Some examples:
Al Gore is a lying politician, but Inhofe is a reliable source of information.
Global warming has stalled because 1998 is the hottest year on record, even though 2001-2007 were all warmer than 1990-1997 and 1999-2000 (and every year on record before that).
Global warming has stalled because 2006 wasn't as hot as 2005.
One supposed flaw in the AGW theory means it's worthless, but numerous obvious flaws in the cosmic ray or solar warming theories are no problem.
Consensus doesn't matter. Except when we can find 400 random people on the planet who are skeptical of the theory. Then the consensus is important, and we disproved it!
30 or 50 or 100 or 150 years of data are not enough to prove anything about global warming, but 2 years of data are enough to prove that global warming has stopped.
What's with all this cherrypicking and double-standards?
2007-12-21 07:42:11 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
In your first example, the skeptics resort to the "ad hominum" logical fallacy--attacking the speaker rather than addressing the arguement made by the speaker. Particularly silly in this case, since Al Gore isn't the one making the scientific arguement. That's what the scientists do--Gore is only a spokesperson engaged in public education efforts.
The remaining arguements are, broadly speaking, examples of another logical fallacy-the "ad hoc" arguement. In genral, this is when the proponant of one position is unwilling to conced when his arguements have been disproven (as the skeptics' arguements have) resorts to inventing one or more "alternative explanations" in order to avoid admitting his position is no longer tenable.
Which is, in fact the case. The scientific evidence supporting global warming--and the fact that it is primarily caused by humans--isconclusive, and has been for years. The "skeptics" don't have any alternative except to resort to these, or other, fallacious arguements--for the simple reson they have no valid ones.
Well, actuallly, there is one other alternative--they could try learning soe real science. Then shut up.
2007-12-21 08:49:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Global warming does not seem to have that much to do with how hot or cold it is, but averages of several years. On the average I think you will find that the last 10 years was warmer than the previous 10 years. Also it seems that the polar ice is melting at an alarming rate. Coral reefs are endangered due to oceanic warming in certain areas. Storms seem to be more severe (one of the signals of over-all global warming). What the overall effects global warming will ultimately bring is really unknown as no one has ever experienced it. So, for now, all scientists can do is guess.
They are fairly good at this, but many times have to make serious corrections. I don't put a lot of confidence in hypotheses or theories that any one may have.
2007-12-21 08:01:44 · answer #2 · answered by sgf 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Double standards?
Like the one that says only climatologists are worthy to discuss global warming but anyone thats seen The China Syndrome or listens to Jackson Browne CDs is a nookular expert?
2007-12-21 07:59:47 · answer #3 · answered by Agent 00Zero 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I think he is saying he found 400 more to add to the growing pile of “deniers”. Maybe the global warming alarmist or "socialist in disguise" are afraid to debate the issue, so they resort to lame tactics like you are employing.
2007-12-21 10:48:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Nice try Dana but aren't you are resorting to double standards by not divulging all the flaws in the AGW theory?
Such as:
The mid troposphere has been cooling for over four years.
The stratosphere shows no cooling or warming for ten years.
The Oceans have been cooling for over four years
The continent of Antarctica has been cooling for over thirty years. (not including the Peninsula)
Antarctic sea ice grew to record levels this year.
The Southern Hemisphere had one of the worst winters in decades this year.
And last but not least, a negative feedback occurring right before your very sun glassed covered eyes, why is that? are your eyes red?
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47121205
.
.
.. And there are many others.
2007-12-21 08:20:14 · answer #5 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 7⤊ 5⤋
Your picking from one side of the tree and we are picking from the other. I will point out however that there have been may who have been the profits of doom to man and the earth but I'm still here.....
2007-12-21 13:27:49 · answer #6 · answered by Ranger473 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Visit ClimateAds.com to help global warming. You can add a HTML code to your website or social network profile (myspace) to raise awareness of how to prevent global warming.
http://ClimateAds.com
2007-12-21 11:49:23 · answer #7 · answered by peter s 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think they have run out of reasons to argue.
2007-12-22 02:10:58 · answer #8 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore and all your so called consensus scientists cherry picked their numbers and graphs which promotes their version of a double standard... you believers just dont like tasting your own medicine.
ie: the hockey stick graph... with or without the medieval warming period?
2007-12-21 07:54:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 6⤋