As The Man Once Said...

Reme,

As the man once said: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. Which is unfortunate, and is also frustrating. I have tried very hard to be clear. I will try again.

This post will seek to clarify misunderstandings from the first portion of your post. I do not have the time today to address the second section of your post where you present your CO2 argument. I will come back that later in the week when I have more time.

I have not debated good, hard data proposed by organizations such as NASA or even the IPCC. Data, in the way of fact, is not debatable.

I have debated, rather, the conclusions of various scientists and agencies.

Let me draw that line once more: There is a difference between Data and Conclusion. One is Fact. The other is Analysis. They are not synonymous. They are not one and the same.

I point this out once again, because it seems to be a sticking point with you. You continue to mix up the two, assuming that because one has Data they also have an accurate Conclusion.

I have made much out of the issue of consensus, because I believe it is an important part of this debate. I will state here again: Consensus is not a basis for argument. This is not my opinion. It is one of the foundations of logical argument.

I mentioned before that Logic is a school of thought worth further investigation. You may want to start with Logical Fallacies (false logic) regarding Appeal to Authority, for this is one of your continued weaknesses.

Also, you are inaccurate when you say no one has published work which contradicts global warming. Solanki's work, which you just read, offers evidence contrary to global warming theory. Much of what is needed in this debate is fresh eyes to examine the data without preconceptions. Separate Solanki's conclusion from his data and examine his data alone. What does it show?

A rise in temperature corresponding with a rise in solar irradiation until 1980, after which there is a significant spike in temperature not related to solar irradiation.

That is the Data. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Everything after is Analysis.

The Data, here, in Solanki's work, contradicts various precepts of the global warming argument, mainly that the temperature increase spikes as a result of the industrial revolution. Solanki's data shows a spike, but much later, in 1980.

This raises the question of why there is no significant spike in temperature from the very beginning of the industrial revolution. If the balance of the atmosphere is as delicate as you suggest, we should see a spike right from the start. It also begs the question of why there is a spike from 1980 forward.

In regards to Mann's work: Mann serves as an example of how there are fallible scientists on both sides of the argument. That was my central point. You extrapolated from there that I meant we should dismiss the entire IPCC report, which I did not allude to.

My suggestion, rather, was that since the IPCC had fully endorsed the work of a scientist whose work was later discredited, we can only conclude that it is possible there is other work in their report which might also be suspect. This is not an argument to “throw the baby out with the bath water,” but rather an argument to proceed cautiously and remain skeptical of all arguments, no matter who is presenting them.

You must remain skeptical of my arguments. But you need also be skeptical of the IPCC's.

More importantly, though, is your flippant dismissal of Mann's work (Wow, take away one graph...). I would argue that every piece of evidence is important, and that dismissing a man's work as if it did not matter at all or did not change the outcome is not only hasty but misguided.

Do you really believe Mann's graph was so unimportant? That it doesn't really matter if it was there or not?

I find this interesting, because it would lead one to believe that the IPCC's decision to include it was made as flippantly as was your dismissal. Either the IPCC considered Mann's work carefully and, believing it important and relevant, chose to include it, or they chose his work willy-nilly and with little regard for its merit.

I believe they did the former, which illustrates that even good scientists and well-meaning people can make grave mistakes. But if we believe the latter then we can not consider anything in the IPCC report relevant at all.

I'm guessing you would place yourself with the former group. However, if that is so, your glib jesting to explain away such a discrepancy in the IPCC report shows that you are only considering information which is in line with your case. If it suits your purpose then it must be accurate. If it taints your argument, then it is “just one graph.”

Concerning your paragraph about data and tests, the one where you gave a more detailed explanation of what you think my argument is...you misunderstood me. I have not claimed there is no data, no hypotheses, no tests, no evidence.

Data: I have argued that there is a mass of data. I have argued there is also a large measure of data unaccounted for.

Hypotheses: I have argued that there are hypotheses for global warming, many of which fall into the category of false logic (such as many of the arguments you have already presented).

Tests: I have not said anything thus far about tests, but eventually I will. Some of the tests in this debate are relevant and accurate, as regards to data. Other tests often used are absolutely worthless and have no meaning whatsoever.

Evidence: See Data.

Finally, I have argued that the conclusions drawn from the available data are inaccurate, and that the men and women drawing those conclusions misuse the data available to them by making false-logical arguments and ignoring contrary data.

This is pseudo-science.

I will state again: Data and Conclusion are not the same thing.

One can accept Data and question Conclusion.