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.
It is absurdly insulting. Its roots are in that of the same irrational and crazy denial of the holocaust. Those who use such do so to partake in character attacks and dismissal. To even attempt to rationalize the use of it is idiocy, plain and simple.
It is about the science. The entire position is one that claims that of the evaluation of science. The hypothesis of AGW isn't even remotely shown to be viable. It is pure modeled belief to which the empirical and observational tests are in conflict with. Without the validation of science, all AGW has is political scare and fantasy.
And yet, you are the one who starts off with insults by using the word denial to describe my objections while ignoring the validity of those objections as it concerns the science. You act like a little brat who dishes out insults left and right and then when someone pays you in kind, you throw a tantrum and go off about how I am not "nice" to you. You do this because, like all of the other fallacies you use to avoid the relevant points of the discussion, feigning the victim is also another tactic of evasion. So, either stay on topic, stop using fallacies or grow some thicker skin and stop acting like a child.
Odd... considering the fact that natural variability is a component of the scientific evaluation. That even the models they use to claim AGW evaluate the range of assessment to which their results fall in or outside of the range of natural variability. If the suppositions they make are considered conflicting with results, their hypothesis fails.
Everything I have been discussing is about the science (or related to the issues of politics influencing the science). The only logical support you could make is that my agenda is that proper scientific analysis be established and I make no excuses for it.
Your approach is to make a bunch of assumptions about what is the cause and then promote solutions to which you have no clue to their effect concerning your assumptions. You argue political advocacy to an ideal and because you ignore all aspects of the science, your ignorance results in false understanding of the issues to which your solutions fail.
We spent years getting away from religious and idealistic practice driving our assessments. We developed methods to logically assess issues that reduce the influence of bias and here you are saying we should take a "common sense" evaluation of the issue driven by human "gut instinct"?
Have you lost your mind? Science has an extensive process of evaluation because the human perceptions can be easily tricked. There are many things in science that are contradictory to "common sense" and basic human perception and evaluation. This is why we test extensively through methods of verification, validation and replication. If we had established our knowledge based on "common sense" and "gut instinct" while studying many elements in physics (light for instance), we would still be in the dark ages as they defy our ability to discern such through our basic perceptions.
You need to take some science classes. Your arguments are of someone who lacks education in the sciences. Might I suggest that you take several mathematics courses (including on up to chaos theory) and also pick up all of the physics courses in at the undergrad level (usually around 4 semesters) while you are at it, pick up some classes in logical argument and philosophy as well. Do this, then come back to me with silly arguments about "gut instinct" and "common sense" being the main driver of an assessment. Your ignorance of science is astounding and your inability to properly form a logical premise with support is obvious.
You are like a child with a gun swinging it around thinking you have any clue of what you are doing.
You forget that the words denial, deny, denier, etc. are way older than the Holocaust. Denier is neutral, if people mean Holocaust denier, they will say Holocaust denier. Again, your defending your lack of character and unfriendly nature displayed repeatedly on this board is just embarrassing.
Climate researchers are taking natural variability into account, they are experts in their field and familiar with all the factors they need to take into account. You pretend they don't and thus deny their results unless they match your wishful thinking/agenda.
I am not speaking out against science. However, this is not simple physics. The global climate is a whole lot more complex and so far nobody has been able to prove anything beyond any doubt. It is not like a primitive equation or a chemical formula. Yet, we can't wait making important decisions till maybe one day our supercomputers and modeling software will be powerful enough to really predict all aspects of climate change. Unlike with physics or astronomy time plays a big role now with this climate debate. We can't afford to wait for centuries like they did before enlightenment. It didn't really matter back then whether people believed in religion or that the earth was the center of the universe. And until we know exactly what is and will be going on, we should cut back on everything. It won't hurt our planet, and it will do us good. Why anyone would even try to find ways to continue with this madness is beyond me, frankly.
Nor am I saying there is no natural climate change. Of course there is, and it will be a big problem for humanity, no matter in which direction it will go. Thus I do not want to add our own cultural climate change to that. I am not naive enough to hope and assume it will be of the opposite direction and miraculously undo the natural one. More likely than not they will add up in some way that won't be good for us.
Nah, I won't take any science classes, scientists often can't see the wood for the trees.
You forget that the words denial, deny, denier, etc. are way older than the Holocaust. Denier is neutral, if people mean Holocaust denier, they will say Holocaust denier. Again, your defending your lack of character and unfriendly nature displayed repeatedly on this board is just embarrassing.
And you forget that the word was specifically coined and used in reference to the holocaust deniers (it was an article to which one AGW supporter was comparing the objections of skeptics to that of blatant denial associated with that incident). You can play dumb all you like, but either you are blatantly ignorant of the fact and simply sheepishly picking up phrases, or you specifically use it with that intent. Regardless, your use is insulting, especially when the entire meaning of the word is nowhere near the objection I am making to your position. I do not "deny" anything, I require proper validation to a claim. If anyone is "denying" anything, it is your refusal to accept that the science is unfounded in its position of AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Climate researchers are taking natural variability into account, they are experts in their field and familiar with all the factors they need to take into account. You pretend they don't and thus deny their results unless they match your wishful thinking/agenda.
Introduction to logic:
Lesson 1: Appeal to authority fallacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I am not speaking out against science. However, this is not simple physics. The global climate is a whole lot more complex and so far nobody has been able to prove anything beyond any doubt. It is not like a primitive equation or a chemical formula.
Correct, it is not simple physics, but it is physics and requires proper scientific process to evaluate.
Your ignorance of scientific process is showing. Science is not a process of establishing all that is known in terms of absolutes. It is a process of supposition to which that specific supposition consistently succeeds in its evaluation of a given topic. When it fails according to its evaluation, the supposition is considered incorrect and is adjusted, then tested again. A failed supposition is invalid.
Lesson 2: Incomplete Knowledge Fallacy
You argue the "incomplete knowledge fallacy" which attempts to claim that because we do not know everything, we know nothing. This is a false premise when it concerns science as the entire prospect of science is to isolate a given certainty through extensive tests for verification. While it is obvious we do not know everything, we can establish a given certainty through specific things using this process. It is this very process to which your position consistently fails and so you apply this fallacy to excuse the failure of your supposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Yet, we can't wait making important decisions till maybe one day our supercomputers and modeling software will be powerful enough to really predict all aspects of climate change. Unlike with physics or astronomy time plays a big role now with this climate debate. We can't afford to wait for centuries like they did before enlightenment. It didn't really matter back then whether people believed in religion or that the earth was the center of the universe. And until we know exactly what is and will be going on, we should cut back on everything. It won't hurt our planet, and it will do us good. Why anyone would even try to find ways to continue with this madness is beyond me, frankly.
Lesson 3: Appeal to Urgency Fallacy
Again, since your premise fails completely, you make an appeal to urgency by using fear scenarios based on your faulty premise if people do not act according to your demands. The problem with this type of invalid premise is that if your premise is invalid, then so is your conclusions and therefore your solutions as they are all derived of a faulty supposition. The point of urgency is merely to evade and detract from this fact in order to gain appeal to your given position. It is a commonly used fallacy and has a very prevalent occurence in some religious based beliefs (if you don't follow this belief... then this will occur).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Nor am I saying there is no natural climate change. Of course there is, and it will be a big problem for humanity, no matter in which direction it will go. Thus I do not want to add our own cultural climate change to that. I am not naive enough to hope and assume it will be of the opposite direction and miraculously undo the natural one. More likely than not they will add up in some way that won't be good for us.
Adaption is the only solution while we establish a validity to a given supposition. Acting on something you do not understand is foolish and irresponsible. It is a instinctive trait common to animals and is why we drive the cars and animals are road kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Nah, I won't take any science classes, scientists often can't see the wood for the trees.
Ignorance is bliss.
Don't take a logic class either, it will only point out the failure of your thinking process and you don't want that getting in the way of your emotional deduction abilities.
I am finding this years arctic ice peak to be quite interesting.
It is already within 1 std of 30 year average, I wonder if it will continue to rise? The interesting thing is the growth in Alaska and Greenland area to which has grown far outside of normal bounds.
The real test will be the minimum this year. It will be interesting to see how this goes and what the result will be after the summer. I know that if there isn't a loss below 2007, the entire "tipping point, ice free arctic" position will be turned on its head. Its now 5 years since the greatest loss in the record and the trends show no discernible progression of loss to that conclusion.
Back to topic, climate experts working for Munich Re, one of the world's biggest reinsurers and partner at the 7th extreme weather congress that has started in Hamburg today, know it better. Wissenschaft - Klima: Extreme Wetterereignisse in Deutschland nehmen zu - Newsticker - sueddeutsche.de (sorry, in German)
Those guys really take their science seriously as they may lose billions of Dollars/Euros in the wake of catastrophes caused by extreme weather. They don't have a political agenda, but an economic one.
Back to topic, climate experts working for Munich Re, one of the world's biggest reinsurers and partner at the 7th extreme weather congress that has started in Hamburg today, know it better. Wissenschaft - Klima: Extreme Wetterereignisse in Deutschland nehmen zu - Newsticker - sueddeutsche.de (sorry, in German) Those guys really take their science seriously as they may lose billions of Dollars/Euros in the wake of catastrophes caused by extreme weather. They don't have a political agenda, but an economic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Nah, I won't take any science classes, scientists often can't see the wood for the trees.
???
As for your article... Sensationalized, unsubstantiated garbage.
Quote:
Cause of the warming is the increase of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), Professor Mojib Latif explained by the Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research keel. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest since the beginning of widespread instrumental measurements have been. Long run, the temperatures would climb even further, it should short "breathing spaces" do not distract the rise. "That's why we must make progress on climate change."
Oh, so now he wants to cherry pick and use decadal evaluation? LOL
Sounds like he has you suckered in good there Neuling.
Yes, that was for you. I myself don't need scientists to back up my views as I already know they are right
Anyway, that guy you quoted is a professor in that field, and you are a professor in which field again?
Yes, that was for you. I myself don't need scientists to back up my views as I already know they are right
Scientists are irrelevant, science itself is the issue. Your position is not one of science, it is one of subjectively established belief with no valid support, but... you are right! /boggle
Sounds like "utterly foolish or senseless" reasoning to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Anyway, that guy you quoted is a professor in that field, and you are a professor in which field again?
But wait! You don't need some scientist to back up your view right? You simply divine them from your own brilliant subjective reasoning! So why are you now appealing to his authority and then attempting to attack my creditability?
Yep... more of that "utterly foolish or senseless" process of reasoning. You sure are right though, I mean... you have it all figured out, you don't need any of that sciency stuffy stuff, you just know you are right.
Sorry, but I can't stop laughing and the idiocy of your argument.
Science most certainly demands that people share their judgment on important issues, to be the degree that they understand it. The Type II statistical error, that of failing to detect a significant effect when it occurs, has been used as squid ink by those with extractive interests for centuries. Some effects are difficult to demonstrate when replication is poor ( in our case we only have one earth) and variation is high and confounded, and so one must decide the most prudent way to react to uncertainty. In this case, it seems clear that acting with circumspection is wiser than assuming that since the CO2 effect is difficult to fully describe, it is nonexistent. Scientists are citizens and parents and have a voice as much as anyone else. I don't care how the global change science shakes out, but I do know that if it is a false alarm, my kids will be fine. If it is not, they will be impacted. I know which outcome I will try to avoid, if uncertainty remains. That is just common sense.
I will agree that retooling society would have major costs, but I feel that human creativity is limitless whereas the earth is finite, so changing our systems to live sustainably is far better than maintaining an indefensible status quo. AGW is just one example of unsustainable development pressures around the earth. The status quo of tremendous political and economic power aggregating to those pursuing their own short-term interests is unsustainable and unwise. Saying the obvious is not advocacy.
Science most certainly demands that people share their judgment on important issues, to be the degree that they understand it. The Type II statistical error, that of failing to detect a significant effect when it occurs, has been used as squid ink by those with extractive interests for centuries. Some effects are difficult to demonstrate when replication is poor ( in our case we only have one earth) and variation is high and confounded, and so one must decide the most prudent way to react to uncertainty. In this case, it seems clear that acting with circumspection is wiser than assuming that since the CO2 effect is difficult to fully describe, it is nonexistent. Scientists are citizens and parents and have a voice as much as anyone else. I don't care how the global change science shakes out, but I do know that if it is a false alarm, my kids will be fine. If it is not, they will be impacted. I know which outcome I will try to avoid, if uncertainty remains. That is just common sense.
The danger of science is consensus above proper scientific process. Eisenstein once said "It doesn't take a consensus to prove me wrong, it takes only a single fact". The point is that consensus does not mean replication. Agreement through perception is not a validation of any given subject. All too often throughout the history of science there have been issues of the "scientific society" to which have condemned all that conflicted with their accepted consensus regardless of validity and to which powers of interest used such as a means to discourage and attack anything that did not conform to that view.
This is why it is imperative that proper scientific process be held to the highest regard. If such is placed first, then bias can be reduced, individual motive and opinion can be subsided in order to achieve knowledge. The only ideal a scientist should strive to achieve is that of complete objectivity without attachment to any specific result with the goal of simply obtaining understanding.
The problem with a lot of the AGW science is that the methods used are problematic at best (applying statistical methods that are ad hoc and unfounded in statistical practice and application). The validation of modeled results is extremely poor as observational data is nowhere near that of projected results. Their assumptions through statistical evaluation often contain numerous adjustable inputs to which no discernible pattern can be established or recognized and the only means of shoring up the models is to consistently revise the observed data to force it into sync.
Even when we consider the C02 doubling argument to which their estimates are poorly established, they have no clue as to the forcings and the interaction within the system. The point is, their position of C02 influence to the levels of significance that they proclaim has not even remotely been substantiated. Their entire process of exploration into the issue has been one of a fan rooting for their home team and such bias has resulted in extremely poor behavior and process concerning the science itself.
There have been a few empirically based tests concerning the hypothesis to which each one has resulted in failure of that hypothesis (their expected results were opposite to their suppositions), but rather than adjust their hypothesis, they simply dismiss the results and continue to modify the raw data to fit their perception (note the adjustments to the records in this link: CRU’s new HadCRUT4, hiding the decline yet again | Watts Up With That? to which have consistently lowered the temps in previous data there by giving the recent data the appearance of a continued warming).
The position of AGW as is widely disseminated is not science, rather it is activism and this is confirmed by many statements both in the media and in the climategate emails concerning the research, that is they constantly refer to it as the "cause".
While it is prudent to be "safe than sorry" in many aspects of life, this issue is not simply that of putting on a seat belt, or adding a bit more fiber to your diet. This is an issue where the conclusions to such require "extreme" changes in society that themselves would be severe hardships for many to endure. There is no reasonable argument to make such change without proper understanding and it appears that there may be other elements to which will gain benefit from pushing such (as we saw with carbon credit schemes, government handouts to failed alternate technologies and the extension of power by authorities).
This is why this issue needs to be properly established. It is possible to do so and there are many out there that are applying proper scientific process to such a discovery, but they deal with a politically motivated society to which is less interested in science and more interested in establishing their given position as accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
I will agree that retooling society would have major costs, but I feel that human creativity is limitless whereas the earth is finite, so changing our systems to live sustainably is far better than maintaining an indefensible status quo. AGW is just one example of unsustainable development pressures around the earth. The status quo of tremendous political and economic power aggregating to those pursuing their own short-term interests is unsustainable and unwise. Saying the obvious is not advocacy.
Though doing such based on unfounded assumptions is foolish. As I said, we aren't talking about simplistic changes that are easy to acclimate to. We are talking about massive overhauls based on nothing more than speculation, speculation often that is wildly unsupported. Not to mention, the solutions applied are also of such a nature that their results are creating major problems (read about the issues in Europe concerning wind power and how they are now pulling back their initial policies because it is wreaking havoc on their system).
No, what we need to do is to be smart, reserved, and have a much stronger understanding of a given topic before we rush off chasing imaginary foes. All of these years of developing technology, of increasing our understanding in science and now we are going to act like a bunch of superstitious peasants burning witches at the stake because the religious heads proclaimed it so and it is for the safety of the people? We are smarter than that.
Scientists are irrelevant, science itself is the issue. Your position is not one of science, it is one of subjectively established belief with no valid support, but... you are right! /boggle
Sounds like "utterly foolish or senseless" reasoning to me.
But wait! You don't need some scientist to back up your view right? You simply divine them from your own brilliant subjective reasoning! So why are you now appealing to his authority and then attempting to attack my creditability?
Yep... more of that "utterly foolish or senseless" process of reasoning. You sure are right though, I mean... you have it all figured out, you don't need any of that sciency stuffy stuff, you just know you are right.
Sorry, but I can't stop laughing and the idiocy of your argument.
Odd view. Without scientists there is no science. And most scientists in the field of climate research still agree with my position more than with yours.
I indeed don't need anyone to confirm my views. I just mentioned it as I heard an interview on the radio yesterday on that extreme weather conference where they mentioned that professor and others. That news simply coincided with our exchange yesterday.
I don't need to attack your credibility as there simply is none. You are just an anonymous poster on a public message board, just like me and everyone else.
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.
