2014 proves hottest on record

[justinmundie]

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.

[Charles L.]

Anyone else getting a déjà vu feeling?

[Eric]

In before the lock.  #Winning

[mamMATTus]

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.

[Crockett]

[Crockett]

[snowdog]

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.

If you have studied the genesis of the diet heart hypothesis and followed it through up to present day, the evolution of AGW is eerily similar and I think in the end AGW will suffer the same fate as the now discredited diet heart hypothesis. 

[snowdog]

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.

If only real science were being used in relation to AGW.  I think Roy Spencer is probably closest to the answer right now on this.  He says roughly 1 degree C warming per doubling of CO2 and I would say that is probably most consistent with reality/modeling. 

[beneficii]

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.

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.

[beneficii]

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.

In other words, your view on this has likely been informed by thorough study of the subject.

[Dyersburg Weather]

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.

[beneficii]

Also, in a last bit of irony before this thread is closed, as I understand it, Gish galloping, known formally in debate as spreading, is itself an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of the person engaging in spreading. The person makes a whole bunch of claims which creates an illusion of wide-ranging knowledge on the topic and impresses upon those viewing the debate that they should consider this person particularly trustworthy, even if what they've said is full half-truths and errors, things long refuted.

It's a sort of curious, indirect away to appeal to authority.

[beneficii]

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.

Yes. Climate cycles exist. So what?

[StormNine]

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.

I agree with the population increase is one of the wildcards in many global issues that doesn't get addressed like it should.  Another issue with both climate change or even the energy debate in general is that you have a developing countries like China and India that as time goes will require more energy as they become developed nations.  As more countries become developed they will use more energy as a whole and per person so you have to think about that as well.   

[justinmundie]

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.

I certainly haven't gish galloped if this wiki explains it properly.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop


Since you all ready admitted that you're not reading my posts, there's really no reason to continue addressing it. I find it quite ironic though that someone would start a thread with a link to a news story and then shout down anyone who disagrees with the conclusion of the article. If you're looking to feel good about yourself because science, I guess you've succeeded. You're not interested in the climate, you're not interested in the environment, you're not interested in policy discussion. You're interested in shouting down anyone who disagrees with you and congratulating yourself for doing so. Sounds exactly like a religious fundamentalist to me.