Please US citizens, vote well: I just came accross this video 10 mins ago

Ted Cruz: 'Climate Change Is Not Science, It's Religion'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhLjBYsLQvs

Edited 11/1/2015 00:56:41

There are no 'sides' to facts. Facts are facts

I guess I didn`t phrase it well. What I meant is that some think that some facts are relevant to the story and other think they aren`t as relevant to this theory. The sides use different facts that they think are relevant. The other side disregards them as facts that don`t hvae anything to do with this theory.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate

99% of scientists have agreed on things before, they weren`t always right. Numbers don`t say shit, the arguments do.

the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880)

Yet it shows data from the past 400.000 years?

Oh, nvm. Now I see it. You thought I was talking about your first image. I was talking about your second one. The first one isn`t exaggerated.

you just post the graph without even giving your source

http://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/co2/
There you go, could luck decrypting dutch ;)

Your graph, from "one of those study", isn't even related to the discussion here

It was simply a reaction to the image you posted about the past 400,000 years.

not including the recent 200 years (or even 2000 years, since the datas stop at 0)

If you look very well you`ll see that is says "years ago". Thus 0 would not mean the year 0, but it would mean the year this graph was made.

Turns out this article explains exactly what i was suspecting you were doing (cherry picking the data to not include the recent years), wich i found funny:

And if I watch the documentary: "The great global warming swindle" I`ll find that your scientists have changed data and have been cherry picking as well. If both sides are insulting eachother of doing so then I personally find it hard to just accept one side.

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

No I am not, and no I can`t see that.

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid.

True, if you say global warming isn`t real because apples are green then that is stupid. This is not the case right now though.

"It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate"

Uhhh, why? You've heard of the hole in the ozone layer, right? Do you think it's arrogant to think that we caused that? How about acid rain?

I never said it was arrogant, just that it sounded more arrogant than the other option. Doesn`t mean it is accually arrogant.

Do you also think it's arrogant to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, or that organisms evolve by natural selection? If not, why not? We used *exactly the same method* to determine that: the scientific method. And yet, if you ask creationists, they will say, "Oh, but there's a lot of 'debate' over that, blah blah blah." Can you not see that it is the creationists who are being arrogant there, not the scientists?

I`m starting to believe that our definition of arrogant is different.

According to the Camebridge Dictionary Arrogant means the following: "unpleasantly ​proud and ​behaving as if you are more ​important than, or ​know more than, other ​people:". I fail to see that in your scenario.
Oxford dictionaries puts it as follows: "Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities". How do creationists believe they are more important than others?

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Did I every say someone like that was on this thread? I don`t believe I did.

Edited 11/1/2015 01:24:42

EM, you are assuming I'm using anger to try to convince my opponent. You're missing the point of it. It's not to intimidate my opponent, it's to express my frustration for on-lookers, and perhaps to inspire them: people who are reading this thread who are either on the fence, or who are pro-climate science, but feel discouraged about speaking out about it. Watch the video clip I linked earlier.

I am then free to conclude (not saying I do) that you are a petulant child who doesn't understand logical arguments. This leads to me dismissing you, not respecting you because of your anger.

You speak of not understanding logical arguments... while failing to make one yourself. (Not all of the arguments I make are strictly 'logical' anyway, so it's a moot point; some arguments are probabilistic in nature, for example.)

He was talking about the general public's perception of you. I assume you concede that the general public is not always perfectly logical?

I don't think he has a solid grasp on what the general public might or might not think, so his opinion on that is irrelevant to me. And in any case, no, I don't agree with your assessment that he was referring to the 'general public' in the same sense that I'm referring to the 'general public'. IMO, his "you're not convincing anybody" is a projection of his own stance of being unconvinced. His 'anybody' doesn't really refer to 'anybody', it refers to people who reason the way he reasons. But you see that this assumes I'm *only* trying to convince people who reason as he does. That is, necessarily, *not* the 'general public' as I'm referring to it.

Edited 11/1/2015 01:22:10

I'll revisit this thread to answer earlier comments later, but just want to respond quickly to this:

How do creationists believe they are more important than others?

Well, when you phrase it that way, then it's an easy question to answer, although I explained that what I meant by 'arrogant' was along the lines of 'denial in the face of massive scientific evidence to the contrary'.

But how do creationists think they are more important than others? Well, it depends on the creationist, but I'll give you a common example off the top of my head: Many literally believe that an omnipowerful god created the entire universe as a mere backdrop to planet Earth, and that Earth itself was created with *them* in mind, including their salvation to a utopian paradise after they die; a paradise which they are entitled to, while non-believers will be sent to a hell of eternal torment, which is their rightly-deserved punishment for not believing in this ludicrous mythology.

@min34

Thanks for the link source, i was able to find the original study here:
http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/climate-and-atmospheric-history-of-the-past-420-000-years-from-the-vostok-ice-core-antarctica-38.pdf

and more here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html


Now i'm able to say with certainty that the graph you showed had nothing to do with the point you were trying to make (actually it contradict your point), and you used it in an intellectualy dishonest and fallacious manner.
Probably not knowingly though, i suppose you copy/pasted from a fallacious article, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the reason why you should always check your sources.

The period of record for the data is: 417,160 - 2,342 years BP

and here is an abstract of the summary from the paper:

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

So the the conclusion of this paper was that indeed, the level of greenhouse gases we have today is unprecedented in the atmosphere history, as far back as 420,000 years ago. So you used their study to argue the opposite, that the level of greenhouse gases we see today is perfectly normal and coherent with the history of the atmosphere, it doesn't get more fucked up than that does it?

99% of scientists have agreed on things before, they weren`t always right. Numbers don`t say shit, the arguments do.

I don't think that there is an example of such a scientific concensus turning out to be wrong actually, what example do you have in mind?
I do think numbers matter when it comes to scientific consensus, but if it is arguments you want to judge, then look at the fact that 99,998% of the recent studies on climate have found that anthropologic climate change is happening. Or does that mean shit too??

edit:

If you look very well you`ll see that is says "years ago". Thus 0 would not mean the year 0, but it would mean the year this graph was made.

In science, when dealing with very big time frame, the mention BP (before present) can mean anywhere from today to 5000 years ago. I made up that number, but it is just a way to make you understand that a few thousand years means nothing when you study time frame as big as 400,000 years. This is certainly the case in the context of this study. In the 2nd link i posted, they even mention that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed, wich gives you a hint about the degree of uncertainty we are dealing with here. In any case, it is obvious here that the recent couple centuries are not uncluded in the datas.

Edited 11/1/2015 14:02:26

Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0leiwOx6w0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk

Edited 11/1/2015 03:29:50

Climat Change Explained - and the myths debunked (serie of video by potholer54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

28 - The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=31

4 - debuking An Inconvenient Truth & The Great Global Warming Swindle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&index=4&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Edited 11/2/2015 00:36:37

TL:DR?

@min34

your graph doesn't show the same thing as 125ch209's 2nd graph

also i'm gonna question your graph that you posted on pg 2 cause it shows change in temp, then claims that change in temp has been at -2 to -8 degrees celsius (per some random amount of time) for 100,000 years ending 25000 years or so ago. idk the units on your graph, but it appears to change around at least 50 times in that period. so I will assume that the change in temp is from the last data point. that means temperature dropped 250 degrees celsius in total recently? that confuses the hell out of me.

Edited 11/2/2015 04:15:23

Read Proof Of Cosmic Ray Theory:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/consensus-what-consensus-2/
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=34
Read Henrik Svensmark, Cosmic Ray Theory
My Essay:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SNmCMAzq1W-tQ-cO4mp4KrCWDJCPW61BdA09S5QvB2Y/edit

Edited 11/3/2015 20:06:59

Great, another conservative politician blogger using fake graphics to discredit climate change

Fake
Henrik Svensmark is an actual scientist, not some stupid politician

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

Great, another conservative politician blogger using fake graphics to discredit climate change
Right, fake graphics made by scientists. Read the info, before discrediting

I was talking about roger helmer, since this is the first link you gave, before editing your post and adding some stuff

You do know the IPCC is from the UN (a global government). So the IPPC is political, so is Barack Obama a politician

sure, Nasa, Cern, about every big scientic programs are funded by governements. What's your point?

Cartesian Doubt
The only way to be certain is to measure yourself the data. That is the only way for you to be certain of anything.

Also global warming is anthropogenic believers say deniers are paid by oil companies, but then they're hypocrites kind of

The only way to be certain is to measure yourself the data. That is the only way for you to be certain of anything.

Yeah, and when you are sick you diagnose yourself, only way to be sure right? You don't let no doctor telling you why you are sick....right?

Maybe I am a doctor
Also you must take risks sometimes, like trusting people