read
It’s too big a business to shut down now. The World Bank has a carbon finance unit.
Cozening up with liberals like Clinton and Pelosi and new accepting Gorebal Warning, geeezzzz.
Limbaugh is not a philosopher so he may or may not be aware of just how accurate and profound his understanding of this issue really is.Ooooo. It takes a philosopher to understand the profundity of things.
I'm going to keep reading, but this sentence did set me back a bit.
The author is presuming a syllogistic construct in "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
Trouble is, it's not!
The we did it argument is much like the "Socrates is mortal" argument we saw above. (a) Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere. (b) Human activities put them there. (c) Therefore, global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures are rising.What???
This is absolutely illogical.
Forget about what you know or think about global warming. Just analyze the above paragraph.
a) refers to the accumulation of gasses in the atmosphere
b) refers to activities which put those gasses in the atmosphere
c) says nothing about the activities (b) and arbitrarily introduces a new variable (temperature) which does not exist in either of the two premises.
I have a syllogism of my own:
a) anyone who recognizes this author to be an idiot has at least some ability to think logically
b) I recognize this author to be an idiot
c) therefore, I have at least some ability to think logically.
Horsefeathers! Fricking de-constructionist crap.
IF I eat habenros, "THEN it follows" that I use excessive ice cubes to.... reduce the burning later....
If-then logic is pretty solid, based on good observational data.
/johnny/
It seems to me that you can investigate a specific "weather change"(as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation"), or series of incidents of "weather change", but "climate change" is redundant.
It would be like running around screaming "The Dow-Jones Industrial Average has changed!!!!!"
Instead of "Climate Change", we should instead utilize the stock market reporting methods and refer to the "Global Weather Average - Temperature" and the "Global Weather Average - Rain" and "Global Weather Average - Snow", etc., but then that would allow specific analysis of historical data and the media and politicians wouldn't want the facts to interfere with the opportunity to invoke socialist, government managed, solutions that "Climate Change!!!" provides.
“subsurface ocean temperatures to rise”
this has recently been disproven.
Also, I lost all I mean ALL respect for Newt with his GOREbal warming stance, I can only say I hope he is being well paid for selling out.
Whenever I see him on TV or hear him on the radio I turn it off.
bttt
Often symptoms are treated in medicine rather than the underlying disease with very satisfactory results. Accept the Premise of man made global warming but take action to remedy the effects. Build dikes around New Orleans; move people if necessary; relocate endangered species when a local ecosystem collapses; and so forth. Such an approach is much less costly in dollars, lives, and freedom than destroying the world economy. Of course the accepted premise may prove incorrect and the palliative treatment never costs a cent!
save
Is this true? Well, if (a) and (b) are both true then (c) is true.
I disagree, (c) is true if (a) is true and (b) has nothing to do with the outcome. That is, whether mankind or nature it matters not why the "greenhouse gases" are increasing in the atmosphere, the result is the same, (c) is true.
Your example is a non sequitur in as much as neither premises links greenhouse gas to increasing temperature. A valid argument would require premises (b) to read "Greenhouse gas concentration is known to have a positive correlation with ambient temperature." Then (c) follows as per the Socrates example.
Regards,
GtG