The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"
But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:
Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!
By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?
And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.
Actually he is demonstrating a know fact in statistics,This is like watching a third grader imitate his theoretical physicist father by digging out his old quantum mechanics textbooks and scrawling out some complete gibberish, then proudly presenting it.
"Look, dad, I made math!"
PoS doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Not even the slightest. It really is a delicious way of watching him accidentally admit that he does not have a hope of beginning to understand what actually is in the peer reviewed papers on AGW that he has never - nor could have - read, let alone understood.
He actually believes that he understands that correlation does not prove causation, but trained scientists who have devoted their careers to studying AGW don't. Talk about derpy hubris.
Simply because something appears to be correlated, does not make the two events connected.In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship
between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them
Since you yourself have applied those same fallacies to the science presented in support of climate change, you have only succeeded in projecting your own fallacies onto others in regards to climate change.
He actually believes that he understands that correlation does not prove causation, but trained scientists who have devoted their careers to studying AGW don't. Talk about derpy hubris.
LOL these fallacies are an illustration of the bad logic that alarmists cling to.
The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"
But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:
Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!
By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?
And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.
The most common reason why gullible people believe we are in a climate crisis is this: "The CO2 levels have gone up, and so has the average temp, so they must be related!"
But in the end this is a very silly assumption, since using that same logic (or lack of it), you get these ridiculous correlations as well:
Since the number of pirate attacks have steadily decreased, warming temp has also increased, so it must mean that if there are less pirates, then there would be more global warming!
By that same logic, there have been higher cases of autism due to the rise in purchases of organic food stuff. So does that mean organic foods causes autism?
And I'm calling it right now: the climate nuts will respond with the following fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, ad homs, and shoot the messenger ones. the one thing they are is predictable.
Herp derp.
While POS is using hyperbole to make his point, the fact still remains that there is little scientific evidence that added CO2How about an appeal for actual facts that disprove the assertion, rather than unrelated graphs that say nothing about the issue?
This is basically saying that the sky isn't blue because the grass isn't peanut butter. There's really nothing to debate here.
While POS is using hyperbole to make his point, the fact still remains that there is little scientific evidence that added CO2
actually causes any warming. While it should by itself, based on physics, CO2 does not exists by itself.
Our best guess is that the Earth would be 33C cooler, if the atmosphere were completely transparent,
and of that 33C, 20% or 6.6C is thought to be from CO2.
The seriousness is implied only if a combination of "IF's" occur together.Given the seriousness and the stakes involved with this debate, perhaps it would be best to avoid hyperbole designed to trigger a response, vs. further understanding.
The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C
How about an appeal for actual facts that disprove the assertion, rather than unrelated graphs that say nothing about the issue?
This is basically saying that the sky isn't blue because the grass isn't peanut butter. There's really nothing to debate here.
The seriousness is implied only if a combination of "IF's" occur together.
IF the climates sensitivity is on the high end of the range,
and IF the emission scenario is the highest one, THEN, stuff MAY happen!
If you look at most of the alarmist claims, they are tied to RCP8.5, which is all but an impossible scenario.
RCP8.5, calls for CO2 levels in year 2100, to be 1370 ppm, or an average increase 12 ppm per year.
The last 20 years have averaged about 2.3 ppm per year.
In addition some of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, found that based on observations the likely ECS sensitivity for doubling the
CO2 level was about 2C.
https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/sp...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
Boys, boys... I think I've told you both that I don't do the climate debate thing. I'm just here for the shoddy debate tactics. Given that he's on your side, you should probably be thanking me...his bad methodology damages your credibility. :shrug:
He's making a fair point. Causation has always been a weakness for the alarmists, expressed most powerfully by the failure of their paradigm to solve the climate sensitivity puzzle.
You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.Boys, boys... I think I've told you both that I don't do the climate debate thing. I'm just here for the shoddy debate tactics. Given that he's on your side, you should probably be thanking me...his bad methodology damages your credibility. :shrug:
Causation is a valid aspect to consider in any analysis, and the belittling nature of his particular examples takes any seriousness out of the conversation. If that's how you want to be represented, by all means, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised that your voice is muted as a result. :shrug: As for me, the relatively uneducated, I'm not sold on the ridiculous. You guys are already behind the eight ball, in terms of public perception. If you truly want to be taken seriously, be serious.
Compared to what we get called, PoS is a paragon of seriousness and dignity.
You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.
If you think Human caused climate change is a problem, defend your position?
You stated, "Given the seriousness and the stakes involved " without understanding the basis of the alarm.
If you think Human caused climate change is a problem, defend your position?
Actually he is demonstrating a know fact in statistics,
"Correlation does not imply causation"!
That said, it is very likely that the increases in CO2 is causing some warming, but the amount of the observed warming attributed
to the increased CO2 is a scientific unknown.
That is definitely a truth of statistics. However it has virtually NOTHING whatsoever to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change. The ONLY people who might think that the correlation was causation in regards to temp and CO2 and nothing else are NOT the scientists.
The scientists all appreciate a much deeper level of inference predicated on extensive physics, chemistry and analysis.
It is not unknown. It may not be known to the exact value we have a pretty good idea of the "climate sensitivity" of CO2. It is estimated by a number of independent methods all of which zero in on a range between 1.5 to 4.5degC.
Source: The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes | Nature Geoscience
A demonstration of failure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?