Are they still arguing this? Revert them to your last thread.

Fair enough, orathaic. Still, in a practical sense - we have no choice unless we each and every one of us wish to do exactly what you have laid out in your first option.

That's why I trust the experts - I am not qualified to question them. But my main point here (still a huge point, but not the main one), as I hope I've made clear, is not that global warming is true. My main point is that nobody here has the credibility to claim it isn't and expect that argument to stand without support.

If they wish to challenge my experts, they'd better find some experts of their own. Reasonable?

Also.. the appeal to authority fallacy is only legitimate if the authority in question is not truly an authority (right? I'm way out of my comfort zone on this kind of stuff).

Climatologists are THE authority on climate :P

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Haha thanks Nike, but I'm not gonna keep spamming that.

Like my cock at a dinner party, I only pull it out for special occasions.

"but i recall something along the lines of 7/8 of the highest recorded temperatures in the past 10 years."

This isn't a good argument per se. E.g. if the year 2000 was the hottest on record and the next 7 years had the same temperature as 2000, they would be certainly the hottest 8 years together but without any warming taking place in that timespan. One needs to pay attention to the actual value in each year, not just a comparison to other years. Otherwise you never know whether further warming is occuring or we just reached a new temperate plateau which will stay for some time.

Actually, if you look at the nizkor link I made above... case 3 on the page spells out exactly what we have going on here... except nobody else has been able to provide a counterclaim supported by an expert. Thus my point that there is a consensus among experts.

i guess i've had enough global warming argument on this website. i usually debate endlessly, but i guess on a forum endlessly really means endlessly.

so finally i'd just like to say that if someone objective, without any preconceived ideas about global warming read through this, i'm confident he would see that i was actually citing evidence, making clear points, and drawing rational conclusions. and that you all were relying heavily on logical fallacies, like character attacks, appeals to authority, guilt by association (because i must watch fox news or something, which i definitely do not), and who knows what else, i'm too tired to categorize them all. i know you all won't believe me, but i don't care.

@all, is this really how you handle critics? Really? you disgrace them just because they have a hard time believing you?
sorry YJ

I did not see one citation. In fact, what I read is that you do not care and that you just like to debate. And even those two you have contradicted yourself on; firstly, you do not care, it is obvious that you do; and secondly, you like to debate, there is a difference between what you call debate and what is real debate. And to the topic of debate, I'll take you on in a 2v2 public forum debate any time.

bolshoi's definition page:

Citing Evidence:
CHECK OUT THIS COOL WIKIPEDIA GRAPH! IT SHOWS WHAT I SAY! YOU DON'T SEE THAT? LERN2STATS NOOB!

Clear Point:
IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED AND CLEARLY PROVEN THAT WHAT I SAY IS RIGHT. EVIDENCE? SEE ABOVE.

Rational Conclusion:
MY OPINION IS AS VALID AS THAT OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND SCIENTISTS.

Logical fallacy:
A PREMISE, SUPPORTED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY VALIDATE A CONCLUSION

Character attack:
NO, YOU REALLY ARE AN IMBECILE

Appeal to Authority:
WE SHOULD ALWAYS DISCOUNT THE EXPERTS (SEE RATIONAL CONCLUSION, ABOVE)

Guilt by Association:
BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SAID ALONE ISN'T ENOUGH TO CONDEMN ME FOR A FOOL.

@ carpenter: no, I disgrace them because they refuse to even attempt to live up to the rigor of the scientists they are (poorly) attempting to invalidate. And then they pretend that they are in any way credible? It's laughable, pathetic, and now it's starting to get boring. Even I get sick of mentally bitchslapping retards. It's like Hulk Hogan powerbombing a 3 year old.

@Nike I'll join your team anyday :P

I was leaning towards Gore, but okay.

Reassessing my initial statement on YJ: when something is generally accepted, doesn't mean it's true. That doesn't mean a theory is very credible (as the man-made global warming is), it needs to be proven (which has not yet occured).
I tried to say: to think what the majority think is nothing close to science (I think the original combination of words came out wrong)

carpenter:

To think what the majority think is nothing close to science.

To lean towards what the majority of scientists observe is somewhat closer to science.

To acknowledge as the best available truth what the majority of experts have concluded is as close to science as a non-expert needs to come. Those without training in the discipline are not authorized to have 'opinions.' Or at least not authorized to have them taken seriously.

and by majority I mean *overwhelming* majority.

well, you're right in the overwhelming majority of research in the field.
But you've just proven my point: your response was in my opinion way out of line (disgracing etc.), a lot of persons will back out of a conversation if this happens to them. Resulting that "no-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers". It's not the reason why you're right, it's the reason why *you* hear a one-way conversation, all the time.
But then we get back to the conversation about majorities (and how you count them).

addendum, with research I meant peer-reviewed paper published. About the counting, papers published vs scientists in the field vs scientists in relevant subjects.

@ 'This isn't a good argument per se. E.g. if the year 2000 was the hottest on record and the next 7 years had the same temperature as 2000, they would be certainly the hottest 8 years '

That is a fair comment. And while short-term variations may mean that over a 3 year period there is decrease in average temperature followed by another (bigger) increase, in this case it happen to be that what you describe is more accurate (at least than i thought and looking at this data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

How and ever, if you pick a different length of time to measure (like 3 years, which brings down the average extreme 'once off' in the data of 1998) then i'm sure you will see the averages are going up...

of course the question of whether this is a significant increase is something which will require me to appeal to authority.

@Carpenter, and unpopularity, scientists who speak out against the consensus have two possible results, 1) their data backs their claims, and they become famous, 2) their data doesn't backup their claims, and they lose their reputation (infamous?)

I'm pretty sure this encourages dissent when there is data to backup a minority view.

hang on carpenter, I gave bolshoi AMPLE opportunity to show me something before I began with the disgracing. It was only after he made it obvious that not only he had nothing to offer, but that he was also incapable of admitting even to himself that he had nothing to offer that the ridicule began in earnest.

Shaming idiots into silence still works.

Your assertion that I hear a one sided conversation is false. There is no shortage of malleable fools willing to take up the torch on the other side. It's only one sided on the expert side, which is the only side that matters. That people like bolshoi fail to recognize and validate this is where I have a problem.

If he had had a single sensical thing to say on this matter it would have been impossible to silence (and yes, ridicule) him so easily. And nobody, NOBODY, on the anonymous internet has EVER backed out of a conversation for fear of looking stupid. At least not while they were winning.

You know how you avoid looking stupid? You don't make claims that you cannot validate. You do a little bit of research before you start saying crap. And you always, ALWAYS keep in the back of your mind that you might, just might, be wrong.

Lets vote. This post is Yes.

This post is No.

Shut the fuck up. The thread has moved on, and you just have to accept that you're wrong. Stop +1 whoring.

'+1'-trolling?

YJ, remember bolshoi also invalidated the theory of calculus single-handed...

Orathaic, I took the liberty and extrapolated a centennial warming trend from linear regression of the last 180 months (15 years) of 5 global datasets. Although such extrapolation doesn't take into account any climatological know-how, I think it should be sufficient to broadly assess the claim that there was no statistically significant global warming in the past 15 years. The two roughest datasets (UAH MSU and GISS), which measure only to 2 significant, numbers show the highest trend that is close to 1 degree celsius per century. RSS MSU is the only dataset that show a cooling trend, although pretty insignificant.

If we cherry-pick the data and use only RSS MSU, we can confirm that there was no statistically significant global warming in the past 15 years (since we got a negative trend, the actual significance doesn't matter).

Link to my excel: (one should substitute commas for dots before using, us Czechs use these the other way around) http://mysharegadget.com/354384267

Link doesn't work. Try posting on google docs.

Works for me, try again.

I see Google Ads in the middle and the logo of MyShareGadget.
But I don't know how to open up the file, there is no link.