GW: Separating facts from fiction

[a_unique_person]

Varwoche has provided links to debunking of M&M and their claims previously, IIRC.

 

[curi0us]

Sorry Curi0us, you are right. You are indeed trying to have a logical discussion and I'm dismissing you. I appologize. I was wrong.

Let me try this another way.

"Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted."

This is a classic example of a circular argument. Now, let me ask you a question. If you and I concede that politicians cannot be trusted will that validate the argument?

Yes. I certainly wouldn't give it any awards for clear wording, and I'd wonder what the point of arguing for an agreed upon premise was (improperly unpacked?), but it would be valid.

As wikipedia uses the same politician example here's what they say about it:

In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition, in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy", in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself; the question remains, "begging" to be answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument

If the central point really is "already proven" then it's not a begging the question fallacy, the question isn't begging to be answered, it has been answered.

This example ("politicians can not be trusted") is potentially misleading, if one concedes the main point as you have then the argument is rather pointless and convoluted , I suspect you have issues with that example that go beyond the fallacy it's supposed to demonstrate. I wonder if you are approaching a false analogy fallacy, as you've already explicitly described AUP's statements as having a different structure then above. As an explanatory example I think your earlier post is surperior to the wiki example since it references the actual statements we are debating:

This statement by itself is not logically valid. It beggs the question. A conclusion is based on a premise based on the conclusion.

Proposition #1: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Proposition #2: If Carbon Dioxide wasn't a greenhouse gas the earth would be cooler.
Proposition #3: More CO2 = warmer, less = cooler

Proposition #1 proves #2 and #3
Proposition #2 proves #3 and #1
Proposition #3 proves #1 and #2

Can you say circular?

Now let me ask you a question. If you acknowledge that Proposition #1 is true, doesn't your own argument therefore state propositions #2 and # 3 have been proven?

 

[RandFan]

Yes. I certainly wouldn't give it any awards for clear wording, and I'd wonder what the point of arguing for an agreed upon premise was (improperly unpacked?), but it would be valid.

No it wouldn't. Curi0s, you are making a common mistake and confusing "argument" with "conclusion".

That is why I posted my sylogism. Remember, it's possible to construct an invalid argument using valid premises and arive at a valid conclusion.

Let's try it again.

Cars have tires
Bikes have tires
Fords are cars

1.) the premises are correct.
2.) The conclusion is correct.
3.) The argument is invalid.

Question: If we both agree in the premises is the argument valid?

If the central point really is "already proven" then it's not a begging the question fallacy, the question isn't begging to be answered, it has been answered.

Again, you are confusing argument with conclusion.

Conceding a premise in an invalid argument will not validate the argument.

Now let me ask you a question. If you acknowledge that Proposition #1 is true, doesn't your own argument therefore state propositions #2 and # 3 have been proven?

It could validate the premise and validate that conclusion but it would NOT validate the argument.

One more time. It is possible to construct an invalid argument with valid premises and valid conclusions.

One more thing, premises don't have to be true for an argument to be valid.

If the moon were made of green cheese it would be edible. This hypothetical is valid. The premise however is false. It is not made of green cheese. The conclusion is false. The moon is not edible.

So,

1.) We can use false premises to arive at false conclusions using valid argument.

2.) We can construct invalid argument using valid premises and still arive at valid conclusions.

Bottom line: Don't confuse argument with conclusion.

 

[curi0us]

No it wouldn't. Curi0s, you are making a common mistake and confusing "argument" with "conclusion".

Actually I'm not, I examined the individual statements in that argument (with your added condition) and each of them looks valid to me. Before I get into a longer reply to your post it would be helpful if you would specify why you are stating that argument would still be invalid? Are you arguing it's still a begging the question fallacy or are you invoking a new fallacy?

 

[RandFan]

Actually I'm not, I examined the individual statements in that argument (with your added condition) and each of them looks valid to me.

Hence the problem. You say, "each of them look valid to me". Curi0us, I have said time and time again that an invalid argument can be constructed using valid premises. Are you disputing this?

Before I get into a longer reply to your post it would be helpful if you would specify why you are stating that argument would still be invalid?

It is what it is, invalid. Conceding a premise in an invalid argument won't validate the argument.

Look, it's really simple. To validate the argument it must be restated. I've pointed this out.

2.) Rethink and restate your argument so that it is logically valid and supports the claims made.

Simply providing information to support a premise or validate a premise won't make it valid.

Curi0us, I even went so far as to re-write the argument.

CO2 is accepted as a green house gas.
Because CO2 is a green house gas it causes the earth to be warmer.

THAT validated the argument.

Are you arguing it's still a begging the question fallacy or are you invoking a new fallacy?

No, the argument is demonstrably fallacious. We can go on for pages but the argument as it stands is invalid. We can assume the premises. We can assume the conclusion but it still will not validate the argument.

 

[varwoche]

Therein lies the difficulty. Your argument is against MM rather than the findings of MM ... If there is a descrepancy in either logic or the conclusions that has not already been addressed by MM, bring those forward.

You have overlooked at least four citations.

 

[curi0us]

Hence the problem. You say, "each of them look valid to me". Curi0us, I have said time and time again that an invalid argument can be constructed using valid premises.

Sure, but an argument with true premises and valid inferences is valid in total (and note my original comment to you was about your own argument in which you implied the inferences were true but didn't accept the premises as valid). Sorry for the confusion here but I was including the logical inferences aspect in my use of "valid". When I wrote, "I examined the individual statements in that argument (with your added condition)" I casually thought it would be clear that I was taking into account the logic supporting each statement. I certainly could have used better wording, especially in context of your previous statements, but I was just writing off a quick post because I wanted an answer to two simple question before I wrote a more substantial reply. I must say, your responses are quite lacking.

question #1

Before I get into a longer reply to your post it would be helpful if you would specify why you are stating that argument would still be invalid?

It is what it is, invalid.

Curious: Why is it invalid?
Randfan: It is what it is, invalid.

Conceding a premise in an invalid argument won't validate the argument.

You are incorrect. The effect that conceding a premise would have is dependent upon why the argument was initially deemed invalid, it may or may not validate the argument. A simple example ((From skepdics begging the question write up):

Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.

If one agrees/concedes the first sentence is valid then the begging the question fallacy no longer applies and the argument is valid (premises, inferences and conclusion).


question #2

Are you arguing it's still a begging the question fallacy or are you invoking a new fallacy?

No, the argument is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

Sure, but an argument with true premises and valid inferences is valid in total...

"In total"? I don't know what that means.

Sorry for the confusion here but I was including the logical inferences aspect in my use of "valid". When I wrote, "I examined the individual statements in that argument (with your added condition)" I casually thought it would be clear that I was taking into account the logic supporting each statement.

If a premise is valid then the logic supporting each statement is valid. Now you are just creating a tautology.

I certainly could have used better wording, especially in context of your previous statements, but I was just writing off a quick post because I wanted an answer to two simple question before I wrote a more substantial reply. I must say, your responses are quite lacking.

You can find whatever you want. In the end logic is what it is. That you don't like it won't change anything. Irony meters won't either.

You are incorrect. The effect that conceding a premise would have is dependent upon why the argument was initially deemed invalid, it may or may not validate the argument.

No, I understand why you think this but it is wrong.

THE ARGUMENT MUST BE LOGICAL ON IT'S OWN TO BE VALID. Conceding a premise will not validate the argument.

You are still confusing conclusion with argument.

Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.

If one agrees/concedes the first sentence is valid then the begging the question fallacy no longer applies and the argument is valid (premises, inferences and conclusion).

Sorry but you are wrong. It is still invalid.

You can construct and invalid argument from vaild premises and a valid conclusion. IF the argument is circular then it is circular. To correct it you must restate it. Not a big deal. We really are not that far apart but I'll tell you what.

Water is wet
It must be wet because it is water
If you swim in a pool you will get wet.

Curi0us, is this argument valid? We both concede that water is wet.

You are still confusing argument with conclusion.

 

[Geckko]

The presence, magnitude and implications of AGW do NOT rest on any of the work M&M are doing. Those things stand apart and there is ample research to support this position.

Be my guest and present some evidence.

I may write in a rather cryptic fashion, but are you sure you read my post? (I have added some additional emphasis)

 

[varwoche]

I may write in a rather cryptic fashion, but are you sure you read my post? (I have added some additional emphasis)

Ah, pardon me. I agree.

 

[Rob Lister]

Are you still banging on about MacIntyre and McItrick?

But that brings me back to a point I made earlier. The presence, magnitude and implications of AGW do NOT rest on any of the work M&M are doing. Those things stand apart and there is ample research to support this position.

Ah, but what is the title of this thread?

 

[Rob Lister]

You have overlooked at least four citations.

Perhaps I have, which of the many dozens are those four. I thought I reviewed all of them. I could have missed the four that 'debunked' M&M's product.

 

[varwoche]

Perhaps I have, which of the many dozens are those four. I thought I reviewed all of them. I could have missed the four that 'debunked' M&M's product.

Here it is documented how McKitrick confused degrees with radians, the type of inane mistake that happens when an economics professor gets in over his head in a field where he possesses zero expertise:
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

Here McKitrick acknowledges that he treated null values as readings of zero degrees, including in areas of the world where it never reaches zero, invalidating his analysis.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/errata.html
(He's been cut slack in this thread for graciously acknowledging the error. Of course Badnarik was also gracious when forced to admit that Hawaii had not seceeded from the union. )

Here is a refutation of M&M from climatologists Ammann and Wahl:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

And here is a refutation from Mann and colleagues...
Dummies Guide to the latest "Hockey Stick" controversy

 

[varwoche]

March 14, 2006 -- NASA Study Links "Smog" to Arctic Warming

NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic.

In a global assessment of the impact of ozone on climate warming, scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, evaluated how ozone in the lowest part of the atmosphere changed temperatures over the past 100 years. Using the best available estimates of global emissions of gases that produce ozone, the GISS computer model study reveals how much this single air pollutant, and greenhouse gas, has contributed to warming in specific regions of the world.

(This is the third major study that has been released just during the life of this thread.)

 

[varwoche]

March 23, 2006 -- University of Arizona Study

Water from melting ice sheets and glaciers is gushing into the world's oceans much faster than previously thought possible
...
The unexpected deluge is raising global sea levels, which scientists say could eventually submerge island nations, flood cities, and expose millions of coastal residents to destructive storm surges.

 

[varwoche]

March 31, 2006 -- British Antarctic Survey

A new analysis of the past 30 years of records from nine research stations, including Amundsen-Scott at the South Pole, reveals that the air above the entirety of Antarctica has warmed by as much as 0.70 degree Celsius per decade during the winter months.

John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey and his colleagues report in today's issue of Science that this warming trend is consistent across data from multiple stations run by multiple countries using multiple types of instruments.
...
"The rapid surface warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and the enhanced global warming signal over the whole continent shows the complexity of climate change," Turner says. "Greenhouse gases could be having a bigger impact in Antarctica than across the rest of the world and we don't understand why."

 

[varwoche]

Adding studies published in the past month (and already cited) to the list of sources supporting anthropogenic GW and/or severity of GW regardless of cause (bolding added).

British Antarctic Survey March 31, 2006 new

A new analysis of the past 30 years of records from nine research stations, including Amundsen-Scott at the South Pole, reveals that the air above the entirety of Antarctica has warmed by as much as 0.70 degree Celsius per decade during the winter months.

University of Arizona March 23, 2006 new

Water from melting ice sheets and glaciers is gushing into the world's oceans much faster than previously thought possible ... The unexpected deluge is raising global sea levels, which scientists say could eventually submerge island nations, flood cities, and expose millions of coastal residents to destructive storm surges.

NASA March 14, 2006 agw new

NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic

NASA March 3, 2006 new

The Antarctic ice sheet shrank significantly during the past three years ... Using data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), scientists concluded that Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by about 152 cubic kilometers annually from April 2002 to August 2005.

Woods Hole Feb 2006:

Study Suggests Climate Models Underestimate Future Warming

Yale/NOAA Feb 2006:

Unfortunately, the warming is in an accelerating trend

UCSC Feb 2006 agw

Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past, according to an expert on ancient climates.

NOAA Feb 2006:

Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade ... the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years

Scripps/DOE Jan 2006 agw

Enhanced aerosol concentrations increase the amount of thermal energy emitted by many Arctic clouds... The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities, in the form of rapidly retreating and thinning sea ice ... It is also another example of human industrial activity's surprising impact on remote polar regions

US Global Change Research Information Office 2006 agw

It is becoming clear that human activities, mainly burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are part of the cause of this warming.

British Antarctic Survey Apr 2005:

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published this week in the journal Science, show that over the last 50 years 87% of 244 glaciers studied have retreated, and that average retreat rates have accelerated.

Scripps/Livermore Labs Feb 2005 agw

results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically. "This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Ohio State Jan 2005:

the ice fields capping the mountain would disappear between 2015 and 2020, the victims, at least in part, of global warming. “The change there is so dramatic,” he said. “We can see it both in the field and from aerial photographs of the mountaintop. I would say it is on track to disappear, and the rate of ice loss may even be accelerating.

Schneider/Stanford 2004 agw

the vast majority of knowledgeable climate scientists have said that despite the remaining uncertainties, that it's very likely (more than 90%), that humans are least part of the story

NASA Oct 2003:

twenty-year record of space based measurements has been analyzed by researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Based on their findings, evidence of a warming planet continues to grow

IPCC 2001 (pdf) agw

Emmissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to alter the climate

DOE/Livermore/Santer March 2001 agw

quantify and explain the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change, including the role of greenhouse gases and aerosol particles. Using a statistical pattern detection method, Santer and colleagues reviewed records of the past century and identified the anthropogenic "fingerprint" of climate change ... hard evidence that human activities have global-scale consequences

McCarthy/Harvard March 2001 agw

coordinated a remarkable report by the world scientific community this year that said global warming is real, it's here, and it's going to be worse than we thought ... evidence is overwhelming that humans are causing most of the change

EPA agw

There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities ... In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming

PEW Center for Climate Change agw

greenhouse gases appear to be the dominant driver of climate change over the past few decades

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The pH of the Pacific Ocean has dropped .025 units.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

I'm pretty sure I do, I was just asking whether you know that it makes an arse of you. For all I know that's an unintended consequence. I don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions.

No, an argument should be logically valid. As it is AUP's argument (his statement) is not logically valid.

That being:

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it must be, or else the earth would be something like 20C cooler. More CO2 = warmer, less = cooler.

To continue your post:

This statement by itself is not logically valid. It beggs the question. A conclusion is based on a premise based on the conclusion.

Proposition #1: Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Proposition #2: If Carbon Dioxide wasn't a greenhouse gas the earth would be cooler.
Proposition #3: More CO2 = warmer, less = cooler

Proposition #1 proves #2 and #3
Proposition #2 proves #3 and #1
Proposition #3 proves #1 and #2

Can you say circular? All I'm asking is for AUP to correct and justify his claim. Sheesh, heaven forbid I should ask for logic in a skeptics forum.

Propositon 1 is true. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's a result of its infra-red spectrum. Proposition 2 is actually a consequence of the greenhouse effect, one which, as I pointed out previously, led to the its discovery. Proposition 3 is a direct result of Propositon 1 via the definition of "greenhouse gas". There is no circularity.

Whatever, go ahead and call me an arse. Ad hominem is a good response to a logical request.

I just calls it as I sees it.

 

[CapelDodger]

The pH of the Pacific Ocean has dropped .025 units.

Playing Devil's Advocate : Is that a lot? Does it happen often? Does anybody know if it happens often? Does it matter?

IIRC, the answers would be : Yes, apparently not, some scientists reckon they do, and Yes if (but not necessarily only if) one is a crustacean. But I don't have references, I read science stuff all the time.

Your point is only indirectly connected with AGW, in that the oceans are a CO2 repository that's intimately connected with the atmosphere.