|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2008 18:44:57 GMT -4
Well with arguments like that, how can we possibly not agree with you wdmundt.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 29, 2008 19:00:24 GMT -4
Idle speculation is so much easier.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 30, 2008 15:18:57 GMT -4
How is noting that there is more ice in the arctic than the models and experts predicted "idle speculation"?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 30, 2008 15:55:53 GMT -4
Idle speculation: I don't believe in global warming. There is more arctic sea ice than some have predicted. This bolsters my case against global warming.
Not idle speculation: There is more arctic sea ice than some have predicted. I wonder why that is? I think I'll look into it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 31, 2008 2:45:20 GMT -4
How about: There is more Arctic Ice than the models predicted, therefore the models are wrong, therefore repeatedly saying "The experts say X because their models say X" is not a viable argument.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 31, 2008 11:17:30 GMT -4
Saying "there is more ice than expected" does not necessarily mean there is more ice than there normally is. It could also mean that although there is a reduction in ice there is still more that the predictions showed. In other words, the predictions are off but the ice is still disappearing.
Using "there is more ice as predicted" to support the argument against global warming is idle speculation the same way that saying "this is a warmer than normal summer... global warming must be real" is. You are basing the argument on just one year's worth of data.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 31, 2008 11:23:21 GMT -4
"These computer models show an increase in temperature that can only be explained by human activity." "But real-life data is showing that your computer model is inaccurate - the temperature increase is not as great as you thought it was. Can the increase that was noted therefore be explained by something other than human activity? Why should we believe future models will be any more accurate than the current year's model was?" "Yeah, well, that's idle speculation."
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 31, 2008 11:24:06 GMT -4
Here's a story saying that there is more ice than expected in the Arctic Ocean this year. It does not say there is more ice than expected in the entire Arctic Ocean, just in waters north of the Svalbard archipelago. There was an animation released a few weeks ago that showed how the ice is flushed out of the Arctic by winds and currents, so maybe that area is on the receiving end of that flow... the fact that they have more ice than normal could just mean the ice is flowing more freely that in the past.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 31, 2008 11:41:03 GMT -4
Here's a story saying that there is more ice than expected in the Arctic Ocean this year. It does not say there is more ice than expected in the entire Arctic Ocean, just in waters north of the Svalbard archipelago. There was an animation released a few weeks ago that showed how the ice is flushed out of the Arctic by winds and currents, so maybe that area is on the receiving end of that flow... the fact that they have more ice than normal could just mean the ice is flowing more freely that in the past. Didn't I already argue on this thread that the presence or lack of ice in one place isn't an indication of the total ice coverage in the Arctic, and have someone else dismiss that argument? So are you supporting my original argument now, LunarOrbit?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 1, 2008 10:07:24 GMT -4
It does not say there is more ice than expected in the entire Arctic Ocean, just in waters north of the Svalbard archipelago. There was an animation released a few weeks ago that showed how the ice is flushed out of the Arctic by winds and currents, so maybe that area is on the receiving end of that flow... the fact that they have more ice than normal could just mean the ice is flowing more freely that in the past. Didn't I already argue on this thread that the presence or lack of ice in one place isn't an indication of the total ice coverage in the Arctic, and have someone else dismiss that argument? So are you supporting my original argument now, LunarOrbit? Are you saying you no longer stand by your original argument? You seem to be contradicting yourself. One minute you're saying presence or absence of ice isn't an indicator, then you say it is. Make up your mind. You seem to do whatever it takes to ensure your beliefs are not challenged... dismissing anything that contradicts you, and latching on to anything that appears to support you. I believe that the drastic change in Arctic ice is evidence of global warming (whether it is a natural change or one driven by humans is another matter).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 1, 2008 11:07:05 GMT -4
Are you saying you no longer stand by your original argument? You seem to be contradicting yourself. One minute you're saying presence or absence of ice isn't an indicator, then you say it is. I didn't say it was an indicator - I merely linked to the story without any real comment. I posted it in the first place to contradict Apollo Gnomon's earlier comment that sailors are reporting less ice in the Arctic. Apparently this year they're reporting more ice instead.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 1, 2008 19:11:56 GMT -4
Same website as your last link.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 1, 2008 19:55:20 GMT -4
So? They're still reporting more ice this year, which was my point for posting the story.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 14, 2008 19:40:11 GMT -4
Localized effects do not reflect the totality of a chaotic system. On the same website, the link I provided suggests that Arctic Ocean heating has reached a level never reached before. Typical of "denier" tactics is to "cherry-pick" the data. Regardless, this is still the denial " www.cancersurvivors.org/Coping/end%20term/stages.htm" stage. edit to diddle the link
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 15, 2008 10:38:52 GMT -4
Typical of "believers" is also to cherry-pick the data. "Oh, ignore localized effects - that's not really an indication of the system as a whole." It's because both sides are only presenting their best case that I trust neither one.
|
|