• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Antropogenic Global Warming Advocates and Logical Fallacies

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.

Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.

Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.

Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.

Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.

Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.
Citing Einstein in matters of physics is ok.
Citing Einstein in matters of politics is an appeal to authority.

Just trying to help you a little.
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.

Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.

Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.

Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.

Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.

Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.

Can't argue against delusions of that magnitude.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,538
Reaction score
40,181
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.

Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.
Citing Einstein in matters of physics is ok.
Citing Einstein in matters of politics is an appeal to authority.

Just trying to help you a little.

Are there any expert weather guessers?

What record of accuracy of prediction is required to be an expert?

If two experts disagree is either no longer an expert?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,076
Reaction score
36,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Also used by unskeptics. "20,000 scientists signed this petition!"

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
See also: Lord Monckton, Watts, Svensmark

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.
Straw man. Nobody argues this.

Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.
That's not what red herring means.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.
Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears. My concerns for various species of plant or animal on this planet are as follows, in this order:
1) Homo sapiens
2) Canis lupus familiaris
3) Anything that the above two species eat
4) Anything that number 3) needs to continue being abundant and tasty
713) Felis catus

Polar bears are basically Ice Monsters. Like that thing in the second Star Wars movie. **** em. And anything with more than four legs.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.
Straw man.
Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.
Fits your definition of a red herring. The models aren't actually programmed that way.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.
Yes, those people are wrong. Al Gore isn't a scientist.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.
Straw man. Nobody says the fact that ice is melting proves humans are doing it.

Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.
Says a man who routinely uses derisive terminology for global warming advocates.

Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
I've heard similar from your side.
 
Last edited:

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I see the environmental forum is still cruising at the pinnacle of high standards.

I wonder though, where do you guys get this stuff from? Do you just make it up out of thin air on a whim or do you copy and paste some right wing website?
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Are there any expert weather guessers?
What record of accuracy of prediction is required to be an expert?
If two experts disagree is either no longer an expert?
I addressed the nature of a couple of the logical fallacies mentioned in the OP.
Do you object to the corrections I made?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,538
Reaction score
40,181
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I addressed the nature of a couple of the logical fallacies mentioned in the OP.
Do you object to the corrections I made?

Yes. Your use of the term expert for those that predict long term weather changes.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,076
Reaction score
36,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes. Your use of the term expert for those that predict long term weather changes.

Short term weather guy throws darts, I swear to god. Even a 24 hour aviation terminal forecast is pretty hit and miss.

And just what in the seven hells is a "50% chance of rain?" I'll tell you what it is. A goddamned coin flip. "It's either going to rain or it isn't." No ****, genius. No wonder you make more money than I do!
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
24,587
Reaction score
9,279
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes. Your use of the term expert for those that predict long term weather changes.
In your mind there are subject matter experts who are more qualified than the current batch climatologists?
Who might they be? Pundits?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.

Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.

Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.

Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.

Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.

Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.

Problems with your post:

1) Where did you copy and paste them from?

2) You cite a Greek philosopher but use Latin names

3) These are NOT Aristotle's fallacies from Sophistical Refutations, that list can be found here Sophistical Refutations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe you shouldn't trust something from a ridiculous website like "whatsupwiththat.com"

4) Never heard of the "Argument From Fallacy" or "Fallacy Fallacy" basically standing that even if an argument contains a fallacy that it may still be true? Or that it at least is not proven to be false or truth and remains unknown?

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poor quality work Lowdown, I'm used to better spam from you.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,181
Reaction score
16,141
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.

Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.


First off, unless one is a climatologist that has done and published for peer review a significant amount of work on climate change, then it's always going to be an appeal to authority. It is the height of arrogance to assume that something has to occurred to Joe Blow on an internet forum that has not occurred to scientists that have spent a lifetime studying and working in their field. When arguing science, you always have to cite the work done by scientists in that field.

Secondly, a consensus is very important. A layman does not have the body of knowledge necessary to properly evaluate the state of existing science on AGW. Few people would argue that all they would need to successfully do a heart bypass themselves simply by reading a few blogs. Yet for some reason they think they can read a few blogs and know something that the vast majority of climate scientists don't.
 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
5,203
Reaction score
2,843
Gender
Male
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.

Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.

Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.

Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.

Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.

A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.

Argumentum ad hominem - "I wonder though, where do you guys get this stuff from? Do you just make it up out of thin air on a whim or do you copy and paste some right wing website?" The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.

Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.

I see the environmental forum is still cruising at the pinnacle of high standards.

I wonder though, where do you guys get this stuff from? Do you just make it up out of thin air on a whim or do you copy and paste some right wing website?
The OP was missing an example for the ad hominem. True to the high standards of the environmental forum, one wasn't long in coming.
 

Verax

Disappointed in Trump
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
12,240
Reaction score
4,519
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The OP was missing an example for the ad hominem. True to the high standards of the environmental forum, one wasn't long in coming.

Its pretty funny one of you makes a list of fallacies to "prove" something and they aren't even used properly.

You **** all over the science, the scientists, then you play the victim card... ahh conservatives (ad hominem, oh nooooes, the horror). Would you like a velvet recliner to fling your poo from?
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.

Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.
Citing Einstein in matters of physics is ok.
Citing Einstein in matters of politics is an appeal to authority.

Just trying to help you a little.

No, appealing to Einstein about physics without considering the opposing argument in any sort of substantive way is an inappropriate appeal to authority.

I don't need the help, obviously.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can't argue against delusions of that magnitude.

This begs of the question of whether you're right about any of it. (A logical fallacy that didn't make Aristotle's list, I guess.)
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Also used by unskeptics. "20,000 scientists signed this petition!"

And "everyone does it" would be yet another example of this fallacy.

Straw man. Nobody argues this.
Yes, they do.

That's not what red herring means.

False distractor? Yes, I think it is.

Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears. My concerns for various species of plant or animal on this planet are as follows, in this order:
1) Homo sapiens

I see damned little evidence of man being a top priority in any of the environmentalist policy.

But polar bear are cute.

Straw man.

No, it's not.

Fits your definition of a red herring. The models aren't actually programmed that way.

Yes, they are. Programmers know full well that when they stick strong positive feedbacks in the models they will produce results with strong warming. Predetermined outcome.

Yes, those people are wrong. Al Gore isn't a scientist.

The article is about AGW advocates, which Gore is certainly one, but Al Gore isn't the IPCC, which is supposed to be a scientific body. There's no evidence that weather is any more extreme than usual.


Straw man. Nobody says the fact that ice is melting proves humans are doing it.

No, they are ginning up fear about it. They are trying to show it's a problem.

Says a man who routinely uses derisive terminology for global warming advocates.

Like what?

I've heard similar from your side.

Perhaps, but they don't reach the level seen from the AGW advocates, which includes a full blown video production.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Problems with your post:

1) Where did you copy and paste them from?

I take it you have trouble seeing links in the text. You might check your browser settings.

2) You cite a Greek philosopher but use Latin names

So?

3) These are NOT Aristotle's fallacies from Sophistical Refutations, that list can be found here Sophistical Refutations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe you shouldn't trust something from a ridiculous website like "whatsupwiththat.com"

Oh, so you did see the link.

No, it's pretty much the same list with english names and stated somewhat differently, more formally. (And you cite a Greek philospher and use English names? :2razz:)

A person with no intellectual heft will have difficulty with condescention.

4) Never heard of the "Argument From Fallacy" or "Fallacy Fallacy" basically standing that even if an argument contains a fallacy that it may still be true? Or that it at least is not proven to be false or truth and remains unknown?

Yes, the fact that one part of an argument is false doesn't necessarily refute everything else a person says. See Bjorn Borg and his critics.

Poor quality work Lowdown, I'm used to better spam from you.

How tiresome. :roll:
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First off, unless one is a climatologist that has done and published for peer review a significant amount of work on climate change, then it's always going to be an appeal to authority. It is the height of arrogance to assume that something has to occurred to Joe Blow on an internet forum that has not occurred to scientists that have spent a lifetime studying and working in their field. When arguing science, you always have to cite the work done by scientists in that field.

An appeal to authority in and of itself is not appropriate. Only when the argument the authority makes is brought into the discussion and only if credible and only if it withstands challenge is it appropriate. I've read tens of thousands of scientific articles in my time and not once have I seen it written that something is such because so-in-so says so. People are cited in articles to point to previous work done where one may read about how it was done, what the results were, and so on. 90% of the time one could care less who they were or where they are.

Secondly, a consensus is very important. A layman does not have the body of knowledge necessary to properly evaluate the state of existing science on AGW. Few people would argue that all they would need to successfully do a heart bypass themselves simply by reading a few blogs. Yet for some reason they think they can read a few blogs and know something that the vast majority of climate scientists don't.

Saying that there is a consensus per say does not further an argument. Only when what the consensus is, why it is what it is and so on is brought into the discussion and it withstands challenge is it appropriate.

Recall that opposition to Galileo's model of the solar system was the consensus of learned secular scientists of the day. (They didn't think that he had proven his case.)
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I take it you have trouble seeing links in the text. You might check your browser settings.



So?



Oh, so you did see the link.

No, it's pretty much the same list with english names and stated somewhat differently, more formally. (And you cite a Greek philospher and use English names? :2razz:)

A person with no intellectual heft will have difficulty with condescention.



Yes, the fact that one part of an argument is false doesn't necessarily refute everything else a person says. See Bjorn Borg and his critics.



How tiresome. :roll:

Its not the same list, this is the list from wikipedia

Accent or emphasis
Amphibology
Equivocation
Composition
Division
Figure of speech

Material fallacies

Accident
Affirming the consequent
Converse accident
Irrelevant conclusion
Begging the question
False cause
Fallacy of many questions

that is not your list.

Also you said he created a dozen, there's actually 13 here and your list contains 11.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,181
Reaction score
16,141
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
An appeal to authority in and of itself is not appropriate. Only when the argument the authority makes is brought into the discussion and only if credible and only if it withstands challenge is it appropriate. I've read tens of thousands of scientific articles in my time and not once have I seen it written that something is such because so-in-so says so. People are cited in articles to point to previous work done where one may read about how it was done, what the results were, and so on. 90% of the time one could care less who they were or where they are.

Yes, but if one cites peer reviewed research or studies when arguing a scientific issue, then its not sufficient simply to counter that with some guy's blog post. Personally, I see much more in the way of "appeals to authority" by skeptics than I do by those that accept AGW Theory. For example, its not at all uncommon for someone to post either a link to a published study, or an article about a published study, only for a skeptic to then to either dismiss it out of hand (as if something occurred to them that did not occur to those scientists working in that field), or to then quote a blog post by a guy like Fred Singer - which is precisely nothing but an appeal to authority on their part when faced with the results of an empirical study.

Saying that there is a consensus per say does not further an argument. Only when what the consensus is, why it is what it is and so on is brought into the discussion and it withstands challenge is it appropriate.

Of course pointing out a that there is a consensus is appropriate. That is like saying that its not appropriate when discussing evolution with a creationist to point out that there is a strong consensus in favor of evolution, that in fact its a foundational law of modern biology.

Recall that opposition to Galileo's model of the solar system was the consensus of learned secular scientists of the day. (They didn't think that he had proven his case.)

That is a highly flawed comparison. Galileo's work was before the scientific method, naturalism in science, and peer review. The only way it would be comparable today would be if a religion were to reject a scientific law on the basis that it goes against their religious beliefs. Much like a fundamentalist rejects modern geology or the age of the earth, or when a fundamentalist rejects AGW theory because they believe God controls the climate.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Its not the same list, this is the list from wikipedia

Accent or emphasis
Amphibology
Equivocation
Composition
Division
Figure of speech

Material fallacies

Accident
Affirming the consequent
Converse accident
Irrelevant conclusion
Begging the question
False cause
Fallacy of many questions

that is not your list.

Also you said he created a dozen, there's actually 13 here and your list contains 11.

Picky picky.

Looks like some match up with your list and others don't.

Some on my list show up in one form or another in Aristotle's book as derivations of the basic list.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, but if one cites peer reviewed research or studies when arguing a scientific issue, then its not sufficient simply to counter that with some guy's blog post. Personally, I see much more in the way of "appeals to authority" by skeptics than I do by those that accept AGW Theory. For example, its not at all uncommon for someone to post either a link to a published study, or an article about a published study, only for a skeptic to then to either dismiss it out of hand (as if something occurred to them that did not occur to those scientists working in that field), or to then quote a blog post by a guy like Fred Singer - which is precisely nothing but an appeal to authority on their part when faced with the results of an empirical study.

Nope. It depends entirely on what the arguments are regardless of who states them. It's only natural for lay people to side with the mainstream experts since they often can't evaluate the science for themselves, but that's not good enough when it comes to deciding what policy ought to be.

Of course pointing out a that there is a consensus is appropriate. That is like saying that its not appropriate when discussing evolution with a creationist to point out that there is a strong consensus in favor of evolution, that in fact its a foundational law of modern biology.

No, the foundation of science is what the truth is. The one guy who has it right trumps the consensus. Especially since, as is currently the case, almost half of meterologists and a third of climate scientists are skeptical of AGW. Even among biologists there is a wide range of opinions concerning how evolution actually happened even if they all agree about the general outline of it.

That is a highly flawed comparison. Galileo's work was before the scientific method, naturalism in science, and peer review. The only way it would be comparable today would be if a religion were to reject a scientific law on the basis that it goes against their religious beliefs. Much like a fundamentalist rejects modern geology or the age of the earth, or when a fundamentalist rejects AGW theory because they believe God controls the climate.

Sorry to see you buy that BS about Galileo. The Church was just going along with what their own secular scholars and scientists, of which Galileo was one, were saying. It got nasty when Galileo got nasty and insulted his patron, the Pope, as well as most of the rest of the scholars. After that they were out to get him. It wasn't as if the Church resisted new discovery. When Galileo showed that there were mountains on the moon the Pope declared a three day holiday to celebrate the discovery. Nor was it like he was always right. His theory about the tides fell flat - it predicted 1 high tide a day at Florence and there are 2.

The disagreement between Galileo and other scholars was one of how to interpret data he had collected on the motion of the planets, sun, and moon. The other scholars thought that he had not proven his hypothesis about the motion of the earth around the sun. It was a scientific dispute. The Church got rough when the Pope told him to keep a civil tongue in his mouth, and he didn't.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,181
Reaction score
16,141
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Nope. It depends entirely on what the arguments are regardless of who states them. It's only natural for lay people to side with the mainstream experts since they often can't evaluate the science for themselves, but that's not good enough when it comes to deciding what policy ought to be.

That is why we have the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific societies to evaluate the current state of science on an issue. By the way, their position, as well as every other major scientific society in the modern world with expertise on climate and thermal physics, officially support the consensus on AGW. The rest of your post I am not going to get into because we are getting off on quite a tangent with it.

If one is deciding policy, should they go with the National Academy of Sciences position, or the position of some contrarian bloggers?
 
Top Bottom