LogicalFallacy

Regular Member
  • Content count

    1,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

LogicalFallacy last won the day on March 22

LogicalFallacy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

652 Outstanding

3 Followers

About LogicalFallacy

  • Rank
    Apostate

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Interests
    Fishing, camping, gardening, politics, social dynamics, science, philosophy. A special interest in mythology and ancient history (Both ancient humans and ancient earth)
  • More About Me
    Currently trying to figure out who I am, what I believe, and what my future holds.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Logic and Reason

Recent Profile Visitors

497 profile views
  1. To clarify, I am not "so sure of my position" in the manner which you say. Reading though my posts in the other climate change thread will highlight my position rather than a strawman of my position. I think, in regards to discussing climate change, (Which we are really talking about warming) the first six are malformed questions. Let me explain: There is the assumption within the questions that there either is a "correct" value for each of the criteria, or that if there is no correct value and therefore somehow all other evidence can be dismissed. 1-6) So, for questions 1-6, with no other reference, it cannot be said there is an absolute correct value for any of the criteria. However we can can define a "correct" set of values based on a reference point, and I'd define that as the values that allow humans to thrive. Too hot and we die, too cold and we die. Same with all other factors. We could say, for example, that an average temperature of 18-20 degrees C is good. However 25-30 degrees may result is massive areas of land becoming uninhabitable. Thus we can predict that if the planet warms by X, then certain things could happen. We know this is new science, and that predictions are often not met in certain areas. However, some predictions have been exceeded. Estimates of warming are revised as new data comes in. 7) Per my opening post over in Climate change, it is well known that the earth warms and cools by itself. I have never denied that, and totally agree with it. Remember that the idea is not humans have induced global warming, but are exacerbating natural increases in temperature. 8) Near impossible to answer, but you know that, which is why you are asking it. Daffodils posted video talks of problems in establishing an initial baseline with which to measure our effect on climate. It's not as easy to measure as say, acid rain from coal power plants. I will have to do some more research into this particular topic to see if they have found a way to measure the human impact apart from the natural warming. We do know that CO2 levels have risen in the last 70 odd years which of course in claimed as a major driver in the planet warming. Problems with this include the fact that CO2 makes up a very small portion of the atmosphere. However its possible that increases in even the small portion is enough to exacerbate warming. Currently scientists are trying to work out a more confident estimate of the potential warming, but the most recent estimates are for 2.7 - 8.1 degrees F if the CO2 levels double their pre industrial levels (Pre industrial levels is about 275ppm). CO2 levels are rising and are expected, at current rates, to reach double pre-industrial levels in around 50 years. These estimates depend greatly on climate sensitivity - that is how sensitive is the climate to increased CO2 levels. If it has high sensitivity then doubling the CO2 could be very very bad. If it has low sensitivity then the effect of doubling the CO2 will be indistinguishable from natural temperature rises. Part of what goes into determining how sensitive the climate is, is the relationship between aerosol pollutants which cool the climate, and CO2 which results in warming. If the cooling effect of the aerosols was large, then the CO2 levels account for a greater portion of warming. If the aerosol effect was small then the CO2 levels account for less and other factors to explain the rise in temperature are needed. However despite the obvious difficulty of getting any precise answers in this discussion, I am confounded as to how any admission of the difficulty of defining a precise correct value in any way refutes evidence that the globe is warming. At best you can say, well there is no correct value, hence any attempts at slowing human input to warming is pointless. Even with that kind of thinking you still haven't refuted temperature rise. I think its clear from discussions here and in the other thread that there is a real difficulty for scientists to show exactly how much humans have actually contributed. So I would ask you BO: Take aside all discussion of whether humans have had any impact on the planet at all, and ignore all dire predictions. Do you concur that global temperatures are rising? I'm asking because you have posted graphs showing the opposite which contradicts all information I have come across, even from those who are skeptical of human impact. (Hence me asking for your sources)
  2. Apparently that stupid.
  3. IH you seem to want to isolate John 3:16 as a simple message as if that verse stands on its own in a vacuum. News flash: It doesn't. Please answer my questions above. I have assumed your replies, but you might actually have different answers and surprise us.
  4. Oh hail mighty florduh. We love thee forever and ever and ever and... you get the point! Will answer BO's questions tonight where I can put forth a post worthy of the science forum.
  5. There was a video someone posted a while back about earths history and it had evidence of super volcanos resetting the planet, asteroids resetting the planet, a total ice age (like the whole earth was under miles of ice in its early days). I think current geology explains earths history using a combination of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. You raise an interesting point: We can't destroy the planet - it will simply reboot and new life will arise. However people miss the point of here and now and in the short foreseeable future (Short in geologic times). If we are harming the environment, if we are contributing to making the environment uninhabitable via pollution, temperature rises etc, then we are harming ourselves. We are driving ourselves to extinction. Here's an interesting thing - population explosions are often followed by an implosion when there is an imbalance. Earths population has exploded in the last 200 years... lets hope we can prevent catastrophic implosion. Re florduh on coal plants - I agree entirely. We need to look at creating jobs using NEW technology, find out new, efficient, and cost efficient ways of generating power. The downside of coal far outweighs the upside. It's not like we have no other energy generating sources. Regarding nuclear power - it has come a long way since 1945, and there is hope of perfecting either fission or fusion. I forget which. But if perfected the downsides of nuclear (radiation and waste material) will be greatly reduced.
  6. Yes, reading your answers to the 6 or so question I first posted showed that we are pretty on par, which also means we are fairly on par with Josh's understanding as well. Noting of course that as understanding changes so does opinion. You know I'm not entirely sure on where BO stands... he posts info showing a decrease in temperature, but his beef seems to be more with some of the points we have listed (Politics, working what is man made and what is natural etc) rather than the actual trend. If his stance is there is no global warming, then we strongly disagree with each other. If its there is warming, but its not man made then we agree somewhat. Certainly he is welcome to shed more light on his thoughts here, and I have invited him here, provided he keeps politics out of it like we have. Re coal - its one of those damned if you do or don't scenarios - if they can get coal to burn clean that would be ok, but research shows even 'green' coal is dirty so no confidence in their ability to be non polluting. Re China, recent news is that they are actually stepping up their game re climate change. I know - surprising, but what has happened is that all their coal plants and factories are choking the air they breathe. I think they figured out that if they can't breathe they die lol. One article i read said they look set to overtake the US in reducing their effects on the environment. (Considering your vice president is a creationist that's not surprising)
  7. I'm not sure on every scientists position here, but I don't understand the current consensus to be that climate change being ALL humanity's fault. Certainly certain media and politicians portray it that way, but as far as science goes, I don't think they actually think that. What they try and do, and its very hard because of the immense complexity of earths eco systems, is model what extra impact human induced CO2 is having. The video was very good, and mentioned both a number of interesting questions, and made some salient points which should be noted. 1) Randall has questions over validity of 97% consensus. I need to look into this further. (Is there a new survey that has more updated results?) 2) Related to #1, Randall had issues with the way questions were phrased. One was "Do you agree that humans have had an impact on the climate". Randall pointed out that he doesn't know anyone that 1) Denies that the climate changes 2) That humans have had an impact on the climate. So there are no climate change deniers among the scientific community, but they argue that global warming is not human induced. Thus they are skeptical of anthropocentric global warming. I incidentally agree with the claim that it's not human induced (As per my opening post the planet has been warming since around 10,000 years ago), but I think that humans accentuate the warming and should take steps to reduce the amount by which we accentuate natural increases in temperature. 3) There are problems establishing a baseline temperature to work off because of the effects of coming out of a little ice age. 4) An interesting note, in the dark ages, forest growth halted during little ice age. 5) Humans do better in warmer climates that colder climates. Studies show that during the little ice age the European population did not fare well, except in a warming period in the middle of the little ice age. Research has also found there was a cathedral building phase during warm period that abruptly ceases at return of ice age - hence unfinished cathedrals. 6) Randall thinks current warming is within natural norms and that scientists are ignoring GW being within natural norms. 7) This is where BO has a big issue, money and instructions were/are given to scientists to prove man made global warming. I would agree this is a problem, but doesn't prove that global warming isn't happening. Only that the cause may be falsely identified. Lets face it, assuming warming is entirely natural, but the predictions is still for X feet of sea level rise. We are still going to have to deal with the issue of displaced populations regardless of the cause. I think this is the elephant in the room that all sides are forgetting. Also Trump has just signed a bill for more coal plants - ignore the warming issue - these coal plants will still pollute the environment and cause rain to turn acid thus wreaking what it falls on regardless of any warming/cooling/stable effects on temperature. However at this point I think the conversation is going into political territory, and we want to find out the science of climate change, what is causing it, do we need to do anything about it, can we? 8) He mentioned uniformitarianism vs catastrophism then the vid cut off, but as far as climate change goes it only shows that yes humans sometimes get things wrong and need to update their understanding. Same thing with theory of gravity, evolution etc This is true, and this is why the predictions are so hard to get accurate, and why we should not stop listening to the scientists because their predictions were not met. DB, I think you have a point regarding the intensity of human activity in the last century. We've doubled our population, intensified farming. Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of a football field every second! This also is having an impact. However Josh had a link on page 1, I think it was, that showed a greening effect. I have a thought, and I'm not sure if its backed up by studies, that plants should do better in a warmer CO2 rich environment. Plants 'breathe' CO2. Give them more, make it warmer, and as long as there is suffcient mosioture they should grow bigger and faster. This is what happened in the age of dinosaurs where Co2 was 400PPM (I think that's the figure) That's a great attitude - you best learn by participation IMO. As a final note I think that not all global warming would be bad. As the globe warms plant life will expand into areas too cold, as can humans and their agriculture. However we don't know that it will be as simple or as nice as colder areas on earth becoming warmer and habitable. There would likely be detrimental effects as well. PS Here is an article on the for and against of man made global warming: http://climatechange.procon.org/ PSS Here is a recent scientific paper (So this is very detaily... rather a hard read) about sea surface temperatures being actually higher that previously thought due to errors in measuring. No that's not good, it means temperatures have increased more, not less. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full And because I like to be fair here are two opposing sites: https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 (Skeptical of man made global warming) https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ("Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" Haha love that tag line)
  8. This topic has already gone political (I'll slap both BO and myself for that) so I doubt mods would move it. That's why apart from posting news articles and videos here I don't get down and serious. DB has posted in the science forum and I will respond accordingly.
  9. That would actually be interesting - I'd like to see that. Take a video of yourself next time with a Christian? *Sigh* I want to answer the rest of your post there but I can't, I just don't want to go there sorry. Judging from your post BO, it is truly pointless having a discussion with you (On CC/GW) simply because if you distrust science that much, then you will disregard everything I can and would say. Its sad because you do raise valid questions, but close yourself off to potential answers. For the record I'm not a true believer in the sense I think you are meaning. I can see problems with the science of this topic, but I can also see the validity of many of its findings. But I don't distrust science so much that I think that "Theories in science are just like prayers in religion". Cheers, and look I sincerely hope you are right about climate change, I do. But I also would like for their to be some happy afterlife where I see my Grandmother again.
  10. Thanks DB. Will respond tonight- unlike in ToT I moderate my responses to be more thought out here... and that takes time... will save me PMing you and Daffodil PS - everyone keep it apolitical and objective. florduh will hit you with his stick if you don't
  11. Ironhorse, thank you for answering after some 84 days. Better late than never. However, given the time I would have expected a more robust answer as you do seem capable of doing so. Let us go back to the beginning: My three questions above resulted from this assertion from your post #49: This was in relation to Noah's flood. I have clearly demonstrated that incest abounded in Noah's day based on biblical information, but per your answer to question 1, you stand by your statement/view that it was long gone despite that I have shown your view is demonstrably false. Question 4) If you wish to stand by your view that incest was "long gone" by what mechanism do you propose that the humans repopulated? Regarding question 2, according to you, salvation is in Christ, that came to save us from original sin, and who was of the line of Adam. If evolutionary theory is true, then Jesus was not of the line of Adam, and the entire reason and plan of salvation fails, so your view on these subjects is of utmost importance. Unless you can do some amazing mental gymnastics and do some whirly twirl interpretation of the bible. Question 5) Do you accept evolutionary theory? (Human descended from primates over millions of years) This ties into my question 5 above. Regarding question 3 in the top quote, where I was asking if you thought the Genesis stories are myths or metaphorical you answered "I think they actually occurred as stated in the scriptures." So by this I am understanding you are taking the biblical accounts of creation and Noah's flood literally? If this is the case then: Question 6) Can you confirm whether you are a young earth creationist, or an Old earth creationist? We are at 15 days and counting. Please answer. Thanks LF Well I think its time for a ... Bump! Ironhorse I see you are active at the moment (6-3-17, 4:18 UTC) . Please address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the quoted portion above. Thanks LF Here we go again. Ironhorse we haven't finished our conversation. Please answer questions in blue above.... before I go blue in the face from waiting. Ironhorse next time you are able to post, please address my questions 4,5 and 6 in blue in the quoted portion I've lost count of days waiting for reply. And for goodness sake please answer BAA... the poor guy is hanging out for an answer! Might I note that there are a total of 4 questions outstanding combined of BAA and myself. None of them are particularly difficult, or require a long technical answer. I can probably safely assume that if you have read these requests and the posts that you have already answered them in your head within seconds. So do be honest and continue the discussion. Thanks LF Bump for the umpteenth dozen time. Oh Ironhorse, the pipes the pipes are calling, from glen to glen, and down the mountain side.... Please answer or I'll end up like ol Danny Boy in the song before you reply.
  12. Great! You going to see him?
  13. I'm inviting you to a serious objective discussion in the science forum where I have stated I'll answer, and that's what you call a dodge? Sounds a bit Trumpish to me. The audience is the same - they can all see the science forum and participate if interested. If they are not interested in a serious discussion then I'm not interested in their opinion. Define True Believer... no don't. I'm not interested in that sort of drivel. Looks like we are at an impasse - I want a serious discussion in the science forum... to, you know, discuss science not politics, you want to keep it here ... for reasons....?