I break out each argument and address it directly. If you wish my responses to be shorter, then make less arguments at one time...
You seem to know of a way to do so, since you argue that the Earth is warming. In order to know that, you need to know what the global temperature is...
I won't... I don't trust them. Many "climate scientists" are anything BUT, since they deny current laws of science...
Argument From Ignorance.
I don't. They deny logic, science, and mathematics.
HOW do you KNOW this? You have admitted that we currently do not have the means to measure global temperature accurately...
They are not following the axioms of statistical mathematics... Without doing so, whatever number(s) they come up with are random, guesswork, meaningless, etc... (for starters, due to their location and time biases)
See above. They need to follow statistical mathematics or else they are not going to get anywhere NEAR an accurate result. --- San Francisco says nothing about Atlanta, which says nothing about Tokyo, which says nothing about Copenhagen, which says nothing about some completely remote area in the middle of Antarctica... A thermometer in San Francisco doesn't measure the whole Earth...
Yes, you are. You are predicting that something bad is going to happen if no action is taken to prevent it. It is classic Pascal's Wager...
Then why are you latching onto the idea that something bad is going to happen, even though logic, science, and mathematics say otherwise??
False Dichotomy Fallacy.
Made up numbers... Pascal's Wager...
Pascal's Wager... Have you converted to Christianity yet by any chance?? It would be unwise to risk eternal damnation in hell, now wouldn't it??
Why does this apply to the Church of Global Warming but not to Christianity or any other religion or "risky endeavor"??
Impossible. You don't know everything that could possibly happen.
It has EVERYTHING to do with Pascal, since you are arguing for Pascal's Wager...
I am simply adhering to logic, science, and mathematics... The "rest of the world" bit of yours is an argument from randU fallacy doubling as an appeal to the masses fallacy.
It has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion... You have advocated FOR Pascal's Wager with regard to the Church of Global Warming... Why not for Christianity or Muslim or any other religion or "risky endeavor"?? You don't seem to be following your own advice... Have you become a Christian yet? You risk eternal damnation in hell if you don't convert straight-away!!! You have little to lose and EVERYTHING to gain if you convert... Wouldn't it be SMART of you to do so?
See why your Pascal's Wager based argument for "taking action" to combat "global warming" falls flat on its face??
More Pascal's Wager... already addressed...
Not at all. Words cannot be circularly defined. They MUST be defined by something else. To define "global warming" as "a worldwide increase in temperature" is meaningless, since one would simply be restating the words 'global warming'... The term needs to be properly defined...
Anyone who argues for the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument is arguing this.
Yet, you know that the Earth is warming??
No, my argument is to follow the axioms of statistical mathematics to even BEGIN a statistical analysis rather than to just pull random numbers out of my ass...
They are using temperature readings that are heavily influenced by location and time biases. Like I said, San Fran says nothing about Atlanta, and etc...
Did you know that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49deg F per TWO MINUTES?? THAT'S why we would need well over 200 million uniformly spaced and simultaneously read thermometers to even BEGIN a statistical analysis of global temperatures... The "data they have" is nothing more than random guesswork.
That would be committing the Bulverism Fallacy... You are dismissing my arguments because I am the one who is making them...
The 'requirement of proof' was already there from the very moment that you asserted that the Earth IS warming... YOU need to SHOW that it is indeed warming... You have yet to do so... Your whole argument has essentially been Pascal's Wager, which you continue in this portion of your response (and even more below)...
You are disagreeing with logic, science, and mathematics, all for the cause of your circularly-defined buzzword religion...
Yes, you keep reverting back to Pascal's Wager... That's all you seem to have as far as argumentation for your "the Earth is warming" position goes...
We already have reliable and cheap energy... It is called coal, it is called oil, it is called natural gas... even hydro in some areas where it is quite feasible... Wind and solar are both expensive and inefficient...
No, that would be expecting the axioms of statistical mathematics to be followed in order to BEGIN to perform a proper statistical analysis...
Yes, it IS all I need... I don't need the other arguments... But people tend to argue this issue from different angles, so I have a counterargument for each angle they wish to bring up.
See above.
Many times.
Who knows... I am not a mindreader...
Inversion Fallacy. Bulverism Fallacy.
I've come to my conclusion through use of logic, science, and mathematics... You have come to your conclusion through use of religion (coupled with the denial of logic, science, and mathematics).
Bears are fine... ice is fine.
HOW do you KNOW this, since you admit that we don't have the means to accurately measure global temperature??
Pascal's Wager Fallacy... Do WHAT about it?? Act in WHAT way?? What's the plan, Stan? Where's your data showing a global temperature increase? Where's your definition for global warming?? You have nothing...
Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality!!! Earlier, you said that you "weren't making any predictions"... NOW, you ARE (by saying that these changes are happening and are inevitable)... Which is it?
[1] I am not predicting anything.
[2] Inevitable changes are happening, and will be much more drastic if we "do nothing".
Which is it? You need to clear your paradox...
Anyone who is claiming that the Earth (as a whole) has a climate is claiming this... Any reference to a "global climate" is claiming this...
Inversion Fallacy. YOU have the "predetermined conclusion", due to your religious fundamentalism.
You haven't done so. You continue to chant your religious incantations rather than directly address the logic, math, and science issues regarding global warming...
Nothing of the sort... I have simply appealed to logic, science, and mathematics. You are sticking with your fundamentalist religious beliefs and denying those things.
This is affected by your aforementioned paradox... You aren't beginning with the possibility that nothing is happening... You said earlier that these "inevitable changes" ARE happening, and will be much more drastic if we "do nothing"... You have put yourself into a tangled web of irrationality at this point... You need to clear your paradox...
Continued irrationality... Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy...
Bookmarks