My apologies for the lack of clarity here, I was off my meds (sadly, not a joke). My first paragraph was sarcasm, not obvious I suppose. There doesn't seem to be an option to edit posts in this forum.
Quote:
|
You seem to misunderstand what the source you are quoting is all about - they are ANTI global warming - it suits them to pretend it isn't happening. You seem to have assumed the opposite about them.
|
Actually, I do not misunderstand, although I may not have made this very clear. Note also the domain name they have, globalwarming.org. There is obviously reason to all of this rhyme. The strategy is to label a negative agenda with a positive-sounding name. Other examples:
Quote:
|
Then you present incomplete data and try to rubbish it?
|
Actually, the data on the Antarctic temperature is not incomplete except for the past 2 or 3 years. Again, this data is on the average temperature of the Antarctic region. I believe I read that the temperature at the peninsula has increased by about 2.5 degrees Celsius lately.
What I was attempting to do is to demonstrate how valid data can be construed to present an invalid conclusion. Additionally, this is done in a manner that millions of Americans are willing to believe. My intent was, further, to analyze the techniques used to perform this manipulation. While around 100% of the articles published on global warming, in peer-reviewed science journals over the last several years have absolutely no controversy on rather or not the phenomena of global warming is both damaging our environment and caused by human activities, over 50% of the articles in commercial media have attempted to give equal weight to the arguments that global warming is and isn't such a problem. This clearly shows that these manipulations are effective on public opinion.
While the actual global temperature changes are not yet *that* drastic (in my opinion), I'm most alarmed by the CO2 levels. This is perhaps the fact that big oil attempts to dispel the most. Irrefutable scientific evidence exists that links global temperature to CO2 levels in a symbiotic relationship (i.e., they both effect each other). Thus (as I understand it), if all human CO2 emissions were to stop today, the temperature would continue to rise for some time. Last year, scientists were able to ascertain CO2 levels going back 650,000 years (quite amazing I think). This evidence shows that over the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have never been over 300 parts per million. I believe we are at around 372 or so now.
But back to all of this data and charting, if you actually examine the chart in Mr. Milloy's article, you may see what I am explaining. If you study statistical analysis at all (I have to do some of this for my job, I'm an engineer), you know that a trend line is a mathematical mechanism to represent the overall trend of a data set. You cannot derive more than one trend line from a single data set. This is fallacy. If you want to divide your data set up, that's one thing, but to display your entire data set on a single chart and then insert more than one trend line is wholly incorrect, and in this case, misleading (i.e., the blue line extending accross the entire chart indicating a slow decrease in temperature when it only represents 30% of the data).
The chart I inserted inline is from NASA and reflects global temperature changes instead of changes isolated to the Antarctica. I don't know what the last year of data that was used is (I presume 2004-ish). I believe that NASA derived this data from some other organizations.
One more note: I also meant to emphasize the role of this
Steven Milloy character. I would liken him to the Magic Johnson of the oil industry. He is essentially an all-star, professional liar and he is highly paid for it. (check out the above wikipedia article on him). It is public knowledge that he is on the bankrolls of Philip Morris and Exxon-Mobile, so his agenda should be clear. There is a fine science to analyzing the statements one makes to isolate
logical fallacies. Every university offers courses on this. Nonetheless, if you listen to one US congressional hearing, it would seem to be a forgotten science.
Quote:
|
that's just a bunch of random goose honking mr. santos
|
I actually enjoy the sound of geese honking.
I'm fortunate enough to live next to a duck pond where we get Canada geese during the winter (I live in Texas)
My Conclusions:
- I may have bipolar, and may tend to be verbose, but I do know what I'm talking about, although I'm not so deluded to think that I'm infallible.
- Doubt is a powerful tool.
- If I were writing a real article about this, you wouldn't find a single statement that wasn't backed by solid references or a single logical fallacy. But I'm not. Manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts depend upon logical fallacies and data that is not scientifically based.
- I define the word ?scientific? as information and conclusions obtained or derived using the Scientific Method in an objective and un-manipulated fashion.
- Propaganda is a fine art that I have studied for many years to understand it's mechanisms. This posting was intended to expose some of the mechanisms that are being used to protect environmental perpetrators.
Quote:
|
any better way to stop this monster then mother nature? i think not.
|
"And nature has a funny way of breaking what does not bend."
-- Jewel
Daniel