Farkwod: If only Newsmax this study had a shred of credibility.

FTFY.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: GRed: 7of7: It's funny how they only believe the research when it's convenient for their greed political agenda.

There, fixed that. Now the statement can be applied to conservatives *and* liberals. Wouldn't want to leave anyone out.


An appeal to a motive is not a logical fallacy. It's an informal fallacy, meaning it is not per se invalid. It is only invalid if it is claimed to invalidate the original position. Watch and learn:

A: I support position X!

B: You only support X because you were paid to support X. Therefore, X is wrong.

That is invalid. But this is not:

A: I support position Y!

B: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y. If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?

A: Because I'm a shill... *sad face*

So you see, calling into question someone's motives (like, say, the science adviser for a highly-politicized tabloid like NewsMax) is great. Science may be objective, but the data that is gathered is rarely objective. There's almost not such thing as a truly "brute" fact. By selecting and shading the facts, you can manipulate scientific models to get them to say what you want.

So who do you believe? The hard answer is that you've got to learn to be discriminating and give everything a skeptical once-over. However, don't become dogmatic in your skepticism: when the proof is there, admit it and move on.

keithgabryelski: Man, it's like groupthink = scientific consensus for some people


FTFY

"Climate Change" is fine. Just stop calling it "Global Warming". I get kinda stabby when I hear an article about "Global Warming" while I'm shoveling my driveway.

PurplePimpSaber: No...the science in the paper itself is sound. But the scope is very narrow, and the statements they are making in the article are in no way supported by the limited conclusions that could be drawn from the data, as myself, Unright, and JonSnow all concluded by reading the article.

Are the quotes cited in the Newsmax article taken from within the paper, or pulled from some other context?

Corvus: Though if you have real question about MMGW please ask them. I like explaining things to those people.

What are we supposed to do about global warming?

keithgabryelski:
I suspect you will not accept any evidence. This just means we are at an impasse and I have little need to respond to you in the future.

I'm not advocating for or against, I'm saying the evidence is incomplete and has holes on either side of the argument(s). There are a ton of questions to be answered before a true impact of global warming can be determined or what if anything can and should be done about it. I understand that you don't agree with this.

As for moving the goal post, how do you post a pic? That is if you don't mind responding at least one more time :)

Thray: Are the quotes cited in the Newsmax article taken from within the paper, or pulled from some other context?

From an interview with the authors of the paper, I suppose. They aren't in the paper itself.

Yeah, but if that is really true, hen 5-10 million useless parasites would be out of a free place to suck to the public nipple, and would have to actually go out and work for a living.

Boo hoo de hooty hoo.

Also, fat chance.

So it is better to crucify the messenger, even if he speaks the truth.

\\\ wouldn't be the first time someone spoke the truth and got crucified for it.

Corvus: What are we supposed to do about global warming?

That's a real good question.

So nobody knows, or what?

Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Mars has 15 times the density of CO2 as Earth and no global warming. Inconvenient...that.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Mars does not have the same atmosphere as on Earth. Look at Venus. It has an out of control Greenhouse effect. The atmosphere on Venus was at one time pretty much the same as here on Earth.

What Venus does is irrelevant to the fact that CO2 in the Mars atmosphere is 15X more dense than the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Where is the runaway global warming?

There is less atmospheric pressure on Mars. The CO2 is so dense that does accumulate and falls as snow and gathers at the poles.

Venus has almost 96.5% CO in its atmosphere. Its atmosphere has almost the same density as Earths atmosphere.

Corvus: mjtonfark: I think you and I are on different points, let me try to clarify. You are asking when has the climate changed as quickly as it has now. The problem with that question is that there are counter arguments to the premise that the climate is changing fast, or more importantly, that its changing at a "we're in imminent danger" speed.

Does that make sense or am I still missing your point?

So you are saying you don't think there is even climate change right now?

Corvus, I'm not sure if you're being facetious to bait me or you were asking seriously. Assuming the later, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change. That's kind of the whole point, what causes it, how much is it changing and how much do we effect it.

There is something that perhaps some of you more intelligent types can help me understand. I personally, have not settled in my mind whether or not I buy into the whole MMGW thing because of this question.

How do we know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000, 1,000,000, or even 10,000,000 years ago?

The information that I have frequently heard relates to ice core samples taken from the arctic regions. I question the validity of these ice samples however due to the dynamic nature of ice layers in arctic regions.

For example: as a tree grows, it develops a "ring" for each growing season that it survives. This allows us to accurately date tree's based on the number of "rings" the tree has.

Ice sheets, however, are dynamic in nature. One year might yield a new layer, but the next year might be a little warmer and therefore we might lose many layers. Multiple warm years could mean losing thousands of years worth of records. Since we can't know for sure how warm certain periods of time were, we can be certain how many layers were lost and how many were gained.

I'm very uneducated on the subject, but I'm trying to learn because it is a subject that is going to have a dramatic effect on both our lives and our economy either way it goes.

Perhaps one of you guys can provide a good explanation to my question?

Lane83: A: I support position Y!

B: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y. If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?

A: Because I'm a shill... *sad face*

_______________________________________________________________________________ _


A: I support position Y
B: You are a conservative therefore your motives are evil and your science is wrong. Therefore Y is false.

= Invalid



YOU: If you'll look at the data you have for confirming Y, you'll notice these explanatory gaps and jumps in the data. I looked up the same statistics and you just cherrypicked the ones that support Y. In fact, there is credible evidence that militates against Y. Why doesn't your model account for this data?
≠ ME: You only support position Y because you were paid to support Y.



I never said that rejecting something based on the arguer's motives is the same as rejecting the argument because of inconsistencies in the argument. So, in effect you have successfully argued against a point I never made.

That is a

*sad face*

Unright: From an interview with the authors of the paper, I suppose. They aren't in the paper itself.

Okay, thanks. Just seems like such a massive butchery of the paper. Nothing new for news media, but I'm kind of surprised that some of the guys themselves would overreach their study.

Dancin_In_Anson
Savage Belief: pic saying DENIERS

I think the accepted term is "denialist"...I was hung with that one a few weeks ago.

Yeah, I guess that does make it sound more eeville.

I have a question. What about Antarctica? It seems the northern most tip is warming up a bit, but the rest is getting colder and the ice is building. How do all you non-denialists explain that?

Wouldn't large a portion of the globe getting cooler nullify the use of the term Global Warming?

Gawdzila I wonder who bankrolled them...

I'm wondering how that CO2 producing failmobile got in that position. Jesus.

What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.

Savage Belief: I have a question. What about Antarctica? It seems the northern most tip is warming up a bit, but the rest is getting colder and the ice is building. How do all you non-denialists explain that?

Wouldn't large a portion of the globe getting cooler nullify the use of the term Global Warming?

That's why the better term is Climate Change. The globe as a whole is warming, and that causes certain climate patterns to shift. Processes that formerly brought a little more warmth to that section of the Antarctic have changed. When you think about it, when you have average temperatures rising and a pocket of cooling, that means that places not in that region of cooling are warming even moe than the average indicates. No one has EVER said that warming would be spread evenly across the planet. It would be silly to think it would.

Corvus: mjtonfark: Corvus, I'm not sure if you're being facetious to bait me or you were asking seriously. Assuming the later, I don't know of anyone who denies climate change.

Well you can scroll up and see some people who were.

Many people deny climate change is occurring. That seems to me the argument you were making earlier. You made it sound like the average temperature rising is in debate.

Most of the people that I've seen called deniers, aren't denying change. They are denying a combination of the rate of change and man's impact on it.
Anyway off to dinner, nite all. :)

So, all you a$$holes telling everybody what fricken morons they are for not jumping on the scientifically "proven" CO2 oh noes we are all going to die bandwagon keep this in mind before jumping on the next one. When a group of scientists come to a consensus about a new emerging theory it will still change a few times before being set in stone. Oh yeah, and suck it.

dillopher: What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.

Citations needed.

JDAT: So, all you a$$holes telling everybody what fricken morons they are for not jumping on the scientifically "proven" CO2 oh noes we are all going to die bandwagon keep this in mind before jumping on the next one. When a group of scientists come to a consensus about a new emerging theory it will still change a few times before being set in stone. Oh yeah, and suck it.

And thank you for playing "Grasping for Straws". Here's a towel for your mouth...you got a bit of froth there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html

oops.
Link

FreeCrime I am going to repost this in every comments section until someone finally gives me an answer What the fark does "THIS" mean in fark lingo??? /perturbed

It's simply another stupidly overused term by cliquish Farkers who have no creativity, vocabulary or perhaps even HTML skills. Read some threads and you'll see an abundance of such lameness to include terms like ad hominem, strawman, meme, and schadenfreude. They can't help themselves. They learn a new term from Fark and regurgitate it incessantly in the feeble hope of extablishing some street cred and being welcomed by their cyber peers. Definitely THIS!

dillopher: What I fail to understand is how everyone assumes that global warming is a bad thing. Most people are quick to jump on the band wagon of say global warming wil cause draught, famine sea levels to rise, etc. However, many fail to see that global warming can have a great many benefits to society. FOr instance, a temperature rise will not cause a draught it infact can cause just they opposite, more rain fail in arid areas. Temperature rises will cause more water in the oceans to evaporate, causing more cloud formation on a global level, when that high pressure system hits the low pressure systems over the sahara it will rain. enough to end many of the yearly draughts that kill hundreds of thousands of people. people need to realize that the earth and its weather is far more complicated then most people can comprehend and further involvement by the world to try and correct the change will only cause more trouble then good, case in point is yellowstone, when first established mans involvement in preservation almost decimated many of the wildlife in the area.

There might be some positive aspects to Climate Change when taken from a distance. But what is concerning is that it will effectively "reshuffle the deck." Meaning that places that were formerly agriculturally rich might be less so and that places that were less rich might be more so (after they have been worked for a while. . .it takes time for fertility in soil to change after the climate changes.) Places that were wet might be dry. Places that were dry might be wet. Some warm places might getr cooler. Some cold places might get warmer. What this means is chaos and movement. Cities in places they are well adapted to will have to spend boatloads readapting. Irrigation patterns will have to be modified on a massive scale. Buildings will have to be retrofitted to fit their new climate. People's habits, bounded in routine and tradition will have to change in some areas.

Massive flux is bad for international relations EVEN IF we see a net increase in farmable/inhabitable land (and adaptations to said changes will take time and money.)