The truth is Inconvenient...

[Pole Lock]

[quote author=Hutch link=topic=38092.msg160129#msg160129 date=1462807674]
Prove of a negative ? Ummmm.nice try. How about failure to prove the theory ? .
[/quote]

You sounded quite certain humans were not causing or accelerating global warming. I was just wondering where you were finding info that refuted peer-reviewed, reproduced models from across the world.

I figured you had seen something relevant to make you think so, but, no, just your average spin job from rightwing nutbags who still believe an immaculate conception is possible. Cool.

[sigsauer]

in the end.....who really gives a fuck...
it is what it is....

[bpegler]

[quote author=Pole Lock link=topic=38092.msg160146#msg160146 date=1462831739]
You sounded quite certain humans were not causing or accelerating global warming. I was just wondering where you were finding info that refuted peer-reviewed, reproduced models from across the world.

I figured you had seen something relevant to make you think so, but, no, just your average spin job from rightwing nutbags who still believe an immaculate conception is possible. Cool.
[/quote]
Good example of an ad hominem argument. Also, you are still making an argument from ignorance*. He doesn't have the burden of proof, you do.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

[Pahsghetti]

[quote author=bpegler link=topic=38092.msg160149#msg160149 date=1462834103]
Good example of an ad hominem argument. Also, you are still making an argument from ignorance*. He doesn't have the burden of proof, you do.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
[/quote]

You clearly do not understand scientific reasoning. The burden of proof is on both sides, anyone making a claim must provide backing evidence. There is no default position. The assertion that you repeatedly, and incorrectly refer to as an argument from ignorance is simply asking for peer-reviewed and reproducible data which should exist refuting the claim that humans are not accelerating climate change. In my opinion, and in many other's, that data is sorely lacking.

[MCDavis]

[quote author=sigsauer link=topic=38092.msg160148#msg160148 date=1462832631]
in the end.....who really gives a fuck...
it is what it is....
[/quote]
Best post so far.

[bpegler]

[quote author=Pahsghetti link=topic=38092.msg160154#msg160154 date=1462839143]
You clearly do not understand scientific reasoning. The burden of proof is on both sides, anyone making a claim must provide backing evidence. There is no default position. The assertion that you repeatedly, and incorrectly refer to as an argument from ignorance is simply asking for peer-reviewed and reproducible data which should exist refuting the claim that humans are not accelerating climate change. In my opinion, and in many other's, that data is sorely lacking.
[/quote]
Scientific reasoning is a simply a form of logical reasoning. Specifically it can be deductive, inductive, and/or abductive reasoning. All the "rules" of logical argument still hold. So, it neither proves (nor disproves!) the theory by making an appeal to prove the negative. But the burden of proof remains with those making the hypothesis.

Do you have a different definition of scientific reasoning?

Also, I believe that anyone speaking with "certainty" about a hypothesis is making an anti scientific argument. There is no such thing in science.

That is a matter for religion.

[Pahsghetti]

[quote author=bpegler link=topic=38092.msg160156#msg160156 date=1462841041]
Scientific reasoning is a simply a form of logical reasoning. Specifically it can be deductive, inductive, and/or abductive reasoning. All the "rules" of logical argument still hold. So, it neither proves (nor disproves!) the theory by making an appeal to prove the negative.

Do you have a different definition of scientific reasoning?




[/quote]
Once again, there is no negative. There are two sides to the argument, one claiming that the rising temperatures are a cyclical part of nature and not being influenced by humans. The other side claims that humans are accelerating that cyclical nature. Both sides must provide evidence for their claim. Asking for evidence is not an argument from ignorance. Which side of the argument you stand on is, unfortunately, still a matter of opinion. Claiming that asking for evidence is an argument from ignorance is not a matter of opinion, it is in fact wrong.

[bpegler]

[quote author=Pahsghetti link=topic=38092.msg160157#msg160157 date=1462841577]
Once again, there is no negative. There are two sides to the argument, one claiming that the rising temperatures are a cyclical part of nature and not being influenced by humans. The other side claims that humans are accelerating that cyclical nature. Both sides must provide evidence for their claim. Asking for evidence is not an argument from ignorance. Which side of the argument you stand on is, unfortunately, still a matter of opinion. Claiming that asking for evidence is an argument from ignorance is not a matter of opinion, it is in fact wrong.
[/quote]

There are many more than two "sides", you are creating yet another fallacious argument.

For instance, in what sense are humans, and human activity not "natural", to use your language?

Are humans supernatural? Unnatural?

[RNaka]

[quote author=bpegler link=topic=38092.msg160160#msg160160 date=1462842552]
There are many more than two "sides", you are creating yet another fallacious argument.

For instance, in what sense are humans, and human activity not "natural", to use your language?

Are humans supernatural? Unnatural?


[/quote]

Damn,

I wish I could write  as clear and concise as you.

Is epistemology even part of a basic education? Apparently not.

Keep it up.

[Hutch]

[quote author=Pole Lock link=topic=38092.msg160146#msg160146 date=1462831739]
You sounded quite certain humans were not causing or accelerating global warming. I was just wondering where you were finding info that refuted peer-reviewed, reproduced models from across the world.

I figured you had seen something relevant to make you think so, but, no, just your average spin job from rightwing nutbags who still believe an immaculate conception is possible. Cool.
[/quote]

Not causing, yes, as I've seen no proof. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You have a theory, and I've said that I don't believe it. I even offered some examples and cited the cyclical nature of global climate change as reasons that I ain't goin' for it.

Accelerating ? I don't think that we have that significant of an an influence, but, knowing that we do have SOME influence (common sense), I readily admit so.

Rightwing ? Hardly...Libertarian Independant with fiscally conservative leanings.

Nutbag ? Was there really a need for that in a civil discussion ?

Immaculate Conception ? Impossible in IME & IMO, but I haven't the least problem accepting that others believe in it.

FWIW, I believe that we should do something about pollution that we are wrecking on the planet...air, land and sea. Health is my primary reason for that, but Global Climate Change?...not even on the list. Humans are insignificant on that scale...barring nuclear war, of course. It's like an ant trying to build a pyramid...humans are not as significant nor powerful as you'd like to believe. IMO we are unable to make an influence one way or the other.

I'm usually willing to discuss most differences of opinion with most folks, but it will remain civil or you'll be alone on a soapbox instead of in a discussion.

If you're the research type, and interested in broadening your knowledge, at risk of reading facts contrary to your opinions (I don't particularly like to myself), you might consider the environmental effect that sun spot storms on the sun have on the Earth, and I was serious about the volcanoes...check it out :)