I watched an incovenient truth last night
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels
Sealing the Fate of Antarctica
By Patrick J. Michaels
The American Spectator 12/20/2006
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
N8 - trying quoting somebody who isn't on the fossil fuel payroll, ok?
I guess those of you in the Church of Global Warming like to gloss over and over simplify difficult concepts much like your Southern Batpist bretheren who use the same methods to convert the hethen.
However, the real issue is infinately more complicated than what your Pope Algore says. There are significant uncertainties and conundra surrounding the issue and there is far from a general agreement in the scientific community.
For example:
Is it the Earth's wobble that is responsible for all of our global warming debates?! Can it be completely ruled out as a major contributor?
or...
The sun is also to blame for global warming (fairly obvious)..
Or maybe this...
The first accurate measurement of CO2 was recorded in 1812 at a value 385 ppm
Today's value is approx roughly 380ppm.
However, the real issue is infinately more complicated than what your Pope Algore says. There are significant uncertainties and conundra surrounding the issue and there is far from a general agreement in the scientific community.
For example:
Is it the Earth's wobble that is responsible for all of our global warming debates?! Can it be completely ruled out as a major contributor?
or...
The sun is also to blame for global warming (fairly obvious)..
Or maybe this...
The first accurate measurement of CO2 was recorded in 1812 at a value 385 ppm
Today's value is approx roughly 380ppm.
Your logic fails to connect the dots again N8. That artice relates climate change to wobble but makes no reference that this could explain existing climate change nor does it mention any changes in the current state of 'wobble' of which I am sure we have a fairly long historical reference of.
well, here's the absolutely truth and bottomline:
If there is NO global warming and we do smething about it, then at least doing the right thing will yield a better environment.
If there IS global warming and we do nothing, then our grandchildren are fvcked.
Why not take the chance that there is no global warming and make positive steps to living a little cleaner?
If there is NO global warming and we do smething about it, then at least doing the right thing will yield a better environment.
If there IS global warming and we do nothing, then our grandchildren are fvcked.
Why not take the chance that there is no global warming and make positive steps to living a little cleaner?
Geological time vs The Church of Global Warming's concept of time are about the same as the modern understanding of scientific time vs the Cathloic Church's view that the earth is only 2000 years old.
Our last 100 years is so small when viewed against the age of the earth that it is essentially meaningless.
Atmospheric Co2 can be historically measured by samplice ancient ice layers. The data.
I don't personally always accept data that comes from a possibly politically slanted org so here is similar dat from the Gubment, Suprisingly it does not agree with N8.
I don't personally always accept data that comes from a possibly politically slanted org so here is similar dat from the Gubment, Suprisingly it does not agree with N8.
perhaps Global Warming is supposed to occur and will either advance the human spieces or make it extinct.
Concentrations of atmospheric analytes are measured in everything from gases to bedrock, oceans, ice and trees you tool.
Measuring the atmosphere varies hugely by location, barometric pressure and who farted in the last 20 minutes........as well as methodology.
So how was the 1812 measurement conducted? Combustion analysis? Spectroscopy?
Atmospheric Co2 can be historically measured by samplice ancient ice layers. The data.
I don't personally always accept data that comes from a possibly politically slanted org so here is similar dat from the Gubment, Suprisingly it does not agree with N8.
Again, the first accurate measurement of CO2 was in 1812 and was recorded at 385 ppm. Measurements taken at the outbreak of WWII measured levels in the range of 440ppm.
Today's level is about 380 as your graph suggests.
Kohlensäure Gehalt der unteren Luft schichten in Abhangigkeit von Witterungsfaktoren, W. Kreutz,1941
Avg CO2 from 1939-1941 measured at 438ppm
The biggest part of joining The Church of Global Warming is that, like any good religion, you have to BELIEVE in it regardless of the facts.
It is a faith after all.
Not that its bad necessarily... but like Christianity, it does direct its followers to convert the heathens by forcing its ideology on them if opposed.
It is a faith after all.
Not that its bad necessarily... but like Christianity, it does direct its followers to convert the heathens by forcing its ideology on them if opposed.
chemically
You have got to be fvcking kidding me! Where's the money for oil executives in this scenario? Do you want their kids to buy SUB-STANDARD YACHTS?
Evil global warming sheep. All of you.
I think this graph is fairly accurate, the steep areas coincide roughly with ice ages and/or other known environmental changes. But, again, look at this graph carefully, the last even, which looks like 30,000 years ago, the levels didn't normalize like all the other events.
After all the other big spikes, the CO2 levels worked back down to ~200ppm, but for the last 20,000 years, we havent been below 250? This is WELL before the industrial age, so again, my question is WHY?
Do share where you found this little gem. Seems to show up only in very specific places.
I'm a chemist by training. I'd certainly enjoy reading a translation of it.
As for your other article........wonder where you found that?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122006/content/institute_2.guest.html
Yes, you've said before that limbaugh's too liberal for you.
Now try measuring 650,000 years against when the Earth would have had a relevant weather and eco system.
A 7000 pixel photo is about the resolution of an atari screen. If you've ever played pong, then you are well aware of the importance of that single pixel. Of course of your 7000 pixels, only about 2000 of them are at all relevant.
AND of course, that's not even the relevant screen to be looking at. We're comparing the trend of the last hundred years to every other change that has occured over the last 650,000 years. The correct statement that this pixel on THIS screen is drastically different than any of the other 6500 pixels we have observed.
The only reason that would be true is willful ignorance.
Know what's amusing?
Do share where you found this little gem. Seems to show up only in very specific places.
I'm a chemist by training. I'd certainly enjoy reading a translation of it.
As for your other article........wonder where you found that?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122006/content/institute_2.guest.html
Yes, you've said before that limbaugh's too liberal for you.
Study the arguments of the CoGW alarmists and one will find they are funded by global warming promoting goverments (anti-US) in the Kyoto threaty and/or the CoGW itself, therefore, they are obligated to produce global warming hysteria.
Or they are climatologists whom have noticed that by sounding the alarm about global warming, they get to shine in the liberal media spotlight... which is always great for increasing their social status, inflating their expertise and that results in huge money being thrown their way by the CoGW faithful and those who may have an even darker adgenda.
1. The environment doesn't operate on geologic timescales, or anything close to them.
2. as someone else pointed out the the available history is close to a million years, which is more than long enough.
3. Natural fluctuations in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, other overwhelming events.
Everyone else has already thrown out enough information. If you need more, you should really look it up yourself instead of begging to be hand fed and refusing to eat.
And N8 the comparison of airborne CO2 in Germany during a industrial revolution, is not comparable to the CO2 level in Antarctica derived from virgin ice. And the level of CO2 in Dresden during a firestorm is likely quite different from the CO2 level in Antarctica at the same time. Antarctica is much more indicitave of the overall state of co2 in the world as a whole.
I'm really interested in this data so I tried to find it.
A google search on this reference only brings up someone else's post in another forum and a blog Curiously exactly the same as your post. I'm sure you didn't copy it.
Anyway digging deeper on the matter I did find this paper that references the Kreutz data. The document is an abridged version of a full paper.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf
-I could not find the full paper.
-The abridged document is only found on a bloggers website and does not seem to be published in any recognized journal.
-Although references others data it contains no bibliographic data.
-Contains several spelling and grammatical errors,
-Cites the difference in CO2 measurement data but makes no attempts to explain the cause of the difference, it just assumes the higher ones are correct.
-Makes no attempt to explain the source of the trillions of tons of CO2 that caused the 1940's rise nor explains where it went.
-The Beck data shows historical wildly fluctuating CO2 levels yet in the last 60 years of modern measurement changes are smooth and comparatively gradual.
This really all has to be chalked up to "I read it on the Intarnweb". A stoned high school student could have made this up. I'd be very interested if you could find a published source of data and would be even more interested to find out where all that CO2 came from and where it went.
He ducks, he dodges.
Back it up. All you've provided so far is opinionated summaries that any jackass can get from an editorial.
Guess what........before it was even known well enough to be fashionable, people started noticing some alarming things about climate change. These weren't people with a political agenda because it wasn't an established concern, and hence........not yet cool for your percieved liberal media to exploit.
Believe it or not, you're talking to someone who reads environmental papers regularly. I put out annual reports that provide data from continuous monitoring on many of the things you think you understand. So thowing out the name of a paper you heard from someone else is bullsh1t if you think I'm going to leave it at that.
If you're going to pretend that you know what you're talking about, prove it.
In the meantime.......check westy's post. Sounds like he found the same bs I did.
[insert dip**** "bait" post here]
The liberal biased media funded by guam wants to eat your baby's face.
Personal greed....does it need to be subtle?
If we can link killing oil bearing muslims, killing non oil bearing non muslims or killing jews to reducing emissions it might catch on. Maybe a program where if you drive a car with a sub 2.0 liter engine you get jew gold.