Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  me: BTW, I think its hillarious that you called basic linear regression and "appeal to authority" yesterday ;-).

  mP: Did i actually say that ?

  Yes you did, allow me to introduce you to yourself:

  me: If you cant tell there is a trend you can look up basic linear regression and hypothesis testing and check it statistically, the kicker is there are people out there who have done that.

  mP: Again appeal to authority. It should be so basic to show a graph with a line going straight up and up and yet you cant.

  that you cannot be arsed to look up how to do that yourself does not make it an appeal to authority to say other people (such as first-year stats students) are able to do so.
• 

  besty

  Without looking further into what those 97% actually wrote we cant tell. As always the site mentioned is written for 10 year olds and low on details

  Do the work. Its all there. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
• 

  bohm

  mP: Problem is when your as dumb as you are, your too pathetic to think for yourself quoting is a good thing, and then you claim intelliegence.

  lol, you nailed it mP! you are so intelliggencive.. intellligletive... intilligans.. intalligible... aw fuck I give up, thats an egg-head word anyway.

  I will give you this, there has not been much change to the intellectual climate in the climate-change denialist camp :-)
• 

  bohm

  mP: Without looking further into what those 97% actually wrote ...

  Lemme guess, you tried for hours and hours to figure out what those 97% actually wrote, but despite your superhuman quoting abilities you just couldnt come up with the idea of reading it ;-).

  DAMN YOU BASIC READING COMPREHENSION! YOU GOT mP AGAIN!!!!
• 

  besty

  Again i gave advice that you should learn to quote so your responses are more accurate

  the yellow bits in my posts are direct quotes from your posts - see above for an example.

  especialy when you have such a hard time putting forth a simple response (1000 vs 10000)

  It's not difficult. Climate responds to the dominant forcing at the time. In the past that has been several different things. Today it is human activity.

  We are not the only thing affecting the climate, but we are the dominating effect. 97% of climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that this is a true statement of reality - ie a fact.

  You, because of your perception of government inaction, choose to believe that this makes climate science wrong.

  Lets not forget how you started (not the bit about fat people watching TV, that was later):

  Climate change has been with us since the beginning of time. In fact it happens everyday (we call it day when it gets warmer, and night when it cools). As you note nothing is constant, cycles of various kinds appear and increase or decrease temp.

  This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on your part about climate. Climate change is not night turning to day. It is not cyclical. It doesn't just heat up and cool down globally because the planet acts like some sort of pendulum. I think you were off school the day that Ice Ages were explained. Climate responds to the dominant forcing at the time.

  Clear?
• 

  adamah

  mP, it's clear you've not taken (OR if you have, you'd remember much of) statistical analysis, since you clearly don't know that there are commonly-accepted CONVENTIONS (rules) in play for HOW data is interpreted, just to avoid such arguments from developing. I'm not going to embarrass you by ASKING how far you got into stats (I can't recall exactly how many courses I took, since it was so long ago, but it was at LEAST 3 courses on stats required for my undergrad science degree), but if you're offering your unedumcated (sic) opinion on graphical analysis without having taken any course, you're talking outside your backside orifice.

  The other point to remember is that the full title of the fallacy is actually "appeal to QUESTIONABLE authority", not just "appeal to authority". The point is that if someone refers to some "expert's" opinion in the field of study in question, then the next step SHOULD be to VERIFY if the cited expert actually IS respected by their colleagues to support their opinion; like it or not, science is a group endeavor. The point is not to discount the opinions of ALL experts (as if appeal to authority are BAD things: that's what we MUST do, trust the experts!), but that the consensus wins out, since the cited expert might be a crackpot who's operating at the very fringe; the rule is the majority opinion wins. Not that the minority of scientists MUST just give up their hypotheses, and go with the group and abandon their opinion; instead, the onus is on THEM to conduct valid studies that PROVE their opinion and show WHY the majority opinion is wrong to convince them.

  Fact is, sometimes the minority opinion IS correct, it's just that they need to demonstrate it to the group to advance science forward. That's exactly WHY the scientific method works: it doesn't squelch the minority opinion, but also doesn't just accept it without good reason.

  That stated, there IS a consensus amongst climatology experts (97% is the figure I saw cited) that GCC IS occurring and man plays a role in the etiology. Point being, science doesn't wait around for 100% agreement to begin addressing problems, since the ice cap could be the size of an ice cube before many would be convinced, and even then some deniers would only say, "Well, that's no proof, and it'll come back!"

  Adam
• 

  besty

  @adamah - mP is not even a competent denier :-)

  his reason for not accepting the consensus is unbelievable - "governments aren't doing anything" (his perception)

  if he applied the same reasoning to adult obesity, would he deny that fat people exist?