David Tracy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:43 PM: Paolo wrote: "I note that you only produced the usual argument in favor of 'global warming': the "vast preponderance" of climate scientists say it's happening. Thirty years ago, the 'vast preponderance' of climate scientists said we were heading into an ice age."

This is one of the dumber arguments against global warming that I hear parroted time and again. Could it be that we were ever so slowly heading for an "ice age" as a natural occurrence that was reversed by the artificial build-up of man-made carbon emissions, that almost nobody saw coming until fifteen or so years ago? Why do I even have to say this? Whenever the right-wing doesn't like the results of scientific inquiry they respond by attacking the science and the scientists. Works pretty well for unsophisticated types who are suspect and fearful of "mad scientists" who are a lot smarter than they are.

David Tracy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:35 PM: Excerpts from an article earlier this year by Johathan Chait on global warming:

A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is “Planet Gore.” The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue. Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. It’s the party’s strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

David Tracy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:30 PM: Mutineer below holds that the the vast preponderance of climate scientists are "on the take" with little concern about the integrity of their science, and believe that they will somehow profit if they can hoodwink the populace into believing their global warming lie.

That's paranoia, and it makes me wonder what kind of character traits Mutineer himself may possess, and may be projecting here.

Mutineer also attempts to discredit the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe in global warming by claiming it's "an appeal to authority" (a fallacy in logic). Well, I got an "A" in logic and yes, it's an appeal to authority, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It just means that we can't be ABSOLUTELY certain it's true, because ANY authority can be wrong at times. But It's a stretch to think that the appeal to authority fallacy applies well to the vast majority of climate scientists.

Mike Danger wrote on December 05, 2007 03:15 PM: I forgot to say in my last post that the South had every right to succeed from the Union.

Three states, Virginia, New York, and one of the New England states had clauses in their state constitutions that allowed them to succeed if they became fed up with the Union.

The Unions act of declaring war on the South was unconstitutiona.

But I was taught in the government schools that the South invaded the North, another lie.

Mike Danger wrote on December 05, 2007 03:11 PM: Vin you didn’t even get to the politically correct lies they teach us which everybody knows are true.

I was taught in the public schools that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.

That was one big politically correct line. The Civil War was fought to force the South to stay in the Union.

Slavery was legal at the time, and Lincolns “Emacipation Proculamation”, didn’t free ANY slaves in the North. Nor did it free in slaves in the South in areas that were controlled by the Norths army.

It only freed slaves in the Southern States that were not under Northern Control.

Lincolns “Emacipation Proculamation” was unconstitional.

The slaves were not freed by Lincoln at all. The slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment which was passed AFTER the Civil War had ended.

If you read the history books you will find Lincoln was a racist who thought that Blacks should be shipped off to Africa or South American. I wasn’t taught that! I was taught that Lincoln was the savior of the Blacks.

Byron Nielson wrote on December 05, 2007 12:55 PM: Reading this thread has been rather fascinating.
I asked my 11 year old son to analyse it and he had a great time pointing out fallacies in every post that said anything at all.
For whatever individual reasons, none of the posters have yet bothered to write a proper argument.
I suspect that each thinks they are the lone educated exception.
One cannot claim to be educated without formal training in rhetoric. Such training is not common in public curricula. (ad hominem attack to maintain the score)
This thread has provided some entertaining anecdotal evidence that Mr. Suprynowicz is correct.

Public education is not the only option.
It just appears to be the most convenient option.
Relying on convenience for our children’s education continues to have disastrous results.
There are no credible studies that show that our children as a group are even reasonably competent after graduation from a public high school.
I provide this as an unsupported assertion.
I do not expect to convince anyone therefore I leave the research up to you.

Best regards,
Byron Nielson

Mutineer wrote on December 05, 2007 10:47 AM: So David Tracy thinks we should just all trust scientists that are on the take from grant and government funds? Yes...wow!

OK David...check out the following web site: http://tinyurl.com/2pzjsp

This is temperature data from New York's Central Park. Glory be! Global warming must be happening...there is a definite upward trend in the data.

Now...check out this site: http://tinyurl.com/38c5be

Buffalo isn't that far from NYC...right? So then why does this data show none to little trend in the data?

So then why is it the "experts" in the subject matter have failed to account for city growth...and the fact that concrete and buildings tend to act as heat sinks, while low growth areas such as Buffalo don't show changes in temperature data?

No, it is much easier to pick and choose data, become alarmist, sell books/movies, and keep that grant money coming in.

I'd encourage everyone to do their own homework on the subject. Else you can listen to those who stand to profit from selling you books, movies, and increased taxation tell you what fact is. Wow indeed.

Bill Smith wrote on December 05, 2007 05:14 AM: You have failed to answer my question Jeremiah, why do you support theft? Also, Jerry, please quote these “ad hominem” attacks you have accused me of. I never said anything to you personally attacking you. You know what they say, “If the shoe fits…”

Oh and Tracy, do you have any proof to offer of your own? Come on now, please show us.

Paolo wrote on December 05, 2007 05:09 AM: David Tracy:

I note that you only produced the usual argument in favor of "global warming": the "vast preponderance" of climate scientists say it's happening. Thirty years ago, the "vast preponderance" of climate scientists said we were heading into an ice age.

Scientific truth is not established by counting noses.

You failed to challenge my points that the earth has gone through warm periods and ice ages (much more profound that anything we may be experiencing now) many times, all without human influence. And, the "vast preponderance" of climate scientists don't know what has caused these climate changes (there are theories, such as magnetic field reversal, that are difficult to prove).

Are we in a warming trend? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not going to take a few warm summers as evidence.

Your entire argument falls under the false technique of "appeal to authority." You don't really address the arguments, you just say, "those guys over there who have authority say so."

The same arguments have been used to demonstrate the obvious truth of the geocentric universe and the flat earth.

Actually, after re-reading your post, I realize it's mostly nonsensical anyway. What the heck are you trying to say in your third paragraph? Are you channeling spirits or something? And you, after that mess of verbiage, talk about "loosely constructed arguments"???

To quote your first paragraph: "WOW!"

David Tracy wrote on December 05, 2007 12:27 AM: WOW! We should believe anonymous Paolo over the vast preponderance of climate scientists. Hey Vin. Is Paolo your intelligence code name? Just wondering. It's a valid question.

If anyone ever asks if you know me, call me "Raoul Tracy."

One hand washes the other. The air is clear and the water is fine. Does that MEAN anything to you, Paolo? (wink, wink). Are you one of "us?" You know, "in the know?"

Anyway, given his loosely constructed arguments, Vin doesn't really seem to be intelligent enough to actually earn a US check from a clandestine agency.

Love,

Raoul

Read All Comments