Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

You are wrong to assume that.

It's not an assumption.

[Unity+]

It's not an assumption.

 

 

What worries me most is that Tim and Wild Cobra think that these deaths are funny.

I think it may fall into that category. I don't think they resorted to making death a comedic act.

[John Cuthber]

LOL...

 

Edited October 26, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Unity+]

 

LOL...

 

For just 2 degrees?

 

How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

 

That's not making death a comedic act, that's questioning the validity of the statement that was presented. I think if the question were answered, the argument presented before would have more meaning to it.

 

EDIT: Thank you for editing your statement. It makes things much easier to respond to.

 

He wasn't saying "LOL" to the death itself. He was saying "LOL" to the allegation that these conditions caused death. This is coming from a misunderstanding of the statements being read.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+

[John Cuthber]

There are in fact people who have lost loved ones to these heatwaves.
There is, on this site, discussion of the death toll.

Wild Cobra's response was laughter.

 

That's a pretty shameful way to behave no matter how you spin it.

[Unity+]

There are in fact people who have lost loved ones to these heatwaves.

There is, on this site, discussion of the death toll.

Wild Cobra's response was laughter.

 

That's a pretty shameful way to behave no matter how you spin it.

This is an absolute assumption of his statement, and a misinterpretation. Again, I don't think he is making light of the death toll. He is saying that the allegation that a increase in 2 degrees has lead to these deaths is questionable and, therefore, seemingly not worthy of having grounds. I would assume that if a bridge fell on a group of people and the blame was put on ghosts or the government, we would all either laugh or get angry. I think the 9/11 conspiracies come to mind.

 

It seems the the spin is coming from the accusation that Cobra's response was death itself of these people.

 

EDIT: This is getting slightly off topic. I was merely pointing out that such assumptions and the statement presented were not relevant to the discussion at hand and don't have any basis.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+

[Wild Cobra]

He wasn't saying "LOL" to the death itself. He was saying "LOL" to the allegation that these conditions caused death. This is coming from a misunderstanding of the statements being read.

 

Actually, I was responding tothis idea:

 

You will not convince me that a 2 degree warming will cause England to be less hospitable for humans and I will not convince you that it will be nicer.

 

 

with:

 

How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

 

 

Less livable... Less livable is what caused my "LOL."

 

From my perspective, the mortality rate came in play later, changing the goal post.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Unity+]

 

Actually, I was responding to:

 

 

Less livable... Less livable is what caused my "LOL."

 

From my perspective, the mortality rate came in play later, changing the goal post.

My point still stands.

[Wild Cobra]

My point still stands.

 

Except this part:

 

He was saying "LOL" to the allegation that these conditions caused death.

 

 

I was laughing at the less hospitable / less livable. Not any part to do with death.

[John Cuthber]

 

Actually, I was responding to:

 

 

Less livable... Less livable is what caused my "LOL."

 

From my perspective, the mortality rate came in play later, changing the goal post.

How much later?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/?p=808349

 

Don't claim that history changed the goal posts.

It's not going to get you anywhere.

 

And if you say "less liveable" is nothing to do with death then you are twisting the definitions of words to an absurd degree.

Can't you make your point without doing that sort of thing?

I note we are in a tospy truvy world where you can get negative rep points for simply quoting back what someone said, but positive points for a post including an assertion that last May happened sometime during this October and whether something is liveable has nothing to do with death.

Edited October 26, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Wild Cobra]

How much later?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/?p=808349

 

Don't claim that history changed the goal posts.

It's not going to get you anywhere.

 

And if you say "less liveable" is nothing to do with death then you are twisting the definitions of words to an absurd degree.

Can't you make your point without doing that sort of thing?

 

I didn't respond to those posts those months back, did I? I resonded specifically regarding high latitudes and 2 degress. No context of mortaility to what I responded to.

 

My first post in this thread was #344, and I did not read about 340 posts before it as I am new. I read the OP, and responded.

 

It was clarified what I responded to, yet you just will not let go with what I see as becoming relentless personal attacks. Do I need to involve a moderator?

 

I find it extremely insulting that you continue to say I laughed at death.

 

I did not.

 

Cease and desist!

Edited October 26, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Unity+]

How much later?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/?p=808349

 

Don't claim that history changed the goal posts.

It's not going to get you anywhere.

And why is this?

 

And if you say "less liveable" is nothing to do with death then you are twisting the definitions of words to an absurd degree.

Can't you make your point without doing that sort of thing?

How is he twisting the definition?

 

 

I note we are in a tospy truvy world where you can get negative rep points for simply quoting back what someone said, but positive points for a post including an assertion that last May happened sometime during this October.

I think he gave negative reputation points for misrepresenting his actual intentions.

[John Cuthber]

And why is this?

How is he twisting the definition?

I think he gave negative reputation points for misrepresenting his actual intentions.

This is because he claims that something (The introduction of discussion of deaths due to heatwaves) which happened in May changed the goalposts between two posts he made in October.

That's clearly nonsense and making nonsensical assertions won't get him anywhere in a scientific discussion- because people will see that it doesn't make sense

(or, perhaps, they will not and they will give him rep points for it.)

 

The thing about "less liveable" is that, since life and death are essentially intertwined, it has to do with death.

 

Perhaps he did.

However it may have been more helpful to explain what his intentions were (preferably without invoking time-travel).

Edited October 26, 2014 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

I don't really think it helps the debate when people resort to petty comments.

Your feedback is noted, but it's not accurately described as a debate when one group of people live in reality and defend it with evidence while another group chooses to invent their own and defends their position with nonsense and hand waving and distraction.

[swansont]

 

I went back through this thread looking for something else, and I missed this post before and need to address it.

 

OK, you can find a vanity publication that doesn't peer review

 

Therefore all vanity publications do not peer review...

 

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

 

If you actually go to the publisher’s web site:

 

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/

 

Look around, you will see they peer review.

 

Maybe calling it a vanity site is wrong if all vanity sites do not peer review. Either way, it is a logical fallacy.

 

No, it's not a logical fallacy. (Mine, anyway. Yours might be a straw man argument). Vanity publications do not do legitimate peer review. They might have something they call peer review, but it is a formality and not a matter of sending a paper out to experts and getting scientific feedback. If there was actual peer review, papers could be rejected or major rewrites might be required.

 

Scientific Online publishing shows up on Beall's list of predatory publishers. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

You pay them a bunch of cash (though they don't seem to charge an exorbitant fee as compared to some others), they publish the paper. They have something they call "peer review". It takes 2-4 weeks; it's not clear who actually reviews the paper. I think anyone who has gone through actual peer review would be amused by a two-week turnaround.

Not funny but there are more deaths from cold in the UK.

 

Which is completely beside the point.

[Unity+]

This is because he claims that something (The introduction of discussion of deaths due to heatwaves) which happened in May changed the goalposts between two posts he made in October.

That's clearly nonsense and making nonsensical assertions won't get him anywhere in a scientific discussion- because people will see that it doesn't make sense

(or, perhaps, they will not and they will give him rep points for it.)

How is it nonsensical? Can you explain why?

 

 

The thing about "less liveable" is that, since life and death are essentially intertwined, it has to do with death.

I don't see the relevancy of this statement.

 

Perhaps he did.

However it may have been more helpful to explain what his intentions were (preferably without invoking time-travel).

Or instead of automatically making such assumption, ask him the question. Nothing wrong with asking questions.

 

 

 

Your feedback is noted, but it's not accurately described as a debate when one group of people live in reality and defend it with evidence while another group chooses to invent their own and defends their position with nonsense and hand waving and distraction.

It also doesn't help the debate when you fuel their rhetoric. Remaining professional is the biggest strategy when calling out their inaccuracies

 

 

No, it's not a logical fallacy. (Mine, anyway. Yours might be a straw man argument). Vanity publications do not do legitimate peer review. They might have something they call peer review, but it is a formality and not a matter of sending a paper out to experts and getting scientific feedback. If there was actual peer review, papers could be rejected or major rewrites might be required.

 

Scientific Online publishing shows up on Beall's list of predatory publishers. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

You pay them a bunch of cash (though they don't seem to charge an exorbitant fee as compared to some others), they publish the paper. They have something they call "peer review". It takes 2-4 weeks; it's not clear who actually reviews the paper. I think anyone who has gone through actual peer review would be amused by a two-week turnaround.

 

Which is completely beside the point.

Well, if you could consider scientists being paid to get their work out there, then there may be no difference between the two.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Unity+

[swansont]

That's not making death a comedic act, that's questioning the validity of the statement that was presented. I think if the question were answered, the argument presented before would have more meaning to it.

 

 

I agree, but even then it's problematic, as it's simply an appeal to incredulity. Responding with a fallacy instead of science is not a good path to go down.

 

Well, if you could consider scientists being paid to get their work out there, then there may be no difference between the two.

 

Presumably scientists are not getting paid to get work out there regardless of the quality. True peer review helps ensure the crappy work doesn't get into the better journals.

[Unity+]

 

I agree, but even then it's problematic, as it's simply an appeal to incredulity. Responding with a fallacy instead of science is not a good path to go down.

I understand the issue, but if it is incredible then instead of simply just stating its a fallacy, provide a reason why. Since fallacies have definitions, use the parts of the claim to back up the argument that it is fallacious.

 

 

Presumably scientists are not getting paid to get work out there regardless of the quality. True peer review helps ensure the crappy work doesn't get into the better journals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

 

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

I think Forbes is a credible enough source. At least it's not Fox News.

[iNow]

Why do you find Forbes to be more credible than NASA or NOAA or The National Academy of Sciences or Any of the countless others who have put forth a formal stance on this subject and concur that human contributions of greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of the current accelerating warming trend?

[Unity+]

Why do you find Forbes to be more credible than NASA or NOAA or The National Academy of Sciences or Any of the countless others who have put forth a formal stance on this subject and concur that human contributions of greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of the current accelerating warming trend?

Putting words into other people's mouths is a bad strategy, and should be left to politics.

 

Someone else brought it up, but credibility on authority is not the best way to go about an argument. Are their statements accurate? Well, let the evidence speak for itself.

[iNow]

There are more than 14,000 peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject that support this same conclusion. What more evidence do you believe is required before you are convinced?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Edited October 26, 2014 by iNow

[Unity+]

There are more than 14,000 peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject that support this same conclusion. What more evidence do you believe is required before you are convinced?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

You keep evading my point here, and it is getting on my nerves. Whether I am convinced is irrelevant. I take things based on their evidence and the counter-evidence. When we become blinded by something in science, it is no longer science.

 

Yes, and I bet there are articles that exist on both sides of the debate. Quantity of articles does not quite to certainty of the conclusions.

[iNow]

What do you see as the primary gap in evidence preventing you from accepting the same conclusion experts in the field have arrived upon, specifically:

 

Since the Industrial Era began, humans have had an increasing effect on climate, particularly by adding billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

[Wild Cobra]

 

No, it's not a logical fallacy. (Mine, anyway. Yours might be a straw man argument). Vanity publications do not do legitimate peer review. They might have something they call peer review, but it is a formality and not a matter of sending a paper out to experts and getting scientific feedback. If there was actual peer review, papers could be rejected or major rewrites might be required.

 

Scientific Online publishing shows up on Beall's list of predatory publishers. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

You pay them a bunch of cash (though they don't seem to charge an exorbitant fee as compared to some others), they publish the paper. They have something they call "peer review". It takes 2-4 weeks; it's not clear who actually reviews the paper. I think anyone who has gone through actual peer review would be amused by a two-week turnaround.

 

Whatever.

 

I suppose that keeps you from any critical attempt to view the paper.

 

Looks like logiocal fallacy is working...

Edited October 27, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[CharonY]

 

Yes, and I bet there are articles that exist on both sides of the debate. Quantity of articles does not quite to certainty of the conclusions.

 

You are misunderstanding something here. Scientific research is not based on sides. Rather, the researches ask the question such as, "if I take this model and use that data, what factors have have the strongest explanatory power on the observed increased in temperatures". There will be various approaches that may yield slight differences. If you have a vast body of contradicting results, you would posit that there is something else that we do not know. If most approaches (and remember, in order to publish you cannot just do the same, you will have some differences in your approach), highlight the same results then at this point quantity does tell you something.

Note that even those that diverge can be of interest, as by e.g. analyzing the model or general methodology one could be able to figure out whether there is something else or whether the methods have less explanatory power. Both aspects could be interesting, even if it just tells you why you do not get stable results.

No proper scientist will start off with to prove that warming is anthropogenic (or disprove it for that matter).

 

With regards to the paper in question, one warning sign is that if the model was of sufficient quality, why is it not submitted to one of the mainstream journals. If the data casts important doubt on an established finding, it is of high significance. Provided, the presented data is good enough to actually challenge other studies.

Edited October 27, 2014 by CharonY