Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, given that you claimed the sun was responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere, how exactly is the sun responsible? What's the mechanism or the process?

Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 21st century | EUMETSAT

[Danderman123]

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This much is established:

  

If you understand that the argumentative use of consensus is a fallacy of relevance, and therefore false, why do you continue to use it to bolster your argument?  Would you agree that it's use, being that it's false, is therefore dishonest?  And if anyone purposely uses a known falsity then what might one conclude from that?

There is consensus that the Earth is not flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 21st century | EUMETSAT

You're not even trying now.

 

The link above describes the process of measuring stratosphere temperatures, and the measurements themselves, but not why there is a cooling trend.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 21st century | EUMETSAT

More of your nonsense. I read the introduction and the conclusion and there's nothing in there linking the sun in one way or another to stratospheric cooling. If you can't cite a specific passage to support your claim, that means you're just trolling again.

You've got nothing.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

There is consensus that the Earth is not flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

Consensus may be true or it may be false.  But consensus, in and of it self, does not make something true or false.   If the truth is not yet established, as the debate still rages about climate changed, then consensus is irrelevant.  Therefore, to use consensus when the truth has not been definitively established to assert that consensus makes a position true then that is a deceptive and dishonest practice.

Your analogy is another form of fallacy of argument.  Per Wiki, once again, on the Argument Of Analogy Fallacy:

Argument from analogy or false analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet.

Climate change has not been definitively proven.  That the earth is not flat has been proven.

I'm beginning to think that you have extreme difficulty with processing logical thought.  Either that or you understand quite well that if consensus cannot be used to make climate change true then the climate change believers have lost a major tool in their arsenal for convincing the public of what they want the public to believe as true.  For that would mean that even the outliers on this issue would have equal standing to the majority.  Or, the truth would destroy one aspect of your narrative.  Or, all of the above.

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

There is consensus that the Earth is not flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

There used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Consensus may be true or it may be false.  But consensus, in and of it self, does not make something true or false.   If the truth is not yet established, as the debate still rages about climate changed, then consensus is irrelevant.  Therefore, to use consensus when the truth has not been definitively established to assert that consensus makes a position true then that is a deceptive and dishonest practice.

Your analogy is another form of fallacy of argument.  Per Wiki, once again, on the Argument Of Analogy Fallacy:

Argument from analogy or false analogy is a special type of inductive argument, where perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been observed yet.

Climate change has not been definitively proven.  That the earth is not flat has been proven.

I'm beginning to think that you have extreme difficulty with processing logical thought.  Either that or you understand quite well that if consensus cannot be used to make climate change true then the climate change believers have lost a major tool in their arsenal for convincing the public of what they want the public to believe as true.  For that would mean that even the outliers on this issue would have equal standing to the majority.  Or, the truth would destroy one aspect of your narrative.  Or, all of the above.

Human induced climate change has been proven. You are simply unable to accept that, just as Flat Earthers cannot accept the scientific consensus that the Earth isn't flat.

 

So, let me ask you the standard question: why is the Stratosphete cooling?

 

[Tippaporn]

Care to weigh in on the consensus issue I'm raising, @placeholder or will you continue to ignore it?  So far you've ignored answering twice; once refusing to address it in my reply to one of your posts and once when you were mentioned by link.

It's an important issue to resolve, don't you think?  For the false assertion of consensus equating to proof is used in almost every climate change article by climate change proponents.  Including the article on which this thread is based.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

Actually, no.

 

There were uneducated people who thought the Earth was flat, just as there are uneducated people now who don't believe in climate change.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat.

 

Deal with that argument.

Now that was absolutely brilliant, Yellowtail. 

Coincidentally, I had been thinking of digging up some historical examples where almost universal consensus within the scientific community was ultimately shown to be false.

 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Care to weigh in on the consensus issue I'm raising, @placeholder or will you continue to ignore it?  So far you've ignored answering twice; once refusing to address it in my reply to one of your posts and once when you were mentioned by link.

It's an important issue to resolve, don't you think?  For the false assertion of consensus equating to proof is used in almost every climate change article by climate change proponents.  Including the article on which this thread is based.

You ignore the reality that the scientific concensus is based on proof.

 

And you ignore the proof.

 

Instead you waste our time with abstract arguments.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Actually, no.

 

There were uneducated people who thought the Earth was flat, just as there are uneducated people now who don't believe in climate change.

Oh my God.  You can't be serious posting that as a serious reply. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Human induced climate change has been proven. You are simply unable to accept that, just as Flat Earthers cannot accept the scientific consensus that the Earth isn't flat.

 

So, let me ask you the standard question: why is the Stratosphete cooling?

 

The Sun

 

NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting | NASA

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Human induced climate change has been proven.

 

False.  Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true.  So now your shifting from consensus to repetition as a tactic to convince? 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that was absolutely brilliant, Yellowtail. 

Coincidentally,, I had been thinking of digging up some historical examples where almost universal consensus was ultimately shown to be false.

You would have to show that the scientific proof itself was false. There was no scientific process that determined that the Earth was flat.

 

Now you Deniers are attacking the concept of scientific consensus, rather than the proof itself, because you cannot attack the proof.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

The Sun

 

NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting | NASA

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

You cannot explain why, because you don't understand any of this. You are just here to sow doubt about climate change.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now that was absolutely brilliant, Yellowtail. 

Coincidentally,, I had been thinking of digging up some historical examples where almost universal consensus was ultimately shown to be false.

How about the Left cares about the poor? 

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

False.  Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true.  So now your shifting from consensus to repetition as a tactic to convince? 

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas which traps heat in the lower atmosphere. This is indisputable.

 

The amount  of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. This is indisputable.

 

Human produced CO2 accounts for most of this increase. Again, indisputable.

 

The planet is warming. Indisputable.

 

Therefore, human produced CO2 is warming the planet. Indisputable.

 

Now you can argue against the consensus that sex causes pregnancy.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

You cannot explain why, because you don't understand any of this. You are just here to sow doubt about climate change.

I agree the climate is changing, I just think the policies being implemented to address it are ridiculous. 

 

How many times do I have to tell you this? Please try to follow along. 

 

In spite of all the silly renewable mandates and social engineering, we continue to produce more CO2 every day. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

False.  Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true.  So now your shifting from consensus to repetition as a tactic to convince? 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

 

Why are the Deniers unable to answer this simple question?

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I agree the climate is changing, I just think the policies being implemented to address it are ridiculous. 

 

How many times do I have to tell you this? Please try to follow along. 

 

In spite of all the silly renewable mandates and social engineering, we continue to produce more CO2 every day. 

 

 

You agree that human produced greenhouse gases are warming the planet?

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You ignore the reality that the scientific concensus is based on proof.

 

And you ignore the proof.

 

Instead you waste our time with abstract arguments.

 

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Consensus may be true or it may be false.

Again, are you serious, Danderman123, in consistently deny the truth of that statement?

I'm not ignoring any truth.  And here you're using another logical fallacy.  To disagree with a position does not infer that a position is ignored.  The conclusion does not follow the premise.

 

Are you saying that logic is abstract? 

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You would have to show that the scientific proof itself was false. There was no scientific process that determined that the Earth was flat.

 

Now you Deniers are attacking the concept of scientific consensus, rather than the proof itself, because you cannot attack the proof.

No, you're clinging to a falsity for dear life, still trying to pretend it's true.  The chutzpah you're displaying is truly comical.

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How about the Left cares about the poor? 

 

 

You've shown exceptional inspiration this morning, Yellowtail.  Another classic truth. 

[owl sees all]

On 8/21/2023 at 8:19 PM, Tippaporn said:

No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change.  Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory.

In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said.  And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about.

 

Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change.  The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false.  Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real.  "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements.

In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy.  It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates.  I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief.  Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based.  But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief.  For there always exists countering evidence.

So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof?  And if not then state your case.  And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious.  Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself.

Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted.  For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information?  And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them.

Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool.  They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree."  Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing.  After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit.

Take it easy there Tippy. These klimate change enthusiasts will go straight to 'Google', and then usually to the 'Wiki' page, when ever they face a difficult question.

 

We know it is all a hoax. And I've got my views on why it is being pushed so hard, but that's beyond the scope of the topic.

 

Grab yerself a cold beer, and reflect how fortunate some of us are, not to be so easily taken in.

 

.

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm posting information from Wiki on long established and accepted fallacies of argument.  Consensus being one of them.  To say that I'm posting false information is to say that Wiki's page on fallacies of argument is false information since I simply copied and pasted it.  So saying that I'm posting false information is patently false.

And BOOM!! you immediately post an article on scientific consensus which suggests that consensus makes something true.  I mean, what does the above say?  Well, it's more than obvious.

BTW, neither @Danderman123 nor @placeholder have offered to address this issue.  Hmmmm . . .  I wonder why?

 

You place a lot on wiki based on Consensus, in which case here's something else from Wiki for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

Oh and here's another wiki entry for you.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Take it easy there Tippy. These klimate change enthusiasts will go straight to 'Google', and then usually to the 'Wiki' page, when ever they face a difficult question.

 

We know it is all a hoax. And I've got my views on why it is being pushed so hard, but that's beyond the scope of the topic.

 

Grab yerself a cold beer, and reflect how fortunate some of us are, not to be so easily taken in.

 

.

 

Tippy's whole post is based on a wiki entry link.....lol

[BE88]

I note that it is more humid this year and consequently hotter with temperatures also generally lower than in recent years.

I have read in recent months that solar activity has increased and therefore it can be assumed that the heat of the sun hitting the earth has increased.

If it increases more as the sorcerer Gutierrez predicts, we could ask for political asylum in Finland where it seems that so far all Finns pray every evening for it to get warmer.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Care to weigh in on the consensus issue I'm raising, @placeholder or will you continue to ignore it?  So far you've ignored answering twice; once refusing to address it in my reply to one of your posts and once when you were mentioned by link.

It's an important issue to resolve, don't you think?  For the false assertion of consensus equating to proof is used in almost every climate change article by climate change proponents.  Including the article on which this thread is based.

Well, here's my reply to your logorrhea

It if were just a case of arguing from authority, you might have a point. If this was a discussion of history, religion or literature where opinions necessarily play a part, your claims would be valid. But this is not about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the role of irony in Jane's Austen novels, or how much did familial ties contribute to the decline of the Roman Empire. This is science, and it's not the authority of an individual per se that's being invoked, but the weight of their research. What's more, the major dissenters to this research have repeatedly failed in their predictions and have even resorted to blatantly misleading evidence to support their case. I have spent a lot of time here, showing how misleading or misled ACC denialists are. Given the overwhelming weight of the results of research, the odds that current basic understanding of major contribution of increased emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide etc. is false,  are clearly statistically insignificant.

Of course, if someone is a conspiracy theorist and an ACC denialist, then they will claim that the scientific results are being faked, or that there's a worldwide conspiracy to keep contrary findings suppressed., or some other unproveable claim. Since arguing with conspiracy theorists is futile, that's a course I don't intend to follow. 

 

[owl sees all]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Tippy's whole post is based on a wiki entry link.....lol

Wiki is edited by people like me and you.

 

I have edited many subjects. It is sometimes difficult to keep one's opinions away. In saying that, a good deal of the 'facts/truth' is opinion, and not nearly objective enough.