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

[LogicalFallacy]

 

"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?"

 

The problem with coastal stations can be faulty equipment, forces other than excess water, human error of the person reporting or say (not saying intentional necessarily) writes the wrong numbers, erosion on the bottowm of the ocean where the equipment is, etc.  In theory, that might be the case, but fixed locations on the land compared to water level is my preferred, at least in water rise measurments.  

 

 

BTW....Why the line of questioning?  I thought I have explained myself many times.  

 

So may I ask hypothetically ( And I assume we could do an experiment for this given time and resources) what if we say set up 2 stations - your Fort Pickens one, and one here in NZ.

 

We watch for 20-30 years. At the end we compare our visual readings from the start to the visual readings at the end and we find that Fort Pickens level has not changed visually, but the one here water has visually risen 8 inches.

 

What would you do in that instance? What station to you believe? In one water level is steady, on the other it has risen. How would you explain this under your model of observation?

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

First, you have to take into consideration the techtonics of each place.  If what has been reported is correct and the techtonics where I am are extremely stable as has been reported about the geology of my area, that is land neither rises or falls techtonically, then all I can assume it would be stable and thus fairly accurate.  However, there is much geologic activity, earthquakes, volcanism, subsidence, etc., then it is going to be less accurate.  Throw on top of that, such issues as faulty instruments, or other anomolies, which could afflict both places. Then it is a gestimation to some degree, mathematical variance. Thus,nobody is ever 100% sure to the tiniest milimeter.  That, along with my mistrust of the government sources is why I trust my own eyes.  That being said, I realize my 5 senses, like anybody's are not perfect, but not likely to attempt to intentionally fudge numbers and attempt to mislead.  

 

We are only using our visual senses, no instruments involved. Remember we are attempting to verify if your method of observation is reliable.

 

So now you are throwing in plate tectonics... ok. How do we visually measure that? How do you know your land is stable, and you relying on information from sources other than your own senses? We are trying to determine a reliable method of determining water level over a time period using our eyes.

 

(PS: When I said station I meant like some landmark like Fort pickens)

[bornagainathiest]

 

"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?"

 

The problem with coastal stations can be faulty equipment, forces other than excess water, human error of the person reporting or say (not saying intentional necessarily) writes the wrong numbers, erosion on the bottowm of the ocean where the equipment is, etc.  In theory, that might be the case, but fixed locations on the land compared to water level is my preferred, at least in water rise measurments.  

 

 

BTW....Why the line of questioning?  I thought I have explained myself many times.  

 

Why?

 

Because I'm working through the logic of your argument BO, that's why.

You're using the principles of fluid dynamics to argue that water naturally finds it's own level, it's own equilibrium, across the entire surface of a sphere (the Earth), right?  Which therefore means that anyone on any coastline must observe and measure the same sea level as you do at Picken's, right?  (Allowing for the factors you mentioned earlier.)  Which also means that the sea level height must be observed to be the same on any coastline - because water always settles to the same level on the surface of a sphere, right?  

 

Which is fine.  Fluid dynamics is a universal principle that works the same way for everyone, everywhere.

No special pleading from you.  The principle works equally for everyone.  This must be true, because the logic of your argument must work both ways to be valid.  Whatever you can do on the coast at Pickens - anyone, anywhere else in the world can do as well, right?  You aren't in a special location, using special abilities or working under special conditions, right?  You're observing and measuring in just the same way as anyone else and relying on the same, universal principles of fluid dynamics, just like anyone else can, right?  So we can discount the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.  Your argument is valid - so long as everyone and anyone can do the same as you can do at Pickens.  

 

You do see and accept this, don't you, BO?

That since you're relying on the universal principles of fluid dynamics (which apply equally to everyone, anywhere and everywhere on the surface of a sphere) you therefore cannot claim that your observations and measurements at Pickens are in any way special or different from anyone else's?  That to do otherwise would be to violate the universality of fluid dynamics. Which would mean you're committing the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.  (It must be good for thee and me.)

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading

 

Description:

 Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.  Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

 

And what you say above must also apply universally too, right?

When observing from Pickens, you also have to take into account faulty equipment (poor eyesight?), forces other than excess water, human error, etc., right?  

If not, then we're back to Special Pleading.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,

 

Wait a minute.  You claim "Special Pleading"?  How about you trying to move the goal post.  I was giving a thorough answer.  Please tell me how each of those specific elements are wrong.  Tell me how techtonics, variances in equipment, error on the part of the people reporting, etc., are incorrect.  You said you do agree that fluid dynamics is universal.  

 

Afterall, if I cannot trust my eyes, WHAT can I trust?  And if the published sources have been caught lying red handed, why would I want to trust them? 

 

 

So long as the logic of your argument works both ways and anyone on any coastline can do what you do at Pickens, then Special Pleading doesn't apply to you, BO.

 

You do see that, don't you?

 

You do agree that fluid dynamics is universal and therefore works in the same way for everyone on any coast and not just for you at Pickens, right?

 

Can you see that?

 

You aren't committing the fallacy of Special Pleading so long as you agree that fluid dynamics works equally for everyone on a stretch of coast.

 

You do see that, don't you?

 

That if you use the universal principle of fluid dynamics, you need to allow others to use it in exactly the same way...?

 

Yes?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I would agree that fluid dynamics of water works universally on this planet, unless something shows up to show otherwise that I have never heard of, or seen to alter that.  I do throw in those other elements, that are valid, because there are those, perhaps not you, but others who will try to bring those items up as objections.  Again, I am just attempting to be thourough.  

 

Then we seem to be working towards agreement, BO.

 

So then, taking the following points of your argument...

 

1.  That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth.

2.  That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth.

3.  That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens.

 

...then it naturally and logically follows that your argument holds true on all coastlines?

 

That is, allowing for certain variables, since all three points apply equally to anyone on any coastline, they therefore apply to you and everyone else equally on any stretch of coast, anywhere on Earth?

 

Agreed?

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Afterall, if I cannot trust my eyes, WHAT can I trust?  And if the published sources have been caught lying red handed, why would I want to trust them? 

 

Except they weren't lying.

 

Data was adjusted, as data is in all scientific fields. Some people don't trust anything very much so use this as a vindicating factor to prop up their argument.

 

In the case of the recent "data manipulation" the scientific concern was not that data had been adjusted - it happens all the time. The problem was that it was not properly disclosed in the report.

 

Bearing in mind that we are talking about 1 report among thousands.

 

There are some good vids I found on youtube last night relating to the way science works etc that people might find interesting.

[LogicalFallacy]

That's a government source from after Trump took over. Trump thinks the Chinese created climate change. I don't trust your sources.

 

But neither do you lol

 

Yeah we went through the 'whistle blower' fiction a while back. I provided sources and explanations of what actually happened but like many things you stuck with your version because that's the line you tend to hold.

 

Ok fun session over.

 

Regarding the link at the bottom you supplied - here is an analysis of Smiths conclusions and why they were wrong: I would point out that my source is not a government source. It's a 3rd party reviewing both the congressional conclusion and NOAA.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

 

And an article on the 'whistle blower' (I've provided the same information from different independent sources before)

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/

[bornagainathiest]

BAA wrote...

 

Then we seem to be working towards agreement, BO.

So then, taking the following points of your argument...

1.  That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth.

2.  That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth.

3.  That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens.

...then it naturally and logically follows that your argument holds true on all coastlines?

That is, allowing for certain variables, since all three points apply equally to anyone on any coastline, they therefore apply to you and everyone else equally on any stretch of coast, anywhere on Earth?

Agreed?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BurnedOut wrote...

 

Perhaps we do agree.  

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good news.

 

Now, please excuse me for the next 24 hours or so.   I'll be back here as soon as I deal with other matters.   

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Well, don't you think that NOAA would want to cover their ass since they were exposed?  C'mon!

 

Those sources are not from NOAA, they are other scientists explaining why your political congressional conclusions were wrong.

 

The unreliability of the report the hearing talks about is like discovering a builder left out one nail in a house to get it finished on time, then claiming the safety of the entire house is unreliable!

 

You talk about nit picking at times - this is nit picking.

 

They didn't properly disclose their methods - in science that's a no no. It does not invalidate the content and conclusions of the report!

[bornagainathiest]

Posted yesterday at 07:04 PM

BAA wrote...

 

Then we seem to be working towards agreement, BO.

So then, taking the following points of your argument...

1.  That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth.

2.  That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth.

3.  That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens.

...then it naturally and logically follows that your argument holds true on all coastlines?

That is, allowing for certain variables, since all three points apply equally to anyone on any coastline, they therefore apply to you and everyone else equally on any stretch of coast, anywhere on Earth?

Agreed?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BurnedOut wrote...

 

Perhaps we do agree.  

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Good news.

 

Now, please excuse me for the next 24 hours or so.   I'll be back here as soon as I deal with other matters.   

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Back again, BO.  With another question.

 

How would the three points mentioned above be tested?

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

BAA,

 

Eye witness, along with local history of various phenomina that might affect a coastline.  Nothing is ever for sure 100%.  Even tests are never 100% for sure.  

 

Not bad.

 

But don't forget that only math is 100% for sure.  All other branches of science are less than 100% certain.  

 

So perhaps a better question from me would be, how could these three points be experimentally tested?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Evidently, there have been people who attempted to test but even they cannot come to a conclusion that is agreed upon, thus the disagreement over the whole point spoken of in the OP, so we are back to our 5 senses.  Remember, if the institutions that publish the test results cannot be trusted to publish the results as they were recorded originally, there is only what the individual can see. 

 

Yes, I know this.

My bad.  Sorry for not phrasing the question more clearly.

Try this.

 

1.  That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth.

2.  That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth.

3.  That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens.

 

 

So perhaps a better question from me would be, how could these three points be experimentally tested... by you?

 

 

[florduh]

Some interests would benefit financially from a widespread acceptance or global warming while other interests would benefit from people rejecting the notion of global warming.

 

People choose a side to root for based on their political indoctrination, therefore facts are no longer relevant to this discussion. It's like everything else these days where politics overrides facts.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

I would have to travel to each place, or have people whom I know or I have employed to do it in my place, not of those published sources, and test it.  Short of that, all I can do and see is what I can do and see. 

 

Yes, I agree.

 

That would be a good way of proceeding, BO.

 

Let me think some more about this over the weekend and I'll get back to you here, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Posted Friday at 04:27 PM

  On 21/07/2017 at 4:25 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Yes, I know this.

My bad.  Sorry for not phrasing the question more clearly.

Try this.

 

1.  That fluid dynamics applies equally and universally on any coastline of the Earth.

2.  That water naturally seeks it's own level, on any coastline, anywhere on the Earth.

3.  That anyone on any coastline can use fluid dynamics, just as you use it at Pickens.

 

 

So perhaps a better question from me would be, how could these three points be experimentally tested... by you?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I would have to travel to each place, or have people whom I know or I have employed to do it in my place, not of those published sources, and test it.  Short of that, all I can do and see is what I can do and see. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok BO,

 

As promised I've done some thinking about your idea and I've come up with this.

Let's say that you, Vigile and LogicalFallacy agree to test global fluid dynamics at three, widely-separated locations.  You on the Gulf coast at Pickens, Vigile on the Baltic sea coast of Russia and LF on the coast of New Zealand.  All three of you are (quite rightly) highly skeptical of each other and don't really trust each others measurements of the sea levels.  So, after some discussion you all arrive at this arrangement.

 

LF and Vig come and observe the sea level heights for themselves, with you at Pickens.

So, you get to see what your eyes tell you and they see what you see too.  Likewise, you get to eyeball what they do.  In a nutshell, each of you keeps an eagle eye on the water, on the others and on what they observe.  All things being equal, you should all see, measure and record the same things.  Then you three travel to Russia and then NZ and repeat the same process.  

 

As far as I can see this arrangement is fair to all parties.

Each of you observes what the others do, you all rely only on your five senses and the universal principle of fluid dynamics is experimentally tested in three different locations.

 

How does that sound too you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Bumped for attention BurnedOut, in case you missed it.

.

.

.

Ok BO,

 

As promised I've done some thinking about your idea and I've come up with this.

Let's say that you, Vigile and LogicalFallacy agree to test global fluid dynamics at three, widely-separated locations.  You on the Gulf coast at Pickens, Vigile on the Baltic sea coast of Russia and LF on the coast of New Zealand.  All three of you are (quite rightly) highly skeptical of each other and don't really trust each others measurements of the sea levels.  So, after some discussion you all arrive at this arrangement.

 

LF and Vig come and observe the sea level heights for themselves, with you at Pickens.

So, you get to see what your eyes tell you and they see what you see too.  Likewise, you get to eyeball what they do.  In a nutshell, each of you keeps an eagle eye on the water, on the others and on what they observe.  All things being equal, you should all see, measure and record the same things.  Then you three travel to Russia and then NZ and repeat the same process.  

 

As far as I can see this arrangement is fair to all parties.

Each of you observes what the others do, you all rely only on your five senses and the universal principle of fluid dynamics is experimentally tested in three different locations.

 

How does that sound too you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

10 hours ago, Burnedout said:

BAA,

 

I guess that is possible.  But you are also assuming they are willing  and even have interest.  

 

True.

 

Which would be a problem for you.

 

In the light of your valid point about skepticism, can you see what that problem is?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

4 hours ago, Burnedout said:

I don't see a problem.  It works for me.   My skepticism is no different than those scientists who are also skeptical of the whole GW/CC themselves. Remember, you don't find the concept of "consensus" anywhere in the scientific method. 

 

That's right BO, consensus is not the deal here.  Equivalence is.

Consensus is to be avoided when it comes to interpretation of the meaning of data and experimental results.  But equivalence is necessary if experiments, observations and measurements are to be made by more than one person.  If you use one system of measurement and somebody else uses another , then unless you can agree on a common and equivalent standard, neither of you will be able to compare what the other has measured.   Both of you will be isolated data points that cannot be compared.  Which will leave both of you in ignorance of each others results.

 

Please note that this is not consensus of opinion about the meaning of the results.  

This is finding equivalence for the sake of comparison between measurements taken by different people at different locations.  That's why I worded my idea about you, Vigile and LogicalFallacy working together in the way that I did.  I've been careful to make all three of you exactly equivalent in terms of skepticism of each other and observation of each other.  It's a level playing field.  Which is how science and skepticism work together.   Both work equally for all those doing the science and making the observations and measurements.

 

However, problems arise when one person claims special observational rights and/or special measurement privileges.

When one person wants the science they've done to work preferentially for them, giving them special advantages over others.  Making their observations and measurements more important or more significant that of other people, who've done theirs in exactly the same way.  Science doesn't work differently for one person over another.  It should be exactly equivalent for all people doing the science, gathering the data and making the observations.  Equivalence.

 

So, do we agree that you, Vig and LF should work, observe and measure equivalently together?

 

That what they observe is as valid as what you observe?  (Seeing as you've watched them do it.)

 

That they have the same right to be as skeptical of you as you are of them?

 

Are you on the level playing field?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

BAA,

 

Equivalence is correct, however, there is a problem with the people you suggest.  Not so much Vigle in the Baltic region, but with LF.  LF lives in New Zealand, those islands are very active seismically, they are on the ring of fire.  There have been MANY earthquakes and land movements for many years there.  Vigile, in that region, if the information is correct has had mild movements.  The area I live in, again, if the information is correct, has had virtually no seismic activity, not going back in any records left by the early Spanish who first settled the area and none so far as anybody is aware of even in the old native American lore and none since the area was part of the United States.

 

But of course is "equivalence" an attempt in your case to veer from it's true meaning as a substitute word for consensus?

 

BO,

 

I've already stated that consensus of opinion is to be avoided.  It therefore makes no sense for me to try and substitute another word for it.  It's gone.

 

Now, since you acknowledge that equivalence is correct and since both Vigile and LF are unacceptable to you, here's a fresh proposal for you.

 

Are you prepared to observe and measure sea levels, on an equivalent basis, with people of your choice who are located in places of your choice?

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

19 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

I can only do what I can do.  So, short of anyone being able and willing to do so therefore, I can only call it as I see it.  Since I don't know anybody who is 1) in those places and 2) who are willing, I am back to where I have started, I am left to what I can see.  Simple. 

 

I see.

 

So are you prepared to travel to any other locations to experimentally test the principle of fluid dynamics that you rely on?

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

50 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Not unless I can raise the funds.  So I just rely on what I see where I can.  That's all I can do and all anyone can do. 

 

I see.

 

So if you haven't tested the principles of fluid dynamics anywhere else and you only rely on what you see and you are skeptical of all other sources of information...

 

...how do you know that fluid dynamics holds goods at all other points on the surface of the spherical planet Earth?

 

Not trusting some authority on what fluid dynamics is supposed to do, are you BO?

 

That wouldn't be trusting only your own eyes, would it?

 

That wouldn't be skeptical of you, would it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

8 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Sure it is being skeptical.  However, until you can test it directly, then all you can do is stick to what you know and what I know is what I have seen with myown eyes.  If you have to trust other people then that is not being skeptical.  

 

So have you tested fluid dynamics with your own eyes at any other coastal location than Pickens?

 

If not, then how do you know that fluid dynamics holds good anywhere else?

 

Being properly skeptical means testing it for yourself, elsewhere.

 

If you don't do that, you can't use it to support your argument - because you haven't seen with your own eyes that it does hold good elsewhere.

 

Have you tested fluid dynamics elsewhere, BO?

[bornagainathiest]

30 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

"So have you tested fluid dynamics with your own eyes at any other coastal location than Pickens?"

I have observed it with my own eyes.

 

And measured it at these other locations?  

If so, why haven't you presented this data to LogicalFallacy and others to demonstrate the logic of your fluid dynamics-based argument?

At a stroke you could silence what he and everyone else has to say about global warming affecting global sea levels.

Why haven't you done this, BO? 

 

"If not, then how do you know that fluid dynamics holds good anywhere else?"

 

I have observed how water reacts in different bodies of water, even in my glass that I drink from.  I have observed it on other shores.  However, did you not admit that the fluid dynamics of water, seeking it's own level is a universal? 

 

I admitted it but I never made the claim that you made, BO.

That I only trust things that I can see with my own eyes.  That is your claim, not mine.  If you really hold to that standard then where are the measurements you've made at these other locations?  

 

"Being properly skeptical means testing it for yourself, elsewhere."

 

Is that not holding me to a standard that many in the science world cannot do themselves?  Physicists...String theory, the problem with laws of physics between the very large and the very small, yet it is referred to as nearly fact?  They cannot be tested with certainty, yet nobody holds them to the standard you are wanting to hold me.  

 

Their standards are not under examination.  Yours are.

You set the standard (I only believe what I can see with my own eyes) and in this thread you and I have been discussing only that.  Bringing in the standards others operate by is not relevant.

 

"If you don't do that, you can't use it to support your argument - because you haven't seen with your own eyes that it does hold good elsewhere.

 

Have you tested fluid dynamics elsewhere, BO?"

 

See the last answer to the last question in this post. 

 

Your standard, BO.  Nobody else's.

 

So, have you tested fluid dynamics elsewhere?

 

Or have you just accepted that it applies elsewhere without testing it for yourself?

 

That is, have you just accepted what some authority says about it?

[bornagainathiest]

Catch you tomorrow, BO.

 

Bye!

 

[bornagainathiest]

7 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Your standard, BO.  Nobody else's.

 

Yes...my standard works for me.  But if those physicists can make claims on what they cannot see, why can't I?  Or in short...says who? 

 

 

Who sez?  You did, BO.  

 

You only go by what see with your own eyes, right?    So, if you now want to make claims about things that you can't see with your own eyes, then you are violating your own standard.   If you want to operate by two different standards (what you can see and what you can't) that's fine.  But then you'll have to stop claiming that you only go by what you see.  Otherwise you'll be contradicting yourself. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

So, have you tested fluid dynamics elsewhere?

 

The Atlantic coast, and the Gulf of Mexico.  Again, good enough for me.  

 

 

 

Ummm... where's the data?  

 

You've championed the cause of skepticism, so it follows that what you champion must also apply to you.  If skepticism is something that only you can invoke, then it's not a level playing field.  You're stacking the deck in your favor, by being skeptical of the claims of others and not allowing them to be skeptical about your claims.  Skepticism can't be something that's only good for you.  It has to work for everyone equally (equivalence, again) or it isn't skepticism.  It's bias.

 

I'm skeptical of your claim about you having tested fluid dynamics elsewhere.

 

Where's your data?

 

7 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

 

Or have you just accepted that it applies elsewhere without testing it for yourself?

 

That is, have you just accepted what some authority says about it?

 

I base it on what I have seen water do anywhere I've been.  Until I see it do something elsewhere, I stick to what I know.  Why would I trust somebody else? 

 

Yes, exactly.

 

And until you are forthcoming with the data, why should anyone trust you?  Skepticism cuts both ways or it isn't skepticism.  The data... please.