Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Scott Free]

Oh this is so ridiculous!

The whole GW/carbon argument is correlation, that is the argument: GW is a sign there is too much carbon.

But it is not known if there is causation!

The test for this argument is whether this has happened before. It hasn't therefore the argument fails the test. And in fact we have had warming in the past without carbon increases. So the argument is false. It isn't even prima facie!

So in reality, this is a one off correlation so the warrant doesn't hold and it is only a coincidence!

But the hippies think its a causation argument with a warrant X causes Y though that can't be demonstrated!

Seriously... GW/carbon is such BS!!!

 

[Tonington]

Oh this is so ridiculous!

The whole GW/carbon argument is correlation, that is the argument: GW is a sign there is too much carbon.

But it is not known if there is causation!

The test for this argument is whether this has happened before. It hasn't therefore the argument fails the test. And in fact we have had warming in the past without carbon increases. So the argument is false. It isn't even prima facie!

So in reality, this is a one off correlation so the warrant doesn't hold and it is only a coincidence!

But the hippies think its a causation argument with a warrant X causes Y though that can't be demonstrated!

Seriously... GW/carbon is such BS!!!

What's ridiculous is that you think this rubbish is an accurate portrayal of how global warming attribution works. This isn't even a good portrayal of how the models work...

It is not correlation only. I've told you that before. It is well documented that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is causation. Take a tube which has infrared radiation passing through the it, fill it with carbon dioxide, and measure the difference in temperature before, and after. You have heat retained. It's not that difficult, it's done in introductory chemistry labs...

That is demonstrated. You can wave your hands all you like, but it is demonstrated.

I'll walk you through it Scotty since you don't appear capable of understanding this on your own. What they use are regressions, not correlations. You need to have a correlation first, before you can use a regression, and you of course need causation. If you have causation, you will have:
1) A strong association. Check. Tyndall's experiment.
2) The association is consistent. Check. Chem 1000 labs find the same thing.
3) Stronger concentrations are associated with stronger responses. Check. Add more carbon dioxide to the tube, and you get more heat retained.
4) Alleged cause precedes effect. Check. The temperature in the tube doesn't rise before you add the carbon dioxide.
5) The alleged cause is plausible. Check. The temperature of our planet is 14°C because of the greenhouse gases. Instead of the -18 °C it would be without them.

So, we have causation, now we can move onto regressions. There are three assumptions we need to do regression analysis, normality in the error terms, constant variance in the error terms, and independent from error terms.

The regression model looks like this
yi= B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + ...BpXip + Ei

That basically says that the response value, is a function of the value of y when x is zero, plus the amount y changes for an increase of one unit in each of p parameters, plus the error term.

The variation we see in the model output should be an indicator to you Scott, that it is not just a simple correlation. No model shows monotonic increases in temperature (what one would expect if you modeled temperature based on a correlation to carbon dioxide).

There are multiple facotrs. Multiple factors derived from physical relationships in the atmosphere, ocean, land use, cosmic variance, orbital parameters, etc.

What is BS, is what you think you understand about how climate science works.

 

[mit]

Seems those compact Flourescent light bulbs are not net energy savers in our cold climate - Apparently the heat that is emitted from their low tech incadescent cousins was not figured in to the energy savings formula - Ok in the summer but not so good in the colder 9 months of the year. Not to mention all the mercury that will need to be disposed of in a few years - Buy your incadescents now because they are a few short years from the ban going in effect.

 

[Scott Free]

What's ridiculous is that you think this rubbish is an accurate portrayal of how global warming attribution works. This isn't even a good portrayal of how the models work...

It is not correlation only. I've told you that before. It is well documented that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is causation. Take a tube which has infrared radiation passing through the it, fill it with carbon dioxide, and measure the difference in temperature before, and after. You have heat retained. It's not that difficult, it's done in introductory chemistry labs...

That is demonstrated. You can wave your hands all you like, but it is demonstrated.

I'll walk you through it Scotty since you don't appear capable of understanding this on your own. What they use are regressions, not correlations. You need to have a correlation first, before you can use a regression, and you of course need causation. If you have causation, you will have:
1) A strong association. Check. Tyndall's experiment.
2) The association is consistent. Check. Chem 1000 labs find the same thing.
3) Stronger concentrations are associated with stronger responses. Check. Add more carbon dioxide to the tube, and you get more heat retained.
4) Alleged cause precedes effect. Check. The temperature in the tube doesn't rise before you add the carbon dioxide.
5) The alleged cause is plausible. Check. The temperature of our planet is 14°C because of the greenhouse gases. Instead of the -18 °C it would be without them.

So, we have causation, now we can move onto regressions. There are three assumptions we need to do regression analysis, normality in the error terms, constant variance in the error terms, and independent from error terms.

The regression model looks like this
yi= B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + ...BpXip + Ei

That basically says that the response value, is a function of the value of y when x is zero, plus the amount y changes for an increase of one unit in each of p parameters, plus the error term.

The variation we see in the model output should be an indicator to you Scott, that it is not just a simple correlation. No model shows monotonic increases in temperature (what one would expect if you modeled temperature based on a correlation to carbon dioxide).

There are multiple facotrs. Multiple factors derived from physical relationships in the atmosphere, ocean, land use, cosmic variance, orbital parameters, etc.

What is BS, is what you think you understand about how climate science works.

Your little list there is tyranny of science, that is, a desperate attempt to overwhelm lay people with detail you think they won't understand. You don't understand it either because you're using a straw man argument.

The fact is that causation has not been proved and the GW carbon correlation doesn't have sufficient condition (as demonstrated with the one working model we do have, Venus) and too GW has happened in the past without carbon. So it is that you must set up a straw man fallacy because your trying to present a sign argument as a causal argument and you can only do that by including things other than carbon - all of which still doesn't explain why other planets are warming too! Also by claiming other causes you are proving my case.

I would also point out that the GW theory is probabilistic and your insistence on its truth demonstrates great ignorance on your part.

 

[Niflmir]

Your little list there is tyranny of science, that is, a desperate attempt to overwhelm lay people with detail you think they won't understand. You don't understand it either because you're using a straw man argument.

The fact is that causation has not been proved and the GW carbon correlation doesn't have sufficient condition (as demonstrated with the one working model we do have, Venus) and too GW has happened in the past without carbon. So it is that you must set up a straw man fallacy because your trying to present a sign argument as a causal argument and you can only do that by including things other than carbon - all of which still doesn't explain why other planets are warming too! Also by claiming other causes you are proving my case.

I would also point out that the GW theory is probabilistic and your insistence on its truth demonstrates great ignorance on your part.

You cannot have it both ways Scott. Either you understand the science involved and can deal with the details or you do not understand it and should not make accusations about the level of evidence. You cannot maintain your position of "correlation not causation" in the face of evidence merely by waving it away as "[too detailed]".

Probability theory is so well understood that one of the best business models in the world relies on it alone. I mean of course the gambling industry. You argue that somehow their profits cannot be real since the whole business model is probabalistic. To me this shows ignorance for what probability is.

You also present a false dichotomy, "Also by claiming other causes you are proving my case." It is either a single cause or it is not true? Why is that?

You also seem to misunderstand what a straw man argument is. Not only does the presentation of evidence of causation disprove your argument of it only being a correlation, it also proves the existence of and cause of global climate change.

Why is it that you choose to ignore scientific evidence without any given reason and supplant it with shoddy arm-chair logic?

 

[Scott Free]

You cannot have it both ways Scott. Either you understand the science involved and can deal with the details or you do not understand it and should not make accusations about the level of evidence. You cannot maintain your position of "correlation not causation" in the face of evidence merely by waving it away as "[too detailed]".

You are trying to frame the issue. I understand both the science and the argument. It is the argument I am attacking in this case not the detail. I merely pointed out Tonkaheads method.

Probability theory is so well understood that one of the best business models in the world relies on it alone. I mean of course the gambling industry. You argue that somehow their profits cannot be real since the whole business model is probabalistic. To me this shows ignorance for what probability is.

Probability is entirely different than an argument being probabilistic. When an argument is probabilistic it means you cannot know with certainty - that is much different than calculating odds.

And you call me ignorant lol :roll:

You also present a false dichotomy, "Also by claiming other causes you are proving my case." It is either a single cause or it is not true? Why is that?

This has been an ongoing conversation. My argument has been against the idea carbon is the cause of GW which was originally put forward.

You also seem to misunderstand what a straw man argument is. Not only does the presentation of evidence of causation disprove your argument of it only being a correlation, it also proves the existence of and cause of global climate change.

Is that right?

The argument was carbon/GW by entering other causes Tonka deviated from the argument and entered an easier to defend argument. That is exactly a straw man.

Why is it that you choose to ignore scientific evidence without any given reason and supplant it with shoddy arm-chair logic?

You're making a big assumption here but by the rest of your post I can infer that is typical of you.

I suppose your panties are in a twist like Tonkas because you too want to believe a probabilistic argument with certainty LMAO... you hippies are too funny :lol::lol::lol:

Thanks for playing though ;-)

 

[Niflmir]

This has been an ongoing conversation. My argument has been against the idea carbon is the cause of GW which was originally put forward.

I would like to know who put that forward, certainly not Tonington. The cause of global climate change is a compound effect of which carbon plays an integral (but not solitary) role. If that is your argument, then the discussion is over. This was never an issue.

 

[Scott Free]

"integral (but not solitary)" LMAO,... hippies and their fallacies :roll:

Even funnier: "I would like to know who put that forward, certainly not Tonington."

:lol::lol: um... you should know this... I'll give you a hint: the inventor of the Internet :lol::lol:


U fail.

lol

 

[Niflmir]

"integral (but not solitary)" LMAO,... hippies and their fallacies :roll:

U fail.

Solid argument there. Grow up.

 

[Niflmir]

"integral (but not solitary)" LMAO,... hippies and their fallacies :roll:

Even funnier: "I would like to know who put that forward, certainly not Tonington."

:lol::lol: um... you should know this... I'll give you a hint: the inventor of the Internet :lol::lol:


U fail.

lol

Really, he frequents this forum?

I am coming to the conclusion that you possess none of the skills necessary to carry on a discussion about this issue.

 

[Scott Free]

Solid argument there. Grow up.

Hey, I tried.

But there's no point.

You want to cling to a probabilistic argument as though it proves causation.

You're confusing sign with cause.

 

[Scott Free]

Really, he frequents this forum?

He started the debate - but you know that.

Don't get mad at me if your school yard tactics don't work.

I am coming to the conclusion that you possess none of the skills necessary to carry on a discussion about this issue.

In other words I'm going to call you on your BS and you don't like that. Well, run along then..

 

[Niflmir]

Hey, I tried.

But there's no point.

You want to cling to a probabilistic argument as though it proves causation.

You're confusing sign with cause.

You certainly did not try. The experiments that Tonington outlined show that carbon dioxide will increase the absorption of infrared radiation. It is a direct proof and has nothing to do with probability, the exact measures will have a dispersion but that is normal and does not make it probabalistic in any way. Yet you label it probabilistic without any rationale. Yes, it warms up and does not cool down, I suppose you can interpret that as a sign. No, that does not in any way change the fact that the experiment proves that carbon dioxide causes increased absorption which is stronger than correlation.

But what difference does this make? This just seems like a red herring to me. If you are simply arguing that there are causes other than carbon dioxide, then we already agree. If you disagree with the supposed impact that carbon dioxide makes, then you will have to deal with the details given by Tonington, and labeling them as "probabilistic" or "a sign" argument doesn't do anything.

 

[JLM]

You think one season is enough to be counted as climate? Not even one whole years worth of weather, but one season? That's hilarious!

Here's some FYI on the difference: Weather and Climate Basics

What's really hilarious is the people who try to make this phenomenum so scientific (perhaps it gives them illustions of grandeur). If you put any phenomenum on a graph quite often you'll notice it goes up and down in a random fashion- and it's stupid to even make anything of any particular part of it. The weather lately reminds me of the winter of '49-'50 and '68-'69 albeit not as severe, so this something we've more or less seen before. The bottom line is a ten year climate trend means nothing when you consider the billions of years of the planet.

 

[Tonington]

Your little list there is tyranny of science, that is, a desperate attempt to overwhelm lay people with detail you think they won't understand. You don't understand it either because you're using a straw man argument.

There is nothing overwhelming in that post. It is a straightforward as it gets without explaining to you the vibrational, rotational and vibro-rotational aspects of the carbon dioxide molecule.

If you say there is no causation, then how do you explain this away? Calling my simplistic explanation of a greenhouse gas overwhelming doesn't explain it away.

Give it a try.

The fact is that causation has not been proved and the GW carbon correlation doesn't have sufficient condition (as demonstrated with the one working model we do have, Venus) and too GW has happened in the past without carbon.

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is marked by a huge release of greenhouse gases. This is a time when freshwater ferns were growing in the Arctic, with year round temperatures above 20°C.

There is plenty of evidence. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your continued denial borders on delusional solipsism.

I would also point out that the GW theory is probabilistic and your insistence on its truth demonstrates great ignorance on your part.

Everything is probabilistic. If you knew anything about science at all, and the statistics used to analyze results, you would know this.

 

[Scott Free]

You certainly did not try. The experiments that Tonington outlined show that carbon dioxide will increase the absorption of infrared radiation. It is a direct proof and has nothing to do with probability, the exact measures will have a dispersion but that is normal and does not make it probabalistic in any way. Yet you label it probabilistic without any rationale. Yes, it warms up and does not cool down, I suppose you can interpret that as a sign. No, that does not in any way change the fact that the experiment proves that carbon dioxide causes increased absorption which is stronger than correlation.

But what difference does this make? This just seems like a red herring to me. If you are simply arguing that there are causes other than carbon dioxide, then we already agree. If you disagree with the supposed impact that carbon dioxide makes, then you will have to deal with the details given by Tonington, and labeling them as "probabilistic" or "a sign" argument doesn't do anything.

It is probabilistic and that is relevant. The evidence is inductive not deductive. That is normal but it means that the evidence does not demonstrate conclusively carbon as cause. There are many more significant factors including regular weather patterns, past warming happened without carbon, other bodies are warming etc.. and etc...

The fact is that carbon is a very minor contributer and is not realistically a cause at all.

The evidence Tonkahead posted demonstrates an attribute about carbon not about GW and is thereby NOT direct proof of anything.

I have to really wonder about you guys.

 

[Tonington]

What's really hilarious is the people who try to make this phenomenum so scientific (perhaps it gives them illustions of grandeur). If you put any phenomenum on a graph quite often you'll notice it goes up and down in a random fashion- and it's stupid to even make anything of any particular part of it. The weather lately reminds me of the winter of '49-'50 and '68-'69 albeit not as severe, so this something we've more or less seen before. The bottom line is a ten year climate trend means nothing when you consider the billions of years of the planet.

Right, the graph goes up and down in quick succession, from one day to the next. That is weather....

Billions of years ago don't matter to our climate now. That is ignorant. The time of the dinosaurs does not describe our climate at all. Taking long term averages now does.

What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Scott Free]

There is nothing overwhelming in that post. It is a straightforward as it gets without explaining to you the vibrational, rotational and vibro-rotational aspects of the carbon dioxide molecule.

If you say there is no causation, then how do you explain this away? Calling my simplistic explanation of a greenhouse gas overwhelming doesn't explain it away.

Give it a try.

I didn't say there was no causation!!!! I said the argument was probabilistic from sign..

WTF is wrong with you people?

You're like the religious nuts!

 

[Niflmir]

What's really hilarious is the people who try to make this phenomenum so scientific (perhaps it gives them illustions of grandeur). If you put any phenomenum on a graph quite often you'll notice it goes up and down in a random fashion- and it's stupid to even make anything of any particular part of it. The weather lately reminds me of the winter of '49-'50 and '68-'69 albeit not as severe, so this something we've more or less seen before. The bottom line is a ten year climate trend means nothing when you consider the billions of years of the planet.

Generally, stochastic phenomena can be well modeled, especially when the underlying physics are well understood. There is an experiment I did during my undergraduate degree called the Millikan experiment where one attempts to measure the electric charge. The motion of the particles (for me they were microscopic silicone balls) is Brownian, and they dance all over the place in stochastic fashion. Yet one is able to measure the electric charge to reasonable accuracy.

Its of course, more than a decade, and anecdotes do not make measurements: it is hard to measure mean surface temperature from one location on the globe. One might say that ten seconds means nothing compared to the length of an adult's life span, yet that might be all the time you get to recognize the symptoms of a heart attack.

 

[Tonington]

I didn't say there was no causation!!!! I said the argument was probabilistic from sign..

You said causation has not been proved. That means no causation. Can you agree with that? Or are you going to twist in the wind some more, move goal posts, etc.

WTF is wrong with you people?

Apparently our brains work well, and you have problems coping with that.

You're like the religious nuts!

From where I'm sitting, you're the one maintaining an argument even when evidence is given refuting your argument. You're the same as the flat earthers and creationists.

I mean you might as well start arguing against Newtonian physics, Mendellian inheritance, and Darwinian evolution now. :roll: