Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
�Global Temperature� � Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostThe weather can be predicted accurately only a few hours ahead. The further ahead you want to look, the coarser the prediction. If you want to see 50 years ahead, all complex detail is lost. The average is what you see if you look into the distance.
Er, let's give this up. I think we're talking past each other at this point. But I do appreciate you making the effort."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostYes, I think Teallaura is beginning to see through the fog.
No, comparing across categories with a mean then using it to predict? Nope, not buying that without some serious proof and a lot of Tylenol (mostly for the having to dig through a proof - and the Strawberry's subsequent posts... )"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo Sparko, seen the way most of you saw it at first, it's just funny regardless. I didn't see it having that meaning the first time I saw it. That is what changed.
But It's funny in the different context than what I originally observed because of how it indirectly indicates the warming through the move to the need for less and less clothing - underwear - on women, who are traditionally 'cold' at night, and towards forms more commonly seen in swimsuits on women in tropical climes. IOW, it has more raw humorous value seen that way, and likely I'd have seen it as funny even if rogue had used it to mock AGW, though I'd have still been annoyed at supporting pseudo-science with it.
Had I initially seen it as above, my comment would have been more " - yes that is funny, but why are you ..."
Jim
More directly, I didn't want to believe. My political leanings were conservative (in exile from the voodoo eeks and young earth creaks thundering over the shiny new welcome mats), bordering on libertarianism. I don't want a bigger government.
But if we're going to address global warming, as a people, or, let's face it, as a species, we have to do it by organizing, with an organization big enough to touch the world, and libertarianism was never going to hoe that row.
The alternative was to deny the science.
Or give up libertarianism.
I won't give up arguing that accepting AGW is conservative, though, because it is. AGW is what the data show. Conservatives don't hide from facts. They leave that for the googoos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postok - I now see how you think it 'supports' global warming - and in that light, it is funny
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostOver time the heat absorbed by the ocean raises its surface temperature to a point where the atmosphere once again can warm. As heat is added to the system by the increased retained heat due to GHGes, it does flow back and forth between various elements of the planet surface. But Over time the surface atmospheric temperature trend is still up. Yes, it is very complicated and not easily simplified, which is part of the problem in explaining what is going on to the public at large.
Jim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostBut if we're going to address global warming, as a people, or, let's face it, as a species, we have to do it by organizing, with an organization big enough to touch the world, and libertarianism was never going to hoe that row.
And just because there's a problem doesn't mean that things can be improved by coercive, central planning. Is there reason to think that coercive central planning can beneficially manage something as complex as the global climate, considering that the attempts to similarly manage other complexities tends to cause negative (or even disastrous) outcomes? And it is not separable from economics. That is, a central planner would need to know not just climatology, but what are the economic costs and benefits of all possible (in)actions.
Since, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostLibertarianism has nothing against organizing. (Note that the market is the largest, most complex, most successful human organization in the world.) It only holds that it ought to be consensual, rather than coercive.
And just because there's a problem doesn't mean that things can be improved by coercive, central planning. Is there reason to think that coercive central planning can beneficially manage something as complex as the global climate, considering that the attempts to similarly manage other complexities tends to cause negative (or even disastrous) outcomes? And it is not separable from economics. That is, a central planner would need to know not just climatology, but what are the economic costs and benefits of all possible (in)actions.
Since, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostNo, Jim, you were INSULTING my intelligence in a passive-aggressive way, while refusing to address what I actually said and responding to that. It was classic ad hominem.
Let's dissect it:
1. refusing to deal with what I actually said. 2. Insinuating that I am stupid.
3. Coming right out and calling me stupid.
Insinuating that I was either lying or actually am that ignorant. If I were to say "right I am not that ignorant" then I would have been lying to you. If I am being serious, which I was, then you are calling me ignorant, while pretending you think I am "smarter than that".
You go around insulting people all the time Jim. Then you get upset when they push back and complain they are bullying you!
I suppose you will do the same here. But what you did to me was indeed "ad hominem"
Now we can just ignore this little sidetrack and you could respond to my original post with a modicum of civility and if you think I am wrong, explain why, without calling me stupid.
Here is the original link
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post664515
Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?
There is nothing insulting or demeaning, no derogatory comments or sarcasm in my post. I WAS trying to have a normal discussion.
1 tell the difference
2 not sometimes get fristrated and annoyed enough not to check every single time.
Your expectations are just ridiculous. I am not perfect. And if you treat me like cow dung most of the time, then dont be surprised if you get burned the one time you aren't
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHow about instead of using ad hominem* you actually tell me why I am wrong?
*see? I do know what ad hominem means.
It is only when an ad hominem is used to argue against a position that it can be considered a fallacy. But then again, neither are all ad hominem arguments fallacies. Trump, for instance (in relation to the linked thread), is an inveterate liar. Yes, that's ad hominem. But it's also a true statement that's relevant to the weight that should be afforded to his denials. Hence an ad hominem argument that is not a fallacy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostSince, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHere is the original link
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post664515
Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?
And they've been studied. Similarly the "forcings" that are driving the trend have been measured and tabulated, and are currently in use by every industrialized nation other than our own to inform global climate policy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostPlease note this is a thread for displaying your climate change crank credentials. It'd probably be better to display your economic crank addiction elsewhere.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 03:45 PM
|
12 responses
45 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 06:46 PM
|
||
Started by Sparko, Today, 03:19 PM
|
16 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 08:26 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 07:58 AM
|
26 responses
130 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 06:24 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 07-01-2024, 01:20 PM
|
41 responses
225 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 08:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 07-01-2024, 09:42 AM
|
169 responses
871 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 06:19 AM
|
Comment