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.
You are making an Extraordinary Claim. You are ignoring all the evidence in the world (and all over this thread). You are ignoring consensus opinion. You are saying the earth is flat. You are failing to advance any alternative explanations or support your Extraordinary Claims. Sorry man, this is 2014. The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders. I know it's rough. I feel your pain.
I have an alternative explanation: the planet is in a gradual warming trend following the Little Ice Age. Compared to previous warming periods, today's warming looks rather ordinary Berry: Temperature and CO2 History - Climate Physics. I'm not denying that the earth is warming. But I am very skeptical that the warming occurring today will have disastrous consequences like many alarmists claim.
Let's not argue about global warming. Rather let's talk about the Daily Mail, the newspaper that made this claim and published these data. The Daily Mail is a very large circulation British tabloid that since its inception in the late 19th century was the first news broadside that considered female readers. It also was purposefully aimed at readers of a low educational level, many Britons at that time being newly literate. To this day, the Daily Mail has a readership that is more than 50% female. It has a conservative news policy, runs lots of contests, and has a heavy emphasis on articles about movie stars, pop stars, and the royal family (unlike many of the other British tabloids that attract attention with articles about sex and photographs of half-naked women).
The conservative leadership of the Daily News has often led to "news" presentations that later seems strange. For example, in the 1930s, the newspaper was owned by Lord Rothermere who considered both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini to be his friends. Throughout the 1930s he published as editorial content propaganda provided by their political parties. One of Rothermere's most notorious quotes is, "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany." Some historians believe one of the things he considered a "minor misdeed" was the systematic extermination of Jews and Communists. Rothermere also supported Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists. In a famous article headlined "Hurrah for the Blackshirts," published in January 1934, editors praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine." Needless to say, Rothermere jumped on board the pro-Britain bandwagon once Germany attacked, but he remained a staunch conservative throughout his life supporting anything and everything that funneled money to the rich and royal and depressed the educational levels of the general public.
To this day the Daily Mail is still popular with the general public. It will no doubt remain so, as early on the company made a decision to invest heavily in an online presence. The ownership company is still conservative and a descendant of Lord Rothermere remains as the tabloid's chairman and controlling shareholder.
As for its presentation of news related to scientific topics, one might consider the Daily Mail's reporting on marijuana. In 2011, the DM headlined a story ""Just ONE cannabis joint can bring on schizophrenia as well as damaging memory." The author of the article claimed he based it on a scientific study but the director of the study went on record saying the DM misrepresented his findings, saying he was "disappointed but not surprised." The DM is also a big supporter of the idea that there is a "gay gene" and has speculated that this might be the upside of abortion.
NOW do you want to believe things you read in the Daily Mail? (And please do NOT interpret my factual comments here as me saying I believe women are poorly educated and easily mislead, the kind of leap Daily Mail writers so often employ.)
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
If you wish to prove a point, you need at all costs to avoid reasoning errors.
You have committed a major logical fallacy that is called "appeal to authority", which guarantees absolutely nothing. It's a huge reasoning error to conclude otherwise.
Moreover, not "all the experts" agree; this is another claim of yours that represents another logical fallacy called a "strawman", which is yet another major reasoning error in your argument.
Moreover and most importantly, the graph you offer as proof graph does not at all explain why there has been no aggregate global warming after 1997. There was not a single hypothesis put forth by any scientists back in the late ninties that predicted this would happen. This failure of data to confirm either any hypothesis or the man-made global warming theory itself, as put forth by some scientists, represents exactly what happened to the ice-age scare that was put forth by scientists in the seventies; I'm still waiting for their ice-age.
Finally, their is no proof whatsoever that the data changes on your graph resulted from man-made activity.
Where's the beef?
You didn't read the two articles explaining the scientific view, did you? Also, an appeal to authority is not relevant in a religious discussion ...... but it certainly is relevant in a matter of fact, such as that claimed by nearly all ..... basically all ..... climate scientists. That's their field. You wouldn't appreciate if some kid with no experience or education in your field would tell you that you're wrong, in the face of the evidence ...... would you?
As for that "straw man" ...... could you link to a single paper by a climatologist that denies global warming is happening in some degree and is partly caused by humans? A paper that was written in the last 5 years.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny08
I have an alternative explanation: the planet is in a gradual warming trend following the Little Ice Age. Compared to previous warming periods, today's warming looks rather ordinary Berry: Temperature and CO2 History - Climate Physics. I'm not denying that the earth is warming. But I am very skeptical that the warming occurring today will have disastrous consequences like many alarmists claim.
Yeah ..... it's not a huge effect today, but it will inevitably accelerate as the amount of co2 released into the atmosphere accelerates.
Global warming is certainly not my theory. Nor have I bought into believing it to be true, because of insufficient evidence.
As regards my allegedly making an extraordinary claim, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Moreover, I would say that your position that I have to disprove another person's claim is about as extraordinary as it gets. Your notion there is akin to Bertrand Russell's claim that a teapot orbits the sun in the region between Earth and Mars. That's the company you have chosen to keep with your silly notion.
Orbit as you will.
There is ample evidence that the Earth is warming. There are many independently calculated temperature series available which arrive at the same conclusion. Several have been posted at this thread. If you're going to pretend that global warming is not happening, it's not because nobody is demonstrating the evidence to you, but rather that you're willfully ignoring the truth.
If you think "the temperature of the Earth is going up" is insufficient evidence of warming, I would like to know what you would consider sufficient.
I have an alternative explanation: the planet is in a gradual warming trend following the Little Ice Age. Compared to previous warming periods, today's warming looks rather ordinary Berry: Temperature and CO2 History - Climate Physics. I'm not denying that the earth is warming. But I am very skeptical that the warming occurring today will have disastrous consequences like many alarmists claim.
Firstly, I would consider that according to your graph we're approaching the peak of human-historical warmth and showing no sign of slowing down. That should be worrisome from a severity standpoint.
Secondly, there's no evidence that the LIA and modern warming stem from the same cause. The LIA was probably due to a combination of volcanic and solar activity levels, but those factors cannot explain our modern warming. So although it is reasonable to look at a graph and wonder about a connection, nobody seems to have presented a plausible theory which would explain such a connection (while anthropogenic warming theory is well-supported).
You are ignoring the obvious…
Those 97% percent of climate scientists in this "consensus" of yours, receive funding to study global warming. Funding that is predicated on global warming being a serious problem that demands attention, further study and... further funding.
Meanwhile, skeptical studies or any studies which run counter to the alarmism, are rarely funded and if they are, rarely published. Not because they lack scientific merit, but because they run counter to the alarmist dogma and because politics and activism have crept into science.
You have it wrong. Between the Koch Brothers and Exxon tens of millions are being spent on disinformation campaigns to discredit the science behind climate change. They don't have the science so they politicize the issue. The Kochs know all they need is vocal minority, pliable congressmen, and paid skeptics and all progress to on climate legislation will come to a halt.
You didn't read the two articles explaining the scientific view, did you? Also, an appeal to authority is not relevant in a religious discussion ...... but it certainly is relevant in a matter of fact, such as that claimed by nearly all ..... basically all ..... climate scientists. That's their field. You wouldn't appreciate if some kid with no experience or education in your field would tell you that you're wrong, in the face of the evidence ...... would you?
As for that "straw man" ...... could you link to a single paper by a climatologist that denies global warming is happening in some degree and is partly caused by humans? A paper that was written in the last 5 years.
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.
There is ample evidence that the Earth is warming. There are many independently calculated temperature series available which arrive at the same conclusion. Several have been posted at this thread. If you're going to pretend that global warming is not happening, it's not because nobody is demonstrating the evidence to you, but rather that you're willfully ignoring the truth.
If you think "the temperature of the Earth is going up" is insufficient evidence of warming, I would like to know what you would consider sufficient.
The issue is in regards to alleged man-made global warming, not just a temperature rise. In other words, you need to prove any aggregated global temperature rise in whole or in part (parsing equation) is due to man-made activity versus say the effect of variations in solar activity such as sunspots.
As regards sufficient evidence, it is necessarily highly reliable, material, competent and relevant evidence that is both clear and unyielding and hurdles the required standard of proof.
I have an alternative explanation: the planet is in a gradual warming trend following the Little Ice Age. Compared to previous warming periods, today's warming looks rather ordinary Berry: Temperature and CO2 History - Climate Physics. I'm not denying that the earth is warming. But I am very skeptical that the warming occurring today will have disastrous consequences like many alarmists claim.
I agree and have been saying this since the late 1980's. Nice temperature chart over the last several thousand years.
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.
Also, an appeal to authority is not relevant in a religious discussion ...... but it certainly is relevant in a matter of fact, such as that claimed by nearly all ..... basically all ..... climate scientists. That's their field. You wouldn't appreciate if some kid with no experience or education in your field would tell you that you're wrong, in the face of the evidence ...... would you?
