Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »Climate Change and Global Warming
read "The Emperor's New Clothes" a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen and you will understand
WOW .. that's a great argument (?)
WOW .. that's a great argument (?)
Just look around you, statistics are being manipulated by global warming mongers.
------------------------
here are some observer facts:
- it is not getting warmer
- ebola is not killing 1/3 of the population
- sars is not killing 1/3 of the population
- swine flu is not killing 1/3 of the population
- ozone layer is still there
- bird flu is mainly killing birds
- mad cows disease is gone
- new hoaxes are on their way
------------------------
here are some observer facts:
- it is not getting warmer
- ebola is not killing 1/3 of the population
- sars is not killing 1/3 of the population
- swine flu is not killing 1/3 of the population
- ozone layer is still there
- bird flu is mainly killing birds
- mad cows disease is gone
- new hoaxes are on their way
here are some observer facts:
- it is not getting warmer
- ebola is not killing 1/3 of the population
- sars is not killing 1/3 of the population
- swine flu is not killing 1/3 of the population
- ozone layer is still there
- bird flu is mainly killing birds
- mad cows disease is gone
- new hoaxes are on their way
You're talking about those facts, which get used by the medias to polarize and sell more magazines, newspapers and have better TV-/radio-audiences. Don't fool about that, cause it doesn't mean, that there's nothing true about those themes.
- it is not getting warmer
- ebola is not killing 1/3 of the population
- sars is not killing 1/3 of the population
- swine flu is not killing 1/3 of the population
- ozone layer is still there
- bird flu is mainly killing birds
- mad cows disease is gone
- new hoaxes are on their way
You're talking about those facts, which get used by the medias to polarize and sell more magazines, newspapers and have better TV-/radio-audiences. Don't fool about that, cause it doesn't mean, that there's nothing true about those themes.
You're basing your theory on a tale? omg... -.-'
No it is just an eye-opener.
I have been studying statistics in university since 2004. If the reality and statistics don´t correlate... there is mostly something wrong with the statistics
No it is just an eye-opener.
I have been studying statistics in university since 2004. If the reality and statistics don´t correlate... there is mostly something wrong with the statistics
OMG
tell Your stories about statistics to all those animals and plants which migrate to the north or to higher zones in mountains because of permanent warming...
have they been lied too??
(edited)
tell Your stories about statistics to all those animals and plants which migrate to the north or to higher zones in mountains because of permanent warming...
have they been lied too??
(edited)
I performed a play called 'The Emperor's New Clothes' in Year 5 (Primary School)
I was the Chancellor!
I was the Chancellor!
you feel so smart about figuring out that logical fallacy that you didn't see you stepped into two others:
- begging the question: scientists can get dragged into the global warming hype without any evidence, therefore they are dragged into the hype without evidence
- a many question fallacy: it's not because one premise is doubted that the entire hypothesis falls down
And even at times affirming the consequent
- previous exaggerated crises were picked up by the media; this one is picked up in the media and therefore it must be exaggerated
- if it is causal , it has a correlation; it is a correlation, therefore it must be causal ->> is a fallacy, you're right, but see below... If you didn't use a fallacy, you must be right; you used a fallacy, so you are wrong (denial of the consequent)
And then you even do this
- a proof by example (that crises in the media are exaggerated thing)
- a procecutor's fallacy: evidence can be doubted and therefore it must be wrong
- an appeal to consesuences
- an appeal to unique knowledge (in contrast to the popular knowledgde, which mùst be wrong, of course)
- perfect solution fallacy: since nothing can solve the problem entirely, nothing can be don in its entirety
- and maybe even a fallacy fallcay: conclusions (media most often uses) are derived due to a affirming of the consequence: a causal relation is correlational;it is correlational, thus it must be causal. This is a fallacy, and thus the conclusion must be wrong. Relying on this fallacy is a logical fallacy.
Anyway, thanks for this exercise in logical fallacies :p
- begging the question: scientists can get dragged into the global warming hype without any evidence, therefore they are dragged into the hype without evidence
- a many question fallacy: it's not because one premise is doubted that the entire hypothesis falls down
And even at times affirming the consequent
- previous exaggerated crises were picked up by the media; this one is picked up in the media and therefore it must be exaggerated
- if it is causal , it has a correlation; it is a correlation, therefore it must be causal ->> is a fallacy, you're right, but see below... If you didn't use a fallacy, you must be right; you used a fallacy, so you are wrong (denial of the consequent)
And then you even do this
- a proof by example (that crises in the media are exaggerated thing)
- a procecutor's fallacy: evidence can be doubted and therefore it must be wrong
- an appeal to consesuences
- an appeal to unique knowledge (in contrast to the popular knowledgde, which mùst be wrong, of course)
- perfect solution fallacy: since nothing can solve the problem entirely, nothing can be don in its entirety
- and maybe even a fallacy fallcay: conclusions (media most often uses) are derived due to a affirming of the consequence: a causal relation is correlational;it is correlational, thus it must be causal. This is a fallacy, and thus the conclusion must be wrong. Relying on this fallacy is a logical fallacy.
Anyway, thanks for this exercise in logical fallacies :p
Anyway, this is what I meant by: "I like this kind of one-sided scepticism that at the same time assumes that everybody on the other side of the arguement is an idiot:) "
more about relation of sun activity and current global temperature:
Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.
A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.
"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn't stopped global warming from continuing," said Hansen.
this is the fragment of article 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
Warmer surface temperatures also tend to occur during particularly active parts of the solar cycle, known as solar maximums, while slightly cooler temperatures occur during lulls in activity, called minimums.
A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.
"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn't stopped global warming from continuing," said Hansen.
this is the fragment of article 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
I don't think I'm wrong when I'm saying that in scientific regions there is really no doubt about the global warming and the influence of men. More CO2 holds the warmth in the atmosphere and prevents it from going into universe. It will keep going untill there will be a giant catastrophe in Western World. A wake-up call who will come too late. Mankind is just to stupid to do something about it.
(edited)
(edited)
giant catastrophe in Western World
what You mean by that?
imo it's exaggeration.
the consequences are serious and will cost much more than costs of reducing CO2 emissions but it's not going to be a disaster or cataclysm!
The most important qonsequences are necessity of migration of houndreds millions people due to sea level increasing, melting the glaciers (deficiency of water), difficulties in agriculture and related to this migration local conflicts or imigrational problems in developed countries.
There are also consequences occuring the all biosphere as always when climat is going to change rapidly. Last time (~55M years ago) around 90% of species extinct and nowadays it propably going to be similar...
However important thing is to be aware as humanity what are the future threats of our civilisation development and what are the possibilities to prevent those threats.
(edited)
what You mean by that?
imo it's exaggeration.
the consequences are serious and will cost much more than costs of reducing CO2 emissions but it's not going to be a disaster or cataclysm!
The most important qonsequences are necessity of migration of houndreds millions people due to sea level increasing, melting the glaciers (deficiency of water), difficulties in agriculture and related to this migration local conflicts or imigrational problems in developed countries.
There are also consequences occuring the all biosphere as always when climat is going to change rapidly. Last time (~55M years ago) around 90% of species extinct and nowadays it propably going to be similar...
However important thing is to be aware as humanity what are the future threats of our civilisation development and what are the possibilities to prevent those threats.
(edited)
I meant that big cities like New York will come under sealevel for example, but I don't know enough from it to make any statements about the consequences of it.
It's certain that there will be a lot of migrationproblems indeed and conflicts about some things that are called basic now like clean water and food. It's a giant challenge to organise all that and I'm looking to it with some fear.
It's certain that there will be a lot of migrationproblems indeed and conflicts about some things that are called basic now like clean water and food. It's a giant challenge to organise all that and I'm looking to it with some fear.
New York isn't in danger to be honest
much worse situation have Miami or half of Bangladesh
much worse situation have Miami or half of Bangladesh
Probably! Like I said I don't know. Probably Western countries wouldn't even care that much about Bangladesh. Only a Western disaster will be a real wake-up call.