0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Throughout this entire thread you have been saying to accept what was said because people are "experts"If you just walk in to a doctor and unquestioningly accept what they are saying you are foolish. Doctors have been and are wrong all the time on things way less complicated than predicting the future of the climate. I'm still open to having my mind changed on this. I believe we should reduce our carbon footprint and emissions. But doomsayers who have a vested interest in selling doom, regardless of their expert status should not be blindly trusted. And telling people "the study was released by NOAA and NASA, sometimes you just have to accept the science" is absolutely a logical fallacy. If you want to make an argument, by all means, go ahead. but appealing to an authority as reason someone should accept an argument doesn't cut it for me and probably most people. It's exactly the reason that so many are skeptical of this stuff.
What you're saying shows how anthropogenic global warming is falsifiable. Falsifiability is required for any scientific law, theory, or hypothesis. Falsifiability means that the law, theory, or hypothesis could in concept be disproved by certain, pre-defined observations (and real scientists generally know what kinds of observations would falsify their laws, theories, and hypotheses). If it's not falsifiable, then it's not real science. Anthropogenic global warming is real science because it's falsifiable, among other things.And again, real science is damned useful and not something to be ignored.
I've spent a lot of time on climate the last few years. About to spend the next 3 months researching the Pleistocene climate of TN,KY,GA and AL for a semester long research project. Probably going back for a Master's in Climatology in the next 5 years when its all said and done. Without even reading it, I'm not buying it. Climate change/warming is 75% earth and 25% man at this point in time IMO. The number will continue too become more skewed in favor of man unless we can reduce population...its out of control, its the elephant in the room never talked about, and the number 1 driver of all anthropogenic climate change. The exponential growth has too stop, and soon.
Here is my redneck point of view. One would be foolish to think that man does not have a small effect on climate. Having said that, I think it is very very small. Climate cycles can't be argued and are facts with centuries of data.
I said you only need defer if you really have no clue yourself.And that Gish gallop further up the thread suggested you didn't. I didn't look through all of the claims, but one stuck out: the claim that scientists have not taken into account urban heat buildup. When I saw this, I knew your posting of a whole bunch of claims into a single paragraph qualified as a Gish gallop, because I remember specifically reading repeatedly that the scientists actually do take the urban heat island effect into account. With one claim BS and, frankly, refuted years ago, it was clear that your claims were collectively a Gish gallop, the building up of a whole bunch of BS into a small space demanding 100% refutation right there on the spot by your opponent or you try to claim victory.I'd like to tell you that I have no time for Gish gallops.