Idiotic Environmental Predictions

[Threegoofs]

Appeal to Authority fallacy: The last refuge of the ignorant.

Appeal to authority is the correct approach with science. That’s why you go to an oncologist when you have cancer as not some podcaster.

"Warmest in record History" = ~100 years. Direct measures before that are far too few to derive an actual global temperature with any certainty. "Warmest in Recorded History" also begins just as the planet was recovering from the Little Ice Age, so you are picking a particularly cold start for that record.

Proxy measures sure look good, and it looks like it’s been over 10k years since it’s been the warm. Since civilization began.

"And perhaps the last 100,000 years" = Our paleoclimate record has nothing close to the precision necessary to determine record temperatures like that.

Yet, they describe it.

Your response of ‘nuh-uh’ is just silly.

Paleoclimate reconstructions have a standard error of from +/- 0.3C to +/- 2.0C depending on the dataset, so only an idiot would use it as a comparison to direct observed temperatures. And even then, they lack the year-to-year variability necessary to make a direct comparison. Ice Core records are in 10 to 20 year intervals at best, so if you wanted to do a direct comparison you'd have to measure an ice core data point against the average of the last 10-20 years, not 2023.

Ice cores arent global. Scientists understand this. Amateur blowhards don’t seem to.

 

[jmotivator]

Appeal to authority is the correct approach with science. That’s why you go to an oncologist when you have cancer as not some podcaster.

LOL. Nonsense. The reason Appeal to Authority is a fallacy is because there are always authorities on either side of the debate. All you do when you use appeal to authority is tell the other side that you are incapable of demonstrated you are qualified to determine which expert to listen to.

Your side then compounds your demonstrated ignorance by trying to defend your Appeal to Authority Fallacy with a head count fallacy.

Proxy measures sure look good, and it looks like it’s been over 10k years since it’s been the warm. Since civilization began.

That is false. It was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm period, and possibly as warm in the Roman warm period.

Your argument shoots the shit out of the AGW theory anyway. If it was this warm before civilization then you can't argue that todays warming is greater than natural variability, or claim a looming global catastrophe from warming that didn't happen 10,000 years ago.

Yet, they describe it.

Your response of ‘nuh-uh’ is just silly.

No, they can't "describe it". YOu can't draw a single year comparsion from a dataset with multidecadal temporal precisionl

Ice cores arent global. Scientists understand this. Amateur blowhards don’t seem to.

Sediment reconstructions show much the same thing.



And funny how these ice core reconstructions are promoted as global climate reconstructions rather than local weather, eh?

 

[Threegoofs]

LOL. Nonsense. The reason Appeal to Authority is a fallacy is because there are always authorities on either side of the debate. All you do when you use appeal to authority is tell the other side that you are incapable of demonstrated you are qualified to determine which expert to listen to.

LOL. Your authorities are in your head and on blogs. Mine are chairing academic departments.

Your side then compounds your demonstrated ignorance by trying to defend your Appeal to Authority Fallacy with a head count fallacy.

Making up fallacies, I see.

That is false. It was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm period, and possibly as warm in the Roman warm period.

Says you, the ‘authority’? LOL

Your argument shoots the shit out of the AGW theory anyway. If it was this warm before civilization then you can't argue that todays warming is greater than natural variability, or claim a looming global catastrophe from warming that didn't happen 10,000 years ago.

Yeah, you can say that. I could explain why, but you’re clearly too far gone to get it.

No, they can't "describe it". YOu can't draw a single year comparsion from a dataset with multidecadal temporal precisionl



Sediment reconstructions show much the same thing.

View attachment 67594281

And funny how these ice core reconstructions are promoted as global climate reconstructions rather than local weather, eh?

Here’s the comprehensive proxy record. Not that you care.


And a reconstruction of the last 25,000 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

An ice age takes centuries to develop.

True, but maybe the trigger will be avoided.

AGW is creating obvious adverse consequences in our lifetimes.

Bullshit. Complete propaganda and lies. Our land use changes and soot on ice, are the only negative effects we are having on the earth.

Now pollution, that can be easily controlled does cause harm, but your cult wants to focus on CO2 instead of pollution. We need to pot more money into pollution control. Not CO2 control.

Maybe you like smog, and other pollutants?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I mean, the moronic pretense of the Climate cult is that there is a "normal" climate.

Yes, there is. The proxy record has us in the mid point of a +/- 2 degree normal variance as it is.

 

[jmotivator]

LOL. Your authorities are in your head and on blogs. Mine are chairing academic departments.

Haha. "My side hold political positions!" isn't the flex you think it is.

Making up fallacies, I see.

Head count fallacy is, also known as "argumentum ad populum" is a very real fallacy where in the arguer tries to claim they are right because of the number of people who agree with them.

In science especially this argument is absolute bullshit. As Richard Feynman famously summed it up: 'Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.'

Says you, the ‘authority’? LOL

Says a guy whose read the literature on both sides and knows enough statistics to realize how nonsensical the AGW arguments really are.

I read all the arguments,. you refuse to read what you don't agree with. To Paraphrase CS Lewis : "An aspiring Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmist can't be too careful of what he reads."

Yeah, you can say that. I could explain why, but you’re clearly too far gone to get it.

No you can't unless you assume there was some other advanced fossil fuel burning civilization 10,000 years ago. If the climate was warmer pre-civilization then you have just argued that natural variability of climate exceeds to current temperatures.

And, for reasons already explained, you can't use proxy reconstructions to determine "hottest year" because the precision of the paleoclimate reconstructions aren't in annual temperatures. Ice cores are in roughly 20 years at the most precise, most reconstructions are in century datapoints, at which point you'd need to average the temperature of the last 100 years to even approach a reasonable comparison.

Here’s the comprehensive proxy record. Not that you care.
View attachment 67594285

And a reconstruction of the last 25,000 years.

View attachment 67594284

Ah, the good old hockey stick graph.

The Hock stick graph is an act of statistical malpractice, splicing thermometer records to the of paleoclimate reconstructions to give the impression of a dramatic rise in the temperature. It's bullshit.

Here is the proper way to display the reconstructions versus modern temperatures:



It clearly separates the two as they are not directly comparable. And even then, averages of Proxies is stupid. It makes the unprovable assumption that errors across the proxies are evenly distributed which is nonsensical and not scientific.

It's also meaningless since, as your graphs show, we are in an interglacial.

And, ironically, the second graph you provided was by a guy who is not a chair of an academic department! *gasp*! And of course, he attempts to do a direct comparison of an average of selected proxies to modern thermometer readings which is pure nonsense.

 

[Threegoofs]

Haha. "My side hold political positions!" isn't the flex you think it is.



Head count fallacy is, also known as "argumentum ad populum" is a very real fallacy where in the arguer tries to claim they are right because of the number of people who agree with them.

In science especially this argument is absolute bullshit. As Richard Feynman famously summed it up: 'Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.'



Says a guy whose read the literature on both sides and knows enough statistics to realize how nonsensical the AGW arguments really are.

I read all the arguments,. you refuse to read what you don't agree with. To Paraphrase CS Lewis : "An aspiring Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmist can't be too careful of what he reads."



No you can't unless you assume there was some other advanced fossil fuel burning civilization 10,000 years ago. If the climate was warmer pre-civilization then you have just argued that natural variability of climate exceeds to current temperatures.

And, for reasons already explained, you can't use proxy reconstructions to determine "hottest year" because the precision of the paleoclimate reconstructions aren't in annual temperatures. Ice cores are in roughly 20 years at the most precise, most reconstructions are in century datapoints, at which point you'd need to average the temperature of the last 100 years to even approach a reasonable comparison.



Ah, the good old hockey stick graph.

The Hock stick graph is an act of statistical malpractice, splicing thermometer records to the of paleoclimate reconstructions to give the impression of a dramatic rise in the temperature. It's bullshit.

Here is the proper way to display the reconstructions versus modern temperatures:

View attachment 67594306

It clearly separates the two as they are not directly comparable. And even then, averages of Proxies is stupid. It makes the unprovable assumption that errors across the proxies are evenly distributed which is nonsensical and not scientific.

It's also meaningless since, as your graphs show, we are in an interglacial.

And, ironically, the second graph you provided was by a guy who is not a chair of an academic department! *gasp*! And of course, he attempts to do a direct comparison of an average of selected proxies to modern thermometer readings which is pure nonsense.

LOL. ‘Read both sides’? You mean scientific papers and the blog you cribbed your graphic from?

Both sides! LOL

 

[jmotivator]

LOL. ‘Read both sides’? You mean scientific papers and the blog you cribbed your graphic from?

Both sides! LOL

And of course your performative response here is to assert that there aren't two sides to the topic, which is just further evidence that you're in a bubble.

 

[Threegoofs]

And of course your performative response here is to assert that there aren't two sides to the topic, which is just further evidence that you're in a bubble.

There’s a side written about in scientific literature, and one that’s not.

One that’s reiterated by most scientific organizations in the planet, and all the top ones. Like the AAAS, an organization that issues papers on all kinds of things, but only one you probably think is ‘stupid’ and ‘hysterical’ because..:.well…you just feel it in your gut.


Here’s my side.

What We Know

What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.

whatweknow.aaas.org

 

[jmotivator]

There’s a side written about in scientific literature, and one that’s not.

One that’s reiterated by most scientific organizations in the planet, and all the top ones. Like the AAAS, an organization that issues papers on all kinds of things, but only one you probably think is ‘stupid’ and ‘hysterical’ because..:.well…you just feel it in your gut.

You fit appeal to authority AND head count fallacy into one statement. Good job, I guess. Haha!

Consensus isn't a scientific argument, it's propaganda.

Amazing that people who take billions in grant money to fight global warming assure us all that global warming is a threat. Truly.

4 out of 5 Doctors recommend Lucky Strikes too!

Here’s my side.

What We Know

What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.

whatweknow.aaas.org

LOL. Yes, I'm aware of your side.

 

[Threegoofs]

You fit appeal to authority AND head count fallacy into one statement. Good job, I guess. Haha!

Consensus isn't a scientific argument, it's propaganda.

Amazing that people who take billions in grant money to fight global warming assure us all that global warming is a threat. Truly.

4 out of 5 Doctors recommend Lucky Strikes too!



LOL. Yes, I'm aware of your side.

When you show up at the hospital with chest pain, and after imaging, the majority of the cardiologist, recommend CABG and state that the reason is because the American College of cardiology guidelines (a consensus document PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL) recommends it in your case, is that a fallacy?

Or are you going to say but I read a blog and people are all wrong?

Stupid arguments remain stupid.

 

[jmotivator]

When you show up at the hospital with chest pain, and after imaging, the majority of the cardiologist, recommend CABG and state that the reason is because the American College of cardiology guidelines (a consensus document PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL) recommends it in your case, is that a fallacy?

the more important question: Is it the right diagnosis? You never bother asking.

Doctors once supported Thalidomide for Pregnant women.

If I get 20 doctors with one diagnosis and 1 with a different diagnosis who explains their reasoning better than the 20, I choose the 1.

Or are you going to say but I read a blog and people are all wrong?

Since you are the one who said I read a blog, you you probably stop demonstrating that you rely so heavily on your imagination.

Stupid arguments remain stupid.

Since you are making up my argument and incapable of addressing it, your statement above is rather ironic.

 

[Steve Case]

the more important question: Is it the right diagnosis? You never bother asking.

Doctors once supported Thalidomide for Pregnant women.

If I get 20 doctors with one diagnosis and 1 with a different diagnosis who explains their reasoning better than the 20, I choose the 1.



Since you are the one who said I read a blog, you you probably stop demonstrating that you rely so heavily on your imagination.



Since you are making up my argument and incapable of addressing it, your statement above is rather ironic.

Just tell him he's putting up a straw man argument.

 

[Threegoofs]

the more important question: Is it the right diagnosis? You never bother asking.

Doctors once supported Thalidomide for Pregnant women.

Maybe some. In Europe. The *consensus* in the US was reflected by the FDA (appeal to authoritah!) who did not approve it for use.

You would have demanded it because:

If I get 20 doctors with one diagnosis and 1 with a different diagnosis who explains their reasoning better than the 20, I choose the 1.

Some smooth talker convinced an amateur like you it was fine, and you don’t believe in those experts cuz yer smart!

Since you are the one who said I read a blog, you you probably stop demonstrating that you rely so heavily on your imagination.

You grabbed a graphic from a blog and pretended it was science. And you’ve never referenced anything else.

Since you are making up my argument and incapable of addressing it, your statement above is rather ironic.

 

[Threegoofs]

Just tell him he's putting up a straw man argument.

LOL. The straw man is….?

 

[jmotivator]

Maybe some. In Europe. The *consensus* in the US was reflected by the FDA (appeal to authoritah!) who did not approve it for use.

Got it.

Translation:

"Don't listen to your doctor" - Threegoofs.

Some smooth talker convinced an amateur like you it was fine, and you don’t believe in those experts cuz yer smart!

Well, no, in your assertion the conceit is that the 20 can never be wrong and the 1 can never be right. It's a foolish belief on your part and anti-science. The one isn't always wrong, and most scientific advancement is from the one, not from the dogmatic consensus.

You grabbed a graphic from a blog and pretended it was science. And you’ve never referenced anything else.

The above graph that you presented depicts smooth, minimally variable climate since the last ice age. This is utter nonsense. Your first clue that the graph was nonsense is that it shows no variability greater than 1C until that tacked on instrumental record at the end. The annual variably of the instrumental record can well exceed 4C. Of course the paleoclimate reconstructions can't show that kind of variability, while the instrumental record can, giving idiots the false impression that the tail end of that stupid graph.

Also, since you know so much about this graph, care to explain why the graph doesn't stop at 0 years before present? If the graph creator adding projections?

Also, are you arguing that the graph I present is incorrect based on your assumption of the source, or do you have an actual argument to make? The logical fallacies are coming fast and furious now. Maybe we can get you to Reductio ad Hitlerium before it's all over.

 

[Threegoofs]

Got it.

Translation:

"Don't listen to your doctor" - Threegoofs.

How did you get THAT from what I wrote?

Well, no, in your assertion the conceit is that the 20 can never be wrong and the 1 can never be right. It's a foolish belief on your part and anti-science. The one isn't always wrong, and most scientific advancement is from the one, not from the dogmatic consensus.

I never said that. But you need some expertise to understand when the 20 may be wrong and the 1 is right, and ya don’t have it.

View attachment 67594556

The above graph that you presented depicts smooth, minimally variable climate since the last ice age. This is utter nonsense. Your first clue that the graph was nonsense is that it shows no variability greater than 1C until that tacked on instrumental record at the end. The annual variably of the instrumental record can well exceed 4C. Of course the paleoclimate reconstructions can't show that kind of variability, while the instrumental record can, giving idiots the false impression that the tail end of that stupid graph.

Please put your comments in a letter to Nature. I’m sure they’ll find it interesting.

Also, since you know so much about this graph, care to explain why the graph doesn't stop at 0 years before present? If the graph creator adding projections?

Weird how it literally tells you this on the graph, but you don’t know it. Yet you tell us it’s ‘nonsense’. Hmm.

Also, are you arguing that the graph I present is incorrect based on your assumption of the source, or do you have an actual argument to make? The logical fallacies are coming fast and furious now. Maybe we can get you to Reductio ad Hitlerium before it's all over.

I notice you won’t tell us the source. Wonder why?

And I think we’ve converted the fact that you don’t understand the basics of logical fallacies already…

 

[jmotivator]

How did you get THAT from what I wrote?

You are advising people to not listen to a doctor's diagnosis. You see, since you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm demonstrating the reason why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Your argument requires that someone pick which authority to listen too, and your primary reasoning for that choice is also a logical fallacy.

I never said that. But you need some expertise to understand when the 20 may be wrong and the 1 is right, and ya don’t have it.

Special expertise like ... a doctor's opinion?

Please put your comments in a letter to Nature. I’m sure they’ll find it interesting.

Sigh.

Weird how it literally tells you this on the graph, but you don’t know it. Yet you tell us it’s ‘nonsense’. Hmm.

No it doesn't. It says the line at the end is is 1850-2019 (a whole different problem given that that presented line doesn't show the proper standard error in the instrumental record), but runs beyond the 0 mark. The scale on the X-axis would indicate, if the instrumental record only runs through 2019, that it's misaligned by about 50 years.

I notice you won’t tell us the source. Wonder why?

The first graph gives the source at the bottom. Jouzel J, et all 2007, EPICA Dome ice core.

The second Ice core and Sediment graph lists the sources as well (EPICA, Vostok, GISP2 Greenland and Bintaja Ocean Sediment)

I should also point out to you that neither of your presented graphs list sources, nor did you provide them. Which is fine and I didn't ask for them because it presents enough information for me to assess them, no need for a source.

And I think we’ve converted the fact that you don’t understand the basics of logical fallacies already…

LOL. Your statement has more projection that a Regal cinema.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are advising people to not listen to a doctor's diagnosis. You see, since you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm demonstrating the reason why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Your argument requires that someone pick which authority to listen too, and your primary reasoning for that choice is also a logical fallacy.

Not sure where I did that, because my reply demonstrated why expert consensus (which you said 'wasnt science) and experts (the FDA) prevented thalidomide from causing phocomelia. Yanno - blowing your thesis about logical fallacies out of the water.

You musta missed it.

No it doesn't. It says the line at the end is is 1850-2019 (a whole different problem given that that presented line doesn't show the proper standard error in the instrumental record), but runs beyond the 0 mark. The scale on the X-axis would indicate, if the instrumental record only runs through 2019, that it's misaligned by about 50 years.

LOL. It literally explains why the zero mark is not the end of the timeline on the abscissa on the graph.

You cant even read a graphic, yet you think you know more than the people who did it.

The first graph gives the source at the bottom. Jouzel J, et all 2007, EPICA Dome ice core.

The second Ice core and Sediment graph lists the sources as well (EPICA, Vostok, GISP2 Greenland and Bintaja Ocean Sediment)

I should also point out to you that neither of your presented graphs list sources, nor did you provide them. Which is fine and I didn't ask for them because it presents enough information for me to assess them, no need for a source.

I see you dont understand 'sourcing' either. The question was - who made the graph? Mine was original work from a paper. The reason this is important is because one can go back to that source to see if your interpretation was correct. And we both know it... probably wasnt.

LOL. Your statement has more projection that a Regal cinema.

 

[jmotivator]

Not sure where I did that, because my reply demonstrated why expert consensus (which you said 'wasnt science) and experts (the FDA) prevented thalidomide from causing phocomelia. Yanno - blowing your thesis about logical fallacies out of the water.

You musta missed it.

I saw exactly what you wrote, and you wrote that someone shouldn't listen to their doctor if there is a consensus telling them otherwise. My point, and why your argument is a logical fallacy, is that in the case of Thalidomide, or bypass surgery or [insert ailment] there is no guaranteed right answer, and the American College of Cardiology would also advise you to take your physicians advice, rather than their guidelines since there is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis or treatment.

You cant even read a graphic, yet you think you know more than the people who did it.

You claimed my graphs didn't have a source when the data sources are clearly stated on every one.

And none of this changes the fact that it's statistically stupid to try to treat instrumental and reconstruction data as interchangeable, as your source has done.

I see you dont understand 'sourcing' either. The question was - who made the graph? Mine was original work from a paper. The reason this is important is because one can go back to that source to see if your interpretation was correct. And we both know it... probably wasnt.

So you're saying that the ice core and sediment data are incorrect?

 

[Threegoofs]

I saw exactly what you wrote, and you wrote that someone shouldn't listen to their doctor if there is a consensus telling them otherwise. My point, and why your argument is a logical fallacy, is that in the case of Thalidomide, or bypass surgery or [insert ailment] there is no guaranteed right answer, and the American College of Cardiology would also advise you to take your physicians advice, rather than their guidelines since there is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis or treatment.

No. And if there is a solid consensus saying the opposite of your physician, for example, your doc is telling you salt restriction is not useful, while clear guidelines from the ACC say salt restriction is a mainstay of therapy and should always be maintained, at the very least you should strongly question your physician as to why there is a major difference of opinion, and if necessary, seek out a third or fourth opinion, since a doc directly contradicting a published guideline without a clear rationale would make me suspect he's a quack.

And your advice, apparently is to go with the quack, and if you can find more quacks, assemble a flock.

You claimed my graphs didn't have a source when the data sources are clearly stated on every one.

Yeah. You didnt source the graph. This is basic in science. You apparently dont know that.

And none of this changes the fact that it's statistically stupid to try to treat instrumental and reconstruction data as interchangeable, as your source has done.

Weird that my graph that you claim is 'statistically stupid' underwent peer review - most likely from some people who are specifically trained in stats.

Did you miss your calling?

So you're saying that the ice core and sediment data are incorrect?

No - I'm saying your interpretation is probably incorrect, since you have established a few wackadoodle arguments in the past.

 

[jmotivator]

No. And if there is a solid consensus saying the opposite of your physician, for example, your doc is telling you salt restriction is not useful, while clear guidelines from the ACC say salt restriction is a mainstay of therapy and should always be maintained, at the very least you should strongly question your physician as to why there is a major difference of opinion, and if necessary, seek out a third or fourth opinion, since a doc directly contradicting a published guideline without a clear rationale would make me suspect he's a quack.

And your advice, apparently is to go with the quack, and if you can find more quacks, assemble a flock.

Again, no. Your scenario presumes the diagnosis and treatment in advance and assumes that the 20 got it right because they are 20 and the 1 didn't because they are 1.

The ACC doesn't do the diagnosis, nor does it demand doctors follow their recommendations. It's still left to the individual doctors.

My advice is to listen to both opinions and evaluate for yourself which one to go with. You've just presupposed that the one doctor must be wrong because "consensus".

Yeah. You didnt source the graph. This is basic in science. You apparently dont know that.

The source of the graphs were the Ice Core data sets and the Sediment data. EPICA Dome, Vostok, etc. are data sets that are readily available. These studies don't tend to come with plots. If you believe my provided plots used bad data then feel free to present it.

Weird that my graph that you claim is 'statistically stupid' underwent peer review - most likely from some people who are specifically trained in stats.

Did you miss your calling?

It's not weird that it went through peer review and is still stupid, unfortunately.

There has been an increase in errors and fraud in peer reviewed papers over the last few decades. You're actually a good example of why the peer review process is failing, you bow to consensus rather than read information critically. Peer reviewers are often no more careful than you are.

No - I'm saying your interpretation is probably incorrect, since you have established a few wackadoodle arguments in the past.

What interpretation would that be? That cold weather kills more people than warm weather? That an ice age is more devastating than +2C?

 

[Volunteer]

That cold weather kills more people than warm weather?

Fossil fuels kill millions of people in cold and warm weather.

Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Kills One in Five People

The global toll of premature deaths attributed to the burning of coal, gasoline, and diesel is breathtakingly high, with new research doubling previous estimates.

www.nrdc.org

 

[jmotivator]

Fossil fuels kill millions of people in cold and warm weather.

Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Kills One in Five People

The global toll of premature deaths attributed to the burning of coal, gasoline, and diesel is breathtakingly high, with new research doubling previous estimates.

www.nrdc.org

That bullshit study reminds me of study that convinced the world that DDT was killing children in Africa because the rate of cancer went up after using DDT to control Malaria carrying mosquitos.

50,000,000 deaths later and they figured out that the cancer increase was because more children were surviving malaria long enough for the genetic predisposition to childhood cancers to develop.

That is to say, in third world countries you will die much slower to fossil fuel related illnesses than you would to one winter without heat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fossil fuels kill millions of people in cold and warm weather.

Fossil Fuel Air Pollution Kills One in Five People

The global toll of premature deaths attributed to the burning of coal, gasoline, and diesel is breathtakingly high, with new research doubling previous estimates.

www.nrdc.org

So what. You use global statistics that have zero bearing on first world nations. This just shows you have no credibility.