GW: Separating facts from fiction

[curi0us]

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

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

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.

snip

Proposition #1 proves #2 and #3

Uh, since you don't seem to be disputing the truth of proposition #1 didn't you just validate AUP's argument?

 

[RandFan]

Uh, since you don't seem to be disputing the truth of proposition #1 didn't you just validate AUP's argument?

No, I said without speaking to the conclusion. However I did give AUP an example argument that I wouldn't debate.

 

[RandFan]

It is only logically invalid if I did not support the assumption, (which I mistakenly assumed everyone agreed on), that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas.

No AUP, the argument is invalid.

All Cars have tires
All Bikes have tires
Fords are cars

Even IF everyone agrees on ALL of the above assumptions AND the conclusion the syllogism would still be invalid.
It is possible to construct an invalid argument with true premises and still arrive at a true conclusion. The same is true with your argument (not necassarily speaking to the conclusion). Why is this so hard to understand? Your argument is demonstrably invalid.

 

[a_unique_person]

No AUP, the argument is invalid.

All Cars have tires
All Bikes have tires
Fords are cars

Even IF everyone agrees on ALL of the above assumptions AND the conclusion the syllogism would still be invalid.
It is possible to construct an invalid argument with true premises and still arrive at a true conclusion. The same is true with your argument (not necassarily speaking to the conclusion). Why is this so hard to understand? Your argument is demonstrably invalid.

I am not claiming it is the only greenhouse gas, nor that there are other mechanisms involved in affecting the temperature of the earth.

All I claimed is that it is 'a' greenhouse gas.

 

[RandFan]

I am not claiming it is the only greenhouse gas, nor that there are other mechanisms involved in affecting the temperature of the earth.

All I claimed is that it is 'a' greenhouse gas.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. You made a logically invalid argument. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please look at the syllogism above. The premises are true. The conclusion is true. The syllogism is logically invalid. Do you understand that?

Look:
1.) Assuming that your premises are correct. and 2.) Assuming your conclusion is correct.

Your argument is still logically invalid.

{sigh}

How many posts before you acknowledge such a simple and demonstrable fact?

 

[a_unique_person]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. You made a logically invalid argument. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please look at the syllogism above. The premises are true. The conclusion is true. The syllogism is logically invalid. Do you understand that?

Look:
1.) Assuming that your premises are correct. and 2.) Assuming your conclusion is correct.

Your argument is still logically invalid.

{sigh}

How many posts before you acknowledge such a simple and demonstrable fact?

The definition of a greenhouse gas is that it makes the earth warmer by absorbing radiation, at the frequencies specified. The more of it present the warmer the earth, the less, the cooler.

 

[a_unique_person]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. You made a logically invalid argument. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please look at the syllogism above. The premises are true. The conclusion is true. The syllogism is logically invalid. Do you understand that?

Look:
1.) Assuming that your premises are correct. and 2.) Assuming your conclusion is correct.

Your argument is still logically invalid.

{sigh}

How many posts before you acknowledge such a simple and demonstrable fact?

It is only logically incorrect if I claim that
a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is making the world warmer
b) The world is getting warmer, therefore CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Instead, I provided physical evidence of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is, it absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths. This process of absorption warms up the world. All scientists, both pro and anti- AGW agree on this fact. A few crackpots may deny it, but no scientists of any pursuasion. It is just a fact of physics.

 

[RandFan]

The definition of a greenhouse gas is that it makes the earth warmer by absorbing radiation, at the frequencies specified. The more of it present the warmer the earth, the less, the cooler.

You are just not getting it. It isn't about the validity of your premise. It's about the validity of the argument (see syllogism). All of the premises are true. The conclusion is true. The argument is invalid.

You can keep arguing your premises all day but it won't change the fact that the argument is logically invalid.

 

[RandFan]

It is only logically incorrect if I claim that
a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is making the world warmer
b) The world is getting warmer, therefore CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Instead, I provided physical evidence of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is, it absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths. This process of absorption warms up the world. All scientists, both pro and anti- AGW agree on this fact. A few crackpots may deny it, but no scientists of any pursuasion. It is just a fact of physics.

{sigh}

No AUP. Stop. This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My point isn't with your proposition or your premises. My point is with the structure of the argument in question. By argument I mean the series of connected statements you made earlier and not your contention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So please, stop. You are looking silly. You keep going on and on about something I'm not contending with.

Let's assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Let's assume that there is more of it in the atmosphere now than before.
Let's assume that CO2 gas is contributing to increases of the earth's temperature.

Ok, are we on the same page? We both agree? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the earth is getting warmer because there is more of it now than before. In other words CO2 is directly contributing to increases in the earths temperature.

Now, compare

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

THIS IS LOGICALLY INVALID!

 

[varwoche]

I'm fairly convinced GW is real but on the fence about AGW. This thread almost made me fall off that fence. The Anti-AGW arguments are very convincing while the Pro-AGW arguments are, for the most part, logically flawed in the best of cases.

On the one side, evidence supporting AGW has been cited from a laudry list of eminently qualified scientific organizations including Scripps, Woods Hole, NOAA, IPPC, Livermore Labs, and others.

On the other side we have analysis by an oil industry businessman and an econmics professor -- riddled with errors and refuted by several sources. (Plus some inane babble from Michael Crichton in the originating thread).

While I don't get AGW denial, I especially don't get AGW denial based on the hyper flimsy arguments put forth in this thread.

(Long time no see RL.)

 

[Geckko]

On the one side, evidence supporting AGW has been cited from a laudry list of eminently qualified scientific organizations including Scripps, Woods Hole, NOAA, IPPC, Livermore Labs, and others.

On the other side we have analysis by an oil industry businessman and an econmics professor -- riddled with errors and refuted by several sources. (Plus some inane babble from Michael Crichton in the originating thread).

While I don't get AGW denial, I especially don't get AGW denial based on the hyper flimsy arguments put forth in this thread.

(Long time no see RL.)

Are you still banging on about MacIntyre and McItrick? You may be completely disparaging about what contribution they have made to the particular small niche of climate research that is historical temperature reconstructions. But the National Academy of Sciences believed that the contribution of M&M was vital to a review of this particular field of study that is presently under way. If they are good enough for the NAS, then they are good enough for me.

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.

 

[varwoche]

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.

 

[curi0us]

No, I said without speaking to the conclusion.

I don't see where you said that (not in the post I was quoting from), regardless I'm not sure what you mean by that since what you called proposition #3 was the conclusion and according to you proposition #1 proved number #3 so not only did clearly it speak to the conclusion, it actually proved it. Here's what you said again:

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.

My point is that from your argument it follows that if proposition #1 is true and it proves proposition #2 and #3 then the only legitimate complaint you could have would be the process by which proposition was established as true. Since it's common, undisputed knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and AUP also offered additonal information on the matter) your own line of reasoning actually then supports AUP's statement.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that from your argument it follows that if proposition #1 is true and it proves proposition #2 and #3 then the only legitimate complaint you could have would be the process by which proposition was established as true. Since it's common, undisputed knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and AUP also offered additonal information on the matter) your own line of reasoning actually then supports AUP's statement.

{sigh}

ETA: Did you read my sylogism? Did you read my other posts? If not or if you just don't understand me then what's the f****** point?

 

[curi0us]

{sigh}

ETA: Did you read my sylogism?

I've read more then one of your syllogisms, did you think you only made one? Did you notice all of my post are specifically addressing the logic of one of your syllogisms? Seriously, did you even realize that? Did you realize that your response to my comment last night didn't make sense so I explained myself further, and yet again you've still failed to make a meaningful, or even sensible response.

Did you read my other posts?

Yeah, but they don't alter my argument, and it seemed reasonable to respond to your comments to me, you have a problem with that?

If not or if you just don't understand me then what's the f****** point?

Sheesh, what was I think trying to have a logical discussion on skeptic forum . . .

 

[a_unique_person]

{sigh}

ETA: Did you read my sylogism? Did you read my other posts? If not or if you just don't understand me then what's the f****** point?

From the link I gave you.

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." (For explanation of the science, follow back the link at right from the essay on Simple Models of Climate.) The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is. Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand.(1)

That is, it was not too hard even back then to realise that the earth was warmer than the simple physics said it should be. Poor phrasing on my part, but the earth is warmer than it should be because something "must" be making it warmer. That something is Greenhouse gases, including CO2. The mechanism for making it warmer is explained in the SciAm link, the Greenhouse gases trap radiation.

 

[RandFan]

I've read more then one of your syllogisms, did you think you only made one? Did you notice all of my post are specifically addressing the logic of one of your syllogisms? Seriously, did you even realize that? Did you realize that your response to my comment last night didn't make sense so I explained myself further, and yet again you've still failed to make a meaningful, or even sensible response.

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?

 

[RandFan]

That is, it was not too hard even back then to realise that the earth was warmer than the simple physics said it should be. Poor phrasing on my part, but the earth is warmer than it should be because something "must" be making it warmer. That something is Greenhouse gases, including CO2. The mechanism for making it warmer is explained in the SciAm link, the Greenhouse gases trap radiation.

Hey AUP,

How ya doing?

 

[a_unique_person]

Peddling as fast as I can.

 

[Rob Lister]

On the one side, evidence supporting AGW has been cited from a laudry list of eminently qualified scientific organizations including Scripps, Woods Hole, NOAA, IPPC, Livermore Labs, and others.

On the other side we have analysis by an oil industry businessman and an econmics professor -- riddled with errors and refuted by several sources. (Plus some inane babble from Michael Crichton in the originating thread).

While I don't get AGW denial, I especially don't get AGW denial based on the hyper flimsy arguments put forth in this thread.

(Long time no see RL.)

Therein lies the difficulty. Your argument is against MM rather than the findings of MM. Who either M or M worked for, were funded by, dated, raped, killed, etc., is of zero consequence. There's an adage in poker, the board speaks for itself. Their findings are what they are and those findings bring into very serious question the results of Mann, et al (as well as other former and latter works. If there is a descrepancy in either logic or the conclusions that has not already been addressed by MM, bring those forward. THAT would make a rational argument.

(greetings Var, nice to read you again)