cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. Just ... no.
Global Warming is a Myth, Rush Limbaugh said so!!!
- Thread starter Grojak
- Start date
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-warming-extremely-likely-to-be-man-made-un-panel-says-1.1870378
The IPCC said the evidence of climate change has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.
The full 2,000-page report isn't going to be released until Monday, but the summary for policymakers with the key findings was published Friday. It contained few surprises as many of the findings had been leaked in advance.
As expected, the IPCC raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 26-82 centimetres by the end of the century. The previous report predicted a rise of 18-59 centimetres.
But it also changed its estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in CO2 concentrations, lowering the lower end of a range given in the previous report. In 2007, the IPCC said that a doubling of CO2 concentrations would likely result in 2-4.5 C degrees of warming. This time it restored the lower end of that range to what it was in previous reports, 1.5 C.
A map presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows the rise in the Earth's surface temperature between 1901 and 2012. (IPCC)
The IPCC assessments are important because they form the scientific basis of U.N. negotiations on a new climate deal. Governments are supposed to finish that agreement in 2015, but it's unclear whether they will commit to the emissions cuts that scientists say will be necessary to keep the temperature below a limit at which the worst effects of climate change can be avoided.
[/quote]
The IPCC said the evidence of climate change has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.
The full 2,000-page report isn't going to be released until Monday, but the summary for policymakers with the key findings was published Friday. It contained few surprises as many of the findings had been leaked in advance.
As expected, the IPCC raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 26-82 centimetres by the end of the century. The previous report predicted a rise of 18-59 centimetres.
But it also changed its estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in CO2 concentrations, lowering the lower end of a range given in the previous report. In 2007, the IPCC said that a doubling of CO2 concentrations would likely result in 2-4.5 C degrees of warming. This time it restored the lower end of that range to what it was in previous reports, 1.5 C.
The IPCC assessments are important because they form the scientific basis of U.N. negotiations on a new climate deal. Governments are supposed to finish that agreement in 2015, but it's unclear whether they will commit to the emissions cuts that scientists say will be necessary to keep the temperature below a limit at which the worst effects of climate change can be avoided.
[/quote]
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So, they were wrong then, could they be wrong now??? OF COURSE!!!
They said that CO2 does not affect temperature rise as much as predicted but predicted more flooding than before. That is some pretty counterintuitive shit right there!!! It isnt going to get as hot (cause we cant prove it and it isnt happening) but the water level will rise because we need funding...
Well fuck!!! Why dont we start building an Ark right now!!! Save the animals!!!
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Nice logical fallacy. Fail.
Wow, you're great at paraphrasing! You should be a (creation)scientist.... you can explain to everyone how god tricked everyone by putting fossils into the sedimentary layers and how Jesus rode a raptor....
You're an idiot.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Let's see the quote in its full context, not just your overly simplistic, grade 2 understanding of what was said.
Do you notice it says they only changed the LOWER END RANGE of the report. They had new data, and incorporated data into their findings. That's what scientists do, they take new and exciting data and interpret it. That's why science is self correcting.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Is it your argument that they cannot be wrong now???
And you call me an idiot? Lulz....
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
No, that's not my argument. It never was, I never posted anything even remotely close to that. That's you using another logical fallacy, a strawman this time, to attempt to seem witty/smart/intuitive when in fact, you look even dumber now.
If their findings are based on evidence (which they are), there's a reason to believe them. Stating 'they were wrong once, so we can't trust them', is a logical fallacy and a poor attempt at being rational (False dilemma, False in one, false in everything). The quality of the investigation and evidence is what determines the likelihood that the findings are correct, not previous studies, done with different data, at an earlier time.
Fin? Is that you? Should I give my plants some milk?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Let me explain this to you...
I said they were wrong and questioned whether they could be wrong now. I did not claim they were wrong, I did not do anything of the sort. Therefore, it is not a logical fallacy. There was no conclusion so there can be no fallacy. You are an idiot.
Because you challenged my question I asked you if your argument was that they cannot be wrong? You said it was not proving yet again you are an idiot for challenging the question in the previous statement. It is not a strawman to ask a question. Again you are an idiot.
You changed my question to a statement and attacked it. Now THAT is a strawman. Bravo for getting it completely 180 and doing the very thing you are accusing me of yourself...
This is not an investigation it is supposedly research performed using the scientific method. Maybe you think it is some sort of detective show...
Give your plants whatever you damn well please, it isnt my problem.
I said they were wrong and questioned whether they could be wrong now. I did not claim they were wrong, I did not do anything of the sort. Therefore, it is not a logical fallacy. There was no conclusion so there can be no fallacy. You are an idiot.
Because you challenged my question I asked you if your argument was that they cannot be wrong? You said it was not proving yet again you are an idiot for challenging the question in the previous statement. It is not a strawman to ask a question. Again you are an idiot.
You changed my question to a statement and attacked it. Now THAT is a strawman. Bravo for getting it completely 180 and doing the very thing you are accusing me of yourself...
This is not an investigation it is supposedly research performed using the scientific method. Maybe you think it is some sort of detective show...
Give your plants whatever you damn well please, it isnt my problem.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Ok, you weren't implying that their credibility was suspect because they were wrong about something in an old report? Really? Because I'm going to disagree with you there.
Right, you implied (out of nowhere) that I believe they cannot be wrong. The fact that you made the statement "and you call me an idiot? LULZ....", is confirmation that you believe that is my opinion. It is not.
Idiot.
Investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| Look up investigation in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
In law enforcement:
- The work of a Private investigator
- The work of a Detective
- Federal Bureau of Investigation, the primary investigative arm of the US Department of Justice
- Criminal Investigation Department, the branch of British Police force to which plain-clothes detectives belong
- Griffin Investigations, the most prominent group of private investigators specializing in the gambling industry
- Clinical trial, an investigation conducted to collect data for new drugs or devices
- Investigational New Drug, category in a USFDA program
- Tests and scans done to help with the diagnosis or management of a disease
- Forensic science, in fields such as accounting, science, engineering and information technology <-------- ATTN; Fuck head
- Investigation (film), a 2006 Bulgarian drama
- The Investigation, 1959 book by Stanisław Lem
- The Investigation (play), 1965 play by Peter Weiss
- Investigation Discovery, a digital cable channel
- Investigative journalism, the practice of in-depth reporting or analysis
- "Investigations" (Star Trek: Voyager), the 36th episode of the television series Star Trek: Voyager
- Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space, a K-5 mathematics curriculum
- Temporal Investigations, agency of the government of the United Federation of Planets in the fictional universe of Star Trek
- Discovery (observation)
- Research <------------- ATTN; Fuck head
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You are not really good at this are you?Ok, you weren't implying that their credibility was suspect because they were wrong about something in an old report? Really? Because I'm going to disagree with you there.
Right, you implied (out of nowhere) that I believe they cannot be wrong. The fact that you made the statement "and you call me an idiot? LULZ....", is confirmation that you believe that is my opinion. It is not. That is a strawman.
Idiot.
Investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Investigation or Investigations may refer to:
Look up investigation in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
In law enforcement:
In medicine:
- The work of a Private investigator
- The work of a Detective
- Federal Bureau of Investigation, the primary investigative arm of the US Department of Justice
- Criminal Investigation Department, the branch of British Police force to which plain-clothes detectives belong
- Griffin Investigations, the most prominent group of private investigators specializing in the gambling industry
In other uses:
- Clinical trial, an investigation conducted to collect data for new drugs or devices
- Investigational New Drug, category in a USFDA program
- Tests and scans done to help with the diagnosis or management of a disease
Investigation may also be:
- Forensic science, in fields such as accounting, science, engineering and information technology
- Investigation (film), a 2006 Bulgarian drama
- The Investigation, 1959 book by Stanisław Lem
- The Investigation (play), 1965 play by Peter Weiss
- Investigation Discovery, a digital cable channel
- Investigative journalism, the practice of in-depth reporting or analysis
- "Investigations" (Star Trek: Voyager), the 36th episode of the television series Star Trek: Voyager
- Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space, a K-5 mathematics curriculum
- Temporal Investigations, agency of the government of the United Federation of Planets in the fictional universe of Star Trek
- Discovery (observation)
- Research <---------------------- FUCK HEAD
A question cannot be a logical fallacy nor can it be a strawman.
I posed a question. You turned it into a statement and attacked it. That is a straw man argument.
Who is the idiot?? You are not smart enough to figure it out so ... Moving on....
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
A question can't be a logical fallacy????? What the fuck are you on?
Put down the meth. Pick up a book once and a while (and also apparently a dictionary because you don't know what 'investigate' means, idiot).
You need an education.
EXAMPLE OF A STRAWMAN AS A QUESTION;
Person 1 - I don't like the cold weather.
Person 2 - So, you hate Inuit people, and wish they'd disappear???
U R WEEE TODD ID.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Are you going to keep going???
Do you know what a fallacy is? It is something that is false.
I did not make a conclusion. Therefore my QUESTION cannot be true or false.
If my QUESTION cannot be true or false there cannot be a fallacy....
I took logic in college and you took logic on the internet and it shows.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I have a degree in Phil... TEEHEE
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
GET YOUR MoNEY BACK!!!
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
It's easy to infer your answer to your own question based on the statements you made after the question. I pointed this out, you're playing (I hope to god you're playing) dumb.
I also gave you a clear and concise example of how a question can be a logical fallacy. Still waiting on your response to that, or are you busy taking your foot out of your mouth?
I also gave you a clear and concise example of how a question can be a logical fallacy. Still waiting on your response to that, or are you busy taking your foot out of your mouth?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So you want to move the goal posts??
I asked a question and you are allowed to infer the answer and my intent, reach a conclusion, pin it on me and pronounce that I have created a logical fallacy??? Dude, that is politics, not logic.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Am I to believe you're not trying to discredit this report because there was a mistake in an earlier report? That is the fucking definition of a logical fallacy.
If you're not trying to discredit this report based on the findings of an earlier report, you sure sound like you are.
If you're not trying to discredit this report based on the findings of an earlier report, you sure sound like you are.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Simply put, of course.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Then you are reading shit into what I am saying.
The previous report was admittedly WRONG. Science has reached false conclusions back to the beginning. Scientists said the earth was flat, that the sun rotated around it and it was the center of the universe. I have plenty of evidence showing that many of the conclusions scientists have reached in the past was wrong.
The scientific method is based on the creation of a hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is tested. If the hypothesis bears out under testing a conclusion may be reached (that can yet be proven wrong).
What we are dealing with here is more politics than science.
The hypothesis are:
1. The earth is warming at this time. (this is in dispute from the last 15 years of data) I would speculate that it is impossible to determine whether the globe will be warming or cooling tomorrow without any data nor proven hypothesis so all we have is the past.
2. Man is a driving force of the global warming if #1 is true.
Now, scientists have created multiple MODELS of what they thing is happening and NONE of the data has matched their hypothesis. They have failed to demonstrate it. BUT... BECAUSE IT IS SOOOO IMPORTANT. We jump to a conclusion and begin to take action...
That is politics, not science.
I dont care whether the globe is warming or cooling. We have direct evidence that it has been much cooler and much warmer.
My point is and always has been that we need to develop technologies to adapt rather than spend trillions of dollars trying to change the weather.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Sic semper tyrannis is more like it. The sea raises and the sea falls. Ice is locked, Ice is released. Only the idiot will blame the tiny, scratching scab of mankind for this.
And remember, the basis of all law, ever. When even one Lie is uttered All utterances are suspect. (can't find the latin for that, right now)
I am old enough to have seen the beginning of evil Saganism.
You know he was a carpenter....built crosses or something, I heard.