ONCE TWO SCIENTISTS—it hardly matters what sort—were walking before dinner beside a pleasant pond with their friend, a reporter for the Dispatch, when they happened to notice a bird standing beside the water.
“I am a skeptic,” said the first scientist. “I demand convincing evidence before I make an assertion. But I believe I can identify that bird, beyond all reasonable doubt, as a duck.” The journalist nodded silently at this assertion.
“I also am a skeptic,” said the second, “but evidently of a more refined sort, for I demand a much higher standard of evidence than you do. I see no irrefutable evidence to back up your assertion that this object before us is even a bird, let alone positively identifying it as a duck.” The journalist raised his eyebrow sagely.
“But what of the feathers?” the first scientist demanded. “Surely you must have noticed the feathers, which are the veritable hallmark, so to speak, of a bird.” “I have seen nearly identical feathers on a feather duster,” the second replied. “At present the evidence is not strong enough to say whether the object before us is a member of the avian genus Anas or a common household implement.” The journalist held his chin and pondered this revelation. “But this object has two legs, and walks upon the ground,” the first scientist objected.
“So indeed do many members of the genus Homo, including our own species,” the second replied, and the journalist smiled a knowing smile. “But this creature has webbed feet,” the first scientist pointed out, his voice rising slightly.
“My cousin Albrecht has webbed feet,” the second replied. “You are making my case for me by presenting not one but two compelling pieces of evidence that this object is in fact a member of the genus Homo, and very likely my cousin Albrecht.” The journalist looked up, as though he were carefully weighing the argument.
“But it has a broad and flat bill,” the first scientist said.
“The platypus has a broad and flat bill,” the second pointed out, “and so has a baseball cap. Since we have much evidence that suggests the object is a member of the genus Homo, and some that suggests it belongs to the genus Ornithorhynchus, it seems reasonable to suppose, as a provisional hypothesis, that the object is a mammal, and with somewhat less certainty we may identify it as my cousin Albrecht wearing a baseball cap.” The journalist, unable to suppress his instincts any longer, produced a long, narrow notebook and began to scribble furiously.
“But it has feathers!” the first scientist shouted. “It has feathers, and two legs, and webbed feet, and a broad flat bill, and it says ‘quack,’ and—look—it’s gone into the pond now, and it’s floating on the water. It’s a duck!”
“Each one of those observations is susceptible of a different explanation,” the second scientist responded calmly. “Where is your compelling evidence?” The first scientist slapped his forehead. Then, calming himself, he turned to his friend the reporter. “Since we seem unable to reach a conclusion,” he said, “would you be kind enough to favor us with your opinion?”
“Reputable scientists disagree,” said the journalist. “There is a debate. The question is far from settled. The truth probably lies between the two extremes of duck and not-duck.”
So the two scientists both stomped away in dudgeon and hostility, and the journalist, unable by himself to decide where to eat dinner, starved to death.
My favorite part: "After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News." - Nathan Allen, PhD chemist
They are just as easy to dismiss today as when they were originally posted. Every one is an opinion piece, most of them posted on conservative political web sites. Not a scientific paper nor any tangible scientific "evidence" among them.
My favorite part: "After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News." - Nathan Allen, PhD chemist
CO2 in atmosphere of Venus = 965,000 parts per million; Average Temp = 864 Degrees F
CO2 in atmosphere of Mars = 953,000 parts per million; Average Temp = -67 Degrees F
CO2 in atmosphere of Earth = 330-380 parts per million (seasonal); Average Temp = 59 Degrees F
How could anyone forget what Toddster posted? It raises the already awesomely high bar for nonsensical posts. It elevates "Talking Out Your Azz" to a whole new level. You've really outdone yourself here, Arn. Here are some side-by-side characteristics of the atmospheres of Venus, Earth and Mars:
The atmospheres of these three planets are so completely different from one another that Toddster's attempt at a straightforward comparison--a lame attempt to negate the correlation between CO2 and global warming on planet Earth--makes no sense whatsoever.
So Mars has an atmosphere that is more than 95% CO2 and it's still cold as ****. And Toddster wants you to think that this shoots down the idea that CO2 is correlated with global warming. Well, duh! The table shows you that the atmospheric surface pressure on Mars is less than 1% of the pressure on Earth. The reason that Mars is so much colder than Earth is because Mars hardly has any atmosphere whatsoever.
But Mars is still warmer than it would be without the small amount of CO2 that surrounds it.
The only takeaway is that each planet is warmer than it would be without its greenhouse gases.
Source: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research "The Goldilocks Principle: A Model of Atmospheric Gases"
Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-20-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: Planning for government policy does not equal support.
"…ExxonMobil would support a carbon tax if it was paired with an equal cut elsewhere in the tax code — the same policy that Mr. Gore has endorsed."
"…which [ExxonMobil's spokesman] acknowledged was at odds with some of the company’s Republican friends." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: How do you like dem bananas?
Dem bananas good.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Once again, flyinfieros quotes HIMSELF, and declares victory.
Victory has been established for awhile. I'm just here to beat the dead horse.
fierobear has no comment for Tisdale's total lack of qualifications but he has no problem citing him as evidence. He has no comment on the lack of scientific integrity at the WUWT blog he cites constantly. He has no comment on the fact the politically biased WUWT blog is financially tied to a radical lobbyist organization that's paid to deny global warming, Heartland Institute. He has no comment on the fact Anthony Watts who runs the WUWT blog published his debunked study at the Heartland Institute because it couldn't get published in ANY peer reviewed journal. But he's pretty sure all this is a fraud despite absolutely zero 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming' in 85 pages.
This is not a valid source for information. The guy who runs that website has a political degree and has been exposed for spreading disinformation here many times. That site is "unquotable and uncitable".
It's funny how you disregard surface stations because of 'adjustments' to the data - yet UAH is one of the most controversial and adjusted datasets around.
fierobear has no comment for Tisdale's total lack of qualifications but he has no problem citing him as evidence. He has no comment on the lack of scientific integrity at the WUWT blog he cites constantly. He has no comment on the fact the politically biased WUWT blog is financially tied to a radical lobbyist organization that's paid to deny global warming, Heartland Institute. He has no comment on the fact Anthony Watts who runs the WUWT blog published his debunked study at the Heartland Institute because it couldn't get published in ANY peer reviewed journal. But he's pretty sure all this is a fraud despite absolutely zero 'evidence against anthropogenic global warming' in 85 pages.
I have responded, several times. You simply keep repeating the same flawed argument, as if repetition makes your argument any stronger. In addition, you continue to employ AD HOMENIM replies to scientific arguments you can't present counterpoint or disprove the information, so you attack the person, website, allegd funding source, and so on. It is an INVALID ARGUMEMT, and you just keep doing it, over and over. Here are the two debating errors you refuse to give up, along with a link to a university website article on logical fallicies:
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"
==================
WUWT HAS linked to published and peer reviewed papers that counter the global warming paradigm. The fact that you claim otherwise proves that you either don't bother to actually read what is posted, or you just choose to lie about it.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-20-2013).]
ONCE TWO SCIENTISTS—it hardly matters what sort—were walking before dinner beside a pleasant pond with their friend, a reporter for the Dispatch, when they happened to notice a bird standing beside the water.
“I am a skeptic,” said the first scientist. “I demand convincing evidence before I make an assertion. But I believe I can identify that bird, beyond all reasonable doubt, as a duck.” The journalist nodded silently at this assertion.
“I also am a skeptic,” said the second, “but evidently of a more refined sort, for I demand a much higher standard of evidence than you do. I see no irrefutable evidence to back up your assertion that this object before us is even a bird, let alone positively identifying it as a duck.” The journalist raised his eyebrow sagely.
“But what of the feathers?” the first scientist demanded. “Surely you must have noticed the feathers, which are the veritable hallmark, so to speak, of a bird.” “I have seen nearly identical feathers on a feather duster,” the second replied. “At present the evidence is not strong enough to say whether the object before us is a member of the avian genus Anas or a common household implement.” The journalist held his chin and pondered this revelation. “But this object has two legs, and walks upon the ground,” the first scientist objected.
“So indeed do many members of the genus Homo, including our own species,” the second replied, and the journalist smiled a knowing smile. “But this creature has webbed feet,” the first scientist pointed out, his voice rising slightly.
“My cousin Albrecht has webbed feet,” the second replied. “You are making my case for me by presenting not one but two compelling pieces of evidence that this object is in fact a member of the genus Homo, and very likely my cousin Albrecht.” The journalist looked up, as though he were carefully weighing the argument.
“But it has a broad and flat bill,” the first scientist said.
“The platypus has a broad and flat bill,” the second pointed out, “and so has a baseball cap. Since we have much evidence that suggests the object is a member of the genus Homo, and some that suggests it belongs to the genus Ornithorhynchus, it seems reasonable to suppose, as a provisional hypothesis, that the object is a mammal, and with somewhat less certainty we may identify it as my cousin Albrecht wearing a baseball cap.” The journalist, unable to suppress his instincts any longer, produced a long, narrow notebook and began to scribble furiously.
“But it has feathers!” the first scientist shouted. “It has feathers, and two legs, and webbed feet, and a broad flat bill, and it says ‘quack,’ and—look—it’s gone into the pond now, and it’s floating on the water. It’s a duck!”
“Each one of those observations is susceptible of a different explanation,” the second scientist responded calmly. “Where is your compelling evidence?” The first scientist slapped his forehead. Then, calming himself, he turned to his friend the reporter. “Since we seem unable to reach a conclusion,” he said, “would you be kind enough to favor us with your opinion?”
“Reputable scientists disagree,” said the journalist. “There is a debate. The question is far from settled. The truth probably lies between the two extremes of duck and not-duck.”
So the two scientists both stomped away in dudgeon and hostility, and the journalist, unable by himself to decide where to eat dinner, starved to death.
WUWT HAS linked to published and peer reviewed papers that counter the global warming paradigm. The fact that you claim otherwise proves that you either don't bother to actually read what is posted, or you just choose to lie about it.
Correct WUWT links published and peer reviewed papers.
However they make their own conclusions, often times going against the linked papers authors or using parts of the papers out of context.
Originally posted by fierobear: I have responded, several times.
Only with insults, if you bother to respond at all. You generally avoid answering anything that matters. Does your post answer any of the errors exposed in your posts? Nope.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: WUWT HAS linked to published and peer reviewed papers
Yet WUWT published their own fraudulent 'study' at a radical lobbyist organization. "Linking" to peer reviewed scientific papers means absolutely nothing - they're biased and untrustworthy.
Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia talked of an eight-year period, 1998–2006, during which there had been no increase in global temperatures according to the HadCRUT34 data from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since that time there has been no net increase in Global Temperature.
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was issued in 2007. Regarding estimates of future global warming, it concluded that for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade would occur. IT DIDN'T
In fact their reported potential range ws 0.2 to 0.5. In fact they also predicted that half of the years after 2009 would be records.
But the net increase was 0.0
This is a fact.
Of course 1998 was the warmest year on record due to the Century's largest Al Nino event driving temperatures upward.
Reference "the Global Warming Standstill, by Dr. David Whitehouse
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Regarding estimates of future global warming, it concluded that for the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade would occur. IT DIDN'T
In fact their reported potential range ws 0.2 to 0.5.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Look at 2003 to 2013, Dead even
So is 1991 to 2001. Your point is meaningless.
You're blind to how completely flawed your argument is. You didn't even realize you switched from surface station data to satellite data in the middle of your argument.
IPCC stated .2 degrees C per decade and estimated actually .2 to .5
Look at 2003 to 2013, Dead even
Look at 1983, we are talking 3 decades and an increase from that year less than 0.19 (fixed) for 3 decades.
If you start from 1985 you have an increase of over 0.5 C. Obviously if you pick a higher than average starting point the warming seems less significant. Regardless, that chart has an obvious upward trend.
quote
Look at the predictions of displaced millions, inundated islands, increased hurricane activity, totally melted Arctic ice, ALL FATUOUS CONCOCTIONS.
How many times does this nonsense need to be proven wrong before you stop repeating it?
I could have picked 1993, the first 10 year mark and then what would you say? 30 years is better but a century would be better yet.
As for the predictions of polar bear eradication, inundated islands, and increased hurricanes, the GW's would love us to forget their errant predictions.
I could have picked 1993, the first 10 year mark and then what would you say? 30 years is better but a century would be better yet.
As for the predictions of polar bear eradication, inundated islands, and increased hurricanes, the GW's would love us to forget their errant predictions.
From 1990 to date, the rise in global sea levels has exceeded the IPCC's predictions, on which the IPCC erred by 60%--but on the LOW side: Read The Science; December 6, 2012 http://readthescience.com/2...ty-who-got-it-right/
The newspapers can publish their opinion pieces all they like, but look at the chart
If the IPCC prognostication was correct, at 0.2 increase per decade, in 2013 the chart should have shown .6 above the 0.0 median line, or thereabouts.
Instead it is 1.9 above the median line close to the 1.8 of 1998.
Sure we have general and gradual heating trend since the last ice age. There is no evidence here to show CO2 artificial and overtly induced extreme heating. You can argue all day about the natural variations that occur, and read into them what you want, but, anthropogenic global warming theory is fully debunked by not me, but by the facts.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If the IPCC prognostication was correct,
UAH is one of the most controversial datasets around due to adjustments to the data due to error. It's also the dataset that shows the least amount of warming. UAH even showed cooling in 1998 before being 'adjusted' again. Cherry picking the coldest and most controversial dataset around and then using it to criticize a unspecified IPCC scenario isn't building you a convincing case. Despite all of that, even the coldest and most controversial dataset clearly shows a warming trend.
IPCC temperature projections have been much more accurate than contrarians:
Originally posted by avengador1: Finally! A new graph but you forgot to add the links it's source so it is worthless.
You wouldn't check the source anyway.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: Time for some videos.
As long as we're posting videos for their entertainment value and not scientific, how can you forget Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura: Global Warming?!?!
They even interview Alex "wildcard" Jones - of course. Tim Ball hides his face - thankfully.
Just checking in to see if reality rearing it's ugly head has had any influence on the deniers. Nope! Keep on posting though guys. Someone has to challenge all the misinformation posted by the deniers otherwise more people will believe it.
Flyinfieros has logged on to this thread 10 October 2012 with the express intention of criticizing and proving wrong, the premise of the thread which is that anthropogenic global warming is not valid. The thread was started in July 2008.
If you look at the facts evident in the statistical data, you will see that the Global Temperature was at the median 0.0 in 2008 and since that time, the temperature is now up to 1.9 degrees up, which is only 1/2 a decade. I am surprised that Flyinfieros hasn't noticed this and hasn't tried to say that the rate is actually 3.8 per decade.
Such foolishness is well within the exaggerated claims' parameters.
The facts are self evident. There is no pattern of increased global temperatures approaching the claimed 0.2 per decade.
The claims of people promoting the Great Global Warming hoax and fear mongering have been shown to have not been true.
Trouble makers and contrarians can try to dispute these facts but personal criticism attacks and fatuous arguements do not change the record.
Yes, arguing the support for these fatuous claims is plainly a waste of time. It is also disrespecting people's intelligence to try to baffle gab and buffalo the readers with a smoke screen of junk science and errant postulations
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-23-2013).]
Just checking in to see if reality rearing it's ugly head has had any influence on the deniers. Nope! Keep on posting though guys. Someone has to challenge all the misinformation posted by the deniers otherwise more people will believe it.
"Deniers" too funny. Maybe you could call us "climate racists" or some other catchy name to shift the debate away from the fact that global warming has not matched the increases in CO2. Nah, much more fun to call names.
"Deniers" too funny. Maybe you could call us "climate racists" or some other catchy name to shift the debate away from the fact that global warming has not matched the increases in CO2. Nah, much more fun to call names.
Calling people who deny Climate Change is happening are Deniers. People who think the Global temperature is increasing are often referred to as "Warmists. I don't see either as a attempt to shift the focus from the scientific evidence or even as a part of name calling in a negative way.
Matched C02? Have you read the scientific reasons why temperature often lags C02 increase and the evidence for it?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-23-2013).]
Flyinfieros has logged on to this thread 10 October 2012 with the express intention of criticizing and proving wrong, the premise of the thread which is that anthropogenic global warming is not valid. The thread was started in July 2008.
If you look at the facts evident in the statistical data, you will see that the Global Temperature was at the median 0.0 in 2008 and since that time, the temperature is now up to 1.9 degrees up, which is only 1/2 a decade. I am surprised that Flyinfieros hasn't noticed this and hasn't tried to say that the rate is actually 3.8 per decade.
Such foolishness is well within the exaggerated claims' parameters.
The facts are self evident. There is no pattern of increased global temperatures approaching the claimed 0.2 per decade.
The claims of people promoting the Great Global Warming hoax and fear mongering have been shown to have not been true.
Trouble makers and contrarians can try to dispute these facts but personal criticism attacks and fatuous arguements do not change the record.
Yes, arguing the support for these fatuous claims is plainly a waste of time. It is also disrespecting people's intelligence to try to baffle gab and buffalo the readers with a smoke screen of junk science and errant postulations
Arn
So the fact that you have come up with your own conclusions cherry picking and misrepresenting others data makes your opinion true? What makes you an expert in the are of Climate Science Arn? Please tell us why we should believe you over experts and scientists.
So the fact that you have come up with your own conclusions cherry picking and misrepresenting others data makes your opinion true? What makes you an expert in the are of Climate Science Arn? Please tell us why we should believe you over experts and scientists.
