0

Evading causation.

If CO2 is the cause, it is a problem. If it is not a cause why the alarmism (of some)?

part deliberate misinformation, part ignorance.
CO2 is not the problem, but it is potentially a symptom.

Changes in CO2 concentration, temperature, methane levels, and water vapour levels are known to be correlated in some way.
But the assumption by the alarmists that CO2 is the driving factor in that has never been proven. In fact it's more likely just a side effect of the temperature change.

0

Things like the claims against Sulphur (produced by airoplanes) are barking down the wrong path too because although it is a greenhouse Gas its actually disperses/reflects light causing a greenhouse cooling effect. Infact it was actually looked at as a solution to global warming a couple of decades ago when the topic was first raised. The drawback to this however was that in order to have a "greenhouse cooling" effect you would need alot of planes flying around all the time(more then we have now) plus it would mean an increase in the Acidity of rain.

Although acid rain is the number 1 problem with having sulfur in our atmosphere alot of the news companies have not acctually pointed this out but rather look it as "oh no! its a greenhouse gas its contributing to global warming."

0

Actually most scientific papers that address global warming agree that it is happening.

Actually, most "scientific papers" on the subject assume it is happening, and concentrate on predicting the resulting effects.

0

The real problem is that they are using faulty logic to "conclude" that global warming is real:

1. Global warming causes glaciers to melt.
2. Glaciers are melting.
3. Therefore we have global warming.

Using the same faulty logic, I can "prove" the following:

1. Drunk driving causes traffic accidents.
2. Joe was in a traffic accident.
3. Therefore, Joe was driving drunk.

NOW you can see the fallacy in the arguments Al Gore is using. It ignores other possible causes for the observed effects.

Note that all of the global warming proponents are politicians, usually liberal. Many are social scientists Very few are physical scientists.

Notice that the following errors have been made in global warming "research":

1. They claim that air trapped in ice shows much lower CO2 levels, so man has greatly raised the level.

WRONG! (buzzer sounds)

That ice core experiment ignores the fact that a bubble of air in ice, while hermetically sealed for most other gases, is NOT hermetically sealed to either water or CO2. They can react with the ice itself to change their concentrations.

2. One global warming "scientist" is totally ignorant of the physics of floating bodies. He said that if just the ice floating on the sea melted, it would raise the sea level 3 feet.

WRONG!

A floating object displaces its weight in water. A submerged object displaces its volume. So when the ice melts, it IS water, so it displaces exactly the same amount of water it displaced as ice.

3, 4, 5. They say that recorded temperatures increased over the last two centuries.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

3. Recorded temperatures have increased partly because most temperature recordings have been taken at airports since aviation became popular. But airports are being increasingly paved for safety reasons. The paving increases the local temperatures at the airports, increasing the national average reading due to local increases.

4. The "scientists" claim a temperature change over a 200 year period of measurement that is smaller than the error span of thermometer calibrations at the beginning of the period.

5. They also ignored the fact that the Fahrenheit scale was changed in 1901. It was changed to be an exact conversion to and from the Celsius scale. As part of the "Treaty of the meter", all American units were changed that year, so they became exact conversions from and to metric units.

It's mostly bad science. And I believe there are politics behind it.

0

Hmm.. I believe you are forgetting one thing.. Scientists are more intelligent than you. The logic you propose is not exactly what scientists are saying.. all you have basically done is state something, and then refute it. You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim. Sure, some of it is political.. and some people have used faulty logic is in your examples.. However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.. If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Next time prove that the logic you are using in your examples is actually the same logic that scientists use in claiming the existence of the global warming effect.

0

Hmm.. I believe you are forgetting one thing.. Scientists are more intelligent than you. The logic you propose is not exactly what scientists are saying.. all you have basically done is state something, and then refute it. You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim. Sure, some of it is political.. and some people have used faulty logic is in your examples.. However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.. If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Next time prove that the logic you are using in your examples is actually the same logic that scientists use in claiming the existence of the global warming effect.

Oh! That's where this all comes from.

Once you get over that, you'll begin to see.

0

?

All I'm saying is that if global warming was that easy to disprove, then there wouldn't be a debate..

And he supported his findings with no evidence. How can you even consider his post as scientific?

0

Hmm.. I believe you are forgetting one thing.. Scientists are more intelligent than you. The logic you propose is not exactly what scientists are saying.. all you have basically done is state something, and then refute it. You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim. Sure, some of it is political.. and some people have used faulty logic is in your examples.. However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.. If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Next time prove that the logic you are using in your examples is actually the same logic that scientists use in claiming the existence of the global warming effect.

What you just said makes no sense just because someone has the label "scientist does not make him smarter then the rest of the populace infact im sure that there are alot of people who did not become scientists that are smarter then alot of the scientists.

Infact i think he made some very good arguments against global warming. Bear in mind this is a forum and this is acctually an opinion based discussion not the be all and end all argument for global warming. I really do not think you have to be a scientist to have an opinion on a topic and infact i think if you asked the scientists who believe in global warming if they have done any experiments or work on the subject most of them would say no.

Also rember who one of the biggest players at the moment backing global warming at the moment is Al Gore....I don't think he is a scientist.

0

What you just said makes no sense just because someone has the label "scientist does not make him smarter then the rest of the populace infact im sure that there are alot of people who did not become scientists that are smarter then alot of the scientists.

Infact i think he made some very good arguments against global warming. Bear in mind this is a forum and this is acctually an opinion based discussion not the be all and end all argument for global warming. I really do not think you have to be a scientist to have an opinion on a topic and infact i think if you asked the scientists who believe in global warming if they have done any experiments or work on the subject most of them would say no.

Also rember who one of the biggest players at the moment backing global warming at the moment is Al Gore....I don't think he is a scientist.

Okay.. I'm only going to say this once more.. his post included ZERO evidence. He did not show that those illogical statements were actually made from scientists.. And in fact, there is no way that they could have made half those statements or else intelligent people would have proven them all wrong in the same exact matter.. and seeing how the debate is still active, this has yet to happen.

The Global Warming phenomena may or may not be occurring.. notice how I made no judgment on this issue at all in my post. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of not providing evidence that scientists had illogically reasoned the situation.

0

?

All I'm saying is that if global warming was that easy to disprove, then there wouldn't be a debate..

And he supported his findings with no evidence. How can you even consider his post as scientific?

Ah, so I take it you've been selective about parts of this thread that you've read, or links visited.

I'm no scientist, but I do entertain opposing arguments -- much akin to the scientific method -- and try to consider the whole.

But following the "scientific" route, point to the proof (one way or the other -- not just you, anyone -- and not "'Scientists' say...").

And WRT the question mark, it was a partial slight about conferring divinity on "scientist" and the [epithet] of considering all non-divine as inferior and unworthy of consideration.

Something like that; I'm babbling again.

0

Hmm.. I believe you are forgetting one thing.. Scientists are more intelligent than you.

Are you sure?

The logic you propose is not exactly what scientists are saying.. all you have basically done is state something, and then refute it. You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim. Sure, some of it is political.. and some people have used faulty logic is in your examples.. However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.. If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Naive, naive, naive. There is a long history of mainstream opinion holders regarding a minority of disagreers as wrong, only to be shot down later. Take continental drift for example, or the crazy theory that diseases are caused by microscopic organisms.

Second, what gives you the idea that scientists get fired for being wrong? You think that's how the academic world works? Wrong. Scientists get fired if they don't bring in enough funding for their universities. They might also get fired for raping the department secretary, maybe.

Scientists are not vulcans; they're just some dudes whose job it is to find out stuff about the world.

And what do experiments have to do with the question of global warming? I don't see any experiments being used to resolve this question -- we don't have any spare planets to use as a laboratory. And nobody's disputing the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide...

0

Okay.. I'm only going to say this once more.. his post included ZERO evidence. He did not show that those illogical statements were actually made from scientists.. And in fact, there is no way that they could have made half those statements or else intelligent people would have proven them all wrong in the same exact matter.. and seeing how the debate is still active, this has yet to happen.

The Global Warming phenomena may or may not be occurring.. notice how I made no judgment on this issue at all in my post. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of not providing evidence that scientists had illogically reasoned the situation.

Actually alot of the arguments made were against alot of the reasoning that scientists or other people for that matter have made as an argument for global warming.

This is simply a discussion and i really do not see any point in having to post evidence that one particular person (or a group) have acctually said these things. But what what i can see he made alot of good points against alot of the key reasonings behind global warming.

0

By the way what arguments do you think the scientists are using that you feel he missed?

I think he covered alot of the arguments that scientists are using for global warming such as core samples and the rise in recorded temperature over the last couple of centuries

0

Second, what gives you the idea that scientists get fired for being wrong? You think that's how the academic world works? Wrong. Scientists get fired if they don't bring in enough funding for their universities. They might also get fired for raping the department secretary, maybe.

And what do experiments have to do with the question of global warming? I don't see any experiments being used to resolve this question -- we don't have any spare planets to use as a laboratory. And nobody's disputing the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide...

Uh, are you saying that scientists would not get fired for being wrong? If what that fool said was true, and scientists had indeed published a lot of data that was fallible, would they not be fired? Or at least be forced to release a statement about how they were wrong? Um, yea.. I think if you publish inaccurate data in the scientific community then you will probably be shunned.

And yea, there have been experiments regarding global warming.. not necessarily proving or disproving it.

If there wasn't a legit side for global warming, and a legit side against global warming then such a debate would not exist.. There is much more to the scientific side of this argument than what MidiMagic stated. Or else, there would be no debate..

0

And yea, there have been experiments regarding global warming.. not necessarily proving or disproving it

What experiments?

0

Science is about discovery and i do not think that a scientist would get shunned because he made a mistake infact alot of the time they just keep working on either proving their point or accept the fact they were wrong and take a different aproach.

As alot of scientists work is based upon finding an answer to a particular question and they get funding from various people and areas to help them find the answer to these questions and just because they may come up with a wrong answer on their first attempt does not mean that he will get fired or lose his funding over it.

0

Scientists are always wrong.

You are changing the meaning of what I was saying.. Scientists do not publish research that contains simple logical mistakes.. They are not idiots.. they went to college.. they have intelligent colleagues.. they have intelligent people reviewing their work..

0

Scientists are NOT going to make simple logical mistakes as MidiMagic suggested.

Scientists have made simple mistakes before why should it be any different now. Given we have more information to draw on now so they are less likely to make the same simple mistakes that they have made in the past. But there are always new things to learn and always new mistakes to be made.

Did he ever acctually say that it was the scientist that actually made the mistakes? Because it could very well just be the overblown rubbish of the media and governments. Infact i think that its what ive said through this entire topic that alot of it is just either made up or blown out of proportion to gain ratings in the media and Votes for the government. Al gores film scared people which made people interested in the topic which means that there is a demand for information on the subject and to keep that demand going for as long as possible the media make it into something bigger and more scary then it actually is to keep people interested. His argument was not directed at scientists specifically but more the flood of information we are getting on the subject from various places. The majority of which has either been so overblown by the media or made up that alot of it is illogical and easily proven wrong.

Edit: You have to rember that this is a thread on global warming in general and not just what the scientists have presented us with but what is being presented to us as a whole.

0

You are changing the meaning of what I was saying.. Scientists do not publish research that contains simple logical mistakes.. They are not idiots.. they went to college.. they have intelligent colleagues.. they have intelligent people reviewing their work..

No, they publish research that agrees with the current consensus.

Let's look at the word 'publish' in two separate ways for a moment, shall we?

Way 1: To put forward a written paper on a topic.

Way 2: To have such a paper evaluated and officially included in some publication.


Insofar as Way 1 goes, I'm fairly sure that Josh is correct; there are plenty of scientists out there evaluating both sides of the equation, and most of them probably write up and present their findings to others. (Some may not, usually because they feel that they don't have enough evidence to support any theory one way or another.)

With Way 2, though, there's an additional hurdle to jump. At the moment, most of those individuals who have the right to evaluate material for publication (editors and their ilk), even in Science-based magazines, are adamantly in favor of the 'known' theory of Global Warming. As a result, those scientists whose research shows the consensus belief is in error are likely to be simply dropped during the evaluation stage as not matching what the editor 'knows' to be true. Those scientists whose research tends to back the consensus will be published in the written medium in question. Therefore, even when an actual dissent or disagreement does exist within the scientific community, the general public is unlikely to hear about it because the self-appointed gatekeepers of the community have themselves taken sides on the issue and are only permitting one side to escape.

Congratulations, James Maxwell. Your Demon has come home to roost. Not in the physical world itself, but in the minds of those who report on it.

0

Um, no. Publishers don't drop scientific data based on the sole fact that they disagree. It is the publisher's job to make sure the data is clear, precise, accurate, and meaningful. Scientific publishers do NOT publish based on their own biased views... these are research and University publicists.. Magazine publishers and the like do only choose stories that they think the public would be interested in.

2

yes Josh, they do. Especially in this case where publishing anything that's not in line with the religious Truth as confined by Al Gore and Greenpeace is likely to get your funding cut.

Publishers publish according to the wishes of those supplying their funds all the time, and "scientific" publications are no different.

If you believe that's not the case, you are seriously naive. In most glossies 90% of what's printed is essentially either propaganda or advertising.
In scientific mags that percentage is lower but in some "sciences" (especially the soft sciences and climatology) it's almost 100%.

And this is nothing new. In the 18th and 19th century it was generally believed that everything was known and science was only kept alive to fill in the little gaps to link different theories together.
The pioneers of things like quantum mechanics and nuclear physics found it almost impossible to publish because of that. Their ideas were rejected by the leaders of major universities, the very people who controlled the funding of the publishers (and often were the people approving publications).

It wasn't until several decades later that the general concensus started to shift and scientists opened their eyes to a new universe where things were quite different from what they had known to be true.

The same is going on in climatology today, except here there's a very strong outside political and financial interest to preserve one particular (unproven or more correctly proven incorrect) point of view and suppress real science to the benefit of politically correct pseudo-scientific gibberish.
Science is being perverted on a grand scale in climatology, with anyone daring to try and get the truth out liable to find himself thoroughly destroyed professionally by political interests opposed to the truth becoming known.
This is going as far as historical climate data in the UK and US being systematically altered to paint a deliberately incorrect picture of past climate in order to show that things have changed dramatically for the worse in recent years.

It goes as far as quite openly suppressing knowledge that would disprove the claims of the "environmentalist" movement, knowledge like the periodicity of stratospheric O3 concentrations.

Votes + Comments
Excellent point.
0

What? I can't see all scientists posting data simply because their publishers and benefactors said to.. Theres no way that some scientist wouldn't publish truthful information.. Besides, global warming has two sides. The Republicans would rather it not be happening, its in their best interest if businesses didn't have to spend a buttload of cash 'saving' the environment from global warming.. Theres always two sides.. and I would think the republicans would be trying desperately to get scientific evidence out there that global warming is not occurring.. especially since they're typically the wealthier party.

0

If you do reseaarch on global warming, it will be very difficult to get funding, if you do not subscripe to the 'gorist' junk science view of things. As jwenting says, this view has been elevated to the status of a religion.

0

I do not think that a scientist is going to publish a paper or do research against global warming because nobody would give them the funding to do so. Mainly because it would make the company funding them look bad. Where as there is alot more funding out there for research proving it because it makes the company giving the funding look like they care about the enviroment.

0

You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim.

All of the claims I presented as being global warming claims came from the Discovery Channel special as quotes by actual "experts".

However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.

So have I. I used to work in labs.

The thing here is that they can't really perform any experiments on the climate.

If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Not if they are working for Al Gore.

Next time prove that the logic you are using in your examples is actually the same logic that scientists use in claiming the existence of the global warming effect.

Try it yourself. Watch the Discovery Channel special and "An Inconvenient Truth." Be careful to look for the stupid science and the cases where they affirm the consequent.

1

Infact i think he made some very good arguments against global warming.

Actually, I haven't. My arguments are that their arguments are not valid. We may be having global warming. But the arguments proffered by Al Gore and his henchmen are not valid.

One interesting fact is that Mars is also experiencing a melting of icecaps. This tends to indicate that any global warming has an external cause.

Votes + Comments
Heretic! ;)
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.