Looking at the reports I have to say you are guessing this is so.
As I’m very experienced in spotting Garbage in, Garbage out. (got my best grades in Catholic school when logic was the subject) We have found already in this thread that you do not understand much of the underlying science. Your last post/point is in relality an argument from personal incredulity. Indeed GIGO.
You need to bring evidence that indeed the estimates are more that just wild-ass guesses, not just because you say so.
Nope. It’s pretty clear from the link, which you apparently have not read carefully. Would you like me to supply a page number and a quote?
If the only response you can muster to my arguments is a personal attack, please feel free to post in the Pit forum.
You post still remains an argument from personal incredulity. I can not help it that it was named that way in logic.
And it still remains a fact that you never acknowledged that the greenhouse experiment you proposed so strongly was not going to demonstrate anything.
What do you mean by “argument from personal incredulity”?
Do you agree that a prediction based on an economic model that assumes certain advances in technology over the next 30 years is not all that reliable? (Perhaps there’s an exception for certain technologies that have shown steady and continuous advances over a long time period. But there’s nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption.)
Because it would demonstrate something: That the relationship between CO2 and possible warming is not a simple one.
The argument that there is “nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption” is precisely the element of personal incredulity. As this thread has demonstrated, it is clear you can not be trusted on judging evidence. If you mentioned that something seems sketchy you need to bring forward what it was so then it can be discussed. Just saying “because I say so” does not cut it.
:rolleyes:
That was the point of me and tagos, but this demonstrates too that you need to be careful on what you are saying, otherwise you are indeed just doing an argument ad nauseum, argumenting just for argumenting’s sake when in reality you did not understand even what was the point.
Ahhh, well in that case you would appear to be arguing from personal credulity.
Anyway, is your answer to my question yes or no?
Again, if all you can muster is a personal attack, please take it elsewhere.
And I explained exactly why I thought the estimate was sketchy.
Yes or no: There were posts in the thread that implied or suggested that the relationship between CO2 and warming is a simple one.
Not going to play that game, you need to bring the evidence that it is just “a wild ass guess.”
Will not work either because it is important to point out when one is not discussing in good faith:
Nope, that is just affirming that something is so.
Not my point, and it depends on the setting if the relationship between CO2 and warming is a simple one anyhow.
I suppose I could find a list of failed technology predictions.
But the thing is, you don’t deny that an economic model based on technology predictions over the next 30 years is unreliable. Given that you haven’t denied it, I’m not going to waste my time finding examples to support such an obvious claim.
So you seriously think that claiming an economic prediction is unreliable because it is based on predictions about technology is basically the same as claiming the economic prediction is unreliable because one says so?
Sure, and perhaps my posts on the greenhouse experiment were not addressed to you.
Here in nutshell is proof of what I’m saying, we need relevant evidence that what the studies you dismissed as a “wild ass guess” are so. You are admitting that the only way to counteract this will be by bringing examples that are not related.
Sure, forgive us for demanding evidence to doubt on this specific subject.
Nope, you need to explain why it is so, I demand a relevant example, when the studies referred by **jshore ** are published by experts in the field, claiming that they are a “wild ass guess” is indeed a point that requires relevant evidence against it.
Still, it was a misleading effort based on the context of the thread.
Of course they are related. I am saying that assumptions about future technologies make a prediction unreliable. Push it out far enough, and it’s a wild-ass guess.
So obviously examples of failed predictions are relevant.
The joke of it all is that you don’t even deny my claim.
I suspect that you know perfectly well that it’s true.
I’m happy to give evidence if you deny my claim, which you don’t.
I’ll ask you again: Do you or do you not agree that an economic model based on predictions about technology is generally unreliable?
What evidence would convince you that those predictions are unreliable, wild-ass guesses?
Which of my posts would you say is “misleading”?
I did go back and I have add a :rolleyes: to my reply.
You did reply to tagos’s post #216
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909183&postcount=216
With #219,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909336&postcount=219
By your own admission here, I have to say that indeed you had no way to counteract his point other than using the simplistic points of others, and the kicker was that then you offered that exchange as evidence of illogical positions from the ones that think there is evidence for AGW. That was really putting up a straw man, kicking it down and declaring victory by insisting that the experiment “actually puts the [AGW] hypothesis at risk” and therefore that is why scientists will not do it. :rolleyes:
Indeed, **tagos ** did not present the point that it was simple, just to point out that the experiment you proposed indeed would not put the hypothesis at risk, and that it was a lousy one.
The implication here is that the new technologies that deal with the issue of GW are not available, that is not what I see.
Still waiting…
For the relevant evidence, I have the impression you are still assuming the predictions are based on technology that are not developed yet, when the focus is with already available technology that can be implemented.
I’m still waiting…
And I did predict that. 
See the previous post.
Just to clarify where that came from:
Form the paper quoted by jshore:
So clearly this is dealing with technology that is available. And the paper does acknowledge that there needs to be an incentive for this to take place, as I see it, there is evidence that the incentive is and will be there. So no, not a wild ass guess at all.
This study only deals indirectly with the OP’s point of GW being an item proposed totally on faith. Yet it does have items that once again show the overall point of the OP remains a false one. This is just a proposal on what to do regarding the evidence at hand, the failure of this proposal hinges on the incentives not being there, not much evidence that that is the case or that that we as citizens should not ask for changes so as to then be part of the incentive.
Sure, and my post no way contradict what I just said.
How exactly was my post “misleading”? Or is it just misleading “because you say so”?
You conveniently omit Post 213, which shows the context of my post. I was responding to a simplistic analogy with a simple experiment.
But if you read post 213, you would see that I was not so claiming. But if it makes you feel better to attack straw men, I can’t stop you.
Cite? Or is it just because you say so?
And you still haven’t answered my very simple question.
You can wait as long as you like. If you aren’t disputing my claim, I’m not going to waste time looking for evidence to support it.
Cite? Or is it just your “say so”?
No, you did **say so ** later:
Nope, you then did go on #221 to post what I did quote above.
Nope, you did show later that you really did not understood that the experiment would not put the theory in danger, if you insist that was just for the few ones insisting in simple experiments, it was therefore a straw man point since no serious researcher had mentioned the CO2 effects were simple to show.
It is you that can not stop everyone else from seeing that you are not doing this on good faith.
And here are a couple quotes from Page 16 of the linked document:
Sorry, but if you aren’t skeptical of these projections, you’re living in fantasyland.
And of course, this is all assuming that these studies are being accurately characterized. I would love to take a look at these studies. I have a feeling that they have all manner of sketchy assumptions.
It does not work that way, contradicting a paper with “it is just a wild guess” means that you need to bring evidence that that is so. Claiming now that you are not going to bring it is just tap dancing, and an admission that you had no evidence to support what you said.
Argument from ignorance.
We still need evidence they indeed are sketchy in the protections.
I don’t understand your point. But it appears that you have shifted ground and given up on your claim about what I have or haven’t acknowledged.
No it’s not. Why should I provide more evidence if you don’t even dispute my claim?