Hmmm I wonder is this how humans are inducing global warming?
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
-
JJ McGuire
- Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:26 am
- Location: Chester Springs, PA
- Contact:
-
Bullreds & Greenheads
- Veteran
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:50 am
- Location: Near Ole Ross's Rez
Hammur,
u is de mostest smarterest man i no. i dont no what u dew fo a livin, but you awt 2 run fo pressidint. u has awl d ansurs. it wud b a krym fo u not 2 leed us awl 2 d promist lan. u is smarterer den eyenstine. we is awl blynded by d raydeeence uv yur breelyant nawledje.
Sinseerlee,
1 uv d ideeuts dat dusunt beeleev ur theeree is rite.
pee ess plees 4giv mi ignorunts on dis heer topick. i wuz branewasht bi d evile oyl korpurayshuns.
u is de mostest smarterest man i no. i dont no what u dew fo a livin, but you awt 2 run fo pressidint. u has awl d ansurs. it wud b a krym fo u not 2 leed us awl 2 d promist lan. u is smarterer den eyenstine. we is awl blynded by d raydeeence uv yur breelyant nawledje.
Sinseerlee,
1 uv d ideeuts dat dusunt beeleev ur theeree is rite.
pee ess plees 4giv mi ignorunts on dis heer topick. i wuz branewasht bi d evile oyl korpurayshuns.
You got it exactly backwards BRGH...I see what people a whole lot smarter than me (or you or anybody else on this thread) are doing and I pay attention...This includes DUCKS UNLIMITED and I'm sure will soon include DELTA WATERFOWL when their researchers get around to studying the impact of GW on waterfowl...
When the CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation who makes $25MM-$50MM per year joins with hundreds of other such CEOs on something that is not in his best economic interest or that of his company, that gets my attention...You guys are all personal attacks and BS...You talk about scientists that dispute GHG induced GW so where is the website? On the other hand, I send you to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists....
The reason you havent given me anything besides hack writers, oil company researchers, personal attacks and BS is because you cant. In the unfolding of this thread, you have lost all of your credibility on any discussion of waterfowl management since you have demonstrated your propensity to use emotional appeals rather than scientific facts. That was my goal and it has been accomplished so go back to your spinners, go back to your second mallard hen, go back to your "extend the season into February" and go back to your corn feeders. Those of us who have been around long enough to know better, do know better.
When the CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation who makes $25MM-$50MM per year joins with hundreds of other such CEOs on something that is not in his best economic interest or that of his company, that gets my attention...You guys are all personal attacks and BS...You talk about scientists that dispute GHG induced GW so where is the website? On the other hand, I send you to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists....
The reason you havent given me anything besides hack writers, oil company researchers, personal attacks and BS is because you cant. In the unfolding of this thread, you have lost all of your credibility on any discussion of waterfowl management since you have demonstrated your propensity to use emotional appeals rather than scientific facts. That was my goal and it has been accomplished so go back to your spinners, go back to your second mallard hen, go back to your "extend the season into February" and go back to your corn feeders. Those of us who have been around long enough to know better, do know better.
Tell that to the California Legislature regarding AB32- The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and 9 NE states that formed the RGGI and to the Govenator who was on CSPAN yesterday live from Georgetown University....Tell that to McCain-Lieberman, Kerry-Snowe, Waxman, Feingold and Bingamin, all of whom have introduced GHG induced GW bills into the Congress THIS YEAR....
Your government leaders (except the take care of Texas, I mean, the GWB administration) are mobilizing, your corporate leaders are mobilizing and much of yoru fellow citizenry is mobilizing...Keep your head in the sand if you choose, but dont let me hear any bitching when the inevitable C02 taxes are levied on gasoline, vehicles, electric bills, etc...Sure cap and trade will be part of the solution but so will taxes and regulatory provisions (already happened when EPA said no more 2 stroke boat engines, all cars must have catalytic converters, etc) or I will not so gently remind you that you chose to sit this one out.
Since this thread started the evidence has become doubly even triply more compelling due to the Supreme COurt decision and IPCC reports, yet you persist in your obliviousness.
Your government leaders (except the take care of Texas, I mean, the GWB administration) are mobilizing, your corporate leaders are mobilizing and much of yoru fellow citizenry is mobilizing...Keep your head in the sand if you choose, but dont let me hear any bitching when the inevitable C02 taxes are levied on gasoline, vehicles, electric bills, etc...Sure cap and trade will be part of the solution but so will taxes and regulatory provisions (already happened when EPA said no more 2 stroke boat engines, all cars must have catalytic converters, etc) or I will not so gently remind you that you chose to sit this one out.
Since this thread started the evidence has become doubly even triply more compelling due to the Supreme COurt decision and IPCC reports, yet you persist in your obliviousness.
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
Alright hammer you show us a graph that has the average temperatures from 1957-2007, the last 50 years for anyone bad with numbers, so we can see where it is getting constantly hotter year after year. Hell any hard numbers from however many years back you want to go. You may have already "fetched" the site but put up here for all to see. No scientific opinions just simple historical data that we can interpret. We can form our own opinions from this data and not what some scientist says.
http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
-
Bullreds & Greenheads
- Veteran
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:50 am
- Location: Near Ole Ross's Rez
-
Bullreds & Greenheads
- Veteran
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:50 am
- Location: Near Ole Ross's Rez
Logical Fallacies
Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence
The Appeal to Prestige (Argumentum ad Verecundiam). The fallacy of this appeal lies in associating an argument or conclusion with the fame, reputation, or prestige of some person or institution, thus making an equation between social status and proof. The argument is intended to take advantage of an audience's ignorance by exploiting its respect for authority.
An appeal to authority can be reasonably grounded when the authority bases his conclusions on examination, experiment, knowledge, or some set of reasons he is competent to judge. The opinions of experts are very good to have. The problem is that it is not always easy to tell when an appeal to authority is reasonably grounded and when it is merely an appeal to prestige--an appeal to the fame or position of the asserter. Has the authority conducted a thorough investigation or is he simply giving his unfounded or even prejudiced opinion?
One of the largest exhibitions of the fallacious appeal to prestige occurs in areas of controversy, where certain complex truths remain only partially understood. Every time a report, study, or article comes out with some new information (or just another opinion), that report is heralded by those whom it pleases as the final truth, proved so by an appeal to the prestige of the issuer. Thus what should have been an ongoing factual debate is rendered a mere battle of reputations. You should believe my truth because I have more famous people supporting it than my opponents have famous people supporting their truth. One long-running example of this is the debate over marijuana. Some authorities believe it causes permanent reduction in intelligence and general brain function while other authorities believe it is no worse than tobacco and maybe better. The ultimate determination ought to be made by objective tests and measurements, and not by comparing credentials.
Here are some common problems to keep in mind when considering or evaluating an appeal to authority:
Equally respectable authorities often give conflicting opinions. If one group of competent people is opposed to another, whether the opposition is large or small, a mere authority appeal will not be sufficient for supporting a point.
Some realms of knowledge are better for the use of authorities or experts than others. The opinion of an authority on auto repair, chemistry, or electric power generation (areas of reasonably exact knowledge) is much more likely to be useful and persuasive than the opinion of an authority on politics, social movements, or the psychology of television (areas of inexact knowledge). In these latter categories, the appeal too often amounts to a mere appeal to prestige.
The authority may be wrong. This is true even in areas of exact knowledge. We might think that scientists, for example, would always be careful to investigate and consider an issue before making a pronouncement. And yet scientists are human. William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood met with prejudiced opposition from various authorities, as did Joseph Lister's argument for the use of antiseptics in surgery. The voice of authority supported belief in phlogiston for many years, dozens of observers "saw" canals full of water on Mars, and the theory of continental drift was once ridiculed by some geologists.
It is natural that we want to know what other people think, particularly the wise and thoughtful and informed, so the use of authorities and their reasons can be helpful, especially when their comments are used to buttress other arguments. An authority appeal by itself will almost always look like (and perhaps be) a mere fallacious appeal to prestige.
So, as useful as the opinion of an expert is, it is still not a substitute for one's own thinking. Always prefer the merits (proofs) for an argument to the fame of its supporters, and always feel free to sift information for yourself.
Note in these examples how the appeal to prestige relies on status rather than evidence:
1. Jensen must be a pretty good senator. After all, he had the support of the President of the United States in the last election.
2. This must be a good football because football star Joe Gridiron endorses it.
3. Pornography must be harmless because a Federal Task Force said it is.
4. As a Ph.D. and president of the American Literary Society, I think this is a good novel.
5. Conductor Arthur Rubenstein recommends this Radio Shack stereo equipment.
A variety of the appeal to prestige is the appeal to misplaced authority. This fallacy uses the reputation of respected authorities as a means of supporting their opinions on matters outside their area of expertise. An authority, however famous and competent and reliable in his field, must be considered an ordinary person in matters outside of it.
1. If you want the opinion of an expert, ask my neighbor, Dr. Keytone. He has a Ph.D. in Chemistry. He will tell you that Joshua Reynolds is a better painter than John Constable.
2. These opinions about world peace must be excellent and profound because they belong to that brilliant, world-famous theoretician Albert Einstein.
The danger of falling for this fallacy is especially acute when an attempt is made to extend an expert's authority into an area which appears to be a part of his own:
1. Famed mathematician picks the new deluxe Mark II as the most accurately engineered and precision-designed car.
2. The Chairman of the Geology Department says that current rock-crushing equipment is poorly designed. [But does he know anything about mechanical engineering or physics?]
Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence
The Appeal to Prestige (Argumentum ad Verecundiam). The fallacy of this appeal lies in associating an argument or conclusion with the fame, reputation, or prestige of some person or institution, thus making an equation between social status and proof. The argument is intended to take advantage of an audience's ignorance by exploiting its respect for authority.
An appeal to authority can be reasonably grounded when the authority bases his conclusions on examination, experiment, knowledge, or some set of reasons he is competent to judge. The opinions of experts are very good to have. The problem is that it is not always easy to tell when an appeal to authority is reasonably grounded and when it is merely an appeal to prestige--an appeal to the fame or position of the asserter. Has the authority conducted a thorough investigation or is he simply giving his unfounded or even prejudiced opinion?
One of the largest exhibitions of the fallacious appeal to prestige occurs in areas of controversy, where certain complex truths remain only partially understood. Every time a report, study, or article comes out with some new information (or just another opinion), that report is heralded by those whom it pleases as the final truth, proved so by an appeal to the prestige of the issuer. Thus what should have been an ongoing factual debate is rendered a mere battle of reputations. You should believe my truth because I have more famous people supporting it than my opponents have famous people supporting their truth. One long-running example of this is the debate over marijuana. Some authorities believe it causes permanent reduction in intelligence and general brain function while other authorities believe it is no worse than tobacco and maybe better. The ultimate determination ought to be made by objective tests and measurements, and not by comparing credentials.
Here are some common problems to keep in mind when considering or evaluating an appeal to authority:
Equally respectable authorities often give conflicting opinions. If one group of competent people is opposed to another, whether the opposition is large or small, a mere authority appeal will not be sufficient for supporting a point.
Some realms of knowledge are better for the use of authorities or experts than others. The opinion of an authority on auto repair, chemistry, or electric power generation (areas of reasonably exact knowledge) is much more likely to be useful and persuasive than the opinion of an authority on politics, social movements, or the psychology of television (areas of inexact knowledge). In these latter categories, the appeal too often amounts to a mere appeal to prestige.
The authority may be wrong. This is true even in areas of exact knowledge. We might think that scientists, for example, would always be careful to investigate and consider an issue before making a pronouncement. And yet scientists are human. William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood met with prejudiced opposition from various authorities, as did Joseph Lister's argument for the use of antiseptics in surgery. The voice of authority supported belief in phlogiston for many years, dozens of observers "saw" canals full of water on Mars, and the theory of continental drift was once ridiculed by some geologists.
It is natural that we want to know what other people think, particularly the wise and thoughtful and informed, so the use of authorities and their reasons can be helpful, especially when their comments are used to buttress other arguments. An authority appeal by itself will almost always look like (and perhaps be) a mere fallacious appeal to prestige.
So, as useful as the opinion of an expert is, it is still not a substitute for one's own thinking. Always prefer the merits (proofs) for an argument to the fame of its supporters, and always feel free to sift information for yourself.
Note in these examples how the appeal to prestige relies on status rather than evidence:
1. Jensen must be a pretty good senator. After all, he had the support of the President of the United States in the last election.
2. This must be a good football because football star Joe Gridiron endorses it.
3. Pornography must be harmless because a Federal Task Force said it is.
4. As a Ph.D. and president of the American Literary Society, I think this is a good novel.
5. Conductor Arthur Rubenstein recommends this Radio Shack stereo equipment.
A variety of the appeal to prestige is the appeal to misplaced authority. This fallacy uses the reputation of respected authorities as a means of supporting their opinions on matters outside their area of expertise. An authority, however famous and competent and reliable in his field, must be considered an ordinary person in matters outside of it.
1. If you want the opinion of an expert, ask my neighbor, Dr. Keytone. He has a Ph.D. in Chemistry. He will tell you that Joshua Reynolds is a better painter than John Constable.
2. These opinions about world peace must be excellent and profound because they belong to that brilliant, world-famous theoretician Albert Einstein.
The danger of falling for this fallacy is especially acute when an attempt is made to extend an expert's authority into an area which appears to be a part of his own:
1. Famed mathematician picks the new deluxe Mark II as the most accurately engineered and precision-designed car.
2. The Chairman of the Geology Department says that current rock-crushing equipment is poorly designed. [But does he know anything about mechanical engineering or physics?]
REGARDING THE BS BY BR&GH: You could use that logic to discredit anybody on anything...
REGARDING THE NATURAL CYCLE BS: Note that you could also use the "natural cycles" argument to explain away any problem...Worried about North Korea? Iran? Dont- its just a natural cycle...Worried about drug use? Dont- its just a natural cycle....Worried about the autism epidemic or the cancer epidemic? Dont- its just a natural cycle...
There is nothing natural about kids shooting up schools...There is nothing natural about human beings blowing themselves up in the name of Allah...There is nothing natural about CO2 concentrations at their highest levels in over 1MM years and double what they were 300 years ago...
Is there a correlation between the chemistry of the air we breathe and the above? Are the mentally weak the mentally damaged among us more susceptible to an oxygen starved atmosphere, are they canaries in a coal mine telling the rest of us something? What about autism, cancer, asthma and other disease epidemics? Is there a correlation between 1 in 6 American babies being born with mental or physical birth defects and the chemistry of our air?
I believe there is a correlation between proper brain function and air chemistry and that science will ultimately prove it if allowed to...I also believe that there is a correlation between cancer, autism and other diseases and air chemistry and that sciene will ultimately prove it- if allowed to...But the "if allowed to" is a major isseue as described below and as given on the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website at http://www.ucsusa.org...Incidentally, all the facts and figures a rational human being needs to know about GW are given on that website.
Political interference in science
The United States has an impressive history of investing in scientific research and respecting the independence of scientists. As a result, we have enjoyed sustained economic progress and public health, as well as unequaled leadership within the global scientific community. Recent actions by political appointees, however, threaten to undermine this legacy by preventing the best available science from informing policy decisions that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment.
Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—political appointees have distorted and censored scientific findings that contradict established policies. In some cases, they have manipulated the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.
They have also undermined the independence of scientific advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have no bearing on their expertise, and by nominating under- or unqualified individuals—some of whom have industry ties that could represent a conflict of interest. Other scientific advisory committees have been disbanded altogether.
These activities have naturally outraged members of the scientific community, and have also drawn criticism from numerous legislators who rely on the independence of government research. The American public, which trusts its government to make well-informed decisions in the interest of public health and safety, should be concerned as well.
UCS is working with scientists and ordinary citizens alike to spur appropriate legislative and regulatory action. Find out more information about how you can help us restore scientific integrity to federal policy making."
REGARDING THE NATURAL CYCLE BS: Note that you could also use the "natural cycles" argument to explain away any problem...Worried about North Korea? Iran? Dont- its just a natural cycle...Worried about drug use? Dont- its just a natural cycle....Worried about the autism epidemic or the cancer epidemic? Dont- its just a natural cycle...
There is nothing natural about kids shooting up schools...There is nothing natural about human beings blowing themselves up in the name of Allah...There is nothing natural about CO2 concentrations at their highest levels in over 1MM years and double what they were 300 years ago...
Is there a correlation between the chemistry of the air we breathe and the above? Are the mentally weak the mentally damaged among us more susceptible to an oxygen starved atmosphere, are they canaries in a coal mine telling the rest of us something? What about autism, cancer, asthma and other disease epidemics? Is there a correlation between 1 in 6 American babies being born with mental or physical birth defects and the chemistry of our air?
I believe there is a correlation between proper brain function and air chemistry and that science will ultimately prove it if allowed to...I also believe that there is a correlation between cancer, autism and other diseases and air chemistry and that sciene will ultimately prove it- if allowed to...But the "if allowed to" is a major isseue as described below and as given on the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS website at http://www.ucsusa.org...Incidentally, all the facts and figures a rational human being needs to know about GW are given on that website.
Political interference in science
The United States has an impressive history of investing in scientific research and respecting the independence of scientists. As a result, we have enjoyed sustained economic progress and public health, as well as unequaled leadership within the global scientific community. Recent actions by political appointees, however, threaten to undermine this legacy by preventing the best available science from informing policy decisions that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment.
Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—political appointees have distorted and censored scientific findings that contradict established policies. In some cases, they have manipulated the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.
They have also undermined the independence of scientific advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have no bearing on their expertise, and by nominating under- or unqualified individuals—some of whom have industry ties that could represent a conflict of interest. Other scientific advisory committees have been disbanded altogether.
These activities have naturally outraged members of the scientific community, and have also drawn criticism from numerous legislators who rely on the independence of government research. The American public, which trusts its government to make well-informed decisions in the interest of public health and safety, should be concerned as well.
UCS is working with scientists and ordinary citizens alike to spur appropriate legislative and regulatory action. Find out more information about how you can help us restore scientific integrity to federal policy making."
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
rjohnson wrote:Alright hammer you show us a graph that has the average temperatures from 1957-2007, the last 50 years for anyone bad with numbers, so we can see where it is getting constantly hotter year after year. Hell any hard numbers from however many years back you want to go. You may have already "fetched" the site but put up here for all to see. No scientific opinions just simple historical data that we can interpret. We can form our own opinions from this data and not what some scientist says.
Still waiting Hammer
We need to see the hard data not just quotes spewed from online articles. Show us the historical data for as far back as you can find. Numbers don't lie. If they show a noticable warming trend I will consider your opinions to be more valid. Ball is in your court.http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
Like I said, all the information you could ever want about GHG induced GW can be found at http://www.ucsusa.org...However, note that the CO2 graph on the website is out of date (2004 study)...
More recent data is even worse but the trend is evident in the old data= CO2 concentrations have shot straight up since the early 1700s and there is no end in sight if the #1 CO2 polluter (USA) doesnt get serious about this issue but soon...
BTW, as the graph- and common sense- clearly show, this spike is not a "NATURAL CYCLE".
More recent data is even worse but the trend is evident in the old data= CO2 concentrations have shot straight up since the early 1700s and there is no end in sight if the #1 CO2 polluter (USA) doesnt get serious about this issue but soon...
BTW, as the graph- and common sense- clearly show, this spike is not a "NATURAL CYCLE".
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
Post numbers, graphs, whatever. We don't have time to read that many pages of information. Really I'm just too lazy to read that much.
http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
Excatly..That laziness is what gets the casual reader in trouble...This stuff is not simple and looking at 50 years of temperature data for "constantly hotter year after year so we draw our own conclusions" dont cut it...As you will note from my comments above, I focus on CO2 concentrations (THE CAUSE) and not trends in temperature (A SYMPTOM). The media focuses on the later because that is where the juicy stories (ie emotional) are...
Think about this way...Would you draw your own conclusions about the effects of chemotherapy on cancer or would you trust your doctor? You might do some reseach on some studies to get a general idea of the effectiveness of various drugs on various forms of cancer but you arent going to try to interpret the raw (ie clinical study) data that the study results are based on...
I have provided overwhelming evidence that the science is profound and that leaders from all sectors all over the world are on the same page on this...If you guys dont want to accept the truth, that is your choice but you probably ought to think about one more thing before you decide:
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
Go to http://www.nae.net and http://www.creationcare.org for information on how Bible centered Christians view global warming. Think through your next series of posts before you make them. You could tell us more about your true selves than you intend to.
Think about this way...Would you draw your own conclusions about the effects of chemotherapy on cancer or would you trust your doctor? You might do some reseach on some studies to get a general idea of the effectiveness of various drugs on various forms of cancer but you arent going to try to interpret the raw (ie clinical study) data that the study results are based on...
I have provided overwhelming evidence that the science is profound and that leaders from all sectors all over the world are on the same page on this...If you guys dont want to accept the truth, that is your choice but you probably ought to think about one more thing before you decide:
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
Go to http://www.nae.net and http://www.creationcare.org for information on how Bible centered Christians view global warming. Think through your next series of posts before you make them. You could tell us more about your true selves than you intend to.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests