I have never been a good debater. I always seem to have a very difficult time getting my point across, as it seems has been happening all throughout this thread.
The point I am trying to make is that the data we have about climate change is from an extremely small time frame when compared to the entire time 'climate' existed on earth. Trying to state unequivocally that the changes we are seeing based on that data is solely (or even partly) the result of humans and that changing our ways will have an effect on these changes seems....odd. The earth's climate has had tremendous shifts in the past, long before man invented factories or the internal combustion engine, so, how can we attribute the recent changes to us? Information from studying ice cores has shown there have been temperature and CO2 concentration 'cycles' for hundreds of thousands of years, as shown here, http://tinyurl.com/7b7ot I will admit though, that the levels of CO2 are much higher now than in any other period (based on that graph), but the data on that graph could also point to the fact that we are still in the 'warming' part of what seems to be a fairly normal cycle. On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Jim Davis <[email protected]>wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:27 PM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: global warming my eye > > > > I have answered this already, I think 1% of possible data would be a > > huge > > improvement, though still could be statistically inaccurate. > > So are we seriously only arguing what you would personally fine acceptable? > > If so, then fine - you win. You can make any arbitrary statement you wish > and expect not to defend it at all (which is exactly what you're doing). > > I assumed we were discussing at least two things: a) How science > extrapolates data to make predictions and b) how science can obtain data > beyond the obvious limits. > > > Lets assume that the 'accurate' temperatures from 'thousands of years > > ago > > are truly accurate (and I will give you 10,000 years) and still use my > > base > > of 10,000,000 years, we aer still talking about .1% of available data. > > Lets > > scale this down a bit. > > Your base is arbitrary, groundless and therefore useless. > > Why 1%? Why 10,000,000 years? If there's no logical reason behind it then > it's just empty posturing. > > If you were postulating this in some new area, as a starting point for > investigation, that might be useful. However you're dragging a mature > discipline, one that's already dealt (and continues to deal) with this > issue > back. Unless you have a reasonable hypothesis which would warrant such a > regression it's not something that can reasonably be taken seriously. > > > Lets say we want to extrapolate the earth's climate change over a > > period of > > 10 years, that is 3,652 days (accounting for 2 leap years). This means > > we > > would be basing our 'conclusion' on the changin climate on 3.652 days > > worth > > of data. If that data was taken in the fall, one could conclude that > > the > > earth is getting cooler...if it was taken in the spring, one could > > conclude > > that the earth was getting warmer. > > Again, this is all very reasonable material that has NOTHING TO DO with the > scientific study of climate. The very reasonableness of it is designed to > cast doubt when no correlation exists. > > Your initial statement was that we "only had 150 years of data" - that's > demonstrably false. Modifying your argument now without addressing your > foundational argument is an evasion. In debate this is called "the moving > goal post": an argument is made and refuted so the argument is modified to > be more general. > > > I do not disagree that the climate is getting warmer, but when we are > > talking about something that is millions of years old, even thousands > > of years of data may be statistically insignificant. > > Finally you're creating a false boundary: temperature is far from the only > data that supports climate change. Statistical analysis is only a part > (and > not the most compelling part) of the evidence for it. > > Let's be very clear here: I'm not arguing your conclusions. In I fact I > probably share some of them (I myself am not convinced of catastrophic > made-made climate change). I'm arguing your arguments: they're weak, > disingenuous and biased without being convincing. > > If you want to reasonably argue a scientific position then you have to > argue > it scientifically. > > Jim Davis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283423 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
