Scientific fact that global warming is real? Funny, the Law Dome 018 Data Set from Antarctica shows a 2000 year trend of global cooling! Maybe it's warmed up in the last couple of decades when compared to the 70's, but I like to think of climate change as being something a little more long term than three decades. Show me a consistent warming trend over the last 1000 years as we've increased our consumption of wood fuel, coal fuel, and then oil and gas, and maybe I'll believe it. But I haven't seen that yet. All I've seen are hockey stick graphs that don't seem to fit the raw data, and proposed solutions that always involve a new tax. Looks like snake oil to me, I'm not buying yet.
So here's the problem. Your source says an appeal to authority is sometimes correct. My source says they are always false. I was taught that they were always false in my first year of university. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia as a factual source of information, as it's often hijacked by editors with a political slant. Do you have any other sources to back up your claim?
No, Wikipedia is wrong. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious. And don't flatter yourself, I just happened to notice you commenting yet again on a climate change post.
What nonsense. Appealing to authority is always a logical fallacy. If you don't have the facts to prove your point, pointing out someone who agrees with you still doesn't prove your point, even if that person is supposedly an expert in the particular subject.
FAIL AGAIN!!!!! My original comment didn't mention the IPCC at all. Here it is word for word: the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed. The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would. And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either.
I did not say I was referring to the IPCC, I told you to go research the IPCC reports to see what they predicted and how wrong they were. You obviously made an assumption. But I know why you did that. You would rather argue the semantics of the words, because you know that the overall evidence clearly supports my claims. So you set up these fallacies and argue over them instead. "You claimed the IPCC said the arctic would be ice free by 2013, but your citation isn't from the IPCC, so you're wrong! Wah wah wah!". All of your silly little fallacies don't conceal the fact that you're nothing but a fanatical believer in the AGW theory. You've revealed yourself to be nothing but a fraud.
Big Fail on your part. You're making excuses for everything. Excuses for why an article predicting an ice free arctic by 2013 isn't valid...FAIL. Excuses for why you don't have to provide citations about your claims....FAIL. Excuses about why a prominent figure in the AGW movement says all the predictions were wrong and alarmist...FAIL. Excuses for anything Al Gore says, even though it's being repeated by many others in the AGW crowd....FAIL. Just admit it, you don't have any sources whatsoever, which is why you refuse to show any. You simply repeat everything you hear in the news that's pro AGW, and write off anything that questions the validity of the AGW theory. You are truly a fanatic.
WRONG!!! I provided you with a source for the ice free arctic. I told YOU to examine the IPCC reports YOURSELF, and see how THEIR predictions have failed. You made the assumption that I was referring to the IPCC as the source of the ice free arctic prediction. You fail, fanatic!
No Fanatic, you're wrong. My reference to the IPCC reports was for you to do your own research, and see how their predictions have failed. The onus at that point is on you to look in the IPCC reports and prove me wrong, that their predictions are actually valid. You failed that part. I did post an article that predicted an ice free Arctic. It's an article that got a lot of circulation in the pro AGW news channels. And for you to dismiss it completely by using the word "possibility" is disingenuous at best, and an outright deception at worst. Second, it wasn't just this article. Al Gore made the claim too, and when pressed, cited the research of Dr. Weislav Maslowski, who said the arctic summers would be ice free in 5 to 7 years. And there weren't any climate scientists stepping forward to argue with any of these predictions. In fact, the AGW camp made quite a bit of noise about these. When I said "they", it certainly wasn't the scientific community I was referring to. It would be the AGW believers, the James Hansens, Al Gores, Michael Manns, and Phil Jones of the world, of which the IPCC is just a small part. You are a part of them too, fanatic.
Now it's your turn. You claimed that the world is supposed to be getting colder. Where's your citation?
You claimed that it's actually getting warmer at a much faster rate. Where's your citation?
If you reply without posting your citations, it proves you have no facts whatsoever and you're just arguing your beliefs like the fanatic I think you are. Put up or shut up
You're an idiot. I provide an article that predicts an ice free arctic as early as 2013. You claim that because the article says "could be", it doesn't count? Nice try, that's not how it works. The burden is now upon you to show that arctic sea ice loss is right on track with their predictions, since that is what you are asserting by questioning my claim. I provide an article to Lovelock claiming that all of their predictions are way off, and seem very alarmist. Rather than disputing his, and my, assertions with some facts that prove us wrong, you simply claim "he's a kook". Whether you think he's a kook or not (and why your opinion of him should even matter is beyond comprehension), you haven't disproved his claims of the predictions being incorrect and alarmist. So now it's your turn to put up or shut up, as you so like to demand of others on this site.
Already did, you dismissed them without providing any factual reasons whatsoever. You made claims yourself, and have failed to provide any sources even after saying you would if I did. So it's time for YOU to put up or shut up.
Oh look, the Faith Believer just won't stop! Where's your citations Cult Fanatic? Where's the disappearing ice in the Arctic, New Religion Preacher? Where's the increasing rate of sea level rise, Believer of Gospel, Denier of Facts?
This is his standard practice. Go back through the history of his posts. He attacks ad-hominem, never posting a valid argument, never posting any relevant data to back up his claims. He demands citations from anyone who dares to question AGW, but when he makes claims himself in support of AGW, he can't cite any data. Should you bother to post data that doesn't align with his beliefs, he attacks the source, claiming them to be "kooks", "oil industry shills", "deniers", etc. There's no point trying to debate this guy with facts. He's not interested in debating facts, he's a fanatic.
incorrect. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. You made false claims. I provided valid citations which you have dismissed because they don't align with your beliefs. You're the one lying.
You're a moron. You've done exactly what I said you would do, and you still don't get it. Keep ranting, keep preaching, keep believing, keep making excuses, keep refusing to provide any data whatsoever to back up your opinion. It's typical of most religious followers, belief without evidence.
Prediction of ice free arctic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Now of course is where you rant and rave and make excuses as to why this doesn't count, and then refuse to post any sources of your own, because you don't have any.
He has a better understanding of it than you apparently. He was able to look at the predictions, and then the current data, and come to the conclusion that the predictions were way off. What's your excuse?
I posted a source, and as I predicted, you dismissed anything he had to say because he wasn't a "climate scientist". NASA thought his credentials were solid enough that they hired him to work on their missions to study the atmospheres of other planets in our solar system. But I knew you would dismiss him, because you're a fanatic, and his words don't fit your belief. You don't deal in facts, which is why you aren't able to produce any to support your claims.
As predicted, you have dismissed anything Lovelock has to say because he is not a climate scientist. And you do this despite the fact that he's been actively involved on atmospheric projects with NASA, and despite his long list of accomplishments in this field, including the discovery and measurement of CFCs in our upper atmosphere. You will do this with any source I post, so what is the point? You are a fanatic, whose opinion has no basis in fact. You will find an excuse to dismiss any facts that don't fit your beliefs.
it should have been getting colder now. Citation Needed it's getting warmer at a much faster rate than previously Citation Needed
I expect you won't be able to cite any credible sources, since every post you've ever made has been heavy on the hyperbole and ad hominem attack, and completely lacking in any factual data.
Your opinion only. Every post you've submitted to slashdot has been to label someone a "denier", without ever posting a single piece of information yourself. If you're so absolutely sure of yourself, I challenge you to go through the IPCC reports yourself, look at their projections for what will happen, and see how close or not those projections are. Or maybe you can google James Lovelock, since he just recently said the exact same thing about how wrong and alarmist the global warming predictions were (and which he had a hand in crafting). As I've stated numerous times, it's not my job to do your homework. You're nothing but a fanatic, attacking anyone and everyone who has questioned the theory, but without posting a single fact to back up your position, while insisting everyone else provide facts for theirs. I'm not going to play your stupid game, because I've seen it a million times before. The sources of the facts get attacked, because they're not provided by a "climate scientist", or they're a "shill for the oil industry", or a dozen other excuses to ignore them. You've convinced yourself, and no amount of facts are going to change your opinion. You try labelling me a creationist, yet it is you who behaves most like a devout religious believer.
You haven't proven anything, and neither have I. But I have looked at the differences between the IPCC predictions and what has actually happened, and found them to be very different. I don't hate science, I simply expect that the theory and observations match. When they don't, there's a problem. Now fuck off douchebag.
This isn't Wikipedia douchebag. I don't need to cite where I get my information. If you disagree with me, you're free to disagree. You're also free to pull up the various IPCC reports that have been released over the years, look up their estimates on sea level rise, and then compare it to the actual record. Again, do it yourself, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you're too lazy, go ahead and believe what you want, I don't care.
no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports. Their initial predictions, their revised predictions, and current data that's freely available on the internet showing even their revised predictions are off. I've done my homework, you can do your own. If you don't want to learn the facts yourself, you can go on believing whatever Gore and the IPCC wants to sell you. I don't give a rats' ass one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientific fact that global warming is real? Funny, the Law Dome 018 Data Set from Antarctica shows a 2000 year trend of global cooling! Maybe it's warmed up in the last couple of decades when compared to the 70's, but I like to think of climate change as being something a little more long term than three decades. Show me a consistent warming trend over the last 1000 years as we've increased our consumption of wood fuel, coal fuel, and then oil and gas, and maybe I'll believe it. But I haven't seen that yet. All I've seen are hockey stick graphs that don't seem to fit the raw data, and proposed solutions that always involve a new tax. Looks like snake oil to me, I'm not buying yet.
So here's the problem. Your source says an appeal to authority is sometimes correct. My source says they are always false. I was taught that they were always false in my first year of university. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia as a factual source of information, as it's often hijacked by editors with a political slant. Do you have any other sources to back up your claim?
No, Wikipedia is wrong. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious. And don't flatter yourself, I just happened to notice you commenting yet again on a climate change post.
What nonsense. Appealing to authority is always a logical fallacy. If you don't have the facts to prove your point, pointing out someone who agrees with you still doesn't prove your point, even if that person is supposedly an expert in the particular subject.
FAIL AGAIN!!!!! My original comment didn't mention the IPCC at all. Here it is word for word:
the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed. The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would. And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either.
I did not say I was referring to the IPCC, I told you to go research the IPCC reports to see what they predicted and how wrong they were. You obviously made an assumption. But I know why you did that. You would rather argue the semantics of the words, because you know that the overall evidence clearly supports my claims. So you set up these fallacies and argue over them instead. "You claimed the IPCC said the arctic would be ice free by 2013, but your citation isn't from the IPCC, so you're wrong! Wah wah wah!". All of your silly little fallacies don't conceal the fact that you're nothing but a fanatical believer in the AGW theory. You've revealed yourself to be nothing but a fraud.
Big Fail on your part. You're making excuses for everything. Excuses for why an article predicting an ice free arctic by 2013 isn't valid...FAIL. Excuses for why you don't have to provide citations about your claims....FAIL. Excuses about why a prominent figure in the AGW movement says all the predictions were wrong and alarmist...FAIL. Excuses for anything Al Gore says, even though it's being repeated by many others in the AGW crowd....FAIL. Just admit it, you don't have any sources whatsoever, which is why you refuse to show any. You simply repeat everything you hear in the news that's pro AGW, and write off anything that questions the validity of the AGW theory. You are truly a fanatic.
WRONG!!! I provided you with a source for the ice free arctic. I told YOU to examine the IPCC reports YOURSELF, and see how THEIR predictions have failed. You made the assumption that I was referring to the IPCC as the source of the ice free arctic prediction. You fail, fanatic!
No Fanatic, you're wrong. My reference to the IPCC reports was for you to do your own research, and see how their predictions have failed. The onus at that point is on you to look in the IPCC reports and prove me wrong, that their predictions are actually valid. You failed that part. I did post an article that predicted an ice free Arctic. It's an article that got a lot of circulation in the pro AGW news channels. And for you to dismiss it completely by using the word "possibility" is disingenuous at best, and an outright deception at worst. Second, it wasn't just this article. Al Gore made the claim too, and when pressed, cited the research of Dr. Weislav Maslowski, who said the arctic summers would be ice free in 5 to 7 years. And there weren't any climate scientists stepping forward to argue with any of these predictions. In fact, the AGW camp made quite a bit of noise about these. When I said "they", it certainly wasn't the scientific community I was referring to. It would be the AGW believers, the James Hansens, Al Gores, Michael Manns, and Phil Jones of the world, of which the IPCC is just a small part. You are a part of them too, fanatic.
Now it's your turn. You claimed that the world is supposed to be getting colder. Where's your citation?
You claimed that it's actually getting warmer at a much faster rate. Where's your citation?
If you reply without posting your citations, it proves you have no facts whatsoever and you're just arguing your beliefs like the fanatic I think you are.
Put up or shut up
You're an idiot. I provide an article that predicts an ice free arctic as early as 2013. You claim that because the article says "could be", it doesn't count? Nice try, that's not how it works. The burden is now upon you to show that arctic sea ice loss is right on track with their predictions, since that is what you are asserting by questioning my claim. I provide an article to Lovelock claiming that all of their predictions are way off, and seem very alarmist. Rather than disputing his, and my, assertions with some facts that prove us wrong, you simply claim "he's a kook". Whether you think he's a kook or not (and why your opinion of him should even matter is beyond comprehension), you haven't disproved his claims of the predictions being incorrect and alarmist. So now it's your turn to put up or shut up, as you so like to demand of others on this site.
Already did, you dismissed them without providing any factual reasons whatsoever. You made claims yourself, and have failed to provide any sources even after saying you would if I did. So it's time for YOU to put up or shut up.
Oh look, the Faith Believer just won't stop! Where's your citations Cult Fanatic? Where's the disappearing ice in the Arctic, New Religion Preacher? Where's the increasing rate of sea level rise, Believer of Gospel, Denier of Facts?
This is his standard practice. Go back through the history of his posts. He attacks ad-hominem, never posting a valid argument, never posting any relevant data to back up his claims. He demands citations from anyone who dares to question AGW, but when he makes claims himself in support of AGW, he can't cite any data. Should you bother to post data that doesn't align with his beliefs, he attacks the source, claiming them to be "kooks", "oil industry shills", "deniers", etc. There's no point trying to debate this guy with facts. He's not interested in debating facts, he's a fanatic.
incorrect. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. You made false claims. I provided valid citations which you have dismissed because they don't align with your beliefs. You're the one lying.
You're a moron. You've done exactly what I said you would do, and you still don't get it. Keep ranting, keep preaching, keep believing, keep making excuses, keep refusing to provide any data whatsoever to back up your opinion. It's typical of most religious followers, belief without evidence.
Prediction of ice free arctic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Now of course is where you rant and rave and make excuses as to why this doesn't count, and then refuse to post any sources of your own, because you don't have any.
He has a better understanding of it than you apparently. He was able to look at the predictions, and then the current data, and come to the conclusion that the predictions were way off. What's your excuse?
Thank you for proving me right
I posted a source, and as I predicted, you dismissed anything he had to say because he wasn't a "climate scientist". NASA thought his credentials were solid enough that they hired him to work on their missions to study the atmospheres of other planets in our solar system. But I knew you would dismiss him, because you're a fanatic, and his words don't fit your belief. You don't deal in facts, which is why you aren't able to produce any to support your claims.
As predicted, you have dismissed anything Lovelock has to say because he is not a climate scientist. And you do this despite the fact that he's been actively involved on atmospheric projects with NASA, and despite his long list of accomplishments in this field, including the discovery and measurement of CFCs in our upper atmosphere. You will do this with any source I post, so what is the point? You are a fanatic, whose opinion has no basis in fact. You will find an excuse to dismiss any facts that don't fit your beliefs.
it should have been getting colder now.
Citation Needed
it's getting warmer at a much faster rate than previously
Citation Needed
I expect you won't be able to cite any credible sources, since every post you've ever made has been heavy on the hyperbole and ad hominem attack, and completely lacking in any factual data.
Your opinion only. Every post you've submitted to slashdot has been to label someone a "denier", without ever posting a single piece of information yourself. If you're so absolutely sure of yourself, I challenge you to go through the IPCC reports yourself, look at their projections for what will happen, and see how close or not those projections are. Or maybe you can google James Lovelock, since he just recently said the exact same thing about how wrong and alarmist the global warming predictions were (and which he had a hand in crafting). As I've stated numerous times, it's not my job to do your homework. You're nothing but a fanatic, attacking anyone and everyone who has questioned the theory, but without posting a single fact to back up your position, while insisting everyone else provide facts for theirs. I'm not going to play your stupid game, because I've seen it a million times before. The sources of the facts get attacked, because they're not provided by a "climate scientist", or they're a "shill for the oil industry", or a dozen other excuses to ignore them. You've convinced yourself, and no amount of facts are going to change your opinion. You try labelling me a creationist, yet it is you who behaves most like a devout religious believer.
Do Your Own Homework Douchebag
You haven't proven anything, and neither have I. But I have looked at the differences between the IPCC predictions and what has actually happened, and found them to be very different. I don't hate science, I simply expect that the theory and observations match. When they don't, there's a problem. Now fuck off douchebag.
This isn't Wikipedia douchebag. I don't need to cite where I get my information. If you disagree with me, you're free to disagree. You're also free to pull up the various IPCC reports that have been released over the years, look up their estimates on sea level rise, and then compare it to the actual record. Again, do it yourself, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you're too lazy, go ahead and believe what you want, I don't care.
no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports. Their initial predictions, their revised predictions, and current data that's freely available on the internet showing even their revised predictions are off. I've done my homework, you can do your own. If you don't want to learn the facts yourself, you can go on believing whatever Gore and the IPCC wants to sell you. I don't give a rats' ass one way or the other.