I am rarely refused about issues.
The last page of that thread pretty much sums it up.
"the scientists are wrong, the republicans were right, the reporter is biased, so I can dismiss everything that the people who dont' agree with me say".
GMAFB.
You mean this thread, right:
Panel says link between smog and premature death is clear
I recall you being confused on that thread rather than me, but please... which post.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-27-2012 at 12:05 PM.
I am rarely refused about issues.
The last page of that thread pretty much sums it up.
"the scientists are wrong, the republicans were right, the reporter is biased, so I can dismiss everything that the people who dont' agree with me say".
GMAFB.
I realize reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but you seem to have confused an observation about the tenor of your arguments with a dismissal.
I don't, and won't, outright dimiss you because you are a hack. I will however, assign a commensurately smaller weight to your statements of fact or interpretations of science, if I am unable to fully evaluate them.
This is about weighing evidence and credibility. People with PhDs in relevant fields, who spend decades doing actual research are far more credible than you are.
If you don't like that, get out and get a PhD, and do actual research. I will be happy to assign your interpretations more weight at that time.
They hide it"
So they aren't ignoring it, they are hiding it.
Why would they hide it? What is their motivation, and what is your proof of this?
I went back 5 pages. It isn't "a few posts back".
Quit being lazy and answer the question. I want it as clear as possible, so you can't provaricate, as you always do.
-----------------------------------------------------------Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PseudosciencePseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.
Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.
I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.
What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.
Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.
----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:
Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.
Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.
DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data
Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread
Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy
-------------------------------------------------------
I quit bothering to keep track of the ty science, and bad logic you and yours have presented here months back. I have proven what I set out to prove, sophist.
WC always thinks the scientists are wrong in nearly every thread. Its amazing.
WC always thinks the scientists are wrong in nearly every thread. Its amazing.
But, when compared to AGCC's most fervent proponents, even the most "illogical" skeptic can seem like a genius.
I give you Bill Whittle, for example...
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress....y-are-curious/
Read the link. It explains a lot, IMO.The “Dunning-Kruger effect” is a form of cognitive bias which – put simply – states that unskilled people overestimate their own abilities. First published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999, the authors hypothesis is best summed up on Wikipedia:
1.Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3.Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4.If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3045
What do you think about the possibility of the price of oil doubling in the next decade?
I would point out the reason you don't want to lower CO2 emissions is that it will hurt our economy.
As I have pointed out in several places and times our economy will be hurt by higher oil prices anyway.
Since we will have to bear the costs of lowering CO2 either way, it then becomes removed from any professional cost analysis. The timeline for this rapid ahistorical run up in prices is now. The world has changed from the way things have always been.
You cannot, therefore, logically use it as a reason not to reduce CO2 now.
Remember how I kept saying you were confusing ozone and smog? I didn't trust the article, etc. There is a link within a link that does mix the smog into the ozone argument, and they are using the smog death statistics and calling it ozone. But you never noticed that.
Smog is not ozone, but ozone is a component of smog. You cannot take smog related statics of fatalities and say ozone is to blame.
You keep coming up with false arguments, forgetting some basic physics and chemistry. Again, if we immediately stopped CO2 releases, it would not make any significant change in CO2 levels. We don't have that much power over nature. You need to cool the oceans.
I think there's a possibility it won't double.
Does that make the rest of your argument moot?
About the author of "Watching the Deniers" blog
I’m Mike, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm. I have no affiliations with any political parties, NGOs or activist groups. My politics could be best described as “centre left” or “centrist” (I’m pro-market, but supportive of liberal social policies).
This blog is my small contribution to trying to address the issue of climate change.
And no, I’m not a scientist. But I’ve worked as a researcher for private industry for years. It has been my job to evaluate the quality of information and pass that on to senior decision makers in industry.
Does this dude suffer from the dreaded “Dunning-Kruger effect”?
I suppose it is much easier to attack the character of people and discredit them than it is to address their ideas. (e.g. "denier", "racist", "Islamophobe", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam).
"Why I think Climate Change Denial is little moer than pseudo..." blah blah blah -- you get the idea.
Ok, I'll bite.
It does not.
How great is the possibility that it won't double, and on what do you base this thought?
Donning-Kruger effect is a paper on psychology that exists outside of any skeptic debunking site. Dismissing it, simply because it is on a website is another ad hominem logical fallacy.
If the above paragraph is generally true for incompetant people, what does it say that I can easily point out your repeated usage of logical fallacies, and that you continue to use them after they have been pointed out as logical fallacies?"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."
I posted a link to that effect a few pages back. WC came immediately to mind when I first saw it.
Oddly enough, I would say that my job is roughly similar. I evaluate the quality of information, summarize that, and pass it along.It has been my job to evaluate the quality of information and pass that on to senior decision makers in industry.
What does it say that both of us seem to think that skeptics are full of ?
Your entire thread is based on an ad hominem attack on people you disagree with. For example -- see thread le.
Unlike you, RG, I don't think people who believe in AGW are bad people. I just disagree with their pet theory.
Poor Darrin. I'm not sure how he makes it through this thread when all he wants to do is debate the science but everyone around him is just busy making character judgements. Keep up the good fight, Darrin!
No but really, I'm glad you are just here to discuss the science. Its refreshing you don't make character judgements.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/art...#ixzz1se4V0iO7
Research shows Texas is not warming
In the early days of this column, concerned readers sent many questions about the earth's ozone layer, which I began measuring in 1990. Today, public interest in the ozone layer has been replaced by concern about global warming.
Answering questions about global warming requires considerably more space than this 437-word column. So let's focus in on the temperature history of Texas for now.
The 2011 Texas drought was exacerbated by the highest temperatures since 1895 during June, July and August. Several prominent climate scientists have blamed these record highs on global warming. These claims are puzzling because, in spite of the 2011 record highs, Texas records going back more than a century show slightly more cooling than warming. So I visited the National Climatic Data Center website to review Texas temperature records. The NCDC provides monthly temperature records for 10 Texas regions going back to 1895.
It also provides the average temperature for the entire state. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-pr...11&filter= 1&state=41&div=0)
I retrieved all 12 months of data for each year since 1895 and plotted the average annual temperatures on a chart along with their trend. As shown in the chart, the average temperature of Texas barely changed between 1895 and 2011. The total warming during those 116 years was a statistically insignificant 0.046 degree Fahrenheit. If the record highs of 2011 are omitted, Texas cooled 0.055 degree from 1895 to 2010.
The NCDC temperature data do not fully account for the enhanced warming of weather stations that have become surrounded by buildings and pavement. This is the heat island effect. Dr. Daniel Boice of the Southwest Research Foundation studied the temperature at New Braunfels and San Antonio from 1946 to 1990. (www.swri.org/3pubs/ttoday/fall97/heat.htm)
He found that San Antonio has warmed when compared with its smaller neighbor. San Antonio might be several degrees cooler today than in 1885 if no new buildings and roads had been constructed. Why do some scientists insist that Texas is warming when the data show a negligible increase? I don't know. But I do know that a National Science Foundation program officer told me that applications for atmospheric science grants that do not include a global warming theme stand little chance of acceptance.
Climate scientists are right to be concerned about droughts, especially since no Texas drought since precipitation records were begun around 1870 matches the megadroughts revealed in the rings of bald cypress trees. Those droughts occurred hundreds of years before SUVs and power plants began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a process blamed for global warming that has not yet arrived in Texas.
Forrest Mims III, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was named one of the 50 Best Brains in Science by Discover Magazine. His science is featured at www.forrestmims.org. Email him at [email protected].
What do you do when your pet theory doesn't comport with reality?
Invent a new pet theory to explain why.
"Warming hole" delayed climate change over eastern United States
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-eve...-united-states
50-year model suggests regional pollution obscured a global trend
Cambridge, Mass. - April 26, 2012 - Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a "warming hole" over the eastern United States—that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.
...
Bravo, Darrin! I love how you tore apart that Harvard study based upon the science! Really, your scientific prowess is unmatched.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)