A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
As usual with global warming "skepticism", it isn't skepticism at all but just opposition at all costs.
First problem: the study in question looks at the Scandanavian Mountains, quote: "climate history in the Swedish Scandes," So this is NOT global, but regional. The article you linked to, as usual, spins it. I've warned you about this many times, to no avail.
Second problem: these kinds of criticisms are misplaced, because what is involved with global warming is the discovery of the cause, not necessarily the effect yet. Whether the effect has show up yet or not is besides the point. It would be like me saying "Hey, I just turned the thermostat on, so it will get warmer in here" and you retorting "But it was much warmer in here last Thursday, so it won't get warmer now!"
Har! I love drawing you out into the open. And hey, I just report the climate "news".
And who's to say that it's just local? (If it's local, it's just weather, right?)
And a lot of the tree data which was used by warmists was local, too.
The thermostat analogy is cute but... the temperature should go up if the heater is on. Or maybe there are masking effects. One proposition I saw the other day is that the effluent from China might be shrouding the greenhouse, so to speak. Who knows?
I actually am finding that I care less and less as time presses on. But it is interesting to see the deviation from the linear projections (with unpredictable yet predicted catastrophes not to mention calmness). It's a lot like evolution: it predicts everything and nothing all at the same time. So it just can't be wrong.
Therefore it is right. Karl Popper gave in on evolution; presumably he would cave on AGW too.
The point of the thermostat analogy is not to make the case for global warming, but to illustrate the complete non-sequitor nature of many of these "skeptic" arguments. Global warming is about having discovered the cause, and knowing that the effect will follow. Pointing out that the effect occurred in the past does nothing to refute the discovery of the cause now.
It ISN'T like climate scientists saw the rising temperatures and thought, "Gee, what's causing that?"
Rather, they see us digging carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the atmosphere, and think, "Whether we see it yet or not, warming will occur if there are no outweighing factors."
And in fact, there are no other outweighing factors. You can even see this for yourself. This compares the warming trend with the ocean and the sun and CO2. Both ocean and sun are down, whereas CO2 is up.
Hmm. I don't believe that data because the monthly sunspot data comes out as a straight line, which it is not. Nor should the ocean data. Maybe the CO2 is linear, but not likely. And the plot is temp vs. time, so the sunspot data is referenced in temperature contribution, which I doubt to be valid, measured data, and is probably inferred somehow.
You'll note that the other data I transformed into "linear trend" for easier reading. You can switch it back if you like, to see the actual data. Just change "linear trend" to "-" and click "Plot Graph."
Your argument of cause/effect is interesting, because it actually goes something like this:
Real science: IF [cause X produces effect Y]
AND [cause X exists]
AND [insufficient adverse ameliorating causes exist which tend to cancel the causation],
THEN [effect Y will follow].
Warming: IF [cause X produces effect Y]
AND [cause X exists],
THEN(1): [Deny contrary evidence, because ALL evidence points to Y, regardless of what it is].
THEN(2): [stir up all kinds of doom-hysteria AND wealth transfer, AND create a new cause => (job security in the new hysteria industry AND political leverage)]
It's admittedly better without Hansen. And Gore is now ridiculed rather than believed.
And I didn't realize that there was a linearization button, I just noticed that the trend didn't look right, then that they were perfect. I'll go back to it.
9 comments:
Ugh.
As usual with global warming "skepticism", it isn't skepticism at all but just opposition at all costs.
First problem: the study in question looks at the Scandanavian Mountains, quote: "climate history in the Swedish Scandes," So this is NOT global, but regional. The article you linked to, as usual, spins it. I've warned you about this many times, to no avail.
Second problem: these kinds of criticisms are misplaced, because what is involved with global warming is the discovery of the cause, not necessarily the effect yet. Whether the effect has show up yet or not is besides the point. It would be like me saying "Hey, I just turned the thermostat on, so it will get warmer in here" and you retorting "But it was much warmer in here last Thursday, so it won't get warmer now!"
That, of course, is a non-sequitor.
Har! I love drawing you out into the open. And hey, I just report the climate "news".
And who's to say that it's just local? (If it's local, it's just weather, right?)
And a lot of the tree data which was used by warmists was local, too.
The thermostat analogy is cute but... the temperature should go up if the heater is on. Or maybe there are masking effects. One proposition I saw the other day is that the effluent from China might be shrouding the greenhouse, so to speak. Who knows?
I actually am finding that I care less and less as time presses on. But it is interesting to see the deviation from the linear projections (with unpredictable yet predicted catastrophes not to mention calmness). It's a lot like evolution: it predicts everything and nothing all at the same time. So it just can't be wrong.
Therefore it is right. Karl Popper gave in on evolution; presumably he would cave on AGW too.
We're doomed.
Btw, there were others quoted in that article: Curry, Lockwood and Spencer... beside Kullman.
Yep! You know how to draw me out of the woodwork!
The point of the thermostat analogy is not to make the case for global warming, but to illustrate the complete non-sequitor nature of many of these "skeptic" arguments. Global warming is about having discovered the cause, and knowing that the effect will follow. Pointing out that the effect occurred in the past does nothing to refute the discovery of the cause now.
It ISN'T like climate scientists saw the rising temperatures and thought, "Gee, what's causing that?"
Rather, they see us digging carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the atmosphere, and think, "Whether we see it yet or not, warming will occur if there are no outweighing factors."
And in fact, there are no other outweighing factors. You can even see this for yourself. This compares the warming trend with the ocean and the sun and CO2. Both ocean and sun are down, whereas CO2 is up.
Hmm. I don't believe that data because the monthly sunspot data comes out as a straight line, which it is not. Nor should the ocean data. Maybe the CO2 is linear, but not likely. And the plot is temp vs. time, so the sunspot data is referenced in temperature contribution, which I doubt to be valid, measured data, and is probably inferred somehow.
Anyway, only time will tell.
You'll note that the other data I transformed into "linear trend" for easier reading. You can switch it back if you like, to see the actual data. Just change "linear trend" to "-" and click "Plot Graph."
Your argument of cause/effect is interesting, because it actually goes something like this:
Real science:
IF [cause X produces effect Y]
AND [cause X exists]
AND [insufficient adverse ameliorating causes exist which tend to cancel the causation],
THEN [effect Y will follow].
Warming:
IF [cause X produces effect Y]
AND [cause X exists],
THEN(1): [Deny contrary evidence, because ALL evidence points to Y, regardless of what it is].
THEN(2): [stir up all kinds of doom-hysteria AND wealth transfer, AND create a new cause => (job security in the new hysteria industry AND political leverage)]
>stir up all kinds of doom-hysteria
AGAIN with media spin! The place you see "doom hysteria" is in the media distortions of the science.
It's admittedly better without Hansen. And Gore is now ridiculed rather than believed.
And I didn't realize that there was a linearization button, I just noticed that the trend didn't look right, then that they were perfect. I'll go back to it.
Post a Comment