Global warming sanity.

[Beware_the_Ides]

I must say, I am disheartened by the level of discourse with regards to Global Warming. So, this is a no B.S. thread where I stake a defense of man made global warming. I don't intend to defend the science point by point, but rather intend to sanitize out bad arguments based on fallacious reasoning. So please, no details on how much carbon units Al Gore's house consume or that the earth used to be warm naturally, therefore it cannot now be getting warmer because of human activity. This site might be handy, I submit for reference: Logical fallacies

I must say that I am disheartened by the number of “sheep” led to slaughter by global warming “scientists” such as Al Gore.You claim this to be a “no B.S. thread” but by staking “a defense of man made global warming” you stand smack dab in the middle of said B.S. To add to that irony, you submit for reference formulas of logical fallacies which, I will demonstrate, you should have applied to “sanitize out the bad argument” of defending man made global warming. Allow me to site just a few examples from the formulas you provided:

1. Appeal to Authority: You make the assertion that QVP is appealing to the authority of Ian Clark, so let’s apply the same rationale in your response to him to the position you defend.

You appeal to the authority of Al Gore?  Let me just pause here for a moment of silence…. I’m sorry, I just couldn’t stop laughing. Those of your camp also conveniently ignore that the scientists feeding information to this paper tiger are government-funded. Please don’t ignore that information in the 20/20 video QVP provided while you’re sanitizing fallacious reasoning.

2. Appeal to Belief/Popularity: First of all, I don’t know that man made global warming is now, or ever was, the majority/popular opinion. I do know that Al Gore and the global elite made wise use of the liberal media to create that image/fear (kind of like the fear of mutually assured self destruction during the Cold War era). Given your response in another thread, I know you are aware of the broadening grasp of the media but it would appear that you are unaware of, and have fallen prey to, the danger of such (mind) control.

3. Appeal to Fear: ‘Man made global warming is causing polar bears to drown and if it continues, sea levels will rise twenty feet and drown you too.’

As another poster pointed out, it is a crying shame and tantamount to domestic terrorism for Al Gore and his ilk to invoke such fear in school children based on questionable “science,” at best. Have they no shame? It’s amazing how low people will sink for the love of money.

4. Begging the Question: Man made global warming is destroying the planet.

From your reference, “This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." “

5. Biased Sample: “The debate is over.”

Al Gore refuses to acknowledge or engage in debate over scientific evidence that refutes his claim. The truth is, he can’t engage in a debate on this topic but only regurgitate the misleading science he has bought to support his hidden agenda.
Once again, this is evident in the videos QVP posted, in the links StevusMagnus provided and in another video I will re-post below.

I could go on ad nauseam into other formulas you provided such as, Burden of Proof, Confusing Cause and Effect, False Dilemma, Hasty Generalization, Ignoring a Common Cause, Slippery Slope, etc. but I think I have made my point.

I’ll leave off by re-posting the video I previously mentioned which was also the topic of another thread not long ago on this site.  I had seen (and have again watched) the 20/20 segment posted but have only scanned through portions of the longer video QVP posted. This video is in much the same vein but much longer. To cut to the heart of the matter at hand, watch the 2:00:00 to 2:07:00ish portion. I hope then you’ll watch the rest of it.

What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.  - C.S. Lewis

[Vandaler]

Hi, Sure, nothing wrong with sanitizing the other side of the argument from air-headery.

I must say that I am disheartened by the number of “sheep” led to slaughter by global warming “scientists” such as Al Gore.You claim this to be a “no B.S. thread” but by staking “a defense of man made global warming” you stand smack dab in the middle of said B.S. To add to that irony, you submit for reference formulas of logical fallacies which, I will demonstrate, you should have applied to “sanitize out the bad argument” of defending man made global warming. Allow me to site just a few examples from the formulas you provided:

1. Appeal to Authority: You make the assertion that QVP is appealing to the authority of Ian Clark, so let’s apply the same rationale in your response to him to the position you defend.

You appeal to the authority of Al Gore?  Let me just pause here for a moment of silence…. I’m sorry, I just couldn’t stop laughing. Those of your camp also conveniently ignore that the scientists feeding information to this paper tiger are government-funded. Please don’t ignore that information in the 20/20 video QVP provided while you’re sanitizing fallacious reasoning.

This is not starting very well.  Al Gore is not an authority, he is a spokesperson.  Resorting to him as an authority would be fallacious indeed but I never once mentioned is name in that way.  Your being dishonest right off the bat. I don't give a rats behind about Al Gore.

I submit also this question... why do you think that government founded research would yield positive confirmation that it's man-made. ?  Isn't there a bit of cynicism in that remark ?  Also, Who do you suggest should found research ?

2. Appeal to Belief/Popularity: First of all, I don’t know that man made global warming is now, or ever was, the majority/popular opinion. I do know that Al Gore and the global elite made wise use of the liberal media to create that image/fear (kind of like the fear of mutually assured self destruction during the Cold War era). Given your response in another thread, I know you are aware of the broadening grasp of the media but it would appear that you are unaware of, and have fallen prey to, the danger of such (mind) control.

Could you demonstrate that it has ?   Mass media control is much more pervasive in the U.S. then elsewhere (to my knowledge) and it's also in the U.S. that you find the most vocal scepticism.  So, no, I do not see the correlation.  

Furthermore, if you want to call a specific argument fallacious, you need to identify the argument.  Just pointing out to media conglomeration is not sufficient.  However, if one was to say... Global warming is true, since most people say it is... it would be fallacious indeed.

3. Appeal to Fear: ‘Man made global warming is causing polar bears to drown and if it continues, sea levels will rise twenty feet and drown you too.’

I agree that if this was to be rephrased in the form of an argument (as it stand above, it's an explication, not an argument) it would be a fallacious.  The fallacious argument would read something like "Man made global warming is true because polar bears are drowning and if it continues, sea levels will rise twenty feet and drown you too."

4. Begging the Question: Man made global warming is destroying the planet.

From your reference, “This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." “

Same problem, the above is not an argument.  If your able to somehow rephrase that into an argument it would be fallacious.  I suspect in this case it would sound silly and ineffective.  I don't care to try and write it.  The above is a statement that is either true or false, but it's not an argument.  If you are inspired however, and do find the way to write it in the form of an argument, I would agree with you that it would be a fallacious argument.

5. Biased Sample: “The debate is over.”

Same problem, that is not an argument but a statement, which can be true or false.

Without wanting to be to condescending, you need to bone up on the difference between an argument an explanation, or a simple statement. I am not however against the idea of weeding out the fallacies on the other side of the fence.  I just don't think it has has much value since I don't read such errors propagated here.

[ggreg]

For instance, building an atom bomb requires complex science and knowledge.

Cobblers.  The science behind the atom bomb is easy, which is why third world countries are scientifically capable of it.  The science of atomic fission and detonation is MUCH easier to understand than complex things like the models that predict long term weather patterns and the cause and effect of them.  Refining the U235 isotope (physically) from enough yellowcake, without getting detected and bombed or force to stop by the US or Israel is the hard part, but it is hard because of politics, not science.

Left completely alone and allowed to order enough centrifuges and Uranian even a state like Malta could have a nuclear bomb within 18 months.

[Vandaler]

Hi GGreg,

Maybe my example was not the best.  It was just to illustrate the point.

I do disagree with you however.  Most of the process to make a nuke is known but some of the finer points to make it work are still classified.  It's some of those secrets that the A.Q. Khan network was selling up to recently.

[ggreg]

If they were selling them then they are not really classified "secrets" are they?

It's pretty simple.  Put together a critical mass of radioactive material and you get a chain reaction, bang!  There are some fiddly bits, but all the rest is gravy.  What one man can do another can do.  What the Manhattan Project managed to innovate without any textbooks or computers or research in 1940s simply cannot be that difficult to copy now.

The British invented the jet engine, the Germans the rocket engine but the Americans,  managed to copy them and then improve upon them.  Nuclear bombs are much easier to make than orbital rockets.

[Vandaler]

If they were selling them then they are not really classified "secrets" are they?

A Q Khan is the father of Pakistan's nuclear program and he was smuggling, selling secrets to who ever would pay for it.  He has been pardoned by Musharraf but is still under house arrest.

But I don't want to get into this.. I already conceded that I may have not chosen the best example.

[Templar]

I put "man" in quotes because your initial post on the thread stated it would be a defense of "man" made global warming.  If Mars, which as far as we know has no "men" on it, is experiencing global warming, I would consider that strong evidence against the notion that "man" on Earth was responsible for global warming here.

Ok,

But Templar, did you read the link you sent ?  
It explains why mars is getting warmer. I'm not researching this... it's your own link !

 

Planets' Wobbles  

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)  

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

 "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

 

Uh, yeah I read it, and thought it quite self explanatory.  Mars warming has a non-species reason for global warming, so why wouldn't Earth.  I'm not particularly interested in whether it's radiation from the Sun, wobbles in the orbit, or bombardment by the Zerkons from Alpha Centuri, my point is it's not bing caused by people. 

[Vandaler]

 

Uh, yeah I read it, and thought it quite self explanatory.  Mars warming has a non-species reason for global warming, so why wouldn't Earth.  I'm not particularly interested in whether it's radiation from the Sun, wobbles in the orbit, or bombardment by the Zerkons from Alpha Centuri, my point is it's not bing caused by people.  

Yes, good thinking,

My car insurance covers my camper against third party liability as long that it's not parked permanently or used has a dwelling so why wouldn't yours just as well uh.

[kjvail]

I'm confused Van, are there any climatologists, meteorologists, or related specialists currently engaged in research on this question that are viewing the Fisheaters website?

I myself am in psychology professionally, so that's about the only thing I'm qualified to conduct research in (and that's debatable, I'm a grad student not a PhD.(yet)).
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you work in a prison? I recall chatting with someone about some of the things we had mutually experienced working in that environment (I used to work in a prison).
So which above specialty are you qualified in to conduct research in?

Since the answers are fairly obvious I submit no one here will be doing much climatological research in the near future and therefore all arguments will be from authority.
If you read a paper in a peer-reviewed, climatological journal, (that's about as close as any of us are getting to actual climatological research) assuming you can understand it (I know I couldn't, I do good to get through psyche journals), you would be citing an authority. Face it, nearly everything you, I and everyone on Earth knows, we know from authority.

[Vandaler]

I'm confused Van, are there any climatologists, meteorologists, or related specialists currently engaged in research on this question that are viewing the Fisheaters website?

I myself am in psychology professionally, so that's about the only thing I'm qualified to conduct research in (and that's debatable, I'm a grad student not a PhD.(yet)).
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you work in a prison? I recall chatting with someone about some of the things we had mutually experienced working in that environment (I used to work in a prison).
So which above specialty are you qualified in to conduct research in?

Since the answers are fairly obvious I submit no one here will be doing much climatological research in the near future and therefore all arguments will be from authority.
If you read a paper in a peer-reviewed, climatological journal, (that's about as close as any of us are getting to actual climatological research) assuming you can understand it (I know I couldn't, I do good to get through psyche journals), you would be citing an authority. Face it, nearly everything you, I and everyone on Earth knows, we know from authority.

Hi Kjvail,

I work in Corporate IT Security

No, I am not qualified and I know that likely no one on this site is qualified either to give out an opinion without resorting to authority thus, obviously, global warming will not be settled in this thread.

Nevertheless, I see no wrong in shaking the tree to knock off obviously weak arguments and others, down right illogical.  That is the only purpose of this thread.  Not sure where it will lead or if it will do any good.