The CCC wrote:Classic Red Herring, and Reductio ad Absurdum.
That is an unsubstantiated claim since his argument meets the classic definition of Argumentum ad populum. If that isn't factually true, please demonstrate how it isn't. I bet you can't.
25% of adult Americans believe the sun revolves the earth. Galileo disproved that idea about 400 years ago.
The CCC wrote:25% of adult Americans believe the sun revolves the earth. Galileo disproved that idea about 400 years ago.
Irrelevant. Try again with the actual argument being made. It seems you like to make claims, but can't back them up with any credible evidence or arguments.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
The CCC wrote:25% of adult Americans believe the sun revolves the earth. Galileo disproved that idea about 400 years ago.
Irrelevant. Try again with the actual argument being made. It seems you like to make claims, but can't back them up with any credible evidence or arguments.
Your argument against the science is an reductio ad absurdum. If a percentage is small then its effect must be small. by the way That small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere effect is all life on this planet.
It is also a Red Herring. No one is disputing that water vapor has an effect. Water vapor and CO2 absorb heat at different wave lengths, forming a positive feedback loop.
The CCC wrote:Your argument against the science is an reductio ad absurdum. If a percentage is small then its effect must be small. by the way That small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere effect is all life on this planet.
It is also a Red Herring. No one is disputing that water vapor has an effect. Water vapor and CO2 absorb heat at different wave lengths, forming a positive feedback loop.
That isn't Gunnar's argument. His argument is that since a large number of climatologists believe something is so, that makes it so. That is a fallacious argument as I've repeatedly pointed out. The fact you are confused and don't understand that not withstanding.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
The CCC wrote:Your argument against the science is an reductio ad absurdum. If a percentage is small then its effect must be small. by the way That small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere effect is all life on this planet.
It is also a Red Herring. No one is disputing that water vapor has an effect. Water vapor and CO2 absorb heat at different wave lengths, forming a positive feedback loop.
I gave a link that discussed the science of green house gases and gives CO2 overall contributions around 9-26%. That doesn't seem a small contribution to me. We all know tobin will continue to ignore the science.
The CCC wrote:Your argument against the science is an reductio ad absurdum. If a percentage is small then its effect must be small. by the way That small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere effect is all life on this planet.
It is also a Red Herring. No one is disputing that water vapor has an effect. Water vapor and CO2 absorb heat at different wave lengths, forming a positive feedback loop.
That isn't Gunnar's argument. His argument is that since a large number of climatologists believe something is so, that makes it so. That is a fallacious argument as I've repeatedly pointed out. The fact you are confused and don't understand that not withstanding.
Tobin doesn't even understand what Gunnar actually said. He never said their opinion makes it so. One wonders why tobin cannot even understand simple English. He did argue that Climate scientists know the most about the subject. They are the people who have done the math and physics, so maybe their opinions is far more likely to be accurate. If we cannot depend on them to know how it works, then who can we depend on?
The CCC wrote:Your argument against the science is an reductio ad absurdum. If a percentage is small then its effect must be small. by the way That small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere effect is all life on this planet.
It is also a Red Herring. No one is disputing that water vapor has an effect. Water vapor and CO2 absorb heat at different wave lengths, forming a positive feedback loop.
That isn't Gunnar's argument. His argument is that since a large number of climatologists believe something is so, that makes it so. That is a fallacious argument as I've repeatedly pointed out. The fact you are confused and don't understand that not withstanding.
You tell me. If you are not feeling well and go to one hundred doctors and 97 tell you that you have the flu, and three tell you that it is just your imagination. Whose advice are you going to follow? by the way about 400 years ago everyone "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth. That is the essence of a Ad Populum Argument. Using the well established Scientific Method to further our knowledge is the opposite of the Ad Populum Argument. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8
Tobin wrote:That isn't Gunnar's argument. His argument is that since a large number of climatologists believe something is so, that makes it so. That is a fallacious argument as I've repeatedly pointed out. The fact you are confused and don't understand that not withstanding.
You tell me. If you are not feeling well and go to one hundred doctors and 97 tell have the flu, and three tell you that it is just your imagination. Whose advice are you going to follow? by the way about 400 years ago everyone "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth. That is the essence of a Ad Populum Argument. Using the well established Scientific Method to further our knowledge is the opposite of the Ad Populum Argument. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMXHKixqOM8
And what if 97 of those doctors are wrong and I have pneumonia instead?
As you can see, you just contradicted yourself. Science is about following the facts and not simply believing what the majority believe is true which may not be the factual case. In science it has often been the case that the minority view has been shown to have the more valid theory. When a view is incontrovertible or deemed correct simply because it is more popular, it becomes a religion. That is not science however.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Science isn't about following the facts. It is about observations and the explanations of those observations. IE; Gravity is just the explanation of why things appear to fall. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NblR01hHK6U
Science isn't about following the facts. It is about observations and the explanations of those observations. IE; Gravity is just the explanation of why things appear to fall. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NblR01hHK6U
Tobin has no interest in showing any facts or looking at the facts others have provided him.