Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

There is nothing irrational about accepting what climate scientists around the world are finding.

By climate scientists, I mean those of all disciplines who are studying various aspects of the problem.

When these disciplines all agree, it's strong evidence indeed.

 

Do you mean ALL scientists or just the ones that are allowed to publish/speak?

 

Please engage in an honest intellectual conversation and answer the question precisely as I am asking it without bringing in any extra irrelevancies.

Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of any given location within the entire State of West Virginia?

Yes or no. This is a very straightforward simple yes/no question. Either it can or it can't.

 

I'm not the one who is making the positive claim that "global warming" exists, so I don't have to do anything. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

 

Yes there is. For starters, it's an appeal to authority fallacy (as well as the related false authority fallacy).

Completely and utterly meaningless. What "disciplines"? What "various aspects"? What "problem"? You're not actually saying anything, per usual.

Continued meaningless jargon.

 

He refuses to specify who he is talking about. He won't name any names, as it's much easier to simply hide behind vague generalizations and meaningless buzzwords.

 

The same way they dismiss any scientist that does not agree with them. Typically by accusing them of being paid shills for the oil industry.

 

Actually there is an opposite problem at the moment - too many e-journals with really really poor peer review. Then of course there are all the denialist blogs and websites that ARE funded by “big oil” eg. Heartland Institute ( you know the ones behind project 2025)

Willie Soon is still getting his papers published even though it is well documented he got paid very well by fossil fuel interests

 

Which they often are. Judith Curry is even open about it

 

Of course they are. It is absolutely impossible that anybody be allowed to have an opinion other than one you approve of.

 

Please attempt to support your conspiracy theory.

 

That is a preposterous question.

If you want to ask a question, please make it have something to do with our real world.

One use of ground measurement today is to cross check against measurements taken from areal surveys by airplanes and satellites.

The verification does not require ground based measurement at every areal sample plot. If more are needed, they are added.

Also, there are many types of ground based measuring devices and various other factors.

Earth is not small. It's very clear that statistical analysis is required.

 

Well, science works by people falsifying current hypotheses - such as climatology.

And, you are the one who wants to falsify climatology.

I'm not a scientists and I have no interest in spending time trying to falsify what climate scientists throughout the world have found.

That's true for most humans AND in most areas of study. For example, I'm not a doctor. So, I give significant credence to modern science based medicine rather than Kennedy, Oz and the rest.

 

Appealing to authority is NOT a fallacy. The fallacy enters when the authority being appealed to is not an expert in the field of the question.

LIke, wear a mask because Brad Pitt said to.

Climatology includes geology, biology, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, physics, etc., etc. There are scientists in numerous disciplines who are working on aspects of climate that may be addressed by their science.

This is one of the problems with conspiracy theories in climatology.

There is NO WAY to coordinate the results of scientists working in all the relevant fields in order to support a false result.

Another is that there are scientists working on this problem throughout the world. Even if the US wanted a false result, there isn't a mechanism that would pervert the entire world of the numerous branches of science.

 

COP 28 going on right now. WEF. Rejecting papers that don't toe the party line. QED

 

You mean the one being held in the UAE??
Just where is that happening at the summit?

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meet...nited-arab-emirates-nov/dec-2023/about-cop-28

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mmit-he-abused-his-position-to-sign-oil-deals

That meeting?

 

You are conflating appeal to authority, appeal to anonymous authority, and appeal to false authority.

Appealing to authority is most definitely fallacious. But there are different categories. This may help…

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

 

Yep.

 

Nonsense.

I didn't reference a single individual or an authority not in the specific field - as is inferred in the first example of the fallacy in your cite.

I didn't make any claims about truth, as the very best that science produces is theory.

I stated that the level of agreement of all experts has a positive effect on my credence related to this topic.

Appealing to authority is important when used properly. Think what it would mean to ignore those who have studied the field. We can't afford to ignore science, and that is what you are calling for.

 

I never post nonsense. You made this claim.

Not only is it patently false, it conflates the different forms of the fallacy.

You routinely resort to appeal to anonymous authority fallacy. You have several times in this thread. I have presented evidence but you will not read the evidence. That’s fine. But you ARE engaging in fallacy and you DID incorrectly conflate appeal to false authority and appeal to authority fallacy.

Evidence that can be tested as to veracity is what matters. Not where the evidence comes from. Study up on fallacy. Your posts on PF will be more meaningful if you do. Fallacy DOES exist, contrary to your unsubstantiated opinion!

 

Yup... Those aren't the "real scientists", you see...... **wink wink**

 

No it isn't. You're just afraid to answer it because it destroys your "global warming" faith.

The conclusion to my questioning IS about the real world... but I ask this particular question first because I need to make sure that we're both on the same page with this particular premise before bringing us to the conclusion.

Satellites cannot measure the temperature of Earth, dude. They can only measure absolute temperature with regard to any onboard thermometer (which is not Earth). Re: Earth, satellites are only any good at measuring RELATIVE temperature (e.g. this area of water is colder than this other area of water). That's not an absolute temperature measurement of any kind.

The main problem here is that Earth's emissivity is unknown because Earth's temperature is unknown. IOW, it is unknown as to how much of the light is the result of emission by Earth, and how much is the result of a reflection of something else, like sunlight, starlight, moonlight, etc.

I'd get into how much is truly needed if you'd simply answer the questions that I ask you.... IOW, hold a rational discussion with someone.....

There aren't enough of them.

My point entirely.

 

Nope, you still have it all wrong.

The laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law (for a few examples) are all a part of science. Those laws have yet to be falsified. The "global warming" FAITH simply denies the existence of those laws, and mislabels said FAITH as "science". The onus is on THEM to falsify the LoT's and the SB Law, for starters, since their claims directly violate those laws.

 

WRONG. Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

WRONG. The fallacy enters whenever someone accepts the veracity of a claim simply because an authority figure made that claim.

The rest of what you said is largely just continued vague generalizations and meaningless buzzwords, per usual.

 

Well, most of them really do not comprehend actual science. They simply believe what they have always been told, and accept that as fact. And do not even bother to consider things in a logical manner, don't dare do that. Just consume what you are told and accept it unquestioned.

For example, in another thread in here one of the most unscientific was repeating the age old claim that the ending of the ice age killed off H. Neanderthal. Well, the global warming tied to the end of the ice age as well as humans.

But there are many problems with that, specifically simply that H. Neanderthal never even made it to the Glacial Maximum. They died out fairly early on in the last glacial cycle. H. Heidelburgensis did not even make it that far, dying off at the very start of the glacial cycle. It was not "Global Warming" that killed either of them, it was "Global Cooling".

Only two species of humans actually made it though the last ice age, H. Sapiens and H. Denisovan. But by that time Denisovan was hanging on in a few pockets in Eastern Asia. And they vanished from the archaeological record literally right before the Younger Dryas event, during the Oldest Dryas. So like H. Neanderthal and H. Heidelburgensis it was most likely Global Cooling that finished them off.

But in reality, we did not "kill off" Neanderthal. We met them, and they became us. There is a reason why most Europeans have Neanderthal DNA in their genome, and why a large number of Asians have Denisovan DNA in their genome. Our species interbred so much that each of them vanished as a distinct species and simply became H. Sapiens.

And we know a lot of that for a fact, yet still for some silly reason people still believe that Neanderthal was some impressive Ice Age beast that was dominant until the end of the Ice Age allowed modern humans to move in and kill them all.

The danger of allowing your preconceptions guide your thinking. Of course, I bet most of them also believe that the Europeans came in and wiped out the Indians. That was the exact same thing largely, but the Europeans met the Indians, and they are us.

My mother on my Maternal line is the first of her family during modern records that was not born on a reservation. Her grandparents made the choice after WWI to leave the reservation, and like so many others moved from Oklahoma to California. And I still laugh when people mostly look at me and think "White", but other Indians look at me and see one of their own, as we share a lot of subtle features that are common to all tribes. Like my skin coloring, which is noticeably darker than even my wife who was born in South America.

That is the danger of looking at things through blinders, when you expect to discover something. Quite often, that is the only thing you will discover because that is all you are looking for. And if anything does not agree with what they believe, they simply dismiss it. Or as one in here famously does, dismiss it by saying it does not matter if they are wrong, they are still right.