Climate Change denial vs History

That precisely would be the fallacy: the assumption that what causes them now would have been the cause in the past.

 

That ^^ makes absolutely no sense. Again failure to answer questions which the alarmists consistently avoid. The pattern continues.

 

No What he is saying is that there are multiple reasons for the past climate changes seen that does not mean any are causing the current climate change

 

What on this planet is a "regional ice age"??

 

A local even is NOT repeat NOT an "ice age"

Unless of course you are referring to the LIA which was caused by the Maunder Minimum - a decrease in solar output

 

Ask golem.

 

Why does the current warming period which started in the 1800's warmed at the same rate initially compared to the warming from 1950 when the claim is made that CO2 concentration is the "only" reason for the warming ??

 

Your post I quoted

If it is not real the you should have queried it

 

A. Who said it was the only reason?
B. Where are you getting your "facts". More twaddle from denialist websites?

 

What is the percentage ?? What is the climate sensitivity to CO2 ??

 

Read the thread.

 

WTF are you talking about? Or is this just typical deflection?

I ask again who said that CO2 was the only driver of climate change

 

I'm asking the same questions which alarmists refuse to address, acknowledge, or answer. This ^^ is more of the same.

 

So your argument is basically - "Lets leap before we look". We need to pass this bill in order to find out what is in it!!!!

Well - if we are not discussing the entire history of the climate how do we really know it is significantly changing? The climate today is certainly not what it was 2,000 years ago...maybe what we are seeing today is simply the natural evolution of our climate? We really don't know...but yet we should enact sweeping changes because the consequences of not acting MIGHT be dire?

You should also believe in Jesus Christ....because the consequences of not believing in him COULD be dire. Just the worst kind of logic.

 

Funny coming from a defender of the cartoonists alarmist blog, (un)SkepticalScience.

 

I though you were asking if the fallacy consisted in assuming that if AGW was causing Climate Change now, then previous instances would have the same cause. My answer was yes! That is the fallacy.

The logical fallacy is called Affirming the Consequent

Basically the argument would be
If AGW is causing Climate change now
There was Climate Change in xxxxx (pick your period in the past)
That would mean there had to be AGW in xxxxx

It's a very common fallacy used in "rationalization". One of the mechanisms known in Psychology as "Coping Strategies" or "Coping Mechanisms"

If you are actually asking when AGW caused freezing in the past, all I can say is the question makes no sense as it would require to make the above mentioned logical fallacy.

 

Not really. My argument is that your argument would be "we shouldn't assume that Climate Change will cause great damage to civilizaton until we see Climate Change cause great damage to civilization"

What you call "leap before we look" is what in Science is known as "deduction". And that's how science works. It makes deductions. There is too much evidence that the consequences of Climate Change will be very adverse to human beings to just ignore it and not take any action. Of course, it would be great to travel 100 years into the future and get a 200 year "sample size". But it's not possible. So we use deduction with what we have. Which is quite a bit. And it includes "samples" of much more than 25 years. But what has happened in the last 25 years should convince any rational person that action is required.

We most definitely do not need the entire history of the climate.

Actually we do know that it's not "natural evolution". There are questions to be answered in Climate Change Science. That is not one of them.

Or maybe in Gumma Umma, the God of the Ahiti tribe in Africa. Who is very vengeful and might forgive you for not believing that he exists, but would not forgive you if you put another god before him. Will you bow to Gumma Umma* Roon?

You're right. Yours is the worst kind of logic.

(*Note: The actual name of the tribe and god were mentioned by Michael Shermer in one of his books. I can't remember them right now, but... I'm sure you get the point)

 

AGW is most likely contributing to the current warming period. in the initial part of the current warming period from 1880 to 1945 the rate of temperature increase is the same as the warming from 1970 to 2000. Before 1950 CO2 was "constant" and after 1950 CO2 began to increase. That's all that can be said. No rationalization is involved.

 

But that is not true. There is no such evidence that global warming of ~ 3 deg C will adversely affect humans.

Any reasonable person would not implement policies which significantly reduce economic growth to significantly reduce future temperatures when there is no evidence that global warming of ~ 3 deg C will cause significant harm.

Again what we see are insults, personal attacks, and a refusal to engage the entirety of climate science. Popper would not approve.

 

Actually, the only thing that can be said without incurring in rationalization is that AGW is real, and that the large majority of peer-reviewed studies point to it affecting Global Climate, which will have dire consequences for people if we don't do anything about it. Everything else is, in fact, rationalization.

 

That is completely untrue. ^^

 

Not only can AGW adversely affect humans, it probably already has. Only hesitation is because it's not possible to ascribe particular weather phenomena to Climate Change. But the predictions are there. And the only thing that can be criticized about most of them is that they were too optimistic.

 

All this is a moot point. The Science is there... peer-reviewed studies are there.... Nothing more can be said. You either think that Science has a value, and the Scientific method works.... or you don't. If you don't, I can simply point out what I wrote on the message that initiated this discussion: that History has taught us lessons about those who deny Science, and it has never been kind to them.

 

No one. AGW screamers misinformed them.

Oh, lots of people had a hand in that, even the Nobel committee.

And all of them wrong.

 

Such papers have been cited many times. AGW screamers just ignore them and pretend they have not been cited. It's a propaganda trick, like the Big Lie.