Skip to comments.C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator
click here to read article
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?
Is it live or is it Memorex?
I'll see you one doughnut.
Why does every cure for pollution or destruction of resources always come down to, "Turn off the Lights?"
Appreciate the conversation though....
It's the Igloo effect.
Clearly indicating the real cause behind GorebullWarming trends:
Well worth the read.
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.
>>>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).
Well I'll be darned! The whole thing was caused by all that hot air about apartheid!
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?
Where are the other sites?
How many are there?
I can't find a list on the Net.
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]
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. "Uncle Ike's sentiments are absolutely true, in that sophistry is a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!"
Sophistry at its finest.....
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:
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:
No, that's not proven, and not really plausible either. See Myth: The most CO2 in 650,000 years
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.
No, see my previous link.
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.