Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Again, you are trying to place this in a vaccum.  You can't do that because oceans are all connected.  No water level rise that I am seeing vs what is being said about melting down there into the oceans with claims of water level rise, the same oceans that are apart of what is near me.   

 

 

Our atmosphere is another fluid that is connected all across the world.

 

By your logic, if the air pressure is high at Pickens, then it is correspondingly high ALL across the world.

 

Your treat your observations at Pickens as special by making them apply ALL across the world.

 

Special pleading.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No, but the atmosphere affects melting and freezing of water that goes into the oceans.  The same atmosphere who's weather that affects water either thorugh melting or freezing, the water that makes up the oceans, and that same interconnected weather affects both you, me and even the continent of Antartica.  I may not be able see the weather or experience the atmosphere in Antarctica, but in my response to the claims of warming which is what this thread is ultimately about and the water rise claimed, which is connected to the oceans, and who's waters lap the shore at Fort Pickens and that are affected as much by the weather.  

 

Thus NOT a special pleading.  You are trying to use reductionist method beyond where it is useful. 

 

False.

 

You are the one who is reducing this complex issue down to just one thing - the sea level at Pickens.

 

You make a one-to-one comparison between what you see there and every other sea level measurement across the world

 

Then, because you see no rise in water levels at Pickens, you falsely claim there can be no corresponding rise anywhere else.

 

That, is known as the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No, but the atmosphere affects melting and freezing of water that goes into the oceans.  The same atmosphere who's weather that affects water either thorugh melting or freezing, the water that makes up the oceans, and that same interconnected weather affects both you, me and even the continent of Antartica.  I may not be able see the weather or experience the atmosphere in Antarctica, but in my response to the claims of warming which is what this thread is ultimately about and the water rise claimed, which is connected to the oceans, and who's waters lap the shore at Fort Pickens and that are affected as much by the weather.  

 

Thus NOT a special pleading.  You are trying to use reductionist method beyond where it is useful. 

 

My point stands.

 

No observation or measurement of a dynamic fluid (air or water or both) taken at one location can adequately describe that fluids behavior all across the world.

 

So, by taking your own observations and measurements as the baseline for the rest of the world, you are treating what you see at Pickens as special.

 

Special pleading.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Except that the waters are all connected and when applying fluid dynamics to water, which has, so far, been a constant, can therefore fit anywhere there is water on earth.  You don't appear to watn to acknowledge that.  You are trying ot reduce it down to just what I see and not taking such things as apparent constants like fluid dynamics. 

 

Your point about the constancy of fluid dynamics would be correct if the Earth was an ideal sphere, if the force of gravity was constant at all points on it's surface, if the heating of the Earth was a constant and unchanging process without any feedback loops, if the Earth's albedo was constant, if the continents didn't rise or sink, if the Sun and the Moon didn't generate tides, if the Earth's crust didn't flex under the gravitational strain of the sun and the Moon, if the oceans didn't expand and contract unevenly under the heating and cooling influences of the atmosphere. if the atmosphere didn't expand and contract unevenly under the heating and cooling influences of the oceans and other factors that I probably don't even know about.

 

By arguing that fluid dynamics on the Earth's surface is a constant and simple-to-understand thing, you are grossly oversimplifying the complexities involved.

 

Therefore, you are employing another hyper-reductionist argument and once again committing the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

This whole argument comes down to who/or what you trust. 

 

1.  Do you trust the publications, government, private, what ever....or

 

2.  Do you trust your own 5 senses imperfect as they are.  

 

I don't trust elements of 1, so the default is 2 

 

No.  This argument is not about my trust of any source.

 

I've clearly outlined why I'm here and the issue of trust is not present.

 

This is about your special pleading.

 

You claim that your imperfect 5 senses can tell you accurately about what happens across the world.

 

That is special pleading.

 

I am not doing that - you are.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

So are you saying I should not trust my eyes and that I should trust what I am being told?  That is what it appears you are implying.  

 

No.

 

Re-read my definition of why I'm in this thread.

 

I present no alternatives, solutions or answers for you.

 

Either directly or by implication.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

So, in your opinion, what should I trust?  

 

Re-read my definition of why I'm here.

 

I'm not here to address any trust issues you might have.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Oh...but if you claim I should not trust my eyes on the issue based on Fort Pickens, and I don't trust the government sources (which is used by the media).  What else is there to base it on? 

 

Stop repeating yourself and stop asking.

 

Not my problem.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But you claim I should not trust my eyes.  Then I can only assume you have a better solution.  I follow the dictim "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".  Until I see something better, I stick to what I trust.  

 

You assume wrong.

 

Re-read my definition of why I'm here.

 

I don't address trust issues in this thread, remember?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But you are trying to tell me not to trust my eyes.  So it is a trust issue. You can try to say your not all you want. 

 

Thanks.  I will.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Here's something for you to consider BO.

 

When we show a Christian (who trusts what the Bible says) that the Bible is untrustworthy, are we under any obligation to supply them with something else they can  trust?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

The Bible is a publication, a government is a publication.  Again, if you trust neither, all you have is your 5 senses. 

 

So you say.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Got anything better? 

 

Yes.

 

Why don't you admit to committing the logical fallacies of Special Pleading and Reductio ad Absurdum?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

And why don't you admit that my points are valid and trying to cry "Fallacy"?  

 

By committing those logical fallacies, neither your position and your points can be valid.

 

That's why.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Except you claim my points are valid and logical.  And you know it. 

 

Where do I do that?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Reread...I fixed that when I accidentally hit submit. 

 

Please explain... 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Except  my points are valid and logical.  And you know it. 

 

By committing those logical fallacies, neither your position and your points can be valid.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Your opinion.  What is your proposal?  Again, you say I cannot trust my eyes.  What should I trust?  I tell deconverting Christians, if they ask me privately, to trust their own 5 senses and judgement.  Read everything with a grain of salt in mind.  If you have none, then all I have is my own 5 senses.  

 

I'm not in this thread to help you with your trust issues.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But you are if you are defacto telling me I cannot trust my own eyes. 

 

Not my problem.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

But you made it your problem by telling me I should not trust my eyes. 

 

By that logic, finding something other than the Bible that Christians can trust is a problem for all Lions.

 

No it ain't!

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

[bornagainathiest]

I have a follow-up question for you please, BO.

 

If you can accurately gauge the global sea level height from just one coastal location (Fort Pickens) then by your logic...

 

...can one person accurately gauge the global sea level height from just one coastal location, anywhere in the world?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

If you are talking about exact down to the exact ML of water...probably not.  BUT, if claims of rising water are made and the land and sea bed are stable, my thinking is that maybe.  If anybody claims the know for sure what the actual depths down to the lowest MM, I doubt it and anybody claiming that I would question.  I do however, think that if there is a claim of water rising and all things being equal, that can either confirm nor not with an eyeball look.  In some places, if land is sinking due to techtonic forces, that is not water rising, that is land sinking.  But then again, can we really ever know what is fact coming out of the journals or memes masquerading as facts? 

 

Not really, BO.

 

I'm just talking about whatever level of accuracy you have, from Pickens.  

The logic of your fluid dynamics arguments is that the seas have a consistent level anywhere across the face of the Earth.  So anyone making the same kind of measurement you do, from any coastal location, anywhere on Earth, will see what you see from Pickens.  

 

So, would you please confirm that this is your argument and that they would see the same as you, wherever they are?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[florduh]

"How do you know that NOAA and NASA are not lying?"

 

How do we know YOU are not lying? After all, you clearly have a political ax to grind and an agenda to promote. Why not lie like everyone else to further your aims? Any denial of lying just supports the notion that you actually ARE lying, same as it would if you brought in 900 friends to repeat and verify your lie. That's how it works, right?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

That is essentially the crux of my argument.  Now, that being said, I hope you are also assuming the fact that I factor in the gravitational and other natural anomolies in  that argument.  Because water, being the fluid it is, may be lifted those gravitational or other natural anomolies, but with more volume of water added, it will seek it's own level and in those places were the gravitational forces cause it to be up is higher that area will be slightly higher and where the gravitational forces act to leave it lower, it will be slightly higher but still lower than the higher areas.  If this were a math problem, the water seeks it's equilibrium. 

 

Thanks, BO.

 

I'm working through the logic of your argument and now I see the crux of it -  that water naturally seeks it's own equilibrium.

This being a universal principle that applies (allowing for the factors you mention) in the same way for all observers in all coastal locations, so that water always behaves the same way along every stretch of coastline, anywhere on the surface of the Earth.  

 

Taking your argument a step further, does it therefore follow that since any coastal location is as good as another for observing and measuring the sea level, all that is needed to make global observations and measurements of the sea level is one dedicated coastal station?