Thread: could use some global warming right now

There is a difference between overall trends and single data points.

Originally Posted by FiveOhNine

Nope I was simply pointing out that by saying 97 out of 100 dentists prefer Trident is an appeal to authority, which, by definition, is a logical fallacy, especially if you consider that those dentists may have a vested interest in selling as much Trident as possible. That argument avoids the matter at hand; does trident cause global warming?.....or.....wait.....I'm lost.

You're comparing apples to oranges, which is even more of a logical fallacy. We're not saying that climate experts all agree that you should buy certain products; we're saying that they all agree upon a clear and quantifiable trend.

It's more like 97 of 100 dentists agreeing that drinking coffee will stain your teeth, with decades of evidence to support their claims. And you're siding with the 3 who think that coffee stains are just a conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by commiecat

You're comparing apples to oranges, which is even more of a logical fallacy. We're not saying that climate experts all agree that you should buy certain products; we're saying that they all agree upon a clear and quantifiable trend.

It's more like 97 of 100 dentists agreeing that drinking coffee will stain your teeth, with decades of evidence to support their claims. And you're siding with the 3 who think that coffee stains are just a conspiracy theory.

The fact that "expert climate scientists" are changing their jargon from global warming to climate change shows how confused they are over the data. Of course there is climate change, but they are way out of their league by claiming they have quantified and concluded the anthropogenic factor.
Furthermore there are many prominent glacial scientists and established hard scientists from related fields with no political agendas that do not work for oil companies to continually state that all of them agree on anything at all.
Indeed, the best science normally does not come out of concensus, but by the scientist who are saying something different than the established group. Concensus is the mother of dogma, not pure science.
Untill the argument enters the realm of hard science, there will only be believers and non believers, not pure science.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

Some experts disagree.
Discovery Health "Melanoma"

That is an interesting link and A+ for listing the sources as well. Based on that, i still wouldn't leave my tanning oil unused (if i ever were to interest such thing as getting tanned).

Originally Posted by Kingfish

The fact that "expert climate scientists" are changing their jargon from global warming to climate change shows how confused they are over the data. Of course there is climate change, but they are way out of their league by claiming they have quantified and concluded the anthropogenic factor.
Furthermore there are many prominent glacial scientists and established hard scientists from related fields with no political agendas that do not work for oil companies to continually state that all of them agree on anything at all.
Indeed, the best science normally does not come out of concensus, but by the scientist who are saying something different than the established group. Concensus is the mother of dogma, not pure science.
Untill the argument enters the realm of hard science, there will only be believers and non believers, not pure science.

Scientists haven't changed the jargon. It's been called "climate change" for a long while now (here's a publication from '91 with a quick search) -- global warming was just a keyword.

Cite some sources from these unbiased experts who disagree with climate change, and please don't paste from opinion articles.

When was the last time global scientific consensus wasn't accurate? I don't know how you're saying that calculated numbers aren't hard science. One side has evidence and the opposition's only evidence is "I don't believe you!"

Originally Posted by commiecat

You're comparing apples to oranges, which is even more of a logical fallacy. We're not saying that climate experts all agree that you should buy certain products; we're saying that they all agree upon a clear and quantifiable trend.

It's more like 97 of 100 dentists agreeing that drinking coffee will stain your teeth, with decades of evidence to support their claims. And you're siding with the 3 who think that coffee stains are just a conspiracy theory.

In point of fact, your analogy is incorrect. Given that arctic ice cores over the last few hundred thousand years show that increases in CO2 levels lag significantly behind temperature increases, and a casual glance at any plot of temperature vs CO2 levels over the same period, paying particular attention to interglacial periods, shows wild variations in the levels of CO2 relative to temperature, at best you have a 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' argument.

Given the data, a more accurate analogy would be 97 of 100 dentists agree that coffee is dark because of the stains on your teeth.

(The assumption, of course, being that human-caused CO2 levels are significantly affecting climate change. I don't think you will get any reasonable argument that climate change is happening)

Originally Posted by FiveOhNine

In point of fact, your analogy is incorrect. Given that arctic ice cores over the last few hundred thousand years show that increases in CO2 levels lag significantly behind temperature increases, and a casual glance at any plot of temperature vs CO2 levels over the same period, paying particular attention to interglacial periods, shows wild variations in the levels of CO2 relative to temperature, at best you have a 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' argument.

Given the data, a more accurate analogy would be 97 of 100 dentists agree that coffee is dark because of the stains on your teeth.

(The assumption, of course, being that human-caused CO2 levels are significantly affecting climate change. I don't think you will get any reasonable argument that climate change is happening)

My point was that comparing global scientific consensus to "3 of 4 dentists prefer Trident" is ludicrous.

I did a casual search on ice core lag and found these toward the top:

New Scientist: Climate myth - ice core lag disproves link to global warming

Jeff Sevringhaus, Professor or Geosciences, UCSD: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

NASA: NASA study links earth impacts to human-cause climate change

Originally Posted by commiecat

My point was that comparing global scientific consensus to "3 of 4 dentists prefer Trident" is ludicrous.

And I maintain that both are still an appeal to authority argument, which are meaningless. More to point, there is debate on the issue, and disagreement. For example, there are huge assumptions, which we are to take based on faith ,as far as I can tell, regarding the true nature of CO2 and global temperature changes, positive feedback mechanism of CO2 on global climate and most alarming for the conspiracy theorists, the unfounded assumptions, sketchy math and ongoing inaccuracies of the models used to predict the future climate.

To be totally honest, I originally had no strong feelings on the matter one way or the other. It started as a logical and completely reasonable 'reduce, reuse recycle' chant, and I was on board. Somewhere along the line, it became a full blown religion with zealots on both sides screaming that we had to go buy solar panels, electric cars and wear your carbon footprint on your chest like a scarlet letter. That irked me, so I dug a little deeper and found answers that were about as clear as mud.

I'm inclined to think that the most insidious of the zealots do not care one way or the other, but are drawn to the idea of holding power over the masses by using fear, guilt and even misinformed morality....a tactic that has been used before, with frightening success.

I welcome and definitive answer on the subject, regardless of the outcome, but have not yet found one. In the meantime, I will continue to support the common sense efforts (don't drive a hummer unless you need one, turn the lights off when you leave a room, don't run the A/C on high...with the windows open....in January, etc). In other words, the things that make sense from an environmental and fiscal responsibility standpoint.

Originally Posted by FiveOhNine

In the meantime, I will continue to support the common sense efforts (don't drive a hummer unless you need one, turn the lights off when you leave a room, don't run the A/C on high...with the windows open....in January, etc). In other words, the things that make sense from an environmental and fiscal responsibility standpoint.

We can agree upon that.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Scientists haven't changed the jargon. It's been called "climate change" for a long while now (here's a publication from '91 with a quick search) -- global warming was just a keyword.

Cite some sources from these unbiased experts who disagree with climate change, and please don't paste from opinion articles.

When was the last time global scientific consensus wasn't accurate? I don't know how you're saying that calculated numbers aren't hard science. One side has evidence and the opposition's only evidence is "I don't believe you!"

Here is the bottom line, you realize we are at the end of this warming period more or less. Name one scientist who really knows if the excess CO2 can offset the glacial period that we are entering. Being a greenhouse gas, it could be the only shot mankind has to survive the natural climate change(colder) that we are entering. No scientist has ever been able to answer that one yet.

Honesstly Gugi, if you were going to argue about whether the oceans buffering capacity would be on CO2 overload as a result of it that would cause me to take it more seriously, because the acidification of the oceans would be cruel.