Logical fallacy: Poisoning the well.
Do you have anything pertinent?
Please stop talking out your ass. Please address reality.
Richard Lindzen is a paid by BigCorp, BigCarbon, etc.
IPCCs report is vastly more credible than this .
He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports..
Dumbass
Strawman alert... Poisoning the well:
has anyone ever thought Boutons was anything but a dumbass?He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports.
Dumbass
15 years ago??He worked on 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports.
Dumbass
He's an AGW denying , dumbass
Check his recent affiliations. Financings
Explain the difference between "significant" and "primary", and then explain why the usage cons utes lying.
Can you make any argument without being a sophist?
Meh. You have little room, and likely little accuracy, when talking about logical fallacies, with as many as you seem to apply to this topic, i.e. "the scientists are all in on a giant conspiracy". It's like you have to drink another cup of stupid before posting sometimes.
Here is a bit that pokes some holes in your "its all due to soot" hypothesis:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._expected.html
Weather patterns, of the kind that represent feedback loops, are causing a lot more warming in cold places.
You know feedback loops? The kinds of things that we have been trying to drill into your thick skull might be dangerous, that is a prime example.
me: "let's not monkey with the climate much, because things might happen that we don't know about yet"
You: "CO2 is doesn't have enough of an effect to worry about"
I have been telling you we should quit poking the bear, and s like yourself have been copying/pasting the "no harm" bull propaganda for so long... the chickens are coming home to roost.
A conservative, risk-averse approach to CO2 emissions would have limited the damage.
Your super-liberal polyannish approach is ing us royally.
Do tell.How's this for you, RG?
It's not really what the skeptic argument is about.
LOL "heartland".
What is the appropriate level of skepticism one should apply to their statements?
A good critical thinker would take that "some" and quantify it.
Define what "skeptics" would generally agree as the meaning of "some".
Here is a pretty good use of significant, in the manner the poll was conducted in:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...gnificance.aspStatistical significance is a result that is not likely to occur randomly, but rather is likely to be attributable to a specific cause. Statistical significance can be strong or weak, and is important to research in many math- and science-related fields, including medicine, sociology, psychology and biology. Statistical significance does not always indicate practical significance. In addition, it can be misinterpreted when researchers do not use language carefully in reporting their results.
Read more: Statistical Significance Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#ixzz47nZfAv9j
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
That does not explain the difference, nor does it explain why usage of the word might cons ute lying.
Not that I expect you to man up and try to do either. I gave up expecting you to be intellectually honest and unlazy a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significanceAs a matter of good scientific practice, a significance level is chosen before data collection and is often set to 0.05 (5%). Other significance levels (e.g., 0.01) may be used, depending on the field of study.
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/stati...gnificance.htmFor example, suppose we give 1,000 people an IQ test, and we ask if there is a significant difference between male and female scores. The mean score for males is 98 and the mean score for females is 100. We use an independent groups t-test and find that the difference is significant at the .001 level. The big question is, "So what?". The difference between 98 and 100 on an IQ test is a very small difference...so small, in fact, that it's not even important.
Then why did the t-statistic come out significant? Because there was a large sample size. When you have a large sample size, very small differences will be detected as significant. This means that you are very sure that the difference is real (i.e., it didn't happen by fluke). It doesn't mean that the difference is large or important. If we had only given the IQ test to 25 people instead of 1,000, the two-point difference between males and females would not have been significant.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant
Simple Definition of significant
: large enough to be noticed or have an effect
How many times must I prove "significant" does not automatically mean "most".
Just how ing daft are you?
The poll used asking scientists used the word "significant." In the 200+ page full published results of the survey, I have pointed out quotes where the scientists taking the polls said these same types of things. Then the Pundits, like NASA Climate, and other places, take the liberty to say this poll agrees that 97% say "most."
The question was: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
The pundits then say scientists say agree it is "most."
Seriously, how just how daft are you to deny such simple truths?
I have a link someplace to the 200 + pages of the full text submitted by Doran and Zimmerman, and have posted it several times in the past, and pounted specifics out before.Sample comments from scientists being polled:
“climatic changes are driven by numerous factors. Human activity has a role, but your use of 'significant' needs to be defined more specifically“
“First of all, 'Significant' is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of sigificance is much of what the debates are about. More importantly, there have been many substantial global temperature changes in times well before humans that we cannot account for. The bigger question is, 'How much [warming] does human activity add?'”
I assume you mean 'substantial' rather than statistically 'significant.' I'm not sure how I would answer this if you meant statistically significant. Warmer global temperatures occurred during the hypsothermal when human populations and their influence on the environmental per capital were likely smaller Consequently, I am uncertain about how much of the change in the last 100-200 years are a result of human activity. It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as 'substantial.'
“I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it's the term 'significant' I'm unsure about.”
“I do not know what you mean my significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”
“I don' know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don't know how you define 'significant'.”
“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“
“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word 'significantly'. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don't think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural. If the anthropogenic factor is not yet 'significant', however one chooses to define that word, I have little doubt that we are moving toward a time when it will become significant.“
“I think it is a factor, but the question is HOW significant a factor? I find much disagreement among knowledgeable people on this question and it is obvious that anthropocentric blame for warming has become a mantra. I know that climate is a very complex, multivariate proposition, so am cautious about assessing the magnitude of 'our' contribution. That said, however, I have long argued that pumping various pollutants into the atmosphere is a bad thing and we should clean up our 'act' regardless of how much we contribute to warming; we know we contribute to general polluting of the atmosphere with various gases and particulates.”
“It depends on your definition of 'significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”
“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like 'major,' 'important,' or 'significant' and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”
“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature? Additionally, how can one differentiate between human induced warming and the natural rise in temperature following the last glacial maximum? Ultimately, global mean temperatures have risen, with human activity being a likely contributor, but how much of the recorded increase is a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 is unknown.”
“'Significant' is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I'm not sure that can be demonstrated. 'Significant' is a word that is open to multiple interpretations.”
“Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”
“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to 'significant' is debatable. I base that decision on the variable quality of our dataset and the relatively limited time coverage (e.g. relatively good data in the last 50 years, marginal or 'corrected' prior).“
“The atmosphere is a complex system and I am not sure we are accounting for all of the necessary feedbacks that would kick in from human activity. I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is 'significant'.”
“The key word here is 'Significant'. It seems to be well established that human activity has contributed to CO2 increase (and by implication global warming). What seems to be less well known is the effect of solar variability on the overall heat input to the earth, the CO2 uptake potential of the oceans and what a 'Normal' climate change perturbation is. (The younger Dryas for example) Without a doubt, if we keep moving in the direction we have been, we very well may prove out that we are a significant factor in global mean temperature. To say it is a certainty now implies a level of confidence in our understanding of earth and atmospheric processes that I am not sure we truly have. I would clarify, however, that I am answering this from a purely scientific standpoint. i.e. how confident am I in the state of our understanding as to the significance of the human input. From a sociological standpoint, I think we should all we can to try and reduce our footprint from pollution and population st”
“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward e this winter. I'm not sure of all the factors going on. I mainly focus on short and medium range forecasting. I am eager to learn more about climate change.”
“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes ithroughout geologic history.“
“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I'm not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”
“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I'm not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“
“There are many natural causes of global climate change, and while humans may impact MEASURED temperatures through actions such as burning fossil fuels and urbanization, it is not clear that these play a SIGNIFICANT role in the climate change that we currently see.”
“Does 'significant' mean perceptible or outside the 'normal range' of observations. If you choose the latter, then compared to natural processes, peturbations to natural systems that can be attributed to mankind are probably too short term to be geologically significant.”
“What defines significant? If 1-2 degrees F is considered significant then I would agree that human input is significant“
“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“
“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.“
“Your use of the word 'significant'. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”
“Tried, but could not use the provided selection of answers to the 2nd question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?" The answer is "probably" or "Very Probable". That's neither "yes", "no", nor "I'm not sure". I am sure that human impact is very probable. Anyone who is "sure" of either "yes" or "no" is either ignorant or fibbing. "I'm not sure" is equivalent if I know nothing whatsoever or if I know a lot.”
Once again, I find this imprecise and impossible to answer. For example, what level of significance do you mean? If something is unstable or metastable, it may take only a small push (and thus a small contribution) to push the process one direction or another. It this process tips, the contributing factor may seem to be relatively small but may have a large resulting impact. I found it impossible to complete your questionnaire due to these problems.
I responded to your survey. However without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree. I personally believe that humans are influencing climate, that they augment change, and that climate will continue to change irregardless of what humans do. I study glaciers. Earth has had hundreds of continental scale glacier events during its history. Glaciers will continue to experience cycles where they expand and then contract, and then expand again, as they have done many times before, prior to humans evolving. They will also continue to do so long after our species is extinct.
Q2 then asks if I think that humans are "a significant" contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn't explain this. The third question then asks me why I think humans are a major contributor, but is phrased in such a way that it's implicit that I'm now listing them as THE significant factor. They are not the primary cause, but I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are. As constructed, your responders will be unable to indicate that there are multiple causes to climate change, that climate change is the norm on Earth and has been going on throughout geologic time, and that there is strong evidence to indicate that climate change not only occurred before humans existed, but also was probably more extreme than the event we are living in today.
“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague.”
Your first question is ill-posed in that it does not define the periods for temperature that need to be compared. Pre-1800's leaves 4 billion years to consider. I answered anyway.
Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate. I am pretty sure our activities have had a significant effect but not convinced that all of the warming we see is directly attributable to anthropogenic activity. To me that is a somewhat different answer than what you will get by just looking at my answers to your questions.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
the other studies and polls have similar problems where the pundits lie about the results.
The scientists doing these aren't lying. The pundits just misword what they say.
I challenge you to take any of these studies, find and link the full text, and quote me what counts.
Anyone know what WC's point is? He really arguing the semantics of significant?
A mere repeat of your earlier claim.
So, you aren't going to explain the difference, and why it is lying. Sokay. I expect such failures of critical thinking from you, and am rarely disappointed.
*why* seems to be your intellectual Achilles heel.
That is his MO.
He is a very literal sort for whom the semantics *are* the point. My first encounter with him, over this very subject, had him trying to hang his hat that some reporter was lying or stupid for putting an "s" at the end of "oxide", or something similar.
... and if I haven't seen it, then I will ask for it just once. Geez, your whining puts my 9 year old to shame.
Good to see the comments. That is what one might expect from actual scientists. Thanks.
Once again, though, YOU have yet to really say why the difference is important, and "lying".
"the pundits". Who and what exactly do you mean.
Is it possible for a survey to be not optimally worded, but still yield useful data?
So part of your real denial is not reading my past posts on the issue when i posted the full study, and directly quoted from it, even giving page numbers.
Stop bothering me if you are going to ignore facts.
Your denial of facts is noted.
How can he ignore something when you have not presented it? Your word is not sufficient.
i mean... there can only be one "primary" cause but there can be several significant causes
you just brush it off as "lol semantics" when its convenient but i recall an earlier discussion where you were getting all rustled over the dictionary definition of activist
AGW deniers, nothing but objects of late-night ridicule
Right-wing dipsh*ts attack Jimmy Kimmel for Sarah Palin — and man, they are dumb
Monday night, Jimmy Kimmel absolutely destroyed of Sarah Palin’s rambling stupidity on climate science. Kimmel gathered a group of scientists who stood in front of the camera and tried to explain to the world that their business is not about generating a massive hoax.But, the right-wing internet trolls predictably and collectively lost their minds. So, Kimmel does what he does best, and read them aloud for the world to shame them in disgust. “It might seem I only picked comments from people whose grammar is bad, but the truth is, the vast majority of the comments came from people whose grammar is bad, so…” Kimmel prefaced before showing the tweets. This vitriol consisted of things like:
Jim Jacob: “Mr Kimble if you are so smart many you should get a real job like climate scientists I give up you!.”
Erik Simmy: Sarah Palin might not be a scientist what she is saying doesn’t need to be science to be understood the very scientists who claim to be telling the truth about global warming they know they’re lying to teeth to help the government control our lives in the name of global warming.
Thomas Slavin (Whose avatar is a Ted Cruz logo): “Hey Jackass Scientists also thought the world was flat Do us all a big favor reduce man made gases and shut your yap!!!”
From YouTube someone wrote in the comments “This character is as dopey as that moronic looking beard apparently! Although I think the beard IS smarter than he is.”
Another YouTuber: “Global warming? Ha, give me a break. Look at the north and south poles. Seems pretty cold to me.”
There are more you’ve got to see in the video. They’re hilarious:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/righ...e+Raw+Story%29
^lol, an article about YouTube comments
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
