Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: cogitator

Diurnal readings are in what range at sites other than Mauna Loa and how many actual sampling sites are there and what are their locations?


101 posted on 03/21/2007 1:10:49 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Is it live or is it Memorex?


102 posted on 03/21/2007 1:11:47 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I'll see you one doughnut.


103 posted on 03/21/2007 1:14:05 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Why does every cure for pollution or destruction of resources always come down to, "Turn off the Lights?"


104 posted on 03/21/2007 1:20:44 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I know you do.........

I don't.

Appreciate the conversation though....

105 posted on 03/21/2007 1:21:45 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rodgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

It's the Igloo effect.


106 posted on 03/21/2007 1:22:40 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Smash yer clicker thang here >>>Data @ NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Maps

Clearly indicating the real cause behind GorebullWarming trends:

 

:OP

107 posted on 03/21/2007 1:29:04 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer; AFPhys
AFPhys provided this link earlier on another thread [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803891/posts?page=29#29 ] regarding the role of CO2 and its source in paleo-studies and minimal contribution to climate change with regard to ice core studies.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Well worth the read.

108 posted on 03/21/2007 1:42:04 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Why does every cure for pollution or destruction of resources always come down to, "Turn off the Lights?"

Gotta start somewhere!

Regarding your other posts in this thread; not sure what you mean by the Memorex question or your offer of a doughnut -- I'll make mine glazed with maple creme. Regarding Mauna Loa, they make daily measurements but amalgamate them into monthly averages; an article I found indicates that they do (easily) detect caldera degassing and QC those measurements out of the data set. As for other places, I'm sure it's being done (the World Ocean Circulation Experiment has done thousands of shipboard measurements to quantify and map the spatial and temporal variability of air-sea CO2 flux), but I can't point you to sources. Mauna Loa is the long-term reference record.

109 posted on 03/21/2007 2:14:17 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: qam1

>>>That's BS, Yeah we now have more environmental regulations since then, but China, India, Brazil, etc. do not, and back then those said countries were not significantly industrialized as they are today. And because of those countries there's more of a net pollution today then back then.<<<

Very good point. Now we can sit back and watch as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" eventually "Swiftboats" the phony Algore movie ("A Convenient Lie", I believe it is called).



110 posted on 03/21/2007 2:23:15 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau (God deliver our nation from the disease of liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Unfeedback.

Barfback?

111 posted on 03/21/2007 2:33:44 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: backbencher

Well I'll be darned! The whole thing was caused by all that hot air about apartheid!


112 posted on 03/21/2007 2:39:53 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Now we're back to having all our eggs in one basket.

You said that you are editing and synopsizing what you read which is another way to say that you are not a source of the material you post.

The Memorex reference is to the commercial that used to run about fidelity to the original on recording tape; I see a link.

But then, I am often cryptic.

There's an old saying that sums up a person's certainty where he offers to bet a dollar to a doughnut; I just turned it around.

You know that you are only as certain as your weighted evidence and we have discussed the reasonable measures we could take as a society without causing harm before; but you also must recognize that the passion of the true believers will brook no resistance and they must strike while the "iron is hot," so can't we allow at least some volleying here even if it does go out of "bounds" now and then?


113 posted on 03/21/2007 4:37:26 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Where are the other sites?

How many are there?

I can't find a list on the Net.


114 posted on 03/21/2007 4:38:14 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Thanks.


115 posted on 03/21/2007 6:05:45 PM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I wish people would just step back and think about all this. Have you ever been on an airplane going cross-country or international and spent any real time looking out the window? Do you realize how unbelievably *big* this planet is, and how small we are compared to it? Aside from being scientifically bankrupt, the idea that anything we're emitting is changing the climate is simply preposterous. The world's just too big for that.

Stopping "global warming", if it exists, is about as realistic as stopping continental drift. [stole that line]


116 posted on 03/21/2007 10:03:21 PM PDT by xjcsa (The "average temperature" of the earth is as meaningful as the "average number" in a phone book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; cogitator; NZerFromHK; Uncle Ike
That's nothing more than an enthymeme with a missing conclusion.

If "All M are things F" and "Some M are things U", one recognises the first proposition being A type and the second being I type. These propropositions taken together as major and minor premisis of a categorical syllogism, the only unconditionally valid conclusion would be the proposition:

"some things U are F" (comprising an argument having the form AII-3).

It makes no difference if the second proposition is converted to "some things U are M" (a valid conversion of an I type proposition), for the only proposition that would be unconditionally valid for the conlusion of the enthymeme would also be "some things U are F" (this argument would have the form AII-1).

NZerFromHK's field of studies for his Masters degree was statistics. In his reply (post #7) to Uncle Ike, he said:

"[while] doing a statistical analysis of RF-range EMF and its effects on human health. [I realized] You can produce a mathematical model that "proves" the existence of harmful effects, but some critical foundations of the model itself is based on numerous assumptions that may not have any scientific basis at all."
That was in response to:
"whether or not climate change can be wholly attributed to human factors, it makes strong economic and environmental sense to treat it as human-caused and take action now. "

IOW --

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"

Sophistry at its finest.....

Uncle Ike's sentiments are absolutely true, in that sophistry is a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

The conclusion to the statement that Uncle Ike cites is dependenent upon several intertwined arguments (all being ultimately fallacious).

The first fallacy comitted being an appeal to emotion (Red Herring). One distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false; but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it, and fear of something else a good reason to flee. Nevetheless, even when appeals to emotion aim at motivating us, there is still a way that they may fail to be rational, namely, when what we are being persuaded to do has insufficient connection with what is arousing our emotion. It is my contention the appeal to emotion is fallacious because Argumentum ad Metum (aka Appeal to Fear) is being used.

The argument also makes the fallacious Argumentum ad Consequentiam. And is of the form:

(Belief in) GW leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the truth of GW.)
Therefore, GW is true.

Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences (or vice versa) is often an irrelevancy. Since the irrelevancy of belief to truth-value is intuitively obvious, it is often suppressed in fallacious Arguments to the Consequences. However, one can tell that the fallacy is being committed because the supposed consequences do not follow from the proposition itself, but only from belief in it.

There are two types of cogent argument with which this fallacy is easily confused:

  1. When an argument concerns a policy or plan of action - instead of a proposition - then it is reasonable to consider the consequences of acting on it.
  2. When an argument is about a proposition, it is reasonable to assess the truth-value of any logical consequences of it. Logical consequences should not be confused with causal consequences, and truth or falsity should not be confused with goodness or badness.
Appeals to Consequences differ from these cogent forms of argument in the following ways:
  1. The argument is not about a plan or policy, but a proposition which therefore has a truth-value.
  2. The argument does not concern the truth-value of logical consequences of the proposition, but the good or bad causal consequences of believing it.
And finally, with the foregoing in mind the argument is guilty of the fallacy of Wishfull Thinking. From the conclusions stated in the arguments, it does not follow that P is true, or likely to be so, i.e. that GW is man-made. Even if we accept that taking action may be the virtuous or prudent thing to do, there is no basis for the conclusion that "it makes strong economic and environmental sense to treat GW as human-caused and take action now." This is nothing more than an assertation of assertion.

Psychologically, "wishful thinking" is believing something because of a desire - "wish" - that it be true. As a logical fallacy, Wishful Thinking is an argument whose premiss expresses a desire for the conclusion to be true. Of course, this type of thinking seldom takes the explicit form of an argument from a premiss about one's belief to the conclusion that one's wish is true. Such bald wishful thinking would be patently fallacious even to the wishful thinker. Rather, wishful thinking usually takes the form of a bias towards the belief in P, which leads to the overestimating of the weight of evidence in favor of P, as well as the underestimating of the weight against. A pragmatic or prudential defense of wishful thinking is based on the claim that one stands to gain from such belief, and that this is a sufficient reason to believe. If there is pragmatic value in believing a truth, but no evidence for it, then the only way that one can gain that pragmatic value is by a "leap of faith".

The salient point here is that pragmatic/prudential defense to Wishful Thinking is that its defense does not make the claim that the statement believed on faith will actually be true, or is even likely to be true. Rather the claim is that one can gain in some way by believing something that may be false for all that. While this may well be true, it is neither a logical nor epistemological defense of wishful thinking, unless one equates pragmatic value with truth.

Suppose I offer a prize of a million dollars to anyone who believes that pigs have wings. There is no doubt that, if you can only force yourself to do so, you stand to gain from believing this. However, the fact that you win a million dollars in no way tends to show that pigs have wings.

The trouble with both moral and pragmatic defenses to Wishful Thinking is that they do not show that wishful thinking is ever cogent, instead the following types of argument are supported:

  1. P is an article of faith.
    Therefore, I ought, morally, to believe P.
  2. I stand to gain from believing P.
    Hence, I should, prudentially, believe P.
But from the conclusions of either of these arguments, it does not follow that P is true, or likely to be so. So, Wishful Thinking is still a fallacy, even if we accept that it is sometimes the virtuous or prudent thing to do. And ultimately, the whole argument utterly collapses under the weight of all the fallacies committed, in that there is no evidence that any action purported to be beneficial would actually be beneficial in any way whatsoever (neither economically nor environmentally); in fact quite to the contrary in that practical reality suggests strongly that there'd be great economic hardship imposed for quite plausibly little (if any) environmental gain.
117 posted on 03/22/2007 3:42:38 AM PDT by raygun (Freepmail me if you're in need of April 13, 2038 catastrophic asteroid insurance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
But since in the glacial-interglacial period atmospheric CO2 has been between a minima of ~180 ppm and a maxima of ~280 ppm,

No, that's not proven, and not really plausible either. See Myth: The most CO2 in 650,000 years

118 posted on 03/22/2007 3:52:08 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
There is an analytical method in system engineering called "sensitivity analysis". It's essentially an analysis of the "strength" of the coupling between any two parameters. It utilizes a scale of 0 (no coupling) to 1 (100%) coupling.

That's physically impossible with CO2 and climate because the relationship is highly nonlinear and can only be (semiaccurately) modeled over a small range (current conditions measured by satellites with a small delta) with lousy results outside that range.

119 posted on 03/22/2007 4:01:58 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; agere_contra
CO2 concentrations top out at around 280 ppm during interglacials.

No, see my previous link.

120 posted on 03/22/2007 4:07:03 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson