How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Round Robin]

You are plainly ignoring the science and looking to an authority figure to think for you.

AFAIK, the following is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority:

• Al Gore says AGW is true
• Al Gore is smart and I really like him
• Therefore, AGW is true

That would "plainly [be] ignoring the science"

While an argument can be made that my position recognizes authority, I think there is a vast difference between appealing to an individual (or a blog) as an authority and trusting among the most prestigious, reliable and (scientifically) conservative scientific organizations on the planet. If I have a side, it is respecting the scientific method, and I do get passionate in my defense of it, even if it is not wholly infallible.

Please, Dave, don't accuse me of ignoring the science. The article I linked is an example of that: I look forward to following this story and seeing where this leads, just as mysteries in other fields have yielded new understandings: When galaxies were discovered that appeared to be "older" than the universe, scientists went back to the drawing board and developed the concept of "inflation" after the big bang. When the cosmic background radiation looked too uniform to have clumped into galaxies, scientists launched COBE and mapped the CBR anisotropies (those were to really simplified examples! ). So too, this new oceanic data will likely lead to better understandings of climate science. Unless I am misunderstanding you, Dave, you seem to have already made up your mind what this data means. Isn't that ignoring the science... in this case, the science to come?

 

[Round Robin]

But in all fairness, some one who says they look to NAS, IPCC is not the same as someone who says they look to Desmogblog, Mediamatters, Realclimate and other Fenton fronts, Tamino, Deltoid.

Noted and appreciated, mhaze.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are plainly ignoring the science and looking to an authority figure to think for you. Why does one need to conduct the science to come to an informed conclusion? How many of those board members in those institutions have actually conducted the science?

Your appeal to authority has already designated yourself to which "side" you're on, and there is no science involved in that philosophy.

Can you name the scientific method by which those institutions came to their conclusions? Did they take a vote or something? Did they read a book? Watch a movie? Is it based on faith?

I've asked this question several times before. Do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in? Seems like a simple thing doesn't it? What did the "consensus" say for 60 years?

Sorry, your logic does not compute. The article you posted earlier concerning ocean heat content doesn't even excite a few brain cells of doubt?

It's not an appeal to authority if the authority is a recognised authority in that field. That is, most of us here, (speaking for myself as well), do not have the ability to resolve if AGW as presented by the IPCC is correct or not, from first principles. We have to rely on the authority of others, (and, in this case, the scientific method), to give us the answers.

I am quite happy to admit when I have reached the limits of my knowledge and abilities.

 

[TrueSceptic]

He testified before Congress and NAS, and is currently shoving what's left of the shaft of the hockey stick up Tamino's posterior end.

What a bizarre claim.

Further, he was invited to Georgia Tech recently....by Judith Curry.

True.

Leif Svalgaard is not influential?

Is that the issue? Do you know what his views are anyway?

And the list goes on. Nobody influential?

Quite obviously you don't read his blog; it wouldn't matter anyway, you wouldn't understand it. But hey, go ahead and give it a try posting, it might manage to stay a few hours before being snipped for being OT.

That is an absurd claim, and especially so given your repeated demonstrations of stupidity here. How about you spend some time there?

Heck, even Truesceptic asked Leif Svalgaard (your version of "nobody") some questions. You never know, he may be impressed you think Siberia is warm in January.

Even? No big deal. I've got more to ask. Why don't you join in?

 

[TrueSceptic]

You are plainly ignoring the science and looking to an authority figure to think for you. Why does one need to conduct the science to come to an informed conclusion? How many of those board members in those institutions have actually conducted the science?

Your appeal to authority has already designated yourself to which "side" you're on, and there is no science involved in that philosophy.

Such hypocrisy! This is exactly what you (and most other "sceptics") do, except your authority figures are much less credible and are frequently shown to be dishonest or incompetent.

Can you name the scientific method by which those institutions came to their conclusions? Did they take a vote or something? Did they read a book? Watch a movie? Is it based on faith?

See above.

I've asked this question several times before. Do water droplets freeze from the inside out or the outside in? Seems like a simple thing doesn't it? What did the "consensus" say for 60 years?

Who cares?

Sorry, your logic does not compute. The article you posted earlier concerning ocean heat content doesn't even excite a few brain cells of doubt?

Thanks for demonstrating once again that lovable GWS trait of insulting people who are perfectly willing to be convinced by argument. Anyone who doesn't share your delusion is stupid and not worth your time, right?

 

[Round Robin]

It's not an appeal to authority if the authority is a recognised authority in that field. That is, most of us here, (speaking for myself as well), do not have the ability to resolve if AGW as presented by the IPCC is correct or not, from first principles

This is exactly what you (and most other "sceptics") do, except your authority figures are much less credible and are frequently shown to be dishonest or incompetent.

Both very excellent points, and better spoken than my own!

 

[Alric]

There are also empirical observations that I try to inject in the conversation . Increased rates of warming, glacier melting and a number of proxies all agree there is warming. Put it together with the unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases and a correlation is the simplest explanation.

Only if you engage in tortuous probably incorrect theoretical considerations, and rhetorical devices can you still argue there isn't AGW.

 

[mhaze]

There is also empirical observations. Increased rates of warming, glacier melting and a number of proxies all agree there is warming. Put it together with the unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases and a correlation is the simplest explanation.

Clearly, this makes sense. Let's see. Well, certainly it would if one ignored contradicting evidence. Hmm.... But that's not a good idea is it?

Some historical evidence does support your point of view.

1. There was a solar eclipse.
2. In the several years afterward, the crops failed.
3. Solar eclipses should be feared as they portend evil happenings.

Yes, this is certainly one way of looking at phenomena. Oh...wait, there is that pesky thing called the scientific method...

 

[Round Robin]

Clearly, this makes sense. Let's see. Well, certainly it would if one ignored contradicting evidence. Hmm.... But that's not a good idea is it?

Some historical evidence does support your point of view.

1. There was a solar eclipse.
2. In the several years afterward, the crops failed.
3. Solar eclipses should be feared as they portend evil happenings.

Yes, this is certainly one way of looking at phenomena. Oh...wait, there is that pesky thing called the scientific method...

That argument is skating dangerously close to Reductio ad absurdum

Alric is not mistaking correlation for causation which is what you are, I believe, accusing him of. The scientific method has been applied to this question, and if you wish to debate the physics of spectroscopy and GHGes, we can pick that up in the A/GW science thread. Do you contend that Venus is hotter than Mercury for some other reason than GHGes? (that question is largely rhetorical, but if you wish to answer, let's take it to the other thread and keep scientific arguments out of this one, which is intended to discuss GWS tactics--although that question has been hashed out before...)

 

[mhaze]

That argument is skating dangerously close to Reductio ad absurdum

Alric is not mistaking correlation for causation which is what you are, I believe, accusing him of.

Alric says - I'm only quoting him here.

A. Increased rates of warming, glacier melting and a number of proxies all agree there is warming.
B. Put it together with the unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases
C. a correlation is the simplest explanation.

"a correlation (BETWEEN A AND B) is the simplest explanation (FOR A)"

"Simplest explanation", now, that is not implying causation?

The scientific method has been applied to this question, and if you wish to debate the physics of spectroscopy and GHGes, we can pick that up in the A/GW science thread. Do you contend that Venus is hotter than Mercury for some other reason than GHGes? (that question is largely rhetorical, but if you wish to answer, let's take it to the other thread and keep scientific arguments out of this one, which is intended to discuss GWS tactics--although that question has been hashed out before...)

Unrelated to the discussion.

 

[Alric]

Of course there is likely causation. Only with rhetoric and pseudoscientific arguments can you argue against the most logical explanation.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

nice way to poison the well.

 

[mhaze]

Of course there is likely causation. Only with rhetoric and pseudoscientific arguments can you argue against the most logical explanation.

Some historical evidence does support your point of view.

1. There was a solar eclipse.
2. In the several years afterward, the crops failed.
3. Solar eclipses should be feared as they portend evil happenings.

 

[a_unique_person]

Clearly, this makes sense. Let's see. Well, certainly it would if one ignored contradicting evidence. Hmm.... But that's not a good idea is it?

Some historical evidence does support your point of view.

1. There was a solar eclipse.
2. In the several years afterward, the crops failed.
3. Solar eclipses should be feared as they portend evil happenings.

Yes, this is certainly one way of looking at phenomena. Oh...wait, there is that pesky thing called the scientific method...

Amazing, when you consider just about all the evidence from the denier side is correlation and nothing but. Fred Singer and has 1500 year cycle being exhibit "A".

 

[David Rodale]

AFAIK, the following is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority:

• Al Gore says AGW is true
• Al Gore is smart and I really like him
• Therefore, AGW is true

That would "plainly [be] ignoring the science"

While an argument can be made that my position recognizes authority, I think there is a vast difference between appealing to an individual (or a blog) as an authority and trusting among the most prestigious, reliable and (scientifically) conservative scientific organizations on the planet. If I have a side, it is respecting the scientific method, and I do get passionate in my defense of it, even if it is not wholly infallible.

Please, Dave, don't accuse me of ignoring the science. The article I linked is an example of that: I look forward to following this story and seeing where this leads, just as mysteries in other fields have yielded new understandings: When galaxies were discovered that appeared to be "older" than the universe, scientists went back to the drawing board and developed the concept of "inflation" after the big bang. When the cosmic background radiation looked too uniform to have clumped into galaxies, scientists launched COBE and mapped the CBR anisotropies (those were to really simplified examples! ). So too, this new oceanic data will likely lead to better understandings of climate science. Unless I am misunderstanding you, Dave, you seem to have already made up your mind what this data means. Isn't that ignoring the science... in this case, the science to come?

Based on your fervent defense of Hansen, there is no need to explain what you're about. There is nothing related to the 'scientific method' in your above statement, so please don't be a politician and pretend you only want to know the truth.

It doesn't matter what I believe about the ocean temperature data. You really don't see the implications of the oceans not warming do you? In your mind it's just another small hurdle to get over. Trenberth eluded to the seriousness of it in the article despite his other lame answers, but apparently it went over your head like a lead balloon.

Such that you don't believe me, go ahead, Google "ocean warming smoking gun". If you don't think this is a big deal, watch the fallout in the coming months to a year.

Alric, in case you missed it, I decided to accommodate you and find the thread pertaining to the ocean temperature data.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3110042&postcount=2188

Megalodon, you’re missing the point entirely. The only intent on my part was to illustrate the fact there is no warming and hasn’t been since 2001 after the recovery from El Nino 1998. Surface measurements are not the absolute metric for determining whether global warming is occurring, ocean heat content is. If it is not increasing each year, neither will surface temperatures.

Ocean heat content is the true indicator of ‘global warming’. If you choose to believe otherwise, you have the right to be wrong. The oceans absorb and store 1000x more heat than the atmosphere. If the ocean depths are not warming, there is no global warming occurring.

Megalodon's graph game playing goes back many months, which is why I've had enough of it.

Here's a homework assignment: find out how CO2 causes oceans to warm. Be careful.

 

[David Rodale]

Both very excellent points, and better spoken than my own!

Yes it's uncanny isn't it?

 

[mhaze]

It doesn't matter what I believe about the ocean temperature data. You really don't see the implications of the oceans not warming do you? In your mind it's just another small hurdle to get over. Trenberth eluded to the seriousness of it in the article despite his other lame answers, but apparently it went over your head like a lead balloon.

Such that you don't believe me, go ahead, Google "ocean warming smoking gun". If you don't think this is a big deal, watch the fallout in the coming months to a year.

This is indeed an interesting issue. Trenberth, as a lead IPCC arthur, and a pretty serious AGWer, might be considered an expert. Of course he made some big mistakes in his "radiative forcings" charts a while back, but those are the meat and potatoes of this "everything is radiative forcing" current vague theory of AGW.

Oceanic heat content stands opposed to that approach, doesn't it? Yet can it be possible that someone who by their own admission did not understand climate science too well, who relied on say NAS and IPCC documents for their beliefs, could either not understand or could disregard the oceanic heat content issue? If so, what is such a person debating the subject of climate science for, they would not be learning anything.

Hard to duck and dodge facts. Although it does seem I need to repeat them over and over. Maybe you could do that with this subject? Ooopss....gosh, that is what you have been doing. Dumb me.

 

[Round Robin]

Based on your fervent defense of Hansen, there is no need to explain what you're about. There is nothing related to the 'scientific method' in your above statement, so please don't be a politician and pretend you only want to know the truth.

Don't be so sure you know what I'm about, Dave. I don't read climate blogs and I don't know anything about Hansen apart from from reading his 1988 paper and his congressional testimony--based on those data, I didn't see what all the fuss is about. You and mhaze declare me an ignorant git for not knowing about his alleged nuttiness. See my recent post in "A simple question..."

Since this is a thread about GWS tactics, I propose this pattern:

• Debates start smoothly and politely
• A disagreement occurs
• Accusations of ignorance/logical fallacies/etc. fly
• Debate regresses into a few persons taking turns talking
• Opponent declared a member of the far-left radical fringe

I don't have time for that kind of crap, even if I'm all too easily drawn into it.

If you don't accept that I am truly interested in following this new oceanic data and seeing where the science leads, then I know you don't know what I'm about.

 

[Alric]

Alric, in case you missed it, I decided to accommodate you and find the thread pertaining to the ocean temperature data.

All I see in that thread and its links are data for cyclone energy from a clearly contrarian PhD student website. Do you have any published data that supports:

1. The oceans are cooling.
2. This observation is incompatible with climate change.

 

[mhaze]

Do you have any published data that supports:

1. The oceans are cooling.
2. This observation is incompatible with climate change.

Can you not just see why?