Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Science isn't decided by consensus.

 

I'd suggest you goolge (or look on Wiki) for the scientific method, as it seems to have escaped both you, and the majority of the so called climate 'experts' you keep quoting.

 

I know full well what the scientific method is.

 

I also know that you don't need to apply the scientific method to see that an appeal to authority has validity in informal logic when you are referencing experts in their field of study.

 

Plenty of opposing views have been presented to you, you just dismiss them as they don't agree with the 'consensus', or resort to ad-homs to try and discredit them.

 

Plenty of opposing views have indeed been cited and in each case I have presented reasons why they are not credible, use of ad hominems in that context is again a perfectly valid argument.

 

The general public has seen enough of this hi level ponzi scheme though.

 

Your claims about what the general public think is untrue but even if it wasn't it is an invalid appeal to authority (see first link above).

 

Also your usage of "ponzi scheme" to describe the view that global warming is man made and a threat to our future without taking action has no resemblance at all to a ponzi scheme. It is not even the same type of thing. In that regard you are making a category mistake.

 

Is it any wonder you fail to be convincing when rudimentary logic appears to be beyond you?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Wildcat

[convert]

I know full well what the scientific method is.

 

I also know that you don't need to apply the scientific method to see that an appeal to authority has validity in informal logic when you are referencing experts in their field of study.

 

 

 

Plenty of opposing views have indeed been cited and in each case I have presented reasons why they are not credible, use of ad hominems in that context is again a perfectly valid argument.

 

 

 

Claims about what the general public think is an invalid appeal to authority (see first link above).

 

Also your usage of "ponzi scheme" to describe the view that global warming is man made and a threat to our future without taking action has no resemblance at all to a ponzi scheme. It is not even the same type of thing. In that regard you are making a category mistake.

 

Is it any wonder you fail to be convincing when rudimentary logic appears to be beyond you?

 

You failed at the first hurdle wiki. If you are presenting something as science then the scientific method should be applied. The rest of your post is just noise and obfuscation.

 

You may not be convinced, but that doesn't really bother me. AGW is the new religion.

[Wildcat]

You failed at the first hurdle wiki. If you are presenting something as science then the scientific method should be applied. The rest of your post is just noise and obfuscation.

 

You may not be convinced, but that doesn't really bother me. AGW is the new religion.

 

I present things as science when I am making a scientific point.

 

But you are right, I just was not making a scientific point about the consensus issue you raised, because it is not a scientific issue, it is an issue of logic.

 

You have resorted to calling logic deployed against your irrational arguments "religion" before.

 

Is it anyone wonder you are less than convincing when you use words that mean their opposites

Edited May 10, 2011 by Wildcat

[convert]

I have presented things as science, just as the scientists have done.

 

I just was not doing so in relation to your point about a consensus, because the point you raised is not a scientific issue, it is an issue of logic.

 

No, you quoted the consensus of scientific opinion. Science isn't decided by consensus, no matter how much you and the rest of the AGW acolytes wish it was.

 

I agree you are presenting things just as the 'scientists', especially those discredited ones at UEA have done.

 

You have started with a hypothesis, and altered your data to fit the desired outcome.

 

You really are a credit to the AGW fraternity.

[Wildcat]

No, you quoted the consensus of scientific opinion. Science isn't decided by consensus, no matter how much you and the rest of the AGW acolytes wish it was.

 

You are trying to mix up two issues to obfuscate them both.

 

Scientists form their opinions by means of the scientific method.

 

One way those not expert in the field can assess the validity of what they say is to look at the consensus of expert opinion on the matter... that is a matter of informal logic.

 

I agree you are presenting things just as the 'scientists', especially those discredited ones at UEA have done.

 

Discredited by a whitewash involving a global conspiracy for which you have no evidence? Excuse me if I remain unconvinced.

 

You have started with a hypothesis, and altered your data to fit the desired outcome.

 

The only hypothesis required for the arguments I am presenting in relation to your points this evening are those of elementary logic.

 

You really are a credit to the AGW fraternity.

 

With your apparent inability to apply the very basics of logical thought to this debate, I think think your assessment of that issue is fairly worthless.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Wildcat

[JIbbo]

Perhaps you could provide a reason for disbelieving the consensus of scientific opinion across the globe on the topic of global warming?

 

How is it so apparent to you Convert, Jibbs, Cyclone etc that the scientific establishment has it all wrong based on the opinions of right-wing free-market ideologues and oil backed researchers with no credibility who's argument against the scientific establishment involves a global plot of enormous proportions for which you have no evidence?

 

I would love to believe mankind was not involved in global warming, but I need a reason to do so that goes beyond wishful thinking.

 

There are some very bad smells on this thread... but they are not coming from me.

 

The primary reason I don't believe in global warming is that temperatures haven't increased for the past 30 years.

 

Which is supported by the data presented. Even in that link I showed you.

 

You can't have global warming without increased temperatures.

 

If you keep ignoring that critical component.

[Wildcat]

The primary reason I don't believe in global warming is that temperatures haven't increased for the past 30 years.

 

Which is supported by the data presented. Even in that link I showed you.

 

You can't have global warming without increased temperatures.

 

If you keep ignoring that critical component.

 

The Daily Mail article that said :

 

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1385035/Global-warming-caused-higher-food-bills.html

[convert]

You are trying to mix up two issues to obfuscate them both.

 

Scientists form their opinions by means of the scientific method.

 

 

A method which requires them to show both the data and methodology used to arrive at those results (opinions don't count - results are what we are interested in with hard science).

 

Something which the AGW crowd have steadfastly refused to provide, or where it has been provided has had holes blown in it from both a scientific and a statistical point of view.

[rickiethecat]

The Daily Mail article that said :

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1385035/Global-warming-caused-higher-food-bills.html

 

A new low for Wikicat, trusting that well known scientific institution the Daily Mail as a source of information!

 

And what's the opening paragraph say?

 

"But major crop growing regions of the U.S., Canada and Mexico have escaped the warming trend - and are just as cool as they were 30 years ago"

 

So if the temperature in a massive amount of the earth's land mass hasn't increased then the warming isn't global, therefore global warming doesn't exist!

 

Bit of an own goal there, Wiki! :hihi:

[Phanerothyme]

A new low for Wikicat, trusting that well known scientific institution the Daily Mail as a source of information!

 

And what's the opening paragraph say?

 

"But major crop growing regions of the U.S., Canada and Mexico have escaped the warming trend - and are just as cool as they were 30 years ago"

 

So if the temperature in a massive amount of the earth's land mass hasn't increased then the warming isn't global, therefore global warming doesn't exist!

 

Bit of an own goal there, Wiki! :hihi:

 

Isn't most of the earths heat storage contained in the oceans, rather than the land?