Quote:
Originally Posted by hapax legomenon
Waba, I'm not really going to engage with you about the questions of forestry/global warming (I will defer to your experience), but I wish to make a rhetorical point.
You really haven't made a meaningful statement about the book. A meaningful statement is one which can be proven or disproved.
I would expect you to phrase your point like this:
"Al Gore claimed in his book that ....
But other foresters/my experience says that this claim is not correct because...
Therefore, Al gore's book is not worth reading.
orwell2k: probably the Oreskes video is what you were seeking. "Extremist crackpot?" Turn the table on the skeptics? The problem with your characterization is that denialists haven't offered a convincing explanation about why global mean temperatures have been increasing. (Sunspots, water vapor, volcanoes account for a portion of it, but certainly not all of it).
Again, I'll say that you seem to be exhibiting all of the logical inconsistencies that Oreskes mentioned in her video.
You picked random quotes from Dutsch without providing citations. Any statement could be taken out of context. Your use of the word "proof" here is suspect. Climatologists don't talk about proof; they talk about theories and argue about which one is most persuasive. (again your embrace of Michael Crichton for climate change answers is not reassuring).
Finally, let's talk about probability. I would be willing to bet anyone that the mean global temperature between 2010-2019 is greater than the mean global temperature between 2000 and 2009. If anyone is foolish to take that bet, I will bet up to 1000$ and give 2 to 1 odds (requiring some sort of legal promissory note of course).
|
If you are so sure of yourself then why limit it to $1000? Oh, and by what method will the mean be determined and what measurements will be used?
BOb