Climategate

[steelish]

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

[IAN 2411]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

[Wiscoman]

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[DuncanONeil]

Again, your logic is fail.
You rail at the presentation by anyone that cycles exist as if it does not matter. Yet you admit cycles exist. Even claim there is no way of knowing where in said cycle this point in time is.
All of this being said it seems that those being true you also can not claim that the current belief in a runaway warming must be considered true. Based on your own statements concerning planetary cycles. You have no way of knowing if this cycle is about to turn, as some evidence suggests, or if the actions you are in favor of will result in a catastrophic result.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[steelish]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist. So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

[Wiscoman]

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Which does nothing to prove this is the result of a cycle.

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist.

What's this have to do with something that's cyclical? If it happened before and it's a cycle, it'll happen again. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, is it?

So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

No, we don't know that at all. Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Taken out of context -- as I just did -- this would seem to suggest quite a bit of dishonesty on his part. Clearly, this debunks his theories. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be happy to know that they were attacked by a wild theory that is now debunked.

[DuncanONeil]

all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Sorry but here you have a massive fail. There is no logic whatsoever in this statement. Conversely to claim that the cycles of nature are to be discounted because they present an impediment to the intended outcome is also illogical.