No, facts are objective and opinions are subjective.
So "facts from his standpoint" are an accurate description of what an opinion IS.
It really has reached the point where we can't tell the difference any more.
Isn't that the goal of politics?
Ummm... yeah. Aren't you the same guy that basically said Fox is legit for no other reason than they aren't Dan Rather?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
Wanna know why people watch Fox news? Because they haven't forgotten Dan Rather and his attempt to throw an election through fabricating 'the news'
The expression red herring is an idiom referring to a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
That one shows sunspot activity, and it is plainly obvious that sunspot activity went up at about the same time as your global temperatures did, Neil.
Ohh, and lookie here! Carbon-14 changes as solar output does!
The smart folks over here have noted that there appears to be a correlation between galactic cosmic ray output (throttled by solar activity) and earthly cloud formation, too.
Quote:
More and more studies indicate that variations in solar activity have had a significant influence on Earth’s climate. However the mechanisms responsible for the solar influence is still not known. One possibility is to influence the atmospheric transparency by changing cloud properties via cosmic ray ionisation (the latter is modulated by solar activity). Support for this idea is found from satellite observations of cloud cover. Such data have revealed a striking correlation between the intensity of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and low liquid clouds ( < 3 km). GCR is responsible for nearly all ionisation in the atmosphere below 35 km. One mechanism could involve ion-induced formation of aerosol particles (0.001- 1 mu in diameter) that can act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). A systematic variation in the properties of CCN will affect the cloud droplet distribution and thereby influence the radiative properties of clouds. If the GCR/Cloud link is confirmed, variations in galactic cosmic ray flux, caused by changes in the solar activity could influence Earth’s radiation energy budget. In particular the magnetic flux carried by the solar wind has more than doubled during the last 100 years, at the same time as the global temperature has risen.
So, Neil... Did Mankind cause the Sun to vary, too? C'mon, Neil! Continue to call me a denier! I keep presenting valid scientific arguments to your AGW BS, and you keep denying the arguments even exist!
Oh, and look at Antarctic sea ice area... Okay, maybe the above graph is a little confusing.
Here, that's better. That's deviation from a baseline Antarctic sea ice area number. Note the behavior since 2000, Neil. Look at the average go up, with two breaks in 2002 and 2006.
Ummm... yeah. Aren't you the same guy that basically said Fox is legit for no other reason than they aren't Dan Rather
That's not the point, Frank. Fox is the sole Right-leaning news organization whereas all the others are and have been Left-leaning for decades. Fox is as "legit" as the others are. It is not any less "legit" simply because it has an opposite bias. At least it provides variety or diversity of opinion.
The implication was that anything that runs as a story on Fox could not be credible simply because it ran on Fox. That assumption is a bias in itself.
Dan Rather disgraced himself in gambling that he could manufacture a false document and pass it off as news for a political purpose, which he did to influence an election. If the truth had not been discovered, resulting in his being discredited, he would still be working as a champion of the Left in the news media.
That's not the point, Frank. Fox is the sole Right-leaning news organization whereas all the others are and have been Left-leaning for decades. Fox is as "legit" as the others are. It is not any less "legit" simply because it has an opposite bias. At least it provides variety or diversity of opinion.
Aside from the fact that Fox News isn't all that right-wing anyway (more accurately described as slightly right of center), why should it matter at all what cable television company is used?
Point is, automagically deeming a news channel to be propaganda simply because you disagree with the slant of their politics, does not change the information presented in that channel, and it's a pretty silly method of argument. For instance, when Fox News reported on that BP oil spill last year, does that mean that the BP spill didn't actually happen because Fox News reported on it?
Do the facts in the graphs I posted mess up your argument? (Less talk about me, and more about my arguments, please.) You seem to complain about each and every thing I post -- is that because you don't agree with me that the scientists know what they are doing? Do you think that all of us on the planet ought to listen to you and your analysis, instead of the scientists?
Sunspots are included in the scientists climate models, and they may have a tiny effect, but they do not drive the situation.
What are the long term trends of the Antarctic ice? I can't tell from those graphs.
Plate tectonics are directly involved in global climate change -- what a surprise!
Hmmm, so if science is right about plate tectonics, tell me why it is that they are not also correct on global climate change?
I could ask you the same thing, Neil. Recent solar activity is a heck of a lot more relevant than plate tectonic theory vs. carbon dioxide concentrations, given by a AGW advocate. Climate change over the past 65 million years was solely due to carbon dioxide and not solar activity? Humans and humans alone drive the change in concentrations in carbon dioxide?
Oh, okay, Neil. AGW has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Not.
Why didn't you address the solar data, Neil? "Sunspots don't do anything because I said so!" No, sunspots don't do anything because they aren't accounted for in your precious computer models, because they haven't been properly explained yet. That, however, does not mean they do something to the climate. And judging from the graphs, I'm more inclined to believe that a giant thermonuclear ball in the sky does more to change climate than the 2% annual atmospheric carbon dioxide output by Mankind does.
Why didn't you address the Antarctic sea ice cover data, Neil? "Oooh, I can't tell what the long-term trends are, because they aren't there!" That's a pitiful excuse.
You know, it occurs to me that it would'a helped to see a graph of carbon dioxide concentrations overlaid on that pretty deep sea temperatures.
I stand corrected. As you can see in the world temperature anomolies map I posted (the one with the different sized dots), the temperatures around the Antarctic ocean would also seem to show this.
All the facts I presented in the graphs above show the reality of the situation, and solar activity and changes and all the other myriad of factors are all taken into account. How could scientists have missed such a basic factor? Of course they have taken all known factors into account; and I'm sure they have run the models on a lot of "what if" scenarios, too.
Watch the video, please. James Hansen has probably forgotten more about global climate change than you and I and the rest of us all put together will ever know. It is the height of arrogance to dismiss his scientific presentation as anything but factual.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
