Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Warming Then And Now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    And I do wonder what in the quote by Dr. Moore do you disagree with?

    The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend.
    Let's take just this one sentence. It is a classic example of a logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. IPCC is silent on the issue of what caused 1910-to-1940 warming, therefore it must be natural, claims Moore.

    This is of course utter nonsense. If the IPCC is silent on the issue, there could be a dozen reasons for their silence. Maybe the warming is natural. Maybe the warming is part natural, part human caused. Maybe the evidence is equivocal. Maybe the evidence points to human causes, but the uncertainty is too great for a definitive statement. Maybe the time period in question is out of the scope of their mandate.

    But of course, none of those possibilities impinges on Dr. Moore's brilliant mind. Instead, he looks at the IPCC's silence on the issue and inserts his own ideas of what the IPCC should have said as given fact, and proceeds to attack it.

    This kind of argument is intellectually dishonest to the core.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      The full quote from Moore is this: "The IPCC does not contend that humans caused the warming from 1910 to 1940; therefore it must have been a natural warming trend." The rhetorical trick starts at "therefore".
      So the The IPCC has no opinion on that warming period? I mean if they do believe or state that it was man made then nature is all that is left. And according the chart in the link Carbon Dioxide emissions remained relatively flat from the late 1800s to the late 1940s.

      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...ns/global.html
      Last edited by seer; 07-11-2014, 11:31 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post
        Let's take just this one sentence. It is a classic example of a logical fallacy called the false dichotomy. IPCC is silent on the issue of what caused 1910-to-1940 warming, therefore it must be natural, claims Moore.

        This is of course utter nonsense. If the IPCC is silent on the issue, there could be a dozen reasons for their silence. Maybe the warming is natural. Maybe the warming is part natural, part human caused. Maybe the evidence is equivocal. Maybe the evidence points to human causes, but the uncertainty is too great for a definitive statement. Maybe the time period in question is out of the scope of their mandate.

        But of course, none of those possibilities impinges on Dr. Moore's brilliant mind. Instead, he looks at the IPCC's silence on the issue and inserts his own ideas of what the IPCC should have said as given fact, and proceeds to attack it.

        This kind of argument is intellectually dishonest to the core.

        Well maybe Dr. Moore knows more about this and what the IPCC did or did not say on that issue than you or I? Was the IPCC really silent, do you know that for a fact?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I mean if they do believe or state that it was man made then nature is all that is left.
          Or maybe they chose to focus on more recent history. Or maybe they were asked to only analyze the late 20th century. Or maybe they felt that the data from this period isn't as high quality. Or maybe they wanted to focus on satellite readings. Or maybe it was easier to just simplify things by focusing on a smaller period.

          Or maybe any of a thousand other possibilities.

          Google "false dichotomy" some time.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Well maybe Dr. Moore knows more about this and what the IPCC did or did not say on that issue than you or I? Was the IPCC really silent, do you know that for a fact?
            Dr. Moore claims they were. If he's wrong, he's untrustworthy. If he's right, his argument is intellectually dishonest.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post
              Dr. Moore claims they were. If he's wrong, he's untrustworthy. If he's right, his argument is intellectually dishonest.
              What? Where did Moore say that the IPCC was silent on the issue. He just said that they did not attribute it to man, there could have been more. And I suspect that he has read the report and understands it better than you or I.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Or maybe they chose to focus on more recent history. Or maybe they were asked to only analyze the late 20th century. Or maybe they felt that the data from this period isn't as high quality. Or maybe they wanted to focus on satellite readings. Or maybe it was easier to just simplify things by focusing on a smaller period.

                Or maybe any of a thousand other possibilities.

                Google "false dichotomy" some time.
                Have you read the report? I suspect that Moore did and understands it better than you or I. And if you look at the EPA chart that I linked man made Co2 remained relatively flat from the late 1800s to the late 1940s. Yet we did have a significant warming trend. So it doesn't look like that trend was caused by man. So nature too, can cause quick warming spikes. And you guys don't want to give Dr. Moore the benefit of the doubt, but I bet you give Dr. Mann the benefit of the doubt.
                Last edited by seer; 07-11-2014, 12:45 PM.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • There is a very clear underlying trend of increasing global temperatures dating through the past few millenia, all of it natural. Now add in a human contribution and the warming accelerates.
                  The warming has never been smooth - there are years at a time when temperatures dip below the previous high, but seldom do they drop to or below the previous low. Take a look at the graphs and the trend is clear enough.
                  The sun has an 11 year cycle of activity, and the current cycle started in 2008, it is now at the peak for this cycle, the least active since 1906 - and there have been a number of significant volcanic eruptions to pump dust into the upper atmosphere which should have acted to reduce global temperatures. None of that did anything to reduce average temperatures. They should have dropped through 2007 - 2009 and they didn't, they remained flat, and roughly 1 degree C higher than the temperatures of 1906. Past temperature graphs have shown falling averages on a number of occasions in the past century, as would normally be expected - but there hasn't been more than the slightest of downward blips in the past 35 years.
                  1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                  Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  "when the church no longer teaches its people why they believe what they believe, the world will often step in and fill in the gaps." Ryan Danker

                  "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Have you read the report? I suspect that Moore did and understands it better than you or I.
                    I read the last one, and portions of this one (not all chapters have been finalized yet). What makes you suspect he understands it better than i do?
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      There is a very clear underlying trend of increasing global temperatures dating through the past few millenia, all of it natural.
                      That's actually not the case:
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • Quite right - mea culpa. It is the past 300 to 500 years.

                        And can't get any more precise, because not all the graphs match.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 07-11-2014, 02:32 PM.
                        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                        Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        "when the church no longer teaches its people why they believe what they believe, the world will often step in and fill in the gaps." Ryan Danker

                        "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          That's actually not the case:
                          That is interesting, what caused the earth to cool all those thousands of years from 6,500 BC on?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Quite right - mea culpa. It is the past 300 to 500 years.

                            And can't get any more precise, because not all the graphs match.
                            Still not correct.



                            There was basically nothing much going on until the invention of the steam engine.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              That is interesting, what caused the earth to cool all those thousands of years from 6,500 BC on?
                              Orbital forcing. It's been cooling the planet since then.

                              Comment


                              • An absolutely fascinating thread demonstrating the impermeability of a made-up mind to all available evidence. When graphs encompassing enormous amounts of diverse data refute you, cite a single (and contrarian) authority. When that authority's track record is examined, say "he knows more than you do."

                                Kind of like if Mrs. Smith's little boy did poorly in Mrs. Bickerstaff's third grade class, so Mrs. Smith set out to show that Mrs. Bickerstaff is a poor teacher. So Smith combs through the records of how Bickerstaff's pupils did in the fourth grade. Now, let's say that on average, Bickerstaff's pupils significantly outperformed all other teachers. What to do? Why, it's simple. Simply find some kid who failed in fourth grade and had Bickerstaff for third grade, and ignore all other pupils. Ignore the averages, ignore the trends, ignore the successes, and use that one failure as the sole acceptable meaningful measure of Bickerstaff's ability.

                                I see this technique used with grinding regularity here. Compounded, of course with the careful implication that if science is imperfect, it is useless. That if predictions are not entirely accurate, they are entirely inaccurate (or entirely worthless). That if we don't know everything, we don't know anything. That anything that can't be proved, can't be trusted. UNLESS even the haziest or wooliest notions support a foregone conclusion carefully denied in the interests of being "objective", don't you know.

                                Over here, now, we find some more interesting graphs, these about knowledge vs. politics:

                                http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....m-not-from-me/

                                What I found fascinating about this study is that political orientation didn't much influence the ability of those questioned to correctly answer all the factual questions. And that the more one knew about the background information, the more accurate their responses regardless of politics. Conclusion: knowledge and evidence do not matter. I've learned more than I ever knew about AGW in this thread. But my political position hasn't changed at all.
                                Last edited by phank; 07-11-2014, 06:49 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 08-01-2022, 09:59 AM
                                1 response
                                11 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-28-2022, 08:09 AM
                                18 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 07-27-2022, 10:28 AM
                                64 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 07-27-2022, 06:17 AM
                                2 responses
                                17 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-26-2022, 06:37 PM
                                2 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X