From the Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of ad hominem
(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
formatting link
You have attacked and derided him purely on the basis of his beliefs and have made no attempt to counter his proposal that clouds cause strong negative feedback and hence limit warming. He may or may not be correct, but you have directed your argument against him as a person; your argument is 'ad hominem' and not worthy of further consideration.
"The Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
It was you who, not me who chose to use an Argument From Authority
formatting link
citing Roy Warren Spencer your chosen authority.
Basically you're more than happy to accept the validity of what he says, simply on the basis if his stated biography and qualifications. You're the one arguing from authority. However as soon as somebody brings to your attention to something else he's on record as having said, which you find rather inconvenient, all of a sudden they're engaged in an "ad hominem". Sorry it just won't wash.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care who it was who said it, Roy Warren Spencer or anyone else. Who claimed that
"The Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
As it stands, such an argument doesn't stand up to close examination by any criteria. What evidence is it supposed to be based on? Basically its unscientific nonsense whatever its source.
Obviously I can see that you'd rather not give "further consideration" to the fact that the above claim that
"The Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
happened to be made by your chosen scientific authority.
If you analyse, not the science of global warming, but the arguments of those who support it, by and large they all fall into a single category
- what I call the 'Bandar Log*' proof. Or which is known elsewhere as the appeal to authority. WE are invited to believe it not because of any proof or justification offered, but because someone else, or indeed a lot of other people , believe it.
Not once has any greentroll on any blog or anywhere else been able to supply me with the basic scientific equation that is supposed to underly global warming. They all claim its based on physics, but they don't know the partial differential equation.
They twist and turn they obfuscate and they misdirect, they change the subject and they throw insults, but none of them can in the end lay out the scientific basis of AGW including the assumptions on which the models are based, clearly. Anyone would think it was a precious secret to be guarded at all costs...Like WMD in Iraq...
In the end AGW has morphed into metaphysics: People who simply believe without any justification that the world is warming because of human activity, will find any amount of 'reasons' why - despite the fact that the earth stopped warming almost completely 20 years ago, whereas CO2 did not - the theory is still true. The data is wrong. The heat is showing up somewhere else. Etc. Etc.
Try telling a devout Christian that if God is Love he has a damned funny way of showing it, etc etc. All you will get is 'God moves in mysterious ways'. A catch all weasel that explains nothing and has no predictive ability.
Warmists are the same. Its not science: Its religion.
*Kipling's Monkey People: 'We all say it, so it must be true'
Perhaps the public will become a bit less naive about anything calling itself science, and start to follow the money. Corrupted science has far too much influence on the nation's decisions today.
I wonder how many have died as a result of ill advised use of funds
While I look forward to reasoned arguments as to why all those who do think that AGW is real, may of them evidently highly qualified climate scientists have been lying their heads off for the past 30 years.
More especially who has been paying them to do so? Who is it, who's been sponsoring all these supposed million dollar reasearch projects ? Who is it who's been bribing these governments to their will ?
More especially where have they got the money from to do this ?
Evan allowing for government subsidies , themselves presumably the result of bribes, where are the makers of windmills, solar panels, museli, sandals, and Timotei shampoo getting all the money from to do all this ?
It starts with poor science, as has been described. If you then nail your colours to this poor science, you'll look a right twerp if you backtrack, unless you are a scientist of stature, such as the likes of Hoyle or Feynman. And remember that the politicians and luvvies pushing this are, in scientific terms, completely ignorant.
Well, whatever institute or university they belong to, in the first instance. Remember that promotion and general prospects are also at stake.
harry will tell you. A lot of it comes from FIT subsidies, or, as we more accurately like to describe it, FIT theft. IOW, look at your utility bell for gas/electric to see a major source of this dosh: you.
And AIUI, the windmill/solar makers get gumment subsidies too.
I haven't looked for global or UK figures, but in 2013 the US government spent $22.6 billion on Climate Change, and similar amounts in years before and probably since. See the Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress August 2013 and scroll down to the last line of the last table, on P.45
formatting link
. Whether that's a small or large amount in the grand scheme of things, I don't know, but I doubt that Big Oil or Big Coal would come up with even a tiny fraction of that sum for funding those who are sceptical about the whole thing. $22.6 billion pays for an awful lot of research and development programmes, and keeps food on the tables of an awful lot of people.
You're not referring to John Sawyer by any chance ?
formatting link
admittedly he was only a Brit, and a Fellow of the Royal Society unlike the American nut jobs you and Turnip are so fond of quoting
"As has been described" as such, by whom exactly ?
Apart from the aforesaid nut jobs obviously.
But why should anyone want to do this ? This is the question which both yourself, Turnip and your leader Chistopher Booker have yet to answer.
When the petrochemical industry has millions at its disposal both to dole out in research grants and for public relations, buying up journalists etc why would anyone, scientists or anyone else think it could possibly be in their interests to piss in their soup.
So who paid or is paying them to do this ?
Eh ? Given that the petrochemical industry has had millions at its disposal for the past 40 years - since the first publication of Sawyer's original paper its for you to explain, if there's any backtracking to be done why they haven't already been forced to backtrack at any time during the last 40 years as a result of research funded by the petrochemical industry ? And publicised by their tame journalists in the press.
When all they, the petrochemical industry seems to have achieved is to sponsor some nut jobs and Christopher Booker.
In any case I hardly see what Hoyle and Feynman have to do with anything.
If you're trying to argue from authority then Fred Hoyle is about the last person you'd want to choose. Given that current evidence suggests he was categorically wrong on the two things he's most popularly associated with. The steady state universe and extra terrestrial seeding of life on Earth.
While as to Feynman not one person in a million actually understands what his contribution to science actually was. If that. It may have been Feynman himself who said "If you think you understand quantum physics then you probably don't."
He also more famously said, as quoted by Turnip at least
"You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities."
-Richard P. Feynman
So much for arguing from authority in other words.
Nevertheless far from being a fallacy, arguing from authority can be a useful shorthand when people are unable to judge these matters for themselves. They may need to take some things on trust. However as in the case of individuals like Fred Hoyle - unlike say bodies such as The Royal Society - and his views on the origin of the universe and life on Earth there can be obvious drawback
But who are paying them to do this ?
But who is paying these institutes and universities ? And where are they getting the money from to do this ?
Oh and BTW, if you stop and think about it for the moment potentially there is far more scope for reseaching into why the SGW model is flawed i.e rubbishing it than there is in supporting it. That's the way that science works.
So why hasn't that happened ? Where is all this "hush money" coming from and who benefits.
JFK - the mob, castro, the soviets
The Fake Moon Landing - Nasa
Diana - the entire British Royal Family
9/11 - George W. Bush and those who pull his strings
The Global Warming Swindle - ???????????????
I'm not intersted in what harry thinks. I'm asking you.
Where is all this money coming from ?
michael adams
"The Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
The drilling - exploration budgets for US projects alone for 2015 is $170 billion.
formatting link
While the $22.6 billion figure doesn't take into account the amount which was already being spent on climate research and similar fields. Presumably before AGW was even heard of, the importance of climate research was already recognised and given the appropriate funding.
In the absence of such figures there's nothing to really compare the $22.6 bn with.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley is to climate change what the late Screaming Lord Sutch is to politics. Sir Paul Nurse did a pretty good job of disembowelling the snivelling science denier for hire on Horizon.
formatting link
It is time for scientists to take the fight to the lying dittoheads. An easy way to spot deniers for hire is to check their previously declared position on smoking causing cancer and CFCs damaging the ozone layer.
A surprising number show up on all three denier for hire campaigns.
Nice to see no rebuttal of any data or science, merely a swivel eyed foaming at the mouth bigoted classist ad hominem attack on someone with a better degree that you have.
Paul Nurse:
"He was educated at Lyon Park school in Alperton and Harrow County Grammar School.[1] His undergraduate applications were rejected by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Sussex and York because he did not possess the required foreign language GCE. He was offered a place at the University of Birmingham on the condition that he take French classes in his first year. He received his BSc degree in biology in 1970 from the University of Birmingham[11] and his PhD degree in 1973 from the University of East Anglia for research on Candida utilis"
Yeah so really really knows all there is to know about climate science, and has definitely not got a chip on his shoulder ..
And you've been told this a number of times: there's money to be made. You're not harry in disguise are you?
[snip]
They were proper scientists doing physics, which is harder than anything else.
I'm not. Arguing from authority is saying, in effect that because believes X, I cite him as an authority to be believed on a particular topic.
I'm mentioning Feynman and Hoyle as two physicists of integrity, who understand how to do science properly and who would have no problem with being proved wrong. Either of them would have no problem with or difficulty in going through the climate research that's been done to date, and either saying it's been done well or done badly. As both were mavericks, men of stature, and beholden to no one, I'd be more inclined to take their word for their analysis of the research than that of others.
Why? These were two perfectly satisfactory hypotheses when they were first put forward. The Big Bang and Steady State were put forward around the same time, quite a number of years ago now. Hoyle, who rather earlier had worked out most of the processes that go on inside stars to allow fusion and consequent creation of elements to take place inside stars, did a lot of work with others that eventually supported BB rather than SS. And it's known that comets etc crashing to earth brought a lot or organic material to the early Earth.
You evidently don't appreciate that, because one scientist's hypothesis turns out to have a lot less evidence to support that than another's, doesn't make the first one an idiot. After all, ultimately Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. Does that make Newton an idiot? Of course not.
Of course. Which is why I'm not doing that.
You appear to think that scientists are some exotic form of politician or religious nut. They state that they believe XYZ, so as long as enough of them tag along with that, then XYZ must be true.
Hoyle's "views" are irrelevant. It's his dedication to the truth that is important. See quote below:
[snip the rest of your twaddle]
This is from Stardust, by John Gribbin - a respected cosmologist and writer:
"One of the most intriguing things about this seminal work on Big Bang nucleosynthesis is that Fred Hoyle was a key member of the team that carried out the work - the same Fred Hoyle who was a leading proponent of steady state cosmology. So what was he doing working on the theory of the Big Bang? He was simply being a good scientist. The fact that he had a personal preference for the rival model of the Universe didn't mean that he couldn't use his skills as a physicist and mathematician to work out what would have happened under the conditions that existed in the Big Bang fireball if such a fireball had existed.
"This neatly makes a point about the way science progresses. There has to be an element of speculation - a guess, based on past observations and experiments, combined with intuition about the way the world works. Then, you test the guess, by using it to make predictions which you can compare with the outcome of experiments and observations of how the real world works. You don't have to *believe* in what you are testing, the way that people believe in religion. You make a guess (or someone else makes a guess) and you test it. Hoyle guessed that the simple steady state model was a good description of the Universe; somebody tested it and found that he was wrong. Other people guessed that the Universe was born in a Big Bang. Hoyle tested that guess, and found compelling evidence that they were right. Indeed, in many ways it is much more impressive that the test was carried out by a skeptic, since you know that he wasn't deluding himself with wishful thinking in his interpretation of the results."
As you according to your own admission haven't quoted anyone that can only mean Turnip and Chris Hogg.
He was the first editor of "Private Eye" but was deposed in his absence, by a coup. He's nevertheless been a major contributor ever since He now writes a column in the Telegraph. And along with Richard North ; he also wrote a very amusing book called "Scared To Death". Some of which topics had some substance but were prone to selectivity as to facts, and exaggeration.
You have no evidence for that claim whatsoever. The number of potential but unrecognised physicists is by definition unknown.
Exactly the same could be said for virtuosos concert violinists or tightrope walkers capable of traversing Niagra Falls.
Or if the point still escapes you
Until everyone has the chance to train as scientist doing physics, to train as a virtuoso concert violinist, or to train as a tightroper walker capable of Traversing Niagra Falls, the relative difficulty of each activity, as judged by the number of successful candidates must remain unknown.
Neither are climatologists, but because they made a public name for themselvesby being forthright, you'd take their word over that of more reticent climatologists.
Nobody's saying he's an idiot. But the fact remains that he never really abandoned his steady state hypothesis up until his death in 2001 despite growing evidence to the contrary ; cosmic background radiation, the uneven distribution of young galaxies and quasars, to name but two.
As an example of a scientist "who would have no problem with being proved wrong." you couldn't really have chosen a worse example.
If there's one thing that Hoyle was famous for its never admitting he was wrong.
Certainly if one of his most quoted aphorisms is correct -
"it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".
Unlike you I certainly don't think that The Royal Society are a group who "tag along" with XYZ. You're the one who's claiming that.
.> Hoyle's "views" are irrelevant. It's his dedication to the truth that
This one ?
"it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".
formatting link
I notice you've totally avoided the questions I asked you. Which is all I'm really interested in actually, rather than your opinion of Fred Hoyle.
Namely who it is, who's responsible for this supposed corruption of the entire climate science establishment.
What they hope to gain from this. And where they're getting the money from to pay for all this.
In your own words.
This is UseNet of course, not the Spanish Inquisition. And so you're under no obligation to answer anyone's questions at all. Just snip them all, again; hoping no-one will notice. However failure to do so can reasonably interpreted, I believe as an indication that you suffer from the self same paranoia which clearly afflicts your friend
michael adams
"The Earth and its ecosystems-created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.