Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Thread moved to the new sub-forum Energy Tech, Science & Research.

This is going to be a great addition. Kudos to Tom, CMOP and Rodent.

19 hours ago, Francois Normandeau said:

Hello everyone.

I hope that by posting my comment here, it will be posted in the correct location (where this thread now resides)...

If not, kindly forgive me.

First, many thanks to @Tom Kirkman for bringing our attention to such a fascinating topic.

I am by no means an expert in such matters but I do enjoy intelligent and stimulating content which is at times,

rarely found on social networks and sites and blogs of all types.

Second, heartfelt gratitude to @Marc Linquist, for taking the time to present, explain, respond to enquiries

and enlighten us with a level of knowledge and a clarity rarely encountered...

For the time taken and the efforts you have made in making all this information understandable, sincere thanks.

@Marc Linquist, I will gladly share the URL of your website on Linkedin and other networks.

Wishing everyone here a great Easter holiday.

From Spain... F. Normandeau

 

P.S.

Here is the link I shared on Linkedin.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6524923679707664384

Thanks.

Francois, you have humbled me with your exceedingly generous and kind words and your willingness to share this Idea within your network of associates. You have my sincerest thanks, Marc

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've been reading these spontaneous debates that happen with a rather regular occurrence on this forum. There is a common logical fallacy that has been allowed to be stated without challenge. Every time someone makes the claim that some percentage of all climate scientists agree with each other in regards to some claim by the poster,  the poster is committing a logical fallacy called: The bandwagon fallacy;

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

The bandwagon fallacy;

"The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity") is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people") is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it."  

 Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam);

"The science experts in the 16th century thought the earth was the center of the solar system (Geocentrism). Turns out they were wrong. The leading scientists, in the 19th century, thought the universe as we know it always existed (Steady State theory). They too were wrong."

Please call them out on it!

While were at it, this gets my goat. 

"It’s funny. You just said, almost word for word, the same thing I have been hearing from your side for the last few years. You guys need to get a new script. 

At least the script from the left is backed up by science. Am I saying “the science is settled”? Yes, I am. Because on the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature up was scientifically settled 30 years ago. Anyone who tells you they know otherwise is lying."

 

Really! A liar!

OK, I'm telling you otherwise and I'm not lying. 
 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2019 at 11:39 AM, Marc Linquist said:

Well, I've been reading these spontaneous debates that happen with a rather regular occurrence on this forum. There is a common logical fallacy that has been allowed to be stated without challenge. Every time someone makes the claim that some percentage of all climate scientists agree with each other in regards to some claim by the poster,  the poster is committing a logical fallacy called: The bandwagon fallacy:

As a logician, It is disquieting to see the laws of physics as noted by @esgeo being associated with logical fallacies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, remake it said:

As a logician, It is disquieting to see the laws of physics as noted by @esgeo being associated with logical fallacies. 

Hello remake it, and a friendly welcome; would you allow me a further understanding of what you believe was, as you said; "disquieting", and thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 10 Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem
Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

Straw Man
In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument.

Appeal to Ignorance/Unknown/Unproven
Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something. 

False Dilemma
This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from.

Slippery Slope
The slippery slope fallacy suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes are likely based on a series of events.

Circular Argument
When a person’s argument is just repeating what they already assumed beforehand.

Hasty Generalization
General claims that commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration.

Red Herring
A distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.

Tu Quoque
Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent.

Causal Fallacy
Conclusions that are not logically supported by the premise.

Fallacy of Sunk Costs
The idea that we should continue with a task or project because of all that we’ve put into it, without considering the future costs we’re likely to incur by doing so.

Appeal to Authority
We can cite only authorities — steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence.

Equivocation
When a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else.

Bandwagon Fallacy
Assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it.

 

Stolen/edited from:

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Logical Fallacies

Red Herring
A distraction from the argument 

Qed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2019 at 5:59 PM, Marc Linquist said:

If anyone would like to ask any questions about the model in lieu of reading it, or discuss it in general, in any detail, I would be more than happy to oblige you here or at my site.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Thanks again to Tom and everyone else here,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Marc      https://www.electroplatetectonics.com/

 

 

I flipped through your website and did not come across where you receive funding any any potential conflicts of interest. Please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2019 at 6:23 PM, remake it said:

As a logician, It is disquieting to see the laws of physics as noted by @esgeo being associated with logical fallacies. 

 

On 7/9/2019 at 4:58 PM, remake it said:

Qed

Further to your earlier comment, I provided a basic list of logical fallacies, mostly for lurkers to review. 

What is your point?

What are you trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the author,

I'm still going through your website so I apologize if this is addressed later; but at this point is seems you are using the C14 levels a proxy measurement of solar activity, and then claiming that recent global warming is caused by the solar activity.

Unfortunately, current levels of C14 can not be used as a proxy of solar activity as the atmosphere has been contaminated by anthropogenic C14 from nuclear testing.

 

 

Hemispheric_14C_graphs_1950s_to_2010.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2019 at 3:23 AM, remake it said:

As a logician, It is disquieting to see the laws of physics as noted by @esgeo being associated with logical fallacies. 

My comments were in regards to a specific logical fallacy often recited here on this forum, it was not directed at or in any way connected to the conversation I had earlier with @esgeo. 

    I  did not further respond to @esgeo because there was little more I could say other than post additional evidence that contradicts what convection, in even the most generous allowance to its abilities, could accomplish. The link detailing the standard model's inability to explain the revised GPE of the Tibetan Plateau is just one of many that are now regularly contradicting convection by simple lack of causative means. 

I could have simply named my site "All the phenomena" the convection cannot explain.

 

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I flipped through your website and did not come across where you receive funding any any potential conflicts of interest. Please let me know.

I do not receive now or have in the past any funding, or am I affiliated to any organizations that have any direct or indirect interests in the specific areas that I am discussing here or are detailed on my website.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Fallacy of Sunk Costs
The idea that we should continue with a task or project because of all that we’ve put into it, without considering the future costs we’re likely to incur by doing so.

This could easily apply to the argument of why we need to keep using oil instead of switching energy systems.  Oil has pollution costs that are not accounted for in its price.  Furthermore, we will have to wean ourselves off of it due to the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) dilemma.  Contrarily, the cost of other energy producing products are rapidly declining.  Some are already cost competitive with oil.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

To the author,

I'm still going through your website so I apologize if this is addressed later; but at this point is seems you are using the C14 levels a proxy measurement of solar activity, and then claiming that recent global warming is caused by the solar activity.

Unfortunately, current levels of C14 can not be used as a proxy of solar activity as the atmosphere has been contaminated by anthropogenic C14 from nuclear testing.

 

 

Hemispheric_14C_graphs_1950s_to_2010.png

Hello Enthalpic, thanks for your interest in this. This is where my information came from;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

I have just re-checked the link and it took me to this link;  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15510145 , where I entered the title and author and was unsuccessful in retrieving the paper. they said to try again later due to the amount of traffic.

I've done a quick search and came up with just what I have below, anyone who can help locate a complete copy of this will be the HERO.

I will look through my files and see if I have an complete copy, it will take me a little time tonight though.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

      "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
 

__4631351_orig.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Just found this;

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04045 

They don't seem to have any qualms with my link's author's most recent solar magnetic level measurements but only with their claim of the number of past levels of similarly higher solar magnetic activity. 

I'll take that for the time being that it is still a usable metric for my purposes. But we I should keep looking for similar studies.

Abstract

"To put global warming into context requires knowledge about past changes in solar activity and the role of the Sun in climate change. Solanki et al. propose that solar activity during recent decades was exceptionally high compared with that over the preceding 8,000 years. However, our extended analysis of the radiocarbon record reveals several periods during past centuries in which the strength of the magnetic field in the solar wind was similar to, or even higher than, that of today."
Edited by Marc Linquist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, Hervé, super interesting Maybe it is a good thing the dogma of the tectonic plate like we are to teach it in classroom falls for something closer to reality... Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.