Jim Z
Straw man argument.
Wage Slave
Limitations of models and prediction by some realists = side issue.
Not relevant to the scientific method. When a scientist says that mixing two chemicals causes them to turn blue, you don't ask for the original test tube. You mix the chemicals yourself to see if they actually do turn blue.
< Leading alarmists like Al Gore and Michael Mann refuse to debate those who hold the opposite view.>
Al Gore is not a scientist and Michael Mann is known more for paleoclimatology, a side issue, than for atmospheric physics. Why don't denialists want to debate real climatologists like James Hansen? Because they know they'd lose.
Ottawa Mike
A case of using a possibility that hasn't happened to make an argument.
Measurement of ocean heat content is real science.
Then all science is agumentum ad ignorantum. The law of gravity is not being able to find another explanation, as is the germ theory of disease, law of conservation of mass, law of conservation of energy.
Chem, you are far more forgiving than I am. I have 2 categories, stupidity and lies. All deniers use both. As an aside, they hope we are stupider than they are, or more ignorant.
I challenge any and all deniers to answer these 2 questions.
1) If global warming is not happening, why have 12 of the hottest 15 years on record occurred in the last 15 calendar years?
2) If global warming is not happening, why was the decade of the 70's warmer than the 60's, the 80's warmer than the 70's, the 90's warmer than the 80's, the 00's warmer than the 90's, and the warmest year on record started off this decade?
I honestly believe it all boils down to denier lies and denier stupidity, including a very large dose of gullibility on the part of the deniers. They are clearly easily led. So one may say there are 3 categories, but that would be wrong, I believe. The gullibility is a prerequisite for being a denier.
As you can see, I am becoming more irritated with deniers again - after all, I learned about human-caused global warming by 1980, and have been hearing the same busted arguments since about 1990. It's always going to get colder any year now, or it is getting colder. Jim Hansen destroyed all the temperature data for the entire planet. Phil Jones says there is no warming. Climategate proves all climate scientists except Lindzen and Spencer are lying. Steve McIntyre singlehandedly disproved 2 centuries of climate science with one statistics paper (and wasn't that paper found to be fraudulent? Iirc, he just picked the 100 most hockeystick-like graphs that came out of the thousands of graphs his procedure generated, and claimed those were *all* the results. Is that accurate?) I still think you are a Psych Flunky from the form of your questions, but it is true deniers - and alarmists, real alarmists, that is - provide a fascinating study of human absurdity. I wish you luck.
Final question - how long does this answer last? ;)
Quite a few of your sequences aren't related to taxonomy. My guess your trying to stick with a field you know about...@ least in the relative sense.
1. Narrowing the descriptors are important...remember gram (-) & (+)...some would call it physiology.
2. Side issues: cause and effect as related to specifics?
3. False attribution and oversimplification aren't the same things...where did you get that from? IMO no matter how complicated the subject matter, the basics still rule.
4. Uh, do you mean like scams or unethical schemes? Yep whens it going to end?
5. Got me on that one: How does the ignorant explain to the ignorant?
6. Flat out falsehoods: Your repeating yourself.
I obviously think you believe what your told.
I have one that I don't think I see there and I've never actually had an answer to it. Yes the planet is getting hotter, yes we probably are the cause of it, yes we're going to have to adapt to a warmer climate, I believe all the science. What I want to know is how to go from that to "oh my god we're all going to die". That's where they lose me. They tend to point to isolated cases such as the current disaster in the Philippines. OK what about it? Yes 40,000 people are dead but its not as if that never happened before. A really bad storm or flood killing a whole lot of people, that story is as old as our species. I'd also point out that had that hit a more developed nation, the death toll would have been a fraction of that. I've never had it explained to me exactly how this temperature increase poses a serious problem to our long term survival as a species.
Taxonomy of alarmsits:
1. Narrow focus. CO2 is the cause of all that is bad. It causes everything bad from more poison ivy to increased storms.
2. Side issues. Don't even think it might get dissolved into the biggest sink in 4.5 billion years, the ocean. Noooooo. That will cause acidification which means it will cause the ocean to turn to ACID.
3. False attribution and/or oversimplification. See answer for 1
4. Flim flam. This time it is different. This time the CO2 is bad. It must be bad because it is from humans. The whole issue is a flim flam by leftists who distort science to push their cause. I realize that is hard for some leftists to see.
5. Presumption of ignorance. I would change this one to presumption of knowledge where it obviously doesn't exist. Nothing stupider than someone who doesn't know what they don't know.
6. Flat-out falsehoods. Start with Mann and end idiots blaming the recent cyclone on CO2 from SUVs. Way too many to name.
JimZ beat me to it but I'll still do my own version of alarmists taxonomy.
1. Narrow focus.
The Arctic sea ice extent. And when that doesn't pan out, narrow down further to ice volume or "rotten ice".
2. Side issues.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...
3. False attribution and/or oversimplification.
See 5.
4. Flim flam.
Turning no statistically significant warming into warming has been accelerating (and it has been confirmed!!): http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-rese...
5. Presumption of ignorance.
We have not been able to show any natural mechanism to explain recent warming so it must be CO2. Classic argumentum ad ignorantiam.
6. Flat-out falsehoods.
Hurricane X and typhoon Y were caused by global warming.
_______________________________________...
@climate realist: "Measurement of ocean heat content is real science."
The conclusion of accelerated warming is based not on measurement of deep ocean heat content but rather on computer models based on Kevin Trenberth's subjective assessment. And that assessment includes being based on him assuming his heat budget is correct. You should see a hint of a circular argument in that.
"Then all science is agumentum ad ignorantum."
Oh come on, you're grasping and twisting what I said. Check out the different between "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence". Then read about "Russel's Teapot". From there, move on to "shifting the burden of proof".
It is clear to me that in climate science, the choice between CO2 and natural variation is presented as a false dichotomy which excludes a third choice: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily.
How about outright denial from a scientific point of view, CO2's warming effect logarithmically diminishes with concentration, at 150ppm CO2 is saturated, subsequent rises will cause insignificant warming, argue against that!
Alph Explain Mars that should be entertaining also.
try this Flim Flam from MAXX:
Do ‘Non-Greenhouse Gases’ provide about EIGHT times more warming to the atmosphere than Greenhouse Gases?
from a link that says:
"Without greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O), Earth’s temperature would cool to an average of about –18°C (255 K), rather than the 14°C (287 K) that we currently enjoy." http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/1616...
to: MAXX's brilliant deduction:
Clearly “Non-Greenhouse Gases” provide the vast majority of the Earth’s warming.
EDIT: KANO.. Explain Venus. This is always entertaining.
Mathematical models involving partial differential equations with assumed boundary conditions (Climate Models) that ignore clouds (too complicated) that are falsified by empirical data are NOT science.
See Richard Feynman’s short lecture on what is science:
You forgot a couple Chem Flunky:
7. Temperatures are not rising as fast as models predicted. Also, many alarmists predicted "more frequent and intense hurricanes."
8. Leading climate scientists like Michael Mann refuse to release their raw data and algorithms used to make their scary graphs.
9. Leading alarmists like Al Gore and Michael Mann refuse to debate those who hold the opposite view.
Edit: "Why don't denialists want to debate real climatologists like James Hansen?"
Your precious James Hansen is the one who refuses to debate.
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/wv/T02O...
And when they do debate, they lose:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/the-won...
It seems to me that most denialist arguments fall into a few broad categories. I'd like your thoughts on the categories I've thought of, and I'd like you to mention any you think I've missed.
1. Narrow focus. This ranges from "I just shoveled 2 feet of global warming from my driveway" quips to superficially valid arguments about regional or short, statistically insignificant periods of cooling or slowed warming
2. Side issues. This would be things like pointing out that farmers enrich greenhouses with CO2 to increase plant growth, which entirely ignores the issue of whether or not CO2 causes warming; or discussing the negative political impact of carbon taxes. This category could probably be divided into scientific side issues, like the first example, and political side issues, like the second.
3. False attribution and/or oversimplification. This would be all of the cases of blaming 20th century warming on anything and everything *but* AGW, without sufficient evidence to back it up--whether it's vaguely worded "natural cycles", or some specific presumed cause like changes in solar input. This would also include any "the climate has changed naturally before", with an implied "so the current change must be natural as well" and the like, and any variation of "This changes climate" with an implied "so nothing else does".
4. Flim flam. This would be games like the "only a .01% increase in CO2" or turning "no statistically significant warming" into "no warming". Basically, twisting the facts ever so slightly, or phrasing them misleadingly, so it *looks* like the facts are saying that AGW is false or insignificant.
5. Presumption of ignorance. This would be any argument that essentially boils down to "climate is too complicated to explain", "We can't possibly know that", or the like. Basically, "I don't know, so you don't either."
6. Flat-out falsehoods. Whether these originate from the one doing the arguing, or are simply being passed on, these are the things that are just plain, flat-out, undeniably untrue. Statements that no reasonable amount of "interpretation" could turn into factual statements. Things like "Most scientists reject AGW", "There hasn't been any warming", "Alarmists say that the sun has nothing to do with climate", and so on.
Now, obviously there's some overlap, but I think most denialist arguments fall under one, or occasionally 2 or 3, of those. What do you think?
Chem - YOU are the one that wants to talk about the temperature of the Moon's atmosphere when it doesn't have one. http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
And here: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
And you imply the taxonomy of MY arguments are somehow false?
-----------------------
I advise you to read Maxx's question before you make yourself look more inept.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
