Dishwashing Alpha Male
I wonder what would happen to the way they determine the global temperature if they:
1) Included humidity in the heat content calculation.
2) Stopped cherry picking sites to use.
3) Had sites that remained unchanged in the surrounding landscape since installed.
Guys... give me a break. Climate is always changing, and what is used by the alarmists does no good.
"Climate is always changing" is either a strawman logical fallacy. No climate scientist denies that our climate never changes. Chalk up another one for you.
Creationists like to talk about the number of biologists who disagree with the theory of evolution as well.
They bemoan the fact that scientific peer-review publications don't tend to include creationists on the review panels.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=469
Given: Creationism is pseudoscience.
Creationists argue that the number of scientists who doubt the theory of evolution is relevant to whether it is true.
Logical form:
People who believe in X argue that the number of scientists who doubt Y, the theory they disagree with is relevant to whether it is true.
People who believe that humans are not responsible for climate change argue that the number of scientists who doubt human-caused climate change is relevant to whether it is true.
Logical conclusion?
??????
Want to bring up that Oregon pe ion now? or wait until WC does?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
UPDATE:
The end-all, be-all of proof I need to back up this thread's entire assertion.
This one single exchange sums up everything one needs to know about the level of intellect attracted to the global warming denial idea. Thank you DarrinS
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.
Yonivore:
First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...82&postcount=7
Questions asked of Obstructed View:
First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32
Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...4&postcount=29
Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...0&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=32
DarrinS:
First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=563
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=713
Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=361
Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=412
Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=560
Wild Cobra:
One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1202
Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1075
You guyz better watch out, because I'm keeping score.
Oh snap!
Sincerely,
RG
why do conservatives fixate on gay men?
care to answer, darin?
The easy answer to that is to quit thinking illogically and stop being intellectually dishonest.
It isn't my job to learn critical thinking and the construction of logical arguments for you, that is yours.
(edit)
For someone who probably talks a lot about "personal responsibility", you seem to be hesitant to accept responsibility for your poor reasoning ability.
Why is that?
Actually, it fits the AGW movement.
There are no solid numbers and the noise range is too often in the 5% range. They cobble data together that fits to their agenda.
They claim to use science, without sound scientific methodology.
If you ever read the material in the Rocket Scientist Journal, he points out fallacies that the AGW crowd relies on.
Manny...
Is it you, or someone else who says there is no lag in the climate system?
NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming page 7.When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
Couple that with latent energy caught in the thermohaline circulation, and you have really long times.
Do any AGW believing scientists account for these lags?
A few things of interest, pics have links attached:
Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled; (August 27, 2011)
Now I haven't read this one yet, running out of time. I do recall seeing an article in the past that shows CO2 actually cools the atmosphere at some concentrations. It all depends on the partial pressure, starting temperature, emissivity, etc:
Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section.Two "must sees" if not seen before:Conclusions
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.
By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.
Global energy ac ulation and net heat emission
Interesting. I wonder if the guys at CERN are pseudoscientists who lack critical thinking skills? We'll have to consult the all-knowing RandomGuy for the answer.
Went to the project's website, http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ , clicked on the Funding link and .... DAMN IT -- no grant from Exxon-Mobile.
L:OL...
How many times have I denied CO2 being the primary driver of warming, and classing it as #3? Sun #1, soot on ice/snow #2.
The other article may prove to be right, taking CO2 off my list!
http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.htmlInteresting. I wonder if the guys at CERN are pseudoscientists who lack critical thinking skills? We'll have to consult the all-knowing RandomGuy for the answer.
Went to the project's website, http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ , clicked on the Funding link and .... DAMN IT -- no grant from Exxon-Mobile.
Thats not what Darrin was referencing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/
Addresses what Darrin is referencing at CERN. If Darrin possessed critical thinking abilities he might take a look at that data and wonder how that translates to the period in the mid 20th century he always references regarding a lack of warming.
If.
To my knowledge, very few "deniers' use the cosmic ray idea. It is believed to have a small impact, but not understood well. I also disagree with using a model to disprove something. A model is no better than how you program it to act.
We know that the solar intensity has increased since the Maunder Minimum to present day. The only dispute is by how much. Proxy data isn't known for high accuracy.
Some people will shut out the cosmic ray idea without the open mindedness it may have some merit, I call them the deniers.
Uh-huh.
A guy that posts what? 2 critiques in the last three years of a body of climate science with dozens of papers every year?
I would point out that what he pointed out was not "fallacies", but attempts to clarify data.
The things you, and especially Darrin, post are quite often straight up logical fallacies.
There is a slight difference.
I am sure he can bring up some fairly good points when it comes to the science, its just that I don't think he has cleared the bar when it comes to successfully refuting a rather large body of evidence, when his reviews for the most part, are of material that is almost a decade or more old.
This level of "proof" is only really comparable, in my view, to the level of "science" that is trumpeted as "irrefutable" proof of the "fallacies" of the "official view" of 9-11.
You do understand what a logical fallacy is, right?
Interesting. I wonder if the guys at CERN are pseudoscientists who lack critical thinking skills? We'll have to consult the all-knowing RandomGuy for the answer.
Went to the project's website, http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ , clicked on the Funding link and .... DAMN IT -- no grant from Exxon-Mobile.
Does this sound like an objective, unbiased view of the science presented Darrin?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-31-2011 at 10:57 AM.
Hmmm. Another computer model.
"Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims," said Adams, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon.
Empirical >>>>>>>> model
This article was updated on April 8, 2011. This article has been Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
Does this work appear in a peer reviewed journal perhaps?
I'll tell you what. Your challenge is to actually read said article and tell me what might be wrong with A) the model and B) the assumptions.
Are there any gross errors or assumptions which would lead one to erroneous results with this? If so what are they? What parameters could be improved?
In other words, don't hide behind the empirical > model bush. I want you to think. I know it's painful, but try.
Yeah I saw that. Just throwing in a wrinkle.Thats not what Darrin was referencing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...y-interesting/
Addresses what Darrin is referencing at CERN. If Darrin possessed critical thinking abilities he might take a look at that data and wonder how that translates to the period in the mid 20th century he always references regarding a lack of warming.
If.
Um, where's the empirical evidence that you speak of? I'd love to see it?
Does this sound like an objective, unbiased view of the science presented Darrin?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
