Nicola Scafetta's first listed research interest is in Earth and Planetary Science: Nicola Scafetta, Ph. D.
He also has published peer review papers on climate science. It is HIGHLY disingenuous to dismiss him or call him out because Wikipedia lists him as a physicist!
What would happen if we applied the same level of scrutiny to the scientists in the so-called 97% consensus? My guess is that number would be quite a bit smaller.
This was asked and answered. You asked for one link, I provided three and could provide more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
There IS still some debate about the accuracy of the models (which do indeed take into account other processes than gases). That's because models are continually refined ...... they've gotten better than 20 years ago, for example. At this time I believe they mostly agree quite a bit in predictions - over lengthy time, not over a few years. Let's see: How reliable are climate models?
Yes, true, but scientists are human. A very few of them let their eagerness get the best of them.
I'd say the models simply suggest that we have a LONG way to go before we fully understand the climate well enough to make predictions far into the future.
When the University of Gothenburg investigated climate models in their ability to HINDCAST, the results were telling:
As far as scientists letting their eagerness get the best of them, I'd say it's more than very few of them. I think it's become corrupted by politics, activism, dogma and greed. There are many scientists who have come out saying they have been marginalized or had their reputations called into question for voicing skepticism. Judith Curry is but the latest example. Climategate has shown many of these scientists openly conspiring to suppress or doctor data which did not fit with the alarmist model.
The earth warms, the earth cools , thus the term change. The climate has changed drastically throughout history long before man could be blamed or take credit. Many factors other than CO2 levels influence global climate , moreover many factors influence CO2 levels other than man. But we are now to believe the increased CO2 output from mans activities is the driving force in warming the globe? If so , this is the best news in the history of mankind! Think of the potential benefits from being able to control the earths climate merely by controlling our CO2 output!
Because if there's anything we've learned in the last couple decades, it's that it is really politically easy to change our CO2 output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
The issue has been and remains whether or not man-made global warming has been and is happening.
Even if there was clear and unyielding proof of a rising temperature over a period of time, on that basis alone there certainly could be no proof that it was caused by the activities of mankind.
Moreover, I have never heard of "objective reality" as a standard of proof. Please enlighten me as to what this is, exactly.
Most importantly, what is the level of certainty that you allegedly use to when you measure the evidence to see if it hurdles your burden of proof level?
Frankly, since it very much appears to be personalized to you, it comes across as "subjective reality".
You've never heard of objective reality as a standard of proof because it's so obvious it doesn't usually bear stating. Like, "prove the sky is blue".
There's no point in discussing whether global warming is man-caused, unless you admit first that the earth is warming. Don't get me wrong, there's clear and incontrovertible proof of anthropogenic global warming. But if you don't even believe the thermometers that say the earth is warming, what's the point of discussing the cause?
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.
No. You have it completely backwards. The facts are well established. The data is in and has been in for a while. The DNA evidence proved guilt beyond ANY shadow of a doubt, if you will.
If you want to claim the evidence doesn't show what it shows, you are making an Extraordinary Claim. The burden of proof rests entirely on YOU, as you are the one claiming something that goes against what the world knows.
And in the end it doesn't matter. We will be moving forward with efforts to adapt to what is happening and to try and curtail what is undoubtedly a large contributor to what is happening. You lose, and it's a good thing.
Because if there's anything we've learned in the last couple decades, it's that it is really politically easy to change our CO2 output.
You've never heard of objective reality as a standard of proof because it's so obvious it doesn't usually bear stating. Like, "prove the sky is blue".
There's no point in discussing whether global warming is man-caused, unless you admit first that the earth is warming. Don't get me wrong, there's clear and incontrovertible proof of anthropogenic global warming. But if you don't even believe the thermometers that say the earth is warming, what's the point of discussing the cause?
In the context you are using it, objective reality is allegedly how things truly are, which is supposed to mean that things should be intuitively obvious for everyone. However, that is a logical falsehood, because not everyone has the same abilities or the same experiences
For example, if you are gifted with sight, you can see that we live under a sky and that the sky we live under has a horizon. However, if you are not gifted with sight, you can't see that we live under a sky that has an attendant horizon. Obviously, to any such person, a sky and a horizon are not intuitively obvious. Because we do not all have the same abilities.
Moreover, for those who can see a sky and have also traveled medium distances about their country or region, they know that the sky's horizon changes we move across our circular world. As a result, they understand that while we all live under the same sky, we do not all have the same horizon. But if a person has not traveled such distances, that would not be intuitively obvious to them. Because we do not all have the same experiences.
Further and most imporatantly, there is not clear and incontrovertible proof of man-made global warming. You are assuming what you wish to prove, which is a reasoning error (logical fallacy) that is known as "begging the question" and/or "petito principii". Moreover, not all thermometers show that the earth is warming and absolutely none of the thermometers measure any effect of this alleged man-made global warming.
So this is anything but an intuitively obvious situation and argument. As such, we need to have a standard of proof for evidence that does not all yield the same answer or lean in the same way, which is exactly what the truth is here. And that standard of proof in this case cannot be your personalized version of objective reality, because it does not allow for any answer other than what you have already concluded is 100% certain (begging the question reasoning error).
No. You have it completely backwards. The facts are well established. The data is in and has been in for a while. The DNA evidence proved guilt beyond ANY shadow of a doubt, if you will.
If you want to claim the evidence doesn't show what it shows, you are making an Extraordinary Claim. The burden of proof rests entirely on YOU, as you are the one claiming something that goes against what the world knows.
And in the end it doesn't matter. We will be moving forward with efforts to adapt to what is happening and to try and curtail what is undoubtedly a large contributor to what is happening. You lose, and it's a good thing.
Any person can claim any absurd thing. Doing so does not and will never place a burden of proof on anyone other than that person who makes the claim or espouses a theory.
The burden of proof always rests with the maker of the claim or theory. Always.
Just as I have no burden of proof in regards to Russell Bertrand's claim that a teapot is circling the sun in the area between Mars and Earth, I have no burden of proof responsibility in regards to the theory of man-made global warming.
In the context you are using it, objective reality is allegedly how things truly are, which is supposed to mean that things should be intuitively obvious for everyone. However, that is a logical falsehood, because not everyone has the same abilities or the same experiences
For example, if you are gifted with sight, you can see that we live under a sky and that the sky we live under has a horizon. However, if you are not gifted with sight, you can't see that we live under a sky that has an attendant horizon. Obviously, to any such person, a sky and a horizon are not intuitively obvious. Because we do not all have the same abilities.
Moreover, for those who can see a sky and have also traveled medium distances about their country or region, they know that the sky's horizon changes we move across our circular world. As a result, they understand that while we all live under the same sky, we do not all have the same horizon. But if a person has not traveled such distances, that would not be intuitively obvious to them. Because we do not all have the same experiences.
Further and most imporatantly, there is not clear and incontrovertible proof of man-made global warming. You are assuming what you wish to prove, which is a reasoning error (logical fallacy) that is known as "begging the question" and/or "petito principii". Moreover, not all thermometers show that the earth is warming and absolutely none of the thermometers measure any effect of this alleged man-made global warming.
So this is anything but an intuitively obvious situation and argument. As such, we need to have a standard of proof for evidence that does not all yield the same answer or lean in the same way, which is exactly what the truth is here. And that standard of proof in this case cannot be your personalized version of objective reality, because it does not allow for any answer other than what you have already concluded is 100% certain (begging the question reasoning error).
This is completely wrong and illogical. First of all you're changing topics again to man-made global warming. Secondly, there are numerous temperature series from different sources which all add up to a global warming trend. None of this data is seriously in doubt; it is questioned only by conspiracy theorists and wealth protectionists. I've seen peer-reviewed papers which question man-made causes of global warming, albeit with problems of their own, but I have yet to see any papers with even a veneer of scientific credibility which demonstrate a lack of global warming.
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.
