Consensus on Global Warming?Follow

Correct. And the footnote at the bottom of the quoted article says:




You do see how the definition of "climate change" is kinda important, right?



Um... Also, assuming the authors submitting papers know their subjects, they're not going to use a keyword that isn't applicable. The point is that it should not be surprising at all to find zero papers categorized under "climate change" that talk about non human effects on weather over time.


It's roughly equivalent to feigning surprise that under the heading of "automobiles" you failed to find anything talking about horse drawn carriages. Worse, what the IPCC has essentially done is then take the definition of "automobile", expand it to mean "any vehicle", and conclude that the consensus is that the only vehicles in existence are automobiles...


How much mental gyration do you have to go through to continue denying that there's something fishy going on at the IPCC?

Erm, the IPCC is your own private cross to bear. I haven't really tried defending them at all in this thread. Honestly, if you really want to check it whether or not the right definition of "climate change" was used, go purchase access to the ISI and go wild. Hell, maybe a bunch of stuff has turned up since the study was done and you can wave it around and holler.

But, whatever. Six pages of you with your fingers in your ears is enough. I'm off to kill some disembodied arms in LoTRO.

So you missed the part where I explained that the IPCC uses a different definition of "climate change"?

Why'd they do that? The rest of the scientific community uses the FCCC definition. It's not rocket science to see that if all the scientific papers are written using that definition, then all the papers on "climate change" are going to talk about human influence on the climate, right?


If that's not fishy, then what is?

Pointing out the stupidity of the article to which you linked?

You aren't defending the action, you are defending the person (people)

So you'd be defending the child rapist.

You both share that flaw.

You both share that flaw.

Not even vaguely similar. Still funny, don't get me wrong, but less so because it doesn't make any sense.

They're exactly the same. What's funny is that you don't see why. :)

Why not do us a favor and symbolize the argumentative forms and fill in any missing inferences; that way you can truly strip away any irrelevant content and demonstrate the logical equivalence. The resulting chain of conditions should turn out to look the same if this is true. I'd do it for you and see if it is, but it shouldn't be any trouble at all for a logician.

***

Damn, that page was the page I was posting on when I finished Ninja Gaiden Black. Man that was a fun game.

Edited, May 23rd 2008 4:48am by Pensive

No. That's not how it works.

If there's an organization out there that promotes the idea that child rapists should have their families killed, and I post an article saying that this organization's conclusions are wrong, and then you disagree with the article I've posted, then it's absolutely correct to assume that you agree with the organization that believes the families of child rapists should be killed.


See. That logic. Now. If you said something like: "I don't agree with the idea that the families of child rapists should be killed, but I also don't agree with the logic being used in the article to make this point", then you might have a bit of wiggle room.

But that's not what happened in this thread. Everyone simply attacked the article I linked, bashed them for their list of "scientists", etc, without actually addressing the core issue at all. I repeatedly asked people to apply the same logic they were using to the IPCC and its consensus methodology, and got nothing but more attacks for my trouble.

The stated point within the article was not to "prove" that global warming exists or doesn't exist, but purely to debunk the idea that a "consensus" of scientists either exists or is relevant to determining the truth of the matter. If you read it, and you understood it, and you disagreed with it, then one kinda has to conclude that you do believe that the consensus methodology used by the IPCC is a valid way to determine "truth" and should be acted upon as though it is proven fact.


How about we just clear this up right now?

Are you saying that the IPCC's consensus is an invalid proof of global warming theory? Yes or no.



Actually. I do. You, however, manage to use a logical fallacy with virtually every single post. It's amazing really. Someone ought to do a study on you or something...

You posted the OP asking if the ridiculous list of OMG SCIENTISTS meant that we could throw out the idea that a concensus of scientists agree that we're experiencing anthropogenic climate change. The answer is no. The reason is because the concensus that people are referring to isn't your silly list nor particularly the IPCC list either.

You're trying desparately to knock down the IPCC signatories as if it proves anything. It doesn't. No one except you is claiming it to be evidence.

****, I don't actually care but since you're jizzing all over yourself in excitment to talk about it, I give up. How many signatories to the IPCC report are scientists involved in the field of climatology or someting related? Just so you can prove me wrong, I'm going to guess 100%.

Are you saying that the IPCC's consensus is an invalid proof of global warming theory? Yes or no.

Sure. Do you want give that another go with a word other than "proof" so the rest of us can stop laughing at you? Really, it's too much. You're too generous. I know laughter's good for people and all, but think of yourself just this once.

Do I think it's sufficient evidence to act when virtually every climatologist agrees it's likely that man made warming is a significant factor? Yes. So do the majority of governments and people in the world. No one cares what the flat Earth fringe wackos think. Even if they turn out to be right, there's nothing lost by curbing man made production of these gases. So let's err on the side of not letting our great grandchildren live in a barren wasteland.

Just kidding, we both know you're never going to have children.

Um... Was that a yes or a no?



Ah. But you aren't defending the IPCCs consensus...

Do you just smack into walls and fall into potholes too?




Nothing? Do you have any idea how much the proposed changes would cost?

I don't either, but this should give us some idea




How do you go from that to "there's nothing lost..."?


EDIT: I forgot the follow up to that. If the advocacy campaign alone will cost 300 million, I think it's safe to say that the public cost will be many orders of magnitude higher. People don't pay more for advertising then the project they want will cost, especially when dealing with public money...

Edited, May 23rd 2008 6:20pm by gbaji