http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharp鈥?/a>Are Global Warming True Believers using the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
Clearly they collect all kinds of data, then keep just what is within the circle.
';Global Warming'; is a conclusion in search of proof it exists.Are Global Warming True Believers using the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
Most of them support AGW for political reasons - ironically the same people doubt, despite all the evidence, that a certain ';Texas sharpshooter'; took out JFK.
Report Abuse
No. People who are concerned about AGW use science.
Looking at the definition you supplied on Wikipedia, I'd say it a denialist tactic - somebody has an idea cosmic rays may be involved in global warming in some way but still has a lot to do to test the hypothesis, and the denialist say ';it's cosmic radiation, not human activity causing it';. Then there is the argument ';CO2 is only 0.03-0.04 % of the volume of the atmosphere, that can't be significant';, how about ';the dinosaurs didn't have SUVs and the Earth still got warmer and cooler - must be ALL due to natural causes';, maybe you prefer ';Mars is warmer/cooler - it has to be the sun';. This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in action - move your argument around to a convenient subject on the fringe of science and claim it is proof you are right.
If you just follow the scientific method, you'd have your answer. The SCIENTIFIC consensus is that global warming is occurring. Don't rely on blogs and junk ';science'; as real data claim some giant non-existent conspiracy theory keeps the truth from being revealed. Take your meds, PLEASE! They may help control the paranoid delusions.
I do not find that analogy very functional.
I do recognize that there is a lot of ';accepting credit'; for events after the fact, in the sense that some global warming advocates pretty well claim all natural weather-related phenomena as a direct result of global warming (they predict everything, drought, wet, heat, cold, etc. so when anything our of the ordinary happens, they claim a prediction, and I think this is the point of your analogy).
I tend to operate under the presumption that most of the scientific proponents actually believe what they say. Your analogy presumes that there is a deliberate deception. I am not convinced it is deliberate. I think it is just misguided.
Well the physics is pretty straightforward - we've known for over 100 years that the Earth is several tens of degrees warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect, so increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases will tend to increase the temperature, all other things being equal. This is a very definite and well-proven relationship. If you increase the concentration of CO2 then you reduce the amount of heat from the Earth's surface being radiated away to space, warming the troposphere and cooling the stratosphere until an equilibrium is reached at a higher global average temperature.
The climate is very complex, with positive and negative feedback mechanisms, which is where there is room for controversy over exactly how the increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases are going to affect the climate in the long term. That doesn't mean that no relationship exists for us to find - it just means that we have to work harder to establish with confidence what it is.
Well it certainly is a conclusion in search of ';facts'; to support it, rather than an open ended search for facts and then an attempt to follow them logically to wherever they lead.
I don't think that, even if you believe in the conclusion, you can honestly deny that.
But on top of putting the logical cart before the horse, and a high dose of groupthink, they're also just faking their numbers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum鈥?/a>
No comments:
Post a Comment