Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 1:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
And I'm probably no more concerned about my fellow man than the next guy, but the whinging about 'climate justice' and 'frontline communities' from the climate alarmists, and their faux concern for sea-level-rise- and future-drought-afflicted people of the world, does ring a little bit hollow when the alarmists won't admit that climate change is far down the priority list (for good reason) for many people of the world.

The minute you see a modifier in front of "justice", you know they're not talking actual justice.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 1:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Again a simple broad brush dismal.

I posted links to specific refutations of a number popular of Climate Change denial theories.  You haven't refuted any of the specific cases.

In reflecting on the various climate change denial theories posted in this thread by yourself,  MtnGoat and others, I'm not recalling anything that isn't covered by SkepticalScience.com list of popular climate change denial theories.

So it seems that there isn't a lot of original thinking or research going on...

Are you claiming that 'covering' an argument means that argument is actually falsified?

Their 'coverage' of the argument that humans already survived warmer temperatures didnt even falsify the argument. It addressed strawmen of their own creation, talked around the actual argument and failed to actually falsify it.

Is their 'coverage' of an argument synonymous with falsification, to you?

And since when is original thinking some requirement for facts or valid arguments? Can we apply this standard to your acceptance of SS's arguments, which themselves are not original?

Why would anyone even bother dragging in such a nonsense standard for evaluating the truth of arguments about empirical, objective facts?

I suspect its because its pound the table time for specious 'social' methods of defending poor methods of judgement and the resultng equally poor conclusions

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1524 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 2:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The minute you see a modifier in front of "justice", you know they're not talking actual justice.

This is from a .gov domain, in case you choose to assign any concern to such things moon.gif

Quote:
“The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”

https://www.justice.gov/about

It could easily be argued that this may support or contest your assertion wink.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15682 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cross quoting from another thread. clown.gif

MtnGoat wrote:
We'll come full circle to where people will only believe what they see with their own eyes and maybe not even then.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6317 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Still not seeing any specific counter arguments to the Greenland Ice Core temperature debunking.

Lots of generic attacks on me and Skeptical Science,  but so far no data showing that Greenland Ice core data actually measures temperatures in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Nor any other specific climate change denial theory posted here where I posted a link to the Skeptical Science entry debunking the theory.

So far every climate change denial theory posted in the last several hundred pages of this thread already have Skeptical Science blog posts that debunk that theory.

There responses so far to the falsification provided by Skeptical Science have been limited to attacks on me or on Skeptical Science as a source, but so far no presentation of data that falsified the falsification presented on Skeptical Science.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15682 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Tom wrote:
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bit of controversy in the talk section.  I don't really see anything that leads me to dismiss SkS as a trash blog.

I agree. It's their intentional and continual abuse of logic such as the use of strawman arguments, misdirection, and claiming to 'debunk' arguments they don't actually show to be false, which leads to that conclusion.

It's not the talk, it's the lousy content

More like whack a mole.  The content is lousy in the sense they are responding to lousy arguments.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
If the arguments they were responding to were lousy, why then, using proper method and valid logic should be even *easier*, not harder.

I have never before seen anyone attempt to defend lousy arguments by blaming ....the arguments of those they claim to be refuting.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
This is from a .gov domain, in case you choose to assign any concern to such things moon.gif

Doppelganger wrote:
https://www.justice.gov/about

It could easily be argued that this may support or contest your assertion wink.gif

I assign high concern to it, because no non partisan govt entity should be using openly political and partisan ideals or goals such as those defined as 'climate' justice or 'frontline' communities.

Yes, one can argue anything. The issue is does the argument make any sense.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Still not seeing any specific counter arguments to the Greenland Ice Core temperature debunking.

Lots of generic attacks on me and Skeptical Science,  but so far no data showing that Greenland Ice core data actually measures temperatures in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Nor any other specific climate change denial theory posted here where I posted a link to the Skeptical Science entry debunking the theory.

So far every climate change denial theory posted in the last several hundred pages of this thread already have Skeptical Science blog posts that debunk that theory.

There responses so far to the falsification provided by Skeptical Science have been limited to attacks on me or on Skeptical Science as a source, but so far no presentation of data that falsified the falsification presented on Skeptical Science.

You won't see an argument from me on your observation about attempting to use cores for recent temps, because as far as I know, your argument is correct on that front.

As for the second, I already dealt with one, and of course, you've already forgotten, which  is why i asked a while back if you  intended to *learn* from having arguments falsified, or do you just ignore and move on without ever changing everything related to the falsified argument.

They never did falsify the argument that humans have already survived warmer temperatures. They talked around the fact and used strawman arguments about other periods of time.

Further, you refused to address the numerous sources showing earlier higher temps at all kinds of sites. When I pressed you to address them, you still ignored them.

What you're claiming is simply not true. Falsification only has value  if you are open to admitting you are wrong.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10878 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 3:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Tom wrote:
So what's your point?  What is it that isn't debunked?  Ideally in less than 1 paragraph.

If it fits in one paragraph, fine, if it doesn't, then it won't and I don't... because complex ideas have complex details. If that doesn't suit someone's ends, fine, but they shouldn't be claiming to have valid judgment of complex ideas. The citations not addressed do not fit in a paragraph.

The Easterbook study is claimed to have been falsified, via a 'debunking' (political terminology). So, fine....falsifying the details of one claim does not falsify another with different data, methods, or arguments.

What was not falsified is easy. NONE of the other works I presented (aside from Easterbrook) have been addressed. Especially the one which also uses Greenland data.

Yet it is directly implied that debunking Easterbrook counts as falsification of anything else I presented.

The list of papers not addressed:
China early holocene temps much warmer than present...
*****************************
Iceland proxy studies show higher temps earlier
*******************************
Temps consistent with higher premodern temps in Australia as well. PDF
There are abundant studies and refererences concerning the higher temperatures previous in the era.
****************************************

Quote:
The record demonstrates a warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE – 450 CE), variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 – 850 CE), positive bottom water temperature anomalies during the Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 – 1350 CE) and a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability during the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 CE).

pdf
************************************

Non Easterbrook study which tends to agree with Easterbrook

Quote:
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 8–5 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 2–3°C warmer than present-day values...

pdf
**********************************

from Estonia
Those darned Estonians...

The methods used here for catastrophic warming arguments are sloppy because the backing for them is political, social, and emotional..and thus sloppy by standards which follow proper method.

None of these works were falsified, even the one which is consistent with Easterbrook's claim.  And not consistent with the claims of SS's 'debunking' of Easterbrook's work.

I took the time to present sources and claims in numerous cases. Then posters turn around and claim nothing SS says has been falsified. These studies say otherwise, and they are ignored immediately.

That's not valid argument.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15682 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 4:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What is it that you want responded to? Maybe you can summarize the specifics of your argument. I believe the point you were making is that temperatures have been higher in the past and humanity survived. The SKS response to this argument is that global temperatures have not necessarily been higher. They acknowledge higher regional variations but point out that global averages have not exceeded 1C.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6317 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 5:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
They never did falsify the argument that humans have already survived warmer temperatures. They talked around the fact and used strawman arguments about other periods of time.

That argument is falsified here:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=424

The conclusion to that is:

Quote:
So, really, the climate hasn't changed much since we settled into towns, invented plumbing, and started calling ourselves civilized.

Since humans and our human ancestors have been on Earth, average global temperatures have never been 3 °C warmer than now. In the next 100 years our children will be the first people ever to experience that kind of climate

To which I will add that I don't believe that merely surviving as a species should be the goal -- but rather that our civilization would remain largely intact.  I mean even in the film "Mad Max" humans survive all out nuclear war....
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9769 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Jul 11, 2019 9:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm not going to mention any names, but another nwhikers.net member just sent me this link and I'm thinking that maybe right after we clean all the forests we should consider this brilliant solution to global warming and climate change:

Scientist Says Low Tech Solution Would Help Solve Climate Crisis: Plant A Trillion Trees

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 360 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostFri Jul 12, 2019 10:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Now here's a big surprise:

AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change

Quote:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the “entire economy.”

Chakrabarti said that addressing climate change was not Ocasio-Cortez’s top priority in proposing the Green New Deal during a meeting with Washington governor Jay Inslee.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.

The Green New Deal, proposed earlier this year by Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey (D., Mass.), would transition the U.S. economy entirely away from fossil fuels within ten years while simultaneously providing a federal jobs and healthcare guarantee. It would also, according to its proponents, advance “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership."

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9769 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostFri Jul 12, 2019 10:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm shocked! Shocked!!  eek.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Doomgoggles, kbatku, Trailblazing Todd!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy