Remember me
▼ Content

There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming



Page 1 of 212>
There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming23-02-2016 20:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg
23-02-2016 23:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
More tripe.

00.00: Your explanation of the scientific method is flat wrong. You do not start with a question, you do not go into an experiment without having first developed a model to test, peer review and journals are not part of the scientific method at all, etc.

02.17: Describing your 'experiments' that are not experiments. There is, for example, there is no definable data you are describing in the experiment. Taking measurements of wavelengths from where? Which wavelengths? What source are you using for historical data? Does it exist? (no)

02.47: You can't do a statistical analysis of data that doesn't exist. In addition, statistical mathematics has no power of prediction. You cannot prove the future with it. You can't even calculate a probability of a future with it except over a closed system, which this isn't.

03.00: Publishing papers and peer review are not part of the scientific method.

03.15: Models do not produce data. They manufacture data. The data is a fabrication.

03.35: The consensus comes in from where? Who has this godlike power over science?

05.30: The scientific journals you made as a part of the scientific method for some reason IS the media. The use of 'qualified to judge' is consensus renamed, therefore, that portion of your argument is circular in nature.

05.35: Consensus is not reached in science. Overwhelming data supporting a theory does not prove a theory. You are using consensus to essentially 'prove' a theory correct. The scientific method does not work that way.

05.45: Now you present out of nowhere the various dogmas of Religion and try to associate them with science, as if these were accepted and proven theories by consensus. They aren't even scientific theories, dude. There is absolutely nothing overwhelming about any one of them.

06.04: The Oreskes study was never done. It is fabricated data. The Doren study was never done either. It is just rewashed Oreskes crap. The Cook study was never done. It is just fabricated data. NONE of these studies published the source data, and committed gross errors in statistical mathematics (intentionally oftentimes). The 97% number has been debunked in spades.

07.04: You are fabricating data. You do not know how many scientists there are in the world. You do not even know how many 'qualified' scientists are in the world. Your percentages are BS.

07.56: Odd how you point out flaws in this petition while ignoring the idiots fabricating the 97% crap. Be that as it may, consensus is not part of the scientific process. The Oregon petition matters about as much as the source of the 97% number. The whole 'my list is bigger than your list' argument is pointless.

09.30: 'scientific' journals say this sort of extreme thing all the time, dude. NONE of them own science.

10.00: The conclusion now uses the 97% number as fact. It is not. It is also not any indication of any data whatsoever.



Since you start with a completely wrong idea of the scientific method, you have no idea of why any consensus argument is pointless. Trying to use it to prove or give additional credence to any theory is completely bogus. You then point to two sources of data on the 'consensus'. One is completely fabricated (the 97%) number, the other has various problems. Both are pointless arguments. Neither has anything to do with the scientific method.
24-02-2016 01:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg


I watched the video.

In your opening, you set out to determine if there is a consensus on Global Warming but you don't state among whom. We all know that there is a strong, almost unanimous, consensus among the Global Warming congregation.

Then I noticed your attempt to make things appear to somehow be related to science by appending the word "scientific" in there. I quickly checked and Global Warming is still not defined in the body of science, and consensus still plays no role in science, so I was truly curious as to what you might mean.

Then you went into a treatis of the scientific method, except you got it wrong from the start. The scientific method does not begin with a question. The scientific method begins with a falsifiable model that predicts nature. The scientific method tries to show that the model is false. The model, being formally specified is checked for internal consistency, contradictions, conflicts with other models, etc. Then, its ability to predict nature is tested by generating hypotheses around which experiments are tailored.

You included developmental research in your scientific method, but there isn't any. You also included supporting evidence but that plays no role in the scientific method either. You omitted the initiating step of "acceptance of a falsifiable model that predicts nature" and you did not mention the overarching purpose of trying to show the model false by showing a derived hypothesis to be false. If an hypothesis is shown to be false then there really isn't much analysis to be done by the scientific method. The scientist(s) will certainly analyze the results to try to figure out what went wrong but the scientific method would have already concluded for that particular model. The scientist(s) will either correct the model, discard the model, or leave the work for someone else.

When one analyzes what went wrong and writes that one does not have science for the following reasons, it is not a scientific paper. It is just a paper. The journal is just a journal. You are once again guilty of abusing the word "scientific."


A theory is a natural language expression of an otherwise formally specified model. If you have a theory, you have a model, not necessarily an hypothesis. If you have an hypothesis, then you must have derived it from some model. You really should get all this correct.

Oh - My - Gawking - Fog! You have got to be out of your "pretend scientist" mind! You are asserting that once the scientific method falsifies a model enough times, presumably because it is just wrong beyond repair, that humanity somehow morphs into a consensus that the theory is nonetheless true? Then you say "Take Global Warming for example." (1:50 - 2:15).

Aaah, now I see why you adjusted the scientific method to begin with a question instead of an answer (a formally specified falsifiable model that predicts nature). You load the question with the predetermined conclusions you want to emerge from your "all-new scientific method." In this case, your "question" becomes "Why is the earth warming?" (2:20) If the earth is cooling right now, as it likely is, you won't very well be able to get any such model through the scientific method, that's for sure. You'll be relelgated to simply declaring a "consensus of the faithful."

(2:35) This is great! QUOTE: "Let's say the concept you come up with is that [Global Warming] is basically man-made." Your approach is to build it right into your "method" as an assumption and find ways to provide "supporting evidence" of its truth rather than expose it to the real scientific method which will show it to be utterly bogus. This is precisely why supporting evidence plays no role in science but is the bread and butter of religion.

(3:00 - 3:06) You thought it was good before but here it gets even better! Peer review! ...actually our Devonian two-fisted Bushmills slammer uses the term "refereed." The idea is the same. The proposed dogma that hasn't had to endure any real scientific method is presented for the approval of those who claim to own science. In this example, someone who assumes "Global Warming" (without creating any formally specified falsifiable Global Warming model) is occurring due to "human activity" (without really even defining what that means) gets his/her beliefs blessed by this Divinely-appointed clergy and it becomes official dogma! ...er, um...it becomes "The Science!"

What an astute viewer might notice is that our illustrius Irish-on-the-Jameson video producer is portraying is that each individual is responsible for verifying the truth of his or her own beliefs. In actual science, we don't simply take anyone on his/her word that, oh yeah, his/her falsifiable model accurately predicts nature. We all set out to show it to be false. We perform all sorts of testing imaginable. Only if the model happens to survive all the tests of others do we say "Wow, I'll be damned! It seems to be right." In the video, however, the only others that come into play are the clergy that own science, and only then to pronounce their regulatory approval for those beliefs to be called "The Science"

(3:30) Here our pretend scientist declares that the pretend scientific field "climatology" has already verified that all factors except their deities, i.e. "greenhouse gases" can be eliminated from consideration in answering the original assumption of increasing earth temperatures. How fortunate for us, no? It looks like we owe a great deal of appreciation to pretend scientists all around the world for clarifying this little-known aspect of their religious dogma. In fact, we learn that the clergy consensus is that the correct dogma specifically uses the wording "greenhouse gases and aerosols combined"...at least in our video producer's particular denomination.

(3:58) This is the point in the video where the word "consensus" is redefined. Yes, in the dictionary it means "majority subjective opinion." In the video, it means "It's the truth because the clergy that owns "The Science" doesn't accept any other beliefs that differ." Ergo, by being the truth, we insist that there is no element of subjectivity. It's objective truth. Yes, that's it. That's the ticket.

(5:08) I relished this slide. First, the obvious is stated "consensus does not require unanimous approval." It only requires a majority opinion. But wait! The video implies that those who disagree with the majority subjective opinion are the inevitable "sticks in the mud" who are objectively wrong. We all know that reality/nature morphs to conform with majority opinion. Those with dissenting views are wrong. Sadly, the video does not call them out specifically as the "deniers" they are. Science isn't about doubting and questioning! It's about blindly obeying what one is ordered to believe. The video specifies that consensus is not a matter of a democratic vote, ...but apparently it is.

(5:19) At this time hack the video establishes the idea that there are those who are not qualified to have a dissenting viewpoint. Presumably, those who are not qualified to have a dissenting viewpoint are those with dissenting viewpoints. This is pure religion. Clergy mandate what is to be believed and the faithful sheep don't question. In science, however, no qualifications or credentials are required. For example, any five-year-old is permitted to tell Surface Detail that earth's radiance cannot decrease if its temperature increases. Similarly, warmizombies can only cry "lack of credentials" if they are defending a deeply held religious belief. No such defense applies in light of violations of physics.

(5:38) This is the "supporting evidence is everything" slide. Supporting evidence plays no role in science but it is the bread-and-butter of religion. Global Warming is a religion that claims to be science and thus appeals to the scientifically illiterate. They are willing to accept violations of physics and conflations of cause and effect. It's all about the comfort they get from their unfalsifiable religious beliefs. The scientific method, on the other hand, cares nothing for any evidence that some idea might be true. the scientific method seeks only to show a falsifiable model to be false.

This slide also establishes the idea that, sure, any individual Global Warming assertion can be nit-picked to show that Global Warming is false, but because there are just so overwhelming manyerroneous Global Warming assertions that, when taken together, somehow form an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence. Once again, this is why supporting evidence plays no role whatsoever in actual science.

(6:02) How the 97% figure was fabricated for the gullible, building on the idea that subjective consensus is absolute truth.

(7:04) These next two slides establishes that nonbelievers of AGW don't form a consensus and don't have the proper credentials to have a differing opinion, but we already knew from a previous slide that having a differing viewpoint disqualifies one from being permitted to hold a differing viewpoint. Note: You'll have to be sitting down when you get to the second slide. Our warmizombie video producer nit-picks that a term from a statement from non-believers is "not defined"!
Up to the ~10:00 mark the video simply insults different aspects of a meaningless petition. No scientific support for Global Warming is ever presented, just implications that people are silly for not believing the absolute truth of subjective beliefs in violations of physics.

The video concludes with a reiteration that consensus is not subjective opinion but absolute truth determined by "supporting evidence" and...drumroll please...the closing message that "scientists" agree that now is the time to act on Global Warming. (I don't remember if it ends in an "Amen" or not)



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2016 01:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Science is not a democracy. Science is about objective observation. All laws and theories can only be formed from observation.

If took one man to disprove thousands of years of scientific consensus that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY
Edited on 24-02-2016 01:23
24-02-2016 02:19
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Sorry DRKTS, but your facts are wrong. In the video you reference Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook et al 2013's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.
Edited on 24-02-2016 02:22
24-02-2016 02:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Science is not a democracy.
Science is not a government.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Science is about objective observation.
Nope. Observation is separate from the scientific method.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
All laws and theories can only be formed from observation.
Not true. It is possible to form a theory without any observation at all. The Theory of Special Relativity used no observations at all to be formed. It came out a pure thought experiment.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If took one man to disprove thousands of years of scientific consensus that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY

True! The scientific consensus at the time used religion to persecute the poor guy too.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 02:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?
Edited on 24-02-2016 02:24
24-02-2016 02:33
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the earth is flat?

Maybe there are, but that doesn't matter. What matters are the results of the study. The study only found a 33% endorsement of AGW and a 1.6% endorsement that the warming is primarly due to humans. There is no 97% of papers agreeing with AGW in the study and therefore it is disingenuous and wrong for people to suggest the study found a 97% consensus that most of the warming is due to humans. It did not. And that's the point that I'm making here.
Edited on 24-02-2016 02:43
24-02-2016 03:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?


A beautiful example of the fallacy of a vacuous truth.

Congratulations. That's a rare one! You have reached new heights of illogic!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-02-2016 03:26
24-02-2016 03:47
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Sorry DRKTS, but your facts are wrong. In the video you reference Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook et al 2013's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.


According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
24-02-2016 10:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?


A beautiful example of the fallacy of a vacuous truth.

Congratulations. That's a rare one! You have reached new heights of illogic!

The point I'm making with my example seems to have whizzed straight over your vacuous head.

To clarify for you: just because a paper doesn't explicit state something that is widely held to be true in a particular field, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree that it is true. That's why it's stupid to assume that the authors of papers that don't explicitly state that AGW is real don't agree that it is real.
24-02-2016 12:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?


A beautiful example of the fallacy of a vacuous truth.

Congratulations. That's a rare one! You have reached new heights of illogic!

The point I'm making with my example seems to have whizzed straight over your vacuous head.

To clarify for you: just because a paper doesn't explicit state something that is widely held to be true in a particular field, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree that it is true. That's why it's stupid to assume that the authors of papers that don't explicitly state that AGW is real don't agree that it is real.

In which case you can't count it as an agreement either. Your attempt to do so is the vacuous truth.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 12:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Surface Detail wrote:To clarify for you: just because a paper doesn't explicit state something that is widely held to be true in a particular field, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree that it is true.

Awesome logic. If your assertion, however WACKY it might be, is not addressed by some authors, then you declare that the authors were obviously assuming your WACKY assertion to be true, presuming it to be "widely held to be true"...because reality morphs to conform to the unspoken subjective consensus.

Proof by assertion combined with consensus fallacy. Solid logic there.


Surface Detail wrote: That's why it's stupid to assume that the authors of papers that don't explicitly state that AGW is real don't agree that it is real.

Is it stupid to assume that the authors of the papers that don't state that AGW is real somehow agree that it is real?


.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2016 14:29
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Category 3 contained papers that according to Cook simply acknowledged that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming". Only the papers in Category 1 & 2 "explictly" endorsed AGW. Category 3 were papers that according to Cook "implictly" endorsed AGW. Anyway, only Category 1 with 65 papers, were papers acknowledging humans were the "primary cause" of global warming. The word primary means anything over 50%. Therefore, all of the papers in Category 2 saying that AGW is real must have estimated the warming from humans to be 50% or less, otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. Hence the study only found a 1.6% consensus that the primary cause of global warming is due to humans (65/3945). I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but let me say it once more and hopefully it might sink in: only 65 papers in Cook et al (2013) supports the idea that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming. After searching through over 12,000 climate-related papers, Cook only found a mere 65. Your whole 97% consensus claim that "most of the warming is human induced" is based on 65 papers.
Edited on 24-02-2016 14:35
24-02-2016 15:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
One Punch Man wrote: I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but ....

I know the feeling. I empathize with every fiber of my being (I'm assuming that my being has many fibers).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2016 16:44
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Category 3 contained papers that according to Cook simply acknowledged that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming". Only the papers in Category 1 & 2 "explictly" endorsed AGW. Category 3 were papers that according to Cook "implictly" endorsed AGW. Anyway, only Category 1 with 65 papers, were papers acknowledging humans were the "primary cause" of global warming. The word primary means anything over 50%. Therefore, all of the papers in Category 2 saying that AGW is real must have estimated the warming from humans to be 50% or less, otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. Hence the study only found a 1.6% consensus that the primary cause of global warming is due to humans (65/3945). I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but let me say it once more and hopefully it might sink in: only 65 papers in Cook et al (2013) supports the idea that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming. After searching through over 12,000 climate-related papers, Cook only found a mere 65. Your whole 97% consensus claim that "most of the warming is human induced" is based on 65 papers.


You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote. Have that discussion with him. I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.
24-02-2016 19:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
DRKTS wrote: You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote.

...but your reinterpretation is true, according to your church, yes?

DRKTS wrote: Have that discussion with him.

Did you just tip your king right there? You did, didn't you? You realize that everything about your position is a lie and, as such, you have absolutely no response. Ergo, you're appealing to some authority that is not present to be cross-examined.

Well I, at least, accept your resignation.

DRKTS wrote:I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.

So no direct response to his numbers and figures that blow your assertions out of the water? Your only comment is to complain about the omission of something he thought was unimportant.

I think you need to get back to the bottle.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2016 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
DRKTS wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Category 3 contained papers that according to Cook simply acknowledged that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming". Only the papers in Category 1 & 2 "explictly" endorsed AGW. Category 3 were papers that according to Cook "implictly" endorsed AGW. Anyway, only Category 1 with 65 papers, were papers acknowledging humans were the "primary cause" of global warming. The word primary means anything over 50%. Therefore, all of the papers in Category 2 saying that AGW is real must have estimated the warming from humans to be 50% or less, otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. Hence the study only found a 1.6% consensus that the primary cause of global warming is due to humans (65/3945). I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but let me say it once more and hopefully it might sink in: only 65 papers in Cook et al (2013) supports the idea that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming. After searching through over 12,000 climate-related papers, Cook only found a mere 65. Your whole 97% consensus claim that "most of the warming is human induced" is based on 65 papers.


You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote. Have that discussion with him. I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.


Cook is trying to prove a negative in his conclusion with positive predicates (in addition to not documenting the predicates). Cook is an idiot.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 22:14
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
DRKTS wrote:
[quote] Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote. Have that discussion with him. I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.

No. I am not "arbitrarily reinterpreting" what Cook wrote. I telling you the unambigious, indubitable, mathematically-definite result of the study. When Cook states that their "analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is vanishingly small" they are including the papers in Category 1, 2 & 3 as pro-AGW. Let us assume for argument's sake that Category 3 should be included as pro-AGW and that Cook did find a 97% consensus on AGW. It's irrelevant, because Category 1, which contained only 65 papers was the only category with papers that argued that global warming is "primarly" (i.e. over 50%) due to humans. Therefore all of the other papers in Category 2 & 3 must have estimated the warming from humans to be less than 50%. The estimated contribution to global warming from humans in all papers in Category 2 & 3 must have been less than 50% otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. You only have a 1.6% consensus in his study that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming because Category 1 only had 65 papers.
24-02-2016 22:27
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Because Cook included papers in his 97% consensus that estimated the warming from humans to be less than 50% the papers he included were skeptics such as Alan Carlin. YouTube "Warmists Stunned by Senate Testimony", go to 8:30 and Roy Spencer explains how even he is a part of John Cook's 97% consensus.
Edited on 24-02-2016 22:34
25-02-2016 13:03
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
One Punch Man wrote:
Because Cook included papers in his 97% consensus that estimated the warming from humans to be less than 50% the papers he included were skeptics such as Alan Carlin. YouTube "Warmists Stunned by Senate Testimony", go to 8:30 and Roy Spencer explains how even he is a part of John Cook's 97% consensus.


Spencer has stated publically that he believes the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role. He just believes that it wont be catastrophic. Most of the often quoted climate skeptics say this: Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and Spencer.

See my YouTube video "Climate Skeptics in their own words"
25-02-2016 15:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
DRKTS wrote: Spencer has stated publically that he believes ... "

Why not bring Spencer here to speak for himself? Why pretend that you speak for him? Why do you pretend to speak for countless, untold others?

Does your entire argument crumble if you just say "This is what I believe..."?

It does, doesn't it?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 15:40
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: Spencer has stated publically that he believes ... "

Why not bring Spencer here to speak for himself? Why pretend that you speak for him? Why do you pretend to speak for countless, untold others?

Does your entire argument crumble if you just say "This is what I believe..."?

It does, doesn't it?


.


I did bring him here: see my video on YouTube
25-02-2016 15:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
DRKTS wrote: I did bring him here: see my video on YouTube

You did not bring him here. I can't ask questions of a video, e.g. "Have you completely changed your mind since the video was made?", etc...

So the answer really is yes, that your arguments all crumble if you are allowed to only speak for yourself.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 16:36
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: I did bring him here: see my video on YouTube

You did not bring him here. I can't ask questions of a video, e.g. "Have you completely changed your mind since the video was made?", etc...

So the answer really is yes, that your arguments all crumble if you are allowed to only speak for yourself.


.


More bluster and non sequitur answers.

Please try again: Is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"

We wait with baite3d breath for an honest, unambiguous answer. Cue the crickets ....
25-02-2016 20:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
DRKTS wrote: We wait with baite3d breath for an honest, unambiguous answer. Cue the crickets ....

Please hold your breath while you wait.

You are asking me to speak for the IPCC. I can at best afford you my speculation (which I happily extended).

If you think I'll lower myself to your level of dishonesty and pretend I speak for countless, untold others for whom I actually don't speak, then I'm guessing your lungs are not going to hold out while you wait to find out.

I do, however, appreciate your attempts to bully me into lowering myself to your level. Would you mind using the "bluster" word again. Frankly I'm amazed you think that's some sort of impact word. Is it a particularly powerful one over in your neck of the woods?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2016 12:03
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: We wait with baite3d breath for an honest, unambiguous answer. Cue the crickets ....

Please hold your breath while you wait.

You are asking me to speak for the IPCC. I can at best afford you my speculation (which I happily extended).

If you think I'll lower myself to your level of dishonesty and pretend I speak for countless, untold others for whom I actually don't speak, then I'm guessing your lungs are not going to hold out while you wait to find out.

I do, however, appreciate your attempts to bully me into lowering myself to your level. Would you mind using the "bluster" word again. Frankly I'm amazed you think that's some sort of impact word. Is it a particularly powerful one over in your neck of the woods?


.


The only thing you are competent at is dodging the question. It would be funny if it were not so sad.
26-02-2016 15:53
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
DRKTS wrote:
Spencer has stated publically that he believes the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role. He just believes that it wont be catastrophic. Most of the often quoted climate skeptics say this: Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and Spencer.

You wrote that Spencer agrees that "humans play a role". Of course, that was my point. Skeptics such as Joanne Nova, Lindzen, Spencer, Segalstad, Watts, etc, all agree that humans must have some influence on the climate, even if that influence is very small and not worth serious consideration.

So, you understand and agree then that Cook's 97% consensus figure includes skeptics? And I take it, assuming you understand basic arithmetic, that Cook's study only found a 1.6% consensus that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming? That's not very much, wouldn't you agree?

You seem to be consistently avoiding this point.
26-02-2016 18:46
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Spencer has stated publically that he believes the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role. He just believes that it wont be catastrophic. Most of the often quoted climate skeptics say this: Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and Spencer.

You wrote that Spencer agrees that "humans play a role". Of course, that was my point. Skeptics such as Joanne Nova, Lindzen, Spencer, Segalstad, Watts, etc, all agree that humans must have some influence on the climate, even if that influence is very small and not worth serious consideration.

So, you understand and agree then that Cook's 97% consensus figure includes skeptics? And I take it, assuming you understand basic arithmetic, that Cook's study only found a 1.6% consensus that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming? That's not very much, wouldn't you agree?

You seem to be consistently avoiding this point.


There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"
26-02-2016 19:00
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I have been watching this thread with great interest. I believe it would be peculiar if humans were having no impact on the earths Eco system but still have the problem of how much and does it matter.
The IPCC was I believe given the remit to study only man made impact but I can't see how they can do this without looking at the total global environment. An example being that human emitted CO2 only amounts to around 4% of the global emissions if I remember correctly.
Also the claims by IPCC of catastrophic temperature rise of around 4.5C is difficult to understand, let alone the Paris agreement where it was decided that man is somehow going to limit the temp rise to 2C seems to me to be nothing short of arrogance.
This is what I'm struggling with.
26-02-2016 19:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
Gogsy wrote: I believe it would be peculiar if humans were having no impact on the earths Eco system

Wait! Who is denying this? Humanity tries to set foot on every square inch of the planet. We investigate undersea thermal vents. We "affect" earth's ecosystem, without a doubt.

The problem is that warmizombies and climate lemmings don't focus on the ecosystem or the environment. They focus on their mythical religious deity "Climate" and talk about how it "changes in mysterious ways." It's as if they don't know He's not real (or maybe "Climate" is a she).

Gogsy wrote: but still have the problem of how much and does it matter.

Are there units of measure for "ecosystem"? If not then your question obviously can never be answered because it "ecosystem" cannot be measured.

Does it matter? Apparently not.

Gogsy wrote:let alone the Paris agreement where it was decided that man is somehow going to limit the temp rise to 2C seems to me to be nothing short of arrogance.

Did they specify their own penalty if they fail to comply with the mandate and allow temperatures to rise 2C?

Here's a better question: Did they specify an official source for measuring earth's average global temperature, or did they leave that completely vague (unfalsifiable) such that they can declare the Paris Accord a success, noting that they capped warming by taking a Paris vacation?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2016 21:19
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.
26-02-2016 22:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.
26-02-2016 23:41
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

Surface Detail, I have been over this with you already above and I accepted the possibility that this may be the case. However it does not change the results of the study. The results still show a 1.6% 'consensus' that global warming is "primarly" due to humans. That is the result of the study and that result will not bend to the whim of your conjecture regarding what others might agree with.
Edited on 26-02-2016 23:42
27-02-2016 00:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

Surface Detail, I have been over this with you already above and I accepted the possibility that this may be the case. However it does not change the results of the study. The results still show a 1.6% 'consensus' that global warming is "primarly" due to humans. That is the result of the study and that result will not bend to the whim of your conjecture regarding what others might agree with.

But only 10 of the 12271 papers explicitly state that humans are causing less than half of global warming, so I could state with equal validity that only about 0.1% of papers disagree with the consensus that humans are primarily responsible for global warming. So that gives a consensus of 99.9% using exactly the same logic as you just did!
27-02-2016 00:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.


Sorry dude, you have committed TWO errors in logic. The logic fail is on YOU.

The first is an attempt to prove a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. This is not possible in logic. It is known as an illicit negative.

The second follows this syllogistic construct:
1. Some geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some Geologists write geology papers.
Therefore no geologist believes the Earth is flat.

This trying to prove a negative conclusion from positive predicates. This is an illicit affirmative.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-02-2016 00:47
27-02-2016 02:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.


Sorry dude, you have committed TWO errors in logic. The logic fail is on YOU.

The first is an attempt to prove a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. This is not possible in logic. It is known as an illicit negative.

The second follows this syllogistic construct:
1. Some geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some Geologists write geology papers.
Therefore no geologist believes the Earth is flat.

This trying to prove a negative conclusion from positive predicates. This is an illicit affirmative.

My first paragraph was not a logical construct. It was simply a statement pointing out the illogical nature of OPM's conclusion.

My second paragraph was deliberately illogical in the same way as OPM's statement was illogical to drive the point home. But it doesn't follow the syllogistic construct you claim, given that the number of papers explicitly stating that the Earth is a spheroid could well be zero in my formulation. My argument doesn't depend on some geology papers stating the Earth is a spheroid. Rather the reverse, actually.

You're not trying to claim that OPM's statement is logical, are you?
27-02-2016 04:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.


Sorry dude, you have committed TWO errors in logic. The logic fail is on YOU.

The first is an attempt to prove a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. This is not possible in logic. It is known as an illicit negative.

The second follows this syllogistic construct:
1. Some geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some Geologists write geology papers.
Therefore no geologist believes the Earth is flat.

This trying to prove a negative conclusion from positive predicates. This is an illicit affirmative.

My first paragraph was not a logical construct. It was simply a statement pointing out the illogical nature of OPM's conclusion.

My second paragraph was deliberately illogical in the same way as OPM's statement was illogical to drive the point home. But it doesn't follow the syllogistic construct you claim, given that the number of papers explicitly stating that the Earth is a spheroid could well be zero in my formulation. My argument doesn't depend on some geology papers stating the Earth is a spheroid. Rather the reverse, actually.

You're not trying to claim that OPM's statement is logical, are you?

Actually, yes. It is YOU that is being illogical. He never claimed the opinion of the others was opposite. You keep insisting that he did. Your second statement in trying to show his 'illogic' was itself illogical in the opposite way.

You are now attempting to change the 2nd argument. Now you are stating:
1. No geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some geologists write papers
Therefore, no geologists believe the Earth is flat.

This is a different kind of logical problem known as a non-sequitur.

Care to want to try your 2nd argument again? Maybe the 1st one?


The Parrot Killer
27-02-2016 13:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
A qualified geologist that thinks the earth is flat would be absurd, obviously.
27-02-2016 17:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
spot wrote:
A qualified geologist that thinks the earth is flat would be absurd, obviously.

A qualified scientist who believes in violations of physics, e.g. an atmospheric gas creating energy in violation of the 1st LoT or a planet that increases in temperature but somehow decreases in radiance, etc would be reason enough for his/her university to rescind his/her degree and disavow all association.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 02:03
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact