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.
Why IF? Most humans ARE acting wrong in my view. I can't change that, but at the same time I have a clear conscience because I have told my opinion on many occasions. If others think the opposite and maybe as a consequence destroy the world, it is not my fault. There have been so many discussions on these topics around the world, nobody can say later on they did not know about it. All they can say is they did not want to know.
My subjective opinion is my subjective opinion, which is just as subjective and thus as right or wrong as yours and anybody else's
Only when we are discussing subjective topics. Then in those cases, we can both be right.
AGW is not a "subjective" topic. Destroying the world is not a subjective topic. These can be quantified, evaluated and arguments made with proper valid support.
So, if you want to say pie is better than cake, "shrug" then who am I to argue? I personally think cake is better, but that is just me.
If you want to say we are destroying the planet, well now we have a problem. Now you must provide evidence that is quantifiable. And no... localized evidence is not valid support.
Your opinion can be valid, or invalid, or in some case sound or unsound depending on the issue.
As long as you know that your subjective opinion on topics that require objective evaluation is an invalid argument, then we have no problems.
Only when we are discussing subjective topics. Then in those cases, we can both be right.
AGW is not a "subjective" topic. Destroying the world is not a subjective topic. These can be quantified, evaluated and arguments made with proper valid support.
So, if you want to say pie is better than cake, "shrug" then who am I to argue? I personally think cake is better, but that is just me.
If you want to say we are destroying the planet, well now we have a problem. Now you must provide evidence that is quantifiable. And no... localized evidence is not valid support.
Your opinion can be valid, or invalid, or in some case sound or unsound depending on the issue.
As long as you know that your subjective opinion on topics that require objective evaluation is an invalid argument, then we have no problems.
Well, scientists are not at all of the same opinion on those things, they themselves disagree (and not only those who are involved in Climategate, who yesterday by the way have been cleared of the charges of having manipulated data), so it is not only me who thinks there is man-made climate change and that our way of life is gradually destroying the world (not the planet as such of course, but nature, i.e. what we can't live healthily without).
I do not have to provide evidence of my opinion at all. What gives you the idea that I have to prove my opinion, while people who say we are not changing the climate and destroying the world don't?! This is not a criminal trial where there is a defendent who is innocent unless proven guilty. And even in the legal system there is a way to lock certain people away proactively in order to protect society, not just after they have committed a crime.
And when I look at your way of seeing things, we would have to wait until it is too late, because people like you with interests in business etc. only believe what they want to believe or when when what they don't want to believe can no longer be denied, but in that case it would already be too late as the processes in action are very long-lasting, like a massive train that takes several miles to stop, too late for the cow on the tracks.
And frankly, I wonder how one cannot think that our way of life and doing business is not destroying the world. You must be deliberately avoiding documentary films on the garbage in the oceans, the toxic gases and fluids poisoning the fauna and flora etc.
Well, scientists are not at all of the same opinion on those things, they themselves disagree (and not only those who are involved in Climategate, who yesterday by the way have been cleared of the charges of having manipulated data), so it is not only me who thinks there is man-made climate change and that our way of life is gradually destroying the world (not the planet as such of course, but nature, i.e. what we can't live healthily without).
That was a whitewash, pure politics. For instance, if you were read climate audit, you saw that McIntyre, one of the key people they have been gunning against and a very significant person in the finds that showed the research to be flawed was not even brought in to testify, was not even consulted, and his submission to the council was ignored. They even brought in someone to speak on behalf of the position of McIntyre (without even asking McIntyre) who botched the explanation of the issues to which McIntyre brought up. That is, this they brought in someone who didn't even understand the points McIntyre was making and so Jones easily shot them down.
Again, if you would like we can discuss the details of "Mikes Nature Trick" and "Hide the Decline" right down to the very specifics where I can show you the misunderstanding of the council, and the wrong to which Jones and crew committed in hiding this in the IPCC AR4. Though it seems as if you were never here to "discuss", but rather push your view as it is apparent that your concern for the legitimate of the science is disinterested at best with your main focus being the pushing of an agenda that fits in line with your subjective view.
BTW, it won't matter with the Council, they should have consulted what else was going on in the field with the IPCC and the current observations of climate. They threw their lot in with the AGW crowd without realizing that this is a sinking ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I do not have to provide evidence of my opinion at all. What gives you the idea that I have to prove my opinion, while people who say we are not changing the climate and destroying the world don't?! This is not a criminal trial where there is a defendent who is innocent unless proven guilty. And even in the legal system there is a way to lock certain people away proactively in order to protect society, not just after they have committed a crime.
Your subjective opinion? you don't. It simply makes it an invalid opinion. that is, how you "feel" about the issue using all of your personal perceptions is irrelevant. It is an invalid look at a subject that is quantifiable, that require objective evaluation. My point is that you are simply blowing hot air without providing any evidence when this is an issue that requires measurable support to the claim. So, again, you don't. You are simply wrong on the matter unless you can properly support it. Which, you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And when I look at your way of seeing things, we would have to wait until it is too late, because people like you with interests in business etc. only believe what they want to believe or when when what they don't want to believe can no longer be denied, but in that case it would already be too late as the processes in action are very long-lasting, like a massive train that takes several miles to stop, too late for the cow on the tracks.
I do not see things my "way", facts are what "they" are, not some perception of yours or mine. They are observed, and then compared, tested, evaluated for consistency. My "way" of looking at it has no effect on what it actually is unless I am manipulating it to my view. A problem if you haven't noticed that is a key issue in the AGW position.
Your position is one of heart felt fear mongering, based on ignorance and an almost fanatical adherence to ideology rather than anything of substance. Your view is disregarded because it brings nothing to the table other than a pulpit an demands of faith in its view. Sorry, this isn't a religion, it is science. In short, it requires someone to "put up, or shut up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And frankly, I wonder how one cannot think that our way of life and doing business is not destroying the world. You must be deliberately avoiding documentary films on the garbage in the oceans, the toxic gases and fluids poisoning the fauna and flora etc.
Again, you use loose correlation by way of micro effect to determine macro effect, common sense fallacy, and subjectively driven conclusions to procliam the result evident. Science exists to avoid making your mistake, which is no surprise why you are not interested in it.
At first I thought you simply had a subjective opinion on this issue, yet admitted you were not informed. Your initial responses were not definitive, but were more "questioning" in their approach. I believed you were actually being honest and discussing the issue. Though we can see now that this is not the case. You had approached this thread with predetermined position to which your mission was to promote and condemn anything that endangered your very subjective and political view of the issue.
For those of you who consistently hold to your ideal in the face of the facts, here is another test to your faith.
Remember how the ice in the arctic was disappearing, and that it would be gone soon, the polar bears would all fade away to extinction, and we would be standing in 30 feet of water?
Well.. interesting that nature seems to not follow the models. How dare it!
If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal†line. Source: NSIDC North Series
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record. Source: DMI Ice Extent
The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean. Source: NORSEX Ice Area
And the NORSEX Ice Extent is not far behind, within 1 standard deviation, and similar to NSIDC’s presentation. Note that is hit normal last year, but later. Source: NORSEX Ice Extent
And JAXA, using the more advanced AMSR-E sensor platform on the AQUA satellite, shows a similar uptick now intersecting the 2003 data line.
Source: IARC-JAXA
So apparently it is coming back, and rather strong. It is almost back up to its norm.
Are you relieved? I mean, why wouldn't you be? The polar bears look like they have dodged a bullet, the ice is thickening and growing back, but are you?
No, you are not. why? Simply because you were never concerned with the facts, never concerned with the "doom", your concern was having support for your environmental movement to dictate your demands on the people.
So this news is bad news for you. Maybe it is also why those who report on such also try to downplay it? It seems that pride in ones position and the results of authority to such a position are far more important than the actual issue itself. More evidence of "politics" over that of actual science.
That was a whitewash, pure politics. For instance, if you were read climate audit, you saw that McIntyre, one of the key people they have been gunning against and a very significant person in the finds that showed the research to be flawed was not even brought in to testify, was not even consulted, and his submission to the council was ignored. They even brought in someone to speak on behalf of the position of McIntyre (without even asking McIntyre) who botched the explanation of the issues to which McIntyre brought up. That is, this they brought in someone who didn't even understand the points McIntyre was making and so Jones easily shot them down.
Again, if you would like we can discuss the details of "Mikes Nature Trick" and "Hide the Decline" right down to the very specifics where I can show you the misunderstanding of the council, and the wrong to which Jones and crew committed in hiding this in the IPCC AR4. Though it seems as if you were never here to "discuss", but rather push your view as it is apparent that your concern for the legitimate of the science is disinterested at best with your main focus being the pushing of an agenda that fits in line with your subjective view.
BTW, it won't matter with the Council, they should have consulted what else was going on in the field with the IPCC and the current observations of climate. They threw their lot in with the AGW crowd without realizing that this is a sinking ship.
Your subjective opinion? you don't. It simply makes it an invalid opinion. that is, how you "feel" about the issue using all of your personal perceptions is irrelevant. It is an invalid look at a subject that is quantifiable, that require objective evaluation. My point is that you are simply blowing hot air without providing any evidence when this is an issue that requires measurable support to the claim. So, again, you don't. You are simply wrong on the matter unless you can properly support it. Which, you can't.
I do not see things my "way", facts are what "they" are, not some perception of yours or mine. They are observed, and then compared, tested, evaluated for consistency. My "way" of looking at it has no effect on what it actually is unless I am manipulating it to my view. A problem if you haven't noticed that is a key issue in the AGW position.
Your position is one of heart felt fear mongering, based on ignorance and an almost fanatical adherence to ideology rather than anything of substance. Your view is disregarded because it brings nothing to the table other than a pulpit an demands of faith in its view. Sorry, this isn't a religion, it is science. In short, it requires someone to "put up, or shut up".
Again, you use loose correlation by way of micro effect to determine macro effect, common sense fallacy, and subjectively driven conclusions to procliam the result evident. Science exists to avoid making your mistake, which is no surprise why you are not interested in it.
At first I thought you simply had a subjective opinion on this issue, yet admitted you were not informed. Your initial responses were not definitive, but were more "questioning" in their approach. I believed you were actually being honest and discussing the issue. Though we can see now that this is not the case. You had approached this thread with predetermined position to which your mission was to promote and condemn anything that endangered your very subjective and political view of the issue.
McIntyre is himself a dubious figure in the whole climate controversy, not trustworthy as a source, no matter how many .org domains he creates.
You know, I don't need anyone to prove my point. It is logical to me and thus it is correct to me. Of course I am not here to change my mind, you are right about that. I have my opinions - which by the way I have had for over a quarter of a century, long before there was any of that discussion and controversy in the media - and nothing will change them. Again, I don't have to prove anything, just like climate change deniers don't have to prove anything to me because their opinion doesn't matter to me, either.
I just look around me, watch nature and people, how they react to the stuff we produce, that tells me everything I need to know. We produce incredible amounts of fluids and gases - many of them unknown to nature -, so it doesn't surprise me plants and animals including us humans get ill with cancers and what not. There are gigantic amounts of our trash all over the world, even at the bottom of our oceans, from where it gets into the food chain. Factories and ships release millions and millions of liters of toxic fluids into rivers and oceans, I don't need evidence telling me that is bad for the world.
The next wave of disaster is already in the making: nano products.
So go on and invest your energy in trying to find proof that what we are doing has no negative effects on the world, cling to straws such as McIntyre... It won't change a thing. If you are young, you might yourself witness the mess we are creating maybe a few years or at best decades from now. Then you will remember Neuling
McIntyre is himself a dubious figure in the whole climate controversy, not trustworthy as a source, no matter how many .org domains he creates.
Can you validate this with anything more than fallacious claim? It is easy to dismiss, it is also the most common used fallacy. How is he dubious? I can point out EXACTLY why the issue is with GISS and it is measurable.
The question is, can you do the same with McIntyre? What will it be? Will you provide a claim that he worked for the oil companies? Fine, he worked for mineral exploration and is a very accomplished statistician. Please connect the dots in how this claim invalidates his mentions?
Or will you cut and paste some rag claims from various hit sites? Pack a lunch if you do as we will be going through their points step by step with me showing you the misleading claims they make. Better read up on the science so you can follow me. Claiming ignorance of the science while firmly proclaiming your position won't look very well for you.
By all means, discredit him. I am waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
You know, I don't need anyone to prove my point. It is logical to me and thus it is correct to me. Of course I am not here to change my mind, you are right about that. I have my opinions - which by the way I have had for over a quarter of a century, long before there was any of that discussion and controversy in the media - and nothing will change them. Again, I don't have to prove anything, just like climate change deniers don't have to prove anything to me because their opinion doesn't matter to me, either.
Logic doesn't work like that. There isn't my version of logic and your version and we all live in a relative world of where we can all have our own beliefs of what is fact and what is not. Logic does not work like that.
Logic is either valid, or invalid, sound or unsound. You are using invalid reasoning. You are not logically coming to a conclusion because you are basing your position on false premises. Seriously, do some reading into logical argument.
What you are doing is reasoning subjectively. Now you can reason logically subjectively if your position properly supports itself. If it is dealing with issues that can not be measured, then you can still present a "sound" argument. It may or may not be valid as it can not be verified, but it can be sound in its reasoning.
The problem is, you are attempting to reason an issue that can be verified. So, when you claim this or that, I can go out and look at the basis of your premise and check to see if it is valid. Your premises are not valid, therefore your conclusions are invalid. Your argument is invalid.
Have you never taken or read a book on logic before? Have you ever read philosophy as even it begins with a primer on logical arguments for establishing the process of valid philosophical arguments. The point is, we are at road block here because you are not using proper reasoning to assess this issue. This is not open for discussion, it is a simple fact.
So please use proper reasoning otherwise you are simply here passing on garbage that is useless to any discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I just look around me, watch nature and people, how they react to the stuff we produce, that tells me everything I need to know. We produce incredible amounts of fluids and gases - many of them unknown to nature -, so it doesn't surprise me plants and animals including us humans get ill with cancers and what not. There are gigantic amounts of our trash all over the world, even at the bottom of our oceans, from where it gets into the food chain. Factories and ships release millions and millions of liters of toxic fluids into rivers and oceans, I don't need evidence telling me that is bad for the world.
The next wave of disaster is already in the making: nano products.
So go on and invest your energy in trying to find proof that what we are doing has no negative effects on the world, cling to straws such as McIntyre... It won't change a thing. If you are young, you might yourself witness the mess we are creating maybe a few years or at best decades from now. Then you will remember Neuling
So we have concluded that your understanding of logical reasoning is at a minimum and as is evident in your above statement, we are seeing your understanding of science is also lacking.
The result of this is promoting invalid conclusions based on invalid premises using anecdotal evaluation that is not of any controlled or logical system of evaluation.
The issue is not that you are ignorant in these topics (which you are), the issue is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. The result is that you can not learn anything because you spend all of your time building your positions on your limited ability to properly assess fact, and then arrogantly defy any who point out flaws in your reasoning.
You are not able to discuss this topic with any intelligent discourse. You are unable to properly discuss a position of objective nature and so I kindly suggest you go back to the parts of the forum that require no such ability where you can take comfort in your subjective opinions being fact. You honestly are out of your league discussing here. Either drop the arrogance and honestly attempt to learn something or go educate yourself in the areas you are lacking so you can come back and properly support your positions.
Can you validate this with anything more than fallacious claim? It is easy to dismiss, it is also the most common used fallacy. How is he dubious? I can point out EXACTLY why the issue is with GISS and it is measurable.
The question is, can you do the same with McIntyre? What will it be? Will you provide a claim that he worked for the oil companies? Fine, he worked for mineral exploration and is a very accomplished statistician. Please connect the dots in how this claim invalidates his mentions?
Or will you cut and paste some rag claims from various hit sites? Pack a lunch if you do as we will be going through their points step by step with me showing you the misleading claims they make. Better read up on the science so you can follow me. Claiming ignorance of the science while firmly proclaiming your position won't look very well for you.
By all means, discredit him. I am waiting.
Logic doesn't work like that. There isn't my version of logic and your version and we all live in a relative world of where we can all have our own beliefs of what is fact and what is not. Logic does not work like that.
Logic is either valid, or invalid, sound or unsound. You are using invalid reasoning. You are not logically coming to a conclusion because you are basing your position on false premises. Seriously, do some reading into logical argument.
What you are doing is reasoning subjectively. Now you can reason logically subjectively if your position properly supports itself. If it is dealing with issues that can not be measured, then you can still present a "sound" argument. It may or may not be valid as it can not be verified, but it can be sound in its reasoning.
The problem is, you are attempting to reason an issue that can be verified. So, when you claim this or that, I can go out and look at the basis of your premise and check to see if it is valid. Your premises are not valid, therefore your conclusions are invalid. Your argument is invalid.
Have you never taken or read a book on logic before? Have you ever read philosophy as even it begins with a primer on logical arguments for establishing the process of valid philosophical arguments. The point is, we are at road block here because you are not using proper reasoning to assess this issue. This is not open for discussion, it is a simple fact.
So please use proper reasoning otherwise you are simply here passing on garbage that is useless to any discussion.
So we have concluded that your understanding of logical reasoning is at a minimum and as is evident in your above statement, we are seeing your understanding of science is also lacking.
The result of this is promoting invalid conclusions based on invalid premises using anecdotal evaluation that is not of any controlled or logical system of evaluation.
The issue is not that you are ignorant in these topics (which you are), the issue is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. The result is that you can not learn anything because you spend all of your time building your positions on your limited ability to properly assess fact, and then arrogantly defy any who point out flaws in your reasoning.
You are not able to discuss this topic with any intelligent discourse. You are unable to properly discuss a position of objective nature and so I kindly suggest you go back to the parts of the forum that require no such ability where you can take comfort in your subjective opinions being fact. You honestly are out of your league discussing here. Either drop the arrogance and honestly attempt to learn something or go educate yourself in the areas you are lacking so you can come back and properly support your positions.
Whatever, it does not matter to me what you think of me. I have my opinions and you have yours. There is no reason to have studied philosophy or logics to be reasonable. But since we will not get anywhere, there is no need for me to waste more time on you and vice versa We have both made our points, let the future decide who was right
Whatever, it does not matter to me what you think of me. I have my opinions and you have yours. There is no reason to have studied philosophy or logics to be reasonable. But since we will not get anywhere, there is no need for me to waste more time on you and vice versa We have both made our points, let the future decide who was right
*chuckle*
You make my point so clear to all that read this. Thank you.
You make my point so clear to all that read this. Thank you.
You're welcome
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.
