Global Warming

A place for serious discussion on any non-religious topic
Forum rules
A place for serious discussion on any non-religious topic

Re: Global Warming

Postby Sprocket » April 21st, 2012, 6:59 pm

Pondero wrote:Time to resurrect this topic. There is no consensus on global warming.Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree. 98% of the people whose opinions on the subject matter - climate scientists - think it's happening, and that human activity is a major contributory factor. 98% is near enough to unanimity for me.
My view is that catastrophic effects of man made global warming are nonsense,we don't have to worry about it.

When you get a doctorate in climate science, I'll pay attention to your view, but not until.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Global Warming

Postby GregB » April 21st, 2012, 7:44 pm

Isn't it time a new survey was undertaken among climate scientists? That figure of 98% is already some years out of date now. After all, science itself is ever changing and such surveys should reflect the very latest opinions rather than being set in stone.
"I hate reality but it's still the best place to get a good steak."
- Woody Allen
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 16117
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Global Warming

Postby Pondero » April 21st, 2012, 7:54 pm

Just because you say 98% of climate scientists think it is happening, is not proof it is. The medieval writers would call your invalid argument. Argumentum ad populum- the consensus or headcount fallacy. .It is one of Aristotle's' commonest logical fallacies listed in his book Sophistical Refutations.
I read that " ....two surveys have purported to show that 97% (not 98%) of climate scientists supported the "consensus".However,one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists,far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proportion to which 75 of the 77 asserted was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless."
(Christopher Monckton,third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,former policy advisor to U.K.Prime Minister,Margaret Thatcher.)
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing make you afraid.
All things are passing.
God alone never changes.
Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing.
God alone suffices.

— St. Teresa, The bookmark of Teresa of Ávila, [28]
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Global Warming

Postby Sprocket » April 21st, 2012, 8:41 pm

Christopher Monckton isn't a scientist either, and is a raving nutcase.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Global Warming

Postby Pondero » April 21st, 2012, 8:54 pm

Sprocket wrote:Christopher Monckton isn't a scientist either, and is a raving nutcase.

:grin: :grin:
You have just committed the argumentum ad hominen logical fallacy of Aristotle. The attack on the man rather than on his argument.
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing make you afraid.
All things are passing.
God alone never changes.
Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing.
God alone suffices.

— St. Teresa, The bookmark of Teresa of Ávila, [28]
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Global Warming

Postby Sprocket » April 22nd, 2012, 4:46 am

But he is a raving nutcase, as even Greg, who agrees with him about global warming, has admitted. Obviously, nutcases can be right about some things, but in any case, Monckton's opinion is worth no more than yours or mine on the subject, i.e. nothing, because he isn't a scientist.
As for the argumentum ad populam - it is a logical fallacy in general, and I too get fed up with lobbyists for a particular position saying that 85% (or whatever) of the British public agree with them. As well as a logical fallacy, it's lazy: it's their job to produce arguments to convince me. However, we're not talking about the great, ignorant, bigotted, bloody-minded and terminally stupid general public here, but about scientists who are experts in the field, and the fact that an overwhelming majority of them believe in anthropogenic climate change is relevant, though not conclusive in itself.
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Global Warming

Postby Sprocket » April 22nd, 2012, 7:38 am

Pondero wrote:Just because you say 98% of climate scientists think it is happening, is not proof it is. The medieval writers would call your invalid argument. Argumentum ad populum- the consensus or headcount fallacy. .It is one of Aristotle's' commonest logical fallacies listed in his book Sophistical Refutations.

It was you that brought up the subject of whether there was a consensus. I was simply answering your question! :roll:
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Global Warming

Postby Pondero » April 22nd, 2012, 10:48 am

Sprocket wrote:But he is a raving nutcase, as even Greg, who agrees with him about global warming, has admitted. Obviously, nutcases can be right about some things, but in any case, Monckton's opinion is worth no more than yours or mine on the subject, i.e. nothing, because he isn't a scientist.
As for the argumentum ad populam - it is a logical fallacy in general, and I too get fed up with lobbyists for a particular position saying that 85% (or whatever) of the British public agree with them. As well as a logical fallacy, it's lazy: it's their job to produce arguments to convince me. However, we're not talking about the great, ignorant, bigotted, bloody-minded and terminally stupid general public here, but about scientists who are experts in the field, and the fact that an overwhelming majority of them believe in anthropogenic climate change is relevant, though not conclusive in itself.


It is not because he isn't a scientist as scientists are men mainly and have their biases. not all are saints, except for Saint Suzuki in Canada or the High Priest of man made global warming, Al Gore (USA) - so they would have you believe.
You have to rationalize what they are saying, and frankly these global warming scientists don't convince me of the truth of their arguments, and I have read most of them.
Why, only the other day, 50 scientists of NASA objected to NASA using a bias in their description of Global Warming, the essence of their letter ( found if you do a Google of them) is that man made global warming is not true, and that it is a scam. Disreputable scientists do exist, and why would any scientist be like this. Well, for one thing money! Research grants for thinking a certain way which requires further study, and money also to support such research.
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing make you afraid.
All things are passing.
God alone never changes.
Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing.
God alone suffices.

— St. Teresa, The bookmark of Teresa of Ávila, [28]
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Global Warming

Postby patjoseph » April 22nd, 2012, 11:52 am

It seems to me that people will look at the evidence, and pick the bits that suit them.
I am not 100% convinced, but I am convinced enough to do something (even if only a little) about it, and in the process save some money and the planets limited rescources, and the limit of those rescources is one thing that cannot be denied!
patjoseph
 
Posts: 750
Joined: November 1st, 2007, 9:02 pm

Re: Global Warming

Postby Sprocket » April 22nd, 2012, 12:02 pm

It really is incredibly dim-witted of the doubters to invent dubious motives for the scientists who believe in AGW, when it is absolutely obvious that all the powerful vested interests - the oil industry, the car-manufacturing industry - are on the side of the doubters. Why would scientists and governments want to annoy them, given the power they have? Coming up with spurious research that casts doubt on AGW is where the money is, in the form of huge research grants from the Oil industry!
Supercrappyfarcicalishbrexitisatrocious.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 16321
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron