Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

    Since the poll regarding global warming seems to stagnate, it might be interesting to look at some data in the most balanced way. The most balanced article I have seen so far is **A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends** :

    http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

    One should see enough data and trends and sources to be able to understand the reasoning behind the claims one could encounter around the blogosphere. So the readers could ask themselves : why is such-and-such saying so-and-so?

    The pursuit of truth continues. Climate change is a topic that should interest chess players.
    Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Monday, 26th October, 2009, 10:10 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

    hehe we could debate if this is police brutality or not...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnU6-YXsSo
    Last edited by Jason Lohner; Thursday, 15th October, 2009, 09:30 PM. Reason: cant embed youtube videos

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

      Originally posted by Jason Lohner View Post
      hehe we could debate if this is police brutality or not...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnU6-YXsSo
      This is the original (not distorted)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mj553jzhM

      It started to look like a comedy after two more cops joined the action.

      Comment


      • #4
        Stop Resisting!

        Inspired by our Canadian GMI blogger, I'd say it would illustrate well what goes on at www.climateaudit.org, without the uniforms, of course, and with most of them with cowls.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

          The accusation of "cherry picking" seems to fall to some form of the genetic ad hominem fallacy. (Just like the accusation of hypocrisy almost always falls to this same fallacy as well.)

          So a person makes a case for something (and that case is always in some way going to be biased) but instead of addressing that case or their data you talk about phrasing, wording, context etc. (Telling me Einstein is biased in favor of relativity doesn't refute his case on any level.) To look at things logically you literally have to put the fact they have an opinion to one side for the moment. (To understand this idea you have to think about the fact that statements are evaluated logically based on their validity not their soundness. I'll explain this in detail if there are requests to do so but for now I don't want to make things even more boring than I have already...)

          The fact that many statements in the chess talk global warming threads fall to this fallacy (by people both pro and con action on global warming) just goes to show that not many chess players have training in logic and reasoning...(and their logical game doesn't seem to pass that skill onto politics..)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re : Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

            Originally posted by Jason Lohner View Post
            hehe we could debate if this is police brutality or not...

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQnU6-YXsSo
            Yeah I saw it on Youtube yesterday... Pretty incredible how the cops are still hitting the guy when he has 7 policemen on him....

            By the way thanks for the links Benoit :)

            Comment


            • #7
              Appealing Authority

              It would be interesting to know how cherry picking is always an ad hominem, and why it is relevant here. It would also be interesting to know how an ad hominem argument is a fallacy, and if it is always so. If you have the formation you claim we all should have and seem to lack from your standpoint, it sure will be easy for you to educate Chesstalkers.

              The Cherry Picker's Guide responds quite well to the idea that data speaks all by itself. One must always interpret it, and it is there that matters get way more complicated than we would like. Coincidentally, interpretation relies on wording. In philosophy, where one can study, among other specialties, informal logic, argumentation theory, and epistemology, wording is quite important indeed. Making an argument relies on wording, at least if you want to have your quantifiers and your modalities right. When made clear enough, the arguments we are dealing with are more inductive or abductive than deductive anyway, which argues against the idea that logic suffices for science to tell us what to do.

              Citing an objectivist author when I am not one myself (well, not that kind) contradicts the idea that I am arguing against the Biyiasas of people. Even an objectivist can be right from time to time. (Not always, since he believes that a corporation is intrinsically better than a state, when corporations are behind most oligarchies and dictatures.) A more fallacious intention trial would be more like saying that you don't take NASA's data because they have a political agenda.
              Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Sunday, 18th October, 2009, 10:08 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)

                Originally posted by Benoit St-Pierre View Post
                Since the poll regarding global warming seems to stagnate, it might be interesting to look at some data in the most balanced way. The most balanced article I have seen so far is **A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends** :

                http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

                One should see enough data and trends and sources to be able to understand the reasoning behind the claims one could encounter around the blogosphere. So the readers could ask themselves : why is such-and-such saying so-and-so?

                My list of links (www.delicious.com/benoitstpierre/climate-change) has changed a bit since the last time. The search continues. Climate change is a topic that should interest chess players.

                In this article he says that there is two main sides. Two main sides only? I don't call it Cherry picking! I call it two schools of thought.

                One school of thought takes their conclusions only from data from the UAH and RSS which covers the whole earth (see on the extrack I present below). The other school of thought is base on the GISS data from the NASA which relys on ground stations which is distributed not evenly and has thousands of differents sensors and algorithms.

                Here is the extract from your article:

                And here are a few more specific examples that the seasoned cherry-picker could tease out:

                • There has been no (statistically significant) warming for the past 13 years. [Using the satellite records of the lower atmosphere].

                • The globe has been cooling rapidly for the past 8 years. [Using the CRU and satellite records]

                Or on the other side of the coin:

                • Global warming did not ‘stop’ 10 years ago, in fact, it was pretty close to model projections. [Using the GISS and NCDC records beginning in 1998 and 1999]

                • Global warming is proceeding faster than expected. [Using the GISS record staring in 1991 or 1992—the cool years just after the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo]



                I don't see it as cherry picking.The news satellite global systems should be the only data we should rely on to make predictions with a error level lower than .2 degree in my opinion. The GISS data collection of NASA and the NCDC (the largets world's archive of weather data) should not be use to study global warming. This data should be used by scientists only to have an idea for the weather of a particular year in the past for a part of the world knowing that it is based on few ground stations not evenly distributed on the territory and with a lot of algorithms to estimate the missings days or uncover areas.

                If we have had the UAH and RSS Satellite systems for the period 1900 to 2009 nobody would make any conclusions based on the data from the ground stations.

                Did you know that most of the ground stations now use the data from the RSS and UAH satellite systems to caliber their sensors when they see a difference. They know the satellite has only one sensor always well calibered.

                Carl
                Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 18th October, 2009, 10:55 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X