(continuation)
Really? Looking at the graps of what we know about the climate history of the earth, I don't see anything like what you describe. I am looking for a 10 degree increase and just can't find it. Point it out if you don't mind. What I see is a couple of degrees above the temperature that the earth has spent the bulk of its history at. A far higher temperature, by the way, than we have see being that we are living in an ice age.
Note the CO2 in the first graph. Now look back to before the ice age began, clearly, CO2 was not the culprit.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
I suggest that you look back. Most of what I have posted has been from peer reviewed studies and what has come from blogs has been based on peer reviewed studies. You have done precious little rebutting of any of it with actual observed data that counters it. Your complaints about sources is just one more logical fallacy in your very deep bag of logical fallacy. This one is called a circumstantial ad hominem.
From the Nizkor project:
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own
You complained about my source for the vostok ice core data. I asked you to point out any errors. You didn't. I knew you wouldn't because I had already checked the data against other "less attractive and harder to read sources". Now you are complaining about the education of the author of the what's up with that blog. He is citing peer reviewed studies, not his own opinion. If you want to refute any claim that has come from that source, by all means, step on up to the plate and refute it with hard, observed data. Don't mewl and pewl because you don't like the source.
And before you go off on my complaints about wiki, I provided evidence that data dealing with climate change from wiki is suspect as no release from wiki stating that the thousands of articles deleted, fabricated, or rewritten by connolly have been corrected.
Note: Unless you can combine some of your posts, I am going to discontinue the conversation as I grow tired of trying to keep track of your end of the conversation.
