It is quite possible, even likely, to come across examples of this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

and this is very commonly employed during discourse:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

As I mentioned earlier, the use of language is complex and fraught which is why I much prefer to judge people and events etc on the basis of their actions and the outcomes of them; much as the scientific method come to think of it.

__________________
Dave

I like your posts bro, just messing with ya

I am slightly surprised that your theme here has not been taken up.
Leaving aside the pollution aspect (probably a given that it is a highly important, tangible and relatively easy factor to quantify) I have continued to read the earlier links supplied in this thread - it is noticeable that the "pro-posts" do not cite their sources. I guess that is the settled science syndrome at work.

"Today’s gentle warming, progressing much more slowly than expected, is also accompanied by generally improving conditions. Globally, droughts are declining very slightly. Storms are not increasing in frequency or intensity: this year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons. Floods are worse in some places but usually because of land-use changes, not more rainfall. Death rates from floods, storms and droughts have plummeted and are now far lower than they were a century ago. Today, arid areas like western Australia or the Sahel region of Africa are getting generally greener, thanks to the effect of more carbon dioxide in the air, which makes plants grow faster and resist drought better"
That quote is drawn from Ridleys' blog of about a month ago.
i.e. it is as current as any other view.
Five articles on climate change | Matt Ridley

This summation paragraoh from the same source is also of interest.
"The 40,000 people meeting in Paris over the next ten days are committed to the view that the weather is certain to do something nasty towards the end of this century unless we cut emissions. In this they are out of line with scientists. A survey of the members of the American Meteorological Society in 2012 found that only 52% agree that climate change is mostly man-made, and as to its being very harmful if unchecked, only 34% of AMS members agree. The rest said they think it will be either not harmful or not very harmful."

I have read elsewhere that there is an absolute minimum amount of CO2 that must exist in the atmosphere or plant life will die because the chlorophyll fails to function correctly.
Logically, all animal life would cease after such an event, or is that a fallacious logic?

__________________
Dave

Shrekonweels, the fact you just linked climate to weather just goes to show how scientifically illiterate you are - maybe all that red meat has gone to your head bro.

Oh brother, I linked articles to consider about possible intentional weather manipulation, which is a far cry from EVIL COMMON MAN EMITTING CO2
clearly you are lacking in vitamin storage upstairs lol.

Seriously do some reading, try some critical thinking and then possibly we can have a intelligent conversation, I look forward to it.

Following links from one to another, as one does, I came upon this as part of todays' reading:

"As some of you will already know, I am one of 7 US academics being investigated by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Rep. Grijalva has sent a letter to the president of my university requesting a range of information, including my correspondence, the letter is here in PDF. Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research"
Abstracted from:
https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/

I am aware of other blogs which have closed down following Twitter-based campaigns and similar "witch hunts", but this guy has pulled out of the research all together albeit he has other interests and has not lost his livelihood.

__________________
Dave

I believe the onus is on the denier/skeptics to provide evidence contrary to the established scientific beliefs.................but we'll just end up posting swathes of links no one will read on both sides of the debate


Source - NASA


Gobal Temp Rise from 4 separate sources - NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency

97% Of Published Climate Scientists agree that mankind is influencing climate change

Source - J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus.

And of course we have the dangerous side of polls and statistics where 30% of US Republicans voted in favour of bombing Agrabah - a fictional city from Aladin ROTFLMAO

I have read most of the links that you have posted in here so far; skim read in some cases + your blog (I wonder if anyone else has read that).

There are no inconsistencies IMO and I have learnt a bit about your part of the world (Montana for those who haven't indulged themselves).
Thanks!

__________________
Dave

BTW I can control the weather! at least that's what my previous project manager stated when he dragged my into a meeting with HR following a months worth of rain in 12 hours August 2014- I no longer work there

I am reading posted links, but a couple of graphs shown in isolation do not amount to a readable document.
Within my link below you will quickly find an article about changes of mind among the scientific community + further commentary about the corruption of the data sets used for the temperature graphs - Piers Corbyn, the "amateur" weather forecaster, has also drawn attention to the phenomena of altered data to suit preconceived ideologies derived from computer based modelling that did not come up with the "right" predictions (it's in his website linked earlier).
JoNova
She is an Aussie so she doesn't mince about in her blog

__________________
Dave

So, what did we find out after the initial question was asked ?
The world is changing like it has always done.
People argue, like they have always done.
The climate change will influence the ways of the adventure rider, albeit not in dramatic ways. (unless you didn't count on mud in a previously drought stricken area and you never learned riding in mud It might make throwing mud at each other even easier though ! )

My last post will only remain true until the lady blogger makes a few more entries into her home page.

So, here are better links.
[url=http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/10-reasons-we-know-global-warming-is-not-man-made-physics-prof-explains-his-switch-to-skepticism/]10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.
29 Dec 2015

http://joannenova.com.au/about/archives/

http://joannenova.com.au/about/index/

__________________
Dave

Not sure that a online blog has much if any scientific credibility compared to a peer reviewed scientific paper. I could post thousand of links to scientific papers but I doubt you even bother to open 50% let alone read digest and form an opinion from the contents.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

Anyone who has studied statistics for even a brief second will know that with the correct application statistics can be used to confirm anything you like.

Of course the 3 % of published climate scientist who don't agree that mankind is having an influence on climate must be right. But so far non of the supporters of this view have posted anything to demonstrate this other than on line bloggers opinions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you, if you dig through my travels are there as well.


I agree, however the question asked in the future how will our travels be effected?
Well according to Gore and crew, they already should have been, islands should have been swallowed up whole already. Thus far none of this has happened, the Ocean continues to rise at roughly 3 inches a year which it has done for a very long time.

couple things regarding this.
One as noted by Walkabout the link is supposedly to emissions leading to climate change, at least that was initially the argument, now it has broadened substantially beyond that emissions in the US at least are lower than they have been.

Two, I honestly quit reading the temperature readings when I found out the readings were beings messed with. If readings were not according to what they were supposed to be, they were adjusted, that is flat out screwing numbers. Another reason I came to the other side!

I would however thank you for your post, I love a debate based on data to back it up, very much appreciated


With that said, I like the apocalypse nonsense, talk about adventure!
I wonder what the Visa requirements will be?

This is the Best Proof that God Exists (in My Opinion)

There's a blog that claims to prove that God exists, even quotes some science, the authors written a book as well so it must be true