Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 30)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, the fact that you call anyone skeptical of AGW an "AGW denier" means you are the useful idiot tool.

It is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing to deny.

But I understand the strength of your faith in this shibboleth. The liberal/progressive brainwashing propaganda and indoctrination of our global mass media is so influential and pervasive, it usually fools even intelligent folks.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I consider the word "deny" morally neutral Daruma. I don't use it as an insult. And G2 isn't "skeptical" of AGW, he calls it a hoax - denies it happens. By definition he's an AGW denier, not skeptical of it.

*I* am skeptical of it.

quote:
"But I understand the strength of your faith in this shibboleth. "
You understand nothing. I don't have faith in AGW -- I'm not even particularly leaning in one direction or the other, since I've not studied the data directly I don't hold much of an opinion on them.

I know I'll be very happy (and the whole world should be very happy) if global warming is not in fact happening.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, deny is not a neutral word...but that could just be a cultural semantics issue since your Greek.

But AGW most certainly is a hoax...just like diamond cartel controls the diamond trade to keep the prices high.

The evidence that it's foremost proponents are liars and hypocrites is just too much to ignore.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
==>"But AGW most certainly is a hoax"

Hoax in this case being a neutral word because Daruma has evaluated the evidence and has concluded that the people who study and advocate AGW are willfully misrepresenting the evidence in order to deceive. His logic is irrefutable and his credentials to make this judgment are unassailable. There's nothing personal here, it's strictly business.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
==>"But AGW most certainly is a hoax"

Hoax in this case being a neutral word because Daruma has evaluated the evidence and has concluded that the people who study and advocate AGW are willfully misrepresenting the evidence in order to deceive.

The emails that prompted this thread show this to be the case (data hidden, destroyed and literally fabricated ). Go back to the beginning and you'll see it all laid out.

You can still advocate AGW - everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts and the facts are in, AGW is a hoax. No amount of whitewashing, personal attacks or outright denial will change that.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts and the facts are in, AGW is a hoax
You realize that this is not a fact, right? I don't mind so much when you just lie outright, but I worry sometimes that you really believe that this is somehow "proven."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts and the facts are in, AGW is a hoax
You realize that this is not a fact, right? I don't mind so much when you just lie outright, but I worry sometimes that you really believe that this is somehow "proven."
You realize that this actually is a fact, right? I don't mind so much when you just lie outright, but I worry sometimes that you really believe that this is somehow "proven."
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Prince Charles embarks on lavish train trip to spread green message

quote:
As a mode of transport, the royal train suits Prince Charles down to his hand-made brogues: resolutely old-fashioned, rather costly for the taxpayer, but just possibly ahead of its time.

The locomotive this afternoon hauled the prince out of Glasgow station, furnished with the prince's bespoke study, a grand dining room and bedroom suite, complete with bath and his and hers beds, on the start of a four-day tour of Britain that will cost the taxpayer at least £50,000.

The contrast between the train's opulence, which seemed worthy of an oligarch, and the purpose of its journey was, to some, jarring. Charles has begun a week-long trip to persuade his "subjects" to go green, and the train from which he has chosen to assert his voice in the climate debate has been converted to run on cooking fat, which, its suppliers estimate, creates just one-eighth of the carbon dioxide of oil-based diesel.

Link

[Roll Eyes]

This is definitely not going to persuade a lot of people to go green. Another example of the 'Do as I say, not as I do' mentality.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What, do not take mass transit, instead opt for cars?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What, do not take mass transit, instead opt for cars?

Please, try not to be intentionally obtuse.

This is the part most people won't find particularly green:

quote:

...furnished with the prince's bespoke study, a grand dining room and bedroom suite, complete with bath and his and hers beds...

But even before his train set off to the sound of a lone piper, the prince was facing perhaps inevitable accusations of double standards for using lavish transport – eight carriages for a core party of just 14 people – to preach a message of sustainability.

So in point of fact, it would have been much, much greener if they had used 4 limousines vs 8 rail cars!
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
What, do not take mass transit, instead opt for cars?

Please, try not to be intentionally obtuse.
I think you misunderstand if you think it's intentional or really even obtuse at all. This is a common rationalization among AGW proponents - some greenies are more equal than others. I used to think this kind of thing was limited to the pages of Orwell novels but we see it in practice every day here as well as throughout the adherents of the AGW hoax. Kind of creepy.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not actually sure that a train running on converted cooking oil is significantly less green than four limousines, if you're worrying solely about carbon emissions. (And when I say that, I mean literally that: I'm not sure. I have no idea how the carbon output actually winds up comparing across the length of the trip.) Although, of course, those four limousines would have been pretty stuffed for 14 people, and could not have served as a base of operations or a hosting location. As a mobile base, a train works pretty well.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm not actually sure that a train running on converted cooking oil is significantly less green than four limousines, if you're worrying solely about carbon emissions. (And when I say that, I mean literally that: I'm not sure. I have no idea how the carbon output actually winds up comparing across the length of the trip.)

Its impossible to know without analyzing the fuel, but the claim of "its suppliers estimate, creates just one-eighth of the carbon dioxide of oil-based diesel" is certainly marketing hype. And beside the point anyway, because he could have used the exact same fuel to power any diesel engine.

As to the rail cars, it's not even close. A 'light' (read low speed/ short distance / subway) passenger train loaded with 40+ people is very energy efficient (8-10 MPG), particularly if its electric (electric engines are far more efficient than diesel engines).

A heavy, (high speed/ long distance) rail car is probably going to get 1-2 MPG per car. So 8 cars means about 4 gallons for each mile traveled.

A 2005 Cadillac Limousine gets 16 MPG and seats 6. Assume they use 4 and spread 14 people out among 24 seats. The average fleet efficiency will be 16/4 MPG or about 4 MPG. Which translates to .25 gallons per mile.

Train travel (Prince style): 4 gallons per mile
Limo travel ( Hollywood style) 0.25 gallons per mile
Bio-Bus travel ( Willie Nelson style)(1 decked out coach bus, 8 MPG): 0.125 gallons per mile

So if the Prince wanted to be Green he should have used bio-diesel in a touring bus. Or even bio-diesel in a limousine. But taking 8 rail cars for 14 people is Rail Baron era luxury, not a Environmentally conscious decision.

Perhaps we should just be grateful he didn't take a fleet of helicopters. [LOL]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing about cooking oil is that it comes from plants that were growing until recently, sucking up CO2 from the climate system.

The thing about petroleum is that it is from ancient plants that have been isolated from the climate system for millions of years.

So burning cooking oil is releasing CO2 that was, until recently, in the atmosphere. Buring petroleum adds CO2 to the climate system. So in that respect, it is better to burn cooking oil than CO2.

Whether it is better than taking public transport is debatable, though. [Smile]

Not that any of this has anything to do with the reality of climate change...

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But taking 8 rail cars for 14 people is Rail Baron era luxury...
Well, yes. But he is in fact a Rail Prince. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is an interesting new paper,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906085152.htm

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/abs/ngeo938.html

It estimates that WAIS and Greenland ice sheets are melting at roughly half the rate of the previous best estimate.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting article.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Visited a local state park (Anastasia state park, near St. Augustine, FL) where the Spanish quarried coquina (sand to build a castillo back in the day. They had an interesting display about where the coquina came from. One of the things that caught my eye was a display on sea levels. Apparently the sea levels have been 120 meters lower than they are now. The sea levels have also been 10 meters higher than they are now.

Can someone remind what kind of sea level rise we are expecting from global warming?

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go fill a cup with ice cubes, then fill it to the absolute rim with water, wait for the ice to melt, and see how much water spills out of the glass.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are a couple of variables you have overlooked, edmatt: land-based melt but just as importantly the change in water density with changes in temperature (i.e., increased water temperature above about 4 degrees Celsius means an increased volume of water per unit of mass
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep most of the volume change is volumetric expansion due to heat, and glacial ice sitting on land masses.

As to what the estimates for global sea level rise - you didn't specify 'by when'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Estimates

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
edgmatt,

I think your post demonstrates a serious issue I have with a lot of AGW skeptics.

You take a basic understanding of science (ice displaces water, and ice expands when freezes, hence a melted ice cube will leave the total displaced volume the same or less) and use that understanding to reach an erroneous conclusion and by implication that scientists and those who find AGW credible are ignorant or dumb. Whereas the actual issue is that you are poorly informed (Scientists expect sea level rise primarily from volumetric ocean expansion due to the higher temperature and from glacial melt from ice sitting on land).

I see similar statements about surface temperature (some place has local cooling ergo global warming is disproved!; the previous years average temperature was warmer ergo global warming is disproved!); ice thickness (Antarctic ice is thickening hence global warming is disproved!); etc.

I find it rather perplexing that skeptics think it credible that doctorates of physics are unable to comprehend 3rd grade science. I guess I'm asking you specifically - do you think doctorates of physics are unable to comprehend 3rd grade science?

[ September 12, 2010, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I guess I'm asking you specifically - do you think doctorates of physics are unable to comprehend 3rd grade science?

The appeal to authority aside, it's been pretty clear for quite some time that science is not being done. Just because they have PhD's does not mean they're conducting actual science.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. I didn't come to any conclusion anywhere. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Certainly, however, there is some amount of displacement of water by ice on this planet, yes?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, what was the point of that post then, edgmatt - were you putting our fears to rest about spilling overfull drinks?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The appeal to authority aside, it's been pretty clear for quite some time that science is not being done. Just because they have PhD's does not mean they're conducting actual science.
According to whom, G2? How did you reach that conclusion? And why should we believe that person over someone else, like any one of the vast majority of experts on the subject?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
The appeal to authority aside, it's been pretty clear for quite some time that science is not being done. Just because they have PhD's does not mean they're conducting actual science.
According to whom, G2?
Go back to the start of this thread, read up until now.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
How did you reach that conclusion?

Go back to the start of this thread, read up until now.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And why should we believe that person over someone else, like any one of the vast majority of experts on the subject?

It's clearly not any one person making that claim. The appeal to authority you are so dedicated to making is a logical fallacy. You should not believe anyone just because you think they're an expert - having PhD appending to their name does not make everything they claim true.

Go back to the start of this thread, read up until now. Look at the "science" that has been done. Glacier melt is established fact because of a throwaway comment (now denied by the person that made it) in a magazine? That's science? Data was wholly fabricated, threats, intimidation, collusion to cover up facts, that's science to you?

Go back to the start of this thread, read up until now. Look at what these guys were and are doing. It's only when seen through the lens of the numerous logical fallacies you're relying on that you can even begin to torture what's happening into something that even remotely resembles science.

Don't believe anyone - not me, not anyone in this forum, not anyone out in the world just because they have a degree. Look at what's been done and is still being done and think for yourself for just a few minutes, you are certainly more than capable of it. Apply a little critical thought rather than simply swallowing the pronouncements of the so called "experts" as God given truths because they add that little PhD to their signatures.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Go back to the start of this thread, read up until now.
I have read this thread from the beginning, and your reasoning is not compelling. Just ask Letterrip, DonaldD, and a dozen other folks on this board. So once again, why should we believe you over all these others?

quote:
The appeal to authority you are so dedicated to making is a logical fallacy. You should not believe anyone just because you think they're an expert - having PhD appending to their name does not make everything they claim true.
True, but lack of PhD does not make one's opinion any better. And in many ways, makes it less compelling. PhD's may be wrong, but they tend to be wrong less often than those without PhDs. So putting more weight to the opinions of PhDs in a field than to non-PhDs is not a logically fallicy, but simple common sense.

quote:
Glacier melt is established fact because of a throwaway comment (now denied by the person that made it) in a magazine?
Glacier melt is an established fact because we have records (pictures, measurements, etc.) that show glaciers receding all over the world. You think that fact comes from one magazine article? That disproving one magazine article disproves all of glacier melts? [Eek!]

quote:
Data was wholly fabricated, threats, intimidation, collusion to cover up facts, that's science to you?
Photos made twenty, fourty, eighty, one-hundred years ago were fabricated?? That's the wonderful thing about glacier melt (the example you chose): you can actually see how glaciers have been receding. You don't need a PhD to see that you are completely wrong.

quote:
Don't believe anyone - not me, not anyone in this forum, not anyone out in the world just because they have a degree. Look at what's been done and is still being done and think for yourself for just a few minutes, you are certainly more than capable of it. Apply a little critical thought rather than simply swallowing the pronouncements of the so called "experts" as God given truths because they add that little PhD to their signatures.
I do look. I may not understand all of the science (how the data is crunched, how the models are made, how the uncertainities are calculated)--there is just too much for me to digest--but I can understand the general principles and ideas. I find them credible.

What I don't find credible are many of the denialist claims that you rely upon. Claims that are often illogical, unreasonable, or out-and-out wrong. Claims that are puffed up, equating unanswered questions with rebutal. Claims that have little or no backing, used as proof that those who spend most of their time and energy studying the field are either fools or lairs, or both. It strikes me as being far more like wishful thinking than "science."

You can have your opinion, G2. You are certainly entitled to it. But unless someone believes your reasoning is compelling, your opinion is pretty much worthless. You have less knowledge and expertise than PhDs. And when you have to climb up on your podium and declare that, in your expert opinion, your expert opinion is better than the opinions of the actual experts, I have to mention in passing that, based on the actual facts, you are wrong.

Welcome to Ornery. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
True, but lack of PhD does not make one's opinion any better.
It is a common meme among a certain brand of populist that "common folk" with "common sense" know more about the "real world" than high-falutin' college boys with paper degrees.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
True, but lack of PhD does not make one's opinion any better.
It is a common meme among a certain brand of populist that "common folk" with "common sense" know more about the "real world" than high-falutin' college boys with paper degrees.
Heh Heh. I suppose you could add the founding fathers to that "brand of populist", since the original restrictions on voting had nothing to do with education. The original restrictions were to white male property owners. Said white male property owners could be either lawyers or simple farmers. From the beginning the opinons of the educated and the uneducated were given equal weight in the country.

Now the real question remains weather education, or even intelligence, really does equate with better decision making. The answer should be that of course education and intelligence equates to better decision making, otherwise what is the point of fostering intelligence or education.

The truth, however, is that concrete studies have been conducted that show that intelligence, as traditional defined as creative problem solving ability, and education, have little correlation to decision making ability, especially if the problem deals with something not specifically covered by education. Einstein may in fact be worse at deciding which valve to close to fix his toilet, and may make no better decisions effecting national policy then Forest Gump.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Said white male property owners could be either lawyers or simple farmers. From the beginning the opinons of the educated and the uneducated were given equal weight in the country.
Well, no. Are you familiar with both poll taxes and poll tests?

quote:
The truth, however, is that concrete studies have been conducted that show that intelligence, as traditional defined as creative problem solving ability, and education, have little correlation to decision making ability, especially if the problem deals with something not specifically covered by education.
Are you suggesting that climate change is not something specifically covered by the formal study of climatology?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Property owner" was itself a filter against letting any old rabble vote. "White male property owners" only represented 10-15% of the entire population at the time.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
You have less knowledge and expertise than PhDs. And when you have to climb up on your podium and declare that, in your expert opinion, your expert opinion is better than the opinions of the actual experts, I have to mention in passing that, based on the actual facts, you are wrong.

Welcome to Ornery. [Smile]

And this is why you think that ... you demand the logical fallacy, embrace it as though it's real and refuse to think for yourself. As long as you insist that logical fallacies are valid, you are wrong. [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose when you are sick, you don't believe what your doctor tells you, do you?

When you're in legal trouble, you don't take advice from a lawyer?

When your car engine is knocking, the last person you would ask is a car mechanic.

Because, after all, these are all authorities on their particular subject, and you wouldn't want to fall into the trap of an appeal to authority? [Roll Eyes]

Or does this only apply when the authority tells you something you don't like? If you'd rather it be a something different, then you can justify ignoring them, because they are authorities?

Well, if that's how you want to live, be my guest. Ignore anything wrong with your body; ignore any legal suits; ignore the knocking in your engine; ignore the hottest decade on record. Nobody knows what causes any of those. Nobody has a clue to what to do about it. Sure, some people have studied those issues for years and have strong opinions. But they are authorities. You can ignore them. So, go ahead and ignore.

At your (and our) peril. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
suppose when you are sick, you don't believe what your doctor tells you, do you?

Wayward, when the Doctor tells you that you need to lose weight for health reasons...and he gives an explicit diet to follow - yet he's a fat ass himself...than of course any thinking person who doesn't automatically accept "authority" is going to question his advice.

When you have frauds like Al Gore pushing lies about AGW, while living in wasteful mansions and jet setting around the world in a private jet...


...you might have to forgive the individual who is skeptical about it, and says that your appeal to authority is rather unconvincing.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, what makes you think Al Gore is an "authority" on AGW? Because he made a movie about it? [LOL]

Al Gore is a spokesman for AGW. He relies on authorities to tell him what is what.

Calling Al Gore an "authority" is like calling an actor on TV who plays a doctor a "medical professional." [Smile] Both Al Gore and Dr. Kildare only know what the actual experts tell them is true. They just let us know is a more understandable fashion.

The "authorities" are the scientists who are actually working on global climate. They, in turn, rely on other "authorities" who gather the information that the climatologists use for their models. (This raw data is also a good indication that something is happening. You've heard that this past decade was the warmest on record, I hope.)

Now, you don't have to believe an "authority" just because he is an "authority." They very well may be wrong. But when G2 states that AGW is absolutely not happening, you have to weigh his opinion against those of "authorities," just like you have to weigh the opinion of 9/10 of the doctors against those of your next-door neighbor who has read a lot on the subject and knows that all the doctors are full of it. [Smile]

When G2 states that the e-mails prove that climatologists are faking and hiding data, you have to weigh his opinion against all the explanations provided in this thread and against the opinions of the four review panels for the e-mails.

When G2 states that all the review panels, and all the climatologists that believe in AGW, and all the associated grad students and NASA scientists and various professors throughout the world, are all part of a hoax (or are too dumb to realize it), you have to weigh the opinion of G2 against the opinions, education, and reputations of all the other people.

G2 may be right (and we all hope he is). But based on his reasoning, and the fact that the vast majority of the actual experts are against him, it is just plain arrogant to declare that he "knows" they are all wrong. There is far too much of a chance that he happens to be the one who is wrong.

[ September 15, 2010, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, it should be noted, that the problem with the relevant form of "appeal to authority" doesn't lie in citing an authority, it lies in claiming that the authority is absolutely infallible simple because they have credentials in the field. Showing that multiple independent experts support the same conclusion is one way of balancing that possibility (hence the value of consensus).

To claim that someone is fallaciously appealing to an authority, you either have to show that the authority's experience is not relevant, that they are specifically in error about something or have a vested interest in being misleading, or that they are making the statement without having actually properly investigated the matter.

Simply citing an expert as evidence is not sufficient to be considered a fallacy- the problem lies in not allowing for the fact that the authority might be wrong and dismissing any debate of the evidence that they provide or their relevant credentials.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, no. Are you familiar with both poll taxes and poll tests?
Are you suggesting that climate change is not something specifically covered by the formal study of climatology?

Yes I am familar with poll taxes. Poll taxes are in my opinion an economic screen rather then an education screen.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a Federal Poll Test, although there is a test to become a citizen. There definately are no poll tests today.

I am not suggesting that climate change is not something that is covering by climatology. I am not suggesting anything on climate change, leave me out of it.

[ September 15, 2010, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward - consider: Al Gore is convinced by the "authorities" that AGW is such a real, existential threat, that he MUST take up the mantle and spread the message to the masses...it's THAT IMPORTANT.

He even staked his entire public credibility on producing a piece of outright propaganda that was awarded a golden statue for it.

Why, this is such an important issue, you'd think it's foremost and prominent spokesman would be doing EVERYTHING he can to combat this VERY real threat.....

....right?!?!?!

Somehow, I don't think the "authorities" were very convincing than, based on Al's carbon-emitting lifestyle versus his propaganda and lies.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what if that lifestyle allows him to more effectively communicate with the people that he needs to communicate with and influence more effective change than he could on his own?

I was going to say it's surprising that he hasn't made conversions to make it more efficient, but actually, he has:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

And he's paying an extra premium for renewable energy, not to mention the fact that the home serves as his office as well and he buys offsets for additional energy usage, so, on the whole, it seems that he is living up to his own suggestions.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1