[onoway]

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-30, 07:52, said:

The main local university here is Michigan Tech and my experience from another small sample echoes yours. Our tea party congressman spoke at a meeting here a few months ago and said that he did not know whether the buildup of CO2 caused warming or not. An articulate young physics professor stood up and said, "Let me educate you about that." After a few sentences, the congressman cut her off by saying, in effect, that he didn't have the background to evaluate her statements. (In real life, he's a physician, so likely not too bright.)

maybe he didn't like being "educated" by a woman either.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-29, 19:59, said:

The media tends to report what their perceive as newsworthy - accuracy be damned. Also, the supposed consensus is a media creation, meant to validate their viewpoint. Those that think scientists are in agreement on the issue, have been taken in by the media.

Unless you have personally interviewed on this subject every scientist in the world, I would suggest that your own views are created by "media" of some sort. Blaming misinformation on the "evil (liberal) media" is a hallmark of the right wing of American politics. Oddly, right wingers tend to be the strongest advocates of doubt.

[Daniel1960]

 billw55, on 2013-May-30, 06:16, said:

Not in my direct experience. I am fortunate to live in a community with a major university, and have had opportunities to speak with several scientists about the issue, including climate scientists. From this admittedly small sample, the agreement that (a) global warming is real, and (b) human activity is contributing, is 100%.

I live in a slightly larger community, which has a significant number of scientists in a large university, industrial research, and government. The agreement to a and b above are near 100% (only 1 scientist claiming no human contribution). However, what is missing is the amount that human activity is contributing ©. This ranges from 0 (the previous scientist) to over 100% (natural cooling process have offset warming). This appears to mirror the overall "consensus"; that the globe has warmed, mankind is contributing, but the proportion is highly uncertain. Many people are asserting than since a and b are true, that c must necessarily follow. That is not the case. The amount that mankind is contributing to climatic warming is most important, and has repercussions as to the resulting outcomes, and appropriate responses. Even the most fervent adherents to the AGW theory acknowledge this in their explanations as to the recent warming "hiatus."

[blackshoe]

 onoway, on 2013-May-30, 08:52, said:

maybe he didn't like being "educated" by a woman either.

Or maybe he figured the "education" was off topic and they didn't have time for it.

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-30, 09:13, said:

Unless you have personally interviewed on this subject every scientist in the world, I would suggest that your own views are created by "media" of some sort. Blaming misinformation on the "evil (liberal) media" is a hallmark of the right wing of American politics. Oddly, right wingers tend to be the strongest advocates of doubt.

Of course, the left wing blames misinformation on the "Conservative" media factions. If you listen to the lefty-sided media, you would think that the planet was headed for catastrophic warming of 2-5C, while the right-sided media would say that we are not likely to warm at all. If the Earth maintains its present warming trend of ~0.6C/century, which side (if any) would you consider to be more accurate?
Ironically, the word "consensus" appeared in print concerning the cooling trend of the 1970s - even though none existed then either. Here are a few interesting stories of the day:

id=SGYRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6529,7703615&dq=allintitle:+ice+age&hl=en
http://denisdutton.c...oling_world.htm

I do not need to interview every scientist to conclude that there is no consensus on the relative cause of the previously observed warming. Those on the left have always tended to express more certainty in their beliefs than those on the right, so it should come as no surprise. The Left was more certain both that the U.S. should send troops to Vietnam initially, and then withdraw them later.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 11:24, said:

Ironically, the word "consensus" appeared in print concerning the cooling trend of the 1970s - even though none existed then either. Here are a few interesting stories of the day:

id=SGYRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6529,7703615&dq=allintitle:+ice+age&hl=en
http://denisdutton.c...oling_world.htm

This has to be the most ridiculous example of false equivalence that I have ever seen.

The fact that Newsweek (inaccurately) claimed that there was consensus amongst climate scientists regarding global cooling in the 1970s is completely irrelevent.

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 11:24, said:

I do not need to interview every scientist to conclude that there is no consensus on the relative cause of the previously observed warming. Those on the left have always tended to express more certainty in their beliefs than those on the right, so it should come as no surprise. The Left was more certain both that the U.S. should send troops to Vietnam initially, and then withdraw them later.

From my perspective, fact that the magnitude of the eventual damage from global warming cannot be predicted accurately means that we should be taking strong measures now to stem the spewing of CO2. If later we learn that the threat is less serious, we can temper the response. This is uncharted territory, and conservatism tells us to avoid risking a potential catastrophe.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-30, 11:29, said:

This has to be the most ridiculous example of false equivalence that I have ever seen.

The fact that Newsweek (inaccurately) claimed that there was consensus amongst climate scientists regarding global cooling in the 1970s is completely irrelevent.

It is no more irrelevant than recent claims of consensus. The appeal to authority theme is common among those who cannot back up their claims with evidence.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 11:24, said:

I do not need to interview every scientist to conclude that there is no consensus on the relative cause of the previously observed warming.

For those who are tracking things, the next stage in the modified Kubler-Ross model is

"Even if humans are responsible for all the warming, its too expensive to try to change things"

[dwar0123]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 12:22, said:

It is no more irrelevant than recent claims of consensus. The appeal to authority theme is common among those who cannot back up their claims with evidence.

So those that can not back up their claims with evidence appeal to the authority of scientists who can?

Sounds like how it should work among those who are not experts in the field.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is always a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the authority isn't an authority on the subject matter.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 11:24, said:

Of course, the left wing blames misinformation on the "Conservative" media factions. If you listen to the lefty-sided media, you would think that the planet was headed for catastrophic warming of 2-5C, while the right-sided media would say that we are not likely to warm at all. If the Earth maintains its present warming trend of ~0.6C/century, which side (if any) would you consider to be more accurate?

The answer to an artificially constructed question is irrelevant. The only questions to address are these: is there a causal link between the increase in CO2 from human activities and increased global temperatures. If there is, what, if anything, should be done about it.

Considering appeal to authority:

Quote

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.

Using a peer-reviewed study on climate change consensus among peer-reviewed and published climatologists would hardly be considered a fallacious appeal to authority.

The fallacy would be using the opinion of a physicist or meteorologist as an expert on global climate.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 11:24, said:

If you listen to the lefty-sided media, you would think that the planet was headed for catastrophic warming of 2-5C, while the right-sided media would say that we are not likely to warm at all.

I guess there is no neutral media left anywhere in the world, so could you please furnish us all with a list of left-sided versus right-sided media outlets - or do we simply listen to their AGW message and know from that message whether they are liberal or conservative? Worse, yet, what happens if Fox News suddenly supports AGW? Would that mean that Rupert has gone lefty?

[nige1]

By their very nature, scientific theories can't be certain. Passed_out mentioned the Smoking debate ...

Nowadays, many people think smoking is bad for your health. But, for a long time, tobacco-company scientists debunked the cause-effect case. For example, they said that people, susceptible to cancer, are more likely to take up smoking; and that conclusions from animal-studies can't be extrapolated to humans. The tobacco-company scientists may still be right. Nowadays, however, fewer people are prepared to risk flouting the conclusions of more main-stream medical-research.

Similarly, with global warming: Politicians can't afford to ignore the tentative conclusions of main-stream research. If those conclusions are right, complacency is a hostage to fortune. It helps business in the short-term but may inflict dire consequences, globally, on future generations.

A problem is that effective solutions may be unpopular. For example, breeder-reactors may make more sense than tidal-barrages and wind-farms.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 12:22, said:

It is no more irrelevant than recent claims of consensus.

1. The Newsweek article is is reporting false information.

This can be easily demonstrated by surveying scientific publications from the 1970s. (Winston quoted from one such source yesterday. I listed another the same day).

You yourself admitted that the claims that there was consensus around global cooling are incorrect.

2. My claims that there is rough consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change are well supported. Moreover, this consensus has been strengthening over time.

NASA directly states that

Quote

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

and cites the following artiles

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

At this point in time are no scientific bodies of national or international standing that dissent from the IPCC view.
The majority of these bodies support the IPCC view with a small minority taking a non-committal stance.
The last dissenting organization was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists which switch its position to non-committal in 2007.

If you can't admit to the difference between these two cases, that just pathetic.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-30, 13:15, said:

1. The Newsweek article is is reporting false information.

This can be easily demonstrated by surveying scientific publications from the 1970s. (Winston quoted from one such source yesterday. I listed another the same day).

You yourself admitted that the claims that there was consensus around global cooling are incorrect.

Yes, I stated that both claims of a consensus are incorrect.

2. My claims that there is rough consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change are well supported. Moreover, this consensus has been strengthening over time.

NASA directly states that



and cites the following artiles

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

At this point in time are no scientific bodies of national or international standing that dissent from the IPCC view.
The majority of these bodies support the IPCC view with a small minority taking a non-committal stance.
The last dissenting organization was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists which switch its position to non-committal in 2007.

If you can't admit to the difference between these two cases, that just pathetic.

In the 1970s there was a general acceptance among scientists that the globe had cooled (scientific research stated 0.6C since 1950), the Arctic sea ice was expanding, and the growing season had been shortened by up to two weeks. Furthermore, a recent tornado outbreak was blamed on the cooler weather (nevermind that the occurrance of strong torandoes, F3+, has been decreasing every decade since the 1950s). Geoengineering plans were suggested to blacken the Arctic to increase incoming solar radiation - this may have accidentally happened anyway. Some scientists claimed that this was natural, and that it was the start of a new ice age, others thought is was due to human pollution. Reaonable scientists concluded that we do not have enough data to make an accurate assessment. Sound familiar?

While there does not appear to be any reasonable dispute that the globe has warmed since the 1970s, there is no agreement as to whether natural or manmade cause are predominating. All your references show just that. Agreement regarding warming, no agreement on causes.

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-30, 12:52, said:

The answer to an artificially constructed question is irrelevant. The only questions to address are these: is there a causal link between the increase in CO2 from human activities and increased global temperatures. If there is, what, if anything, should be done about it.

Considering appeal to authority:



Using a peer-reviewed study on climate change consensus among peer-reviewed and published climatologists would hardly be considered a fallacious appeal to authority.

The fallacy would be using the opinion of a physicist or meteorologist as an expert on global climate.

Actually the opinions of a physcist or meteoroligist are likely to be more reliable. Climatology teaches that the warming is caused by man, hence the large proportion of climatologists who support it. Climatology is a relatively new field, with much fewer and younger scientists. Prior to its establishment, most published climate research was performed by Physicists and Meteorologists, who have collectively more experience. To exclude the most experienced scientists from a study would seem to promote the fallacy. By the way, James Hansen is a physicist (astro-physicist to be exact).

A casual link would not be enough to verify the AGW theory. The warming would need to be caused by CO2, not a result thereof, or a the result of third force affecting both. What if CO2 was only responsible for 25% of the observed warming? With an unabated 21st increase of CO2, the associated warming would only ne 0.2C, and the overall result could be cooling, if natural cooling forces are greater. Even at a 50:50 mix, warming would continue at the 130-yr rate of 0.6C/century. Without the postulated large, positive feedback loops, the CO2 increase will not have the predicted, catastrophic effects.

[dwar0123]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-30, 13:55, said:

While there does not appear to be any reasonable dispute that the globe has warmed since the 1970s, there is no agreement as to whether natural or manmade cause are predominating. All your references show just that. Agreement regarding warming, no agreement on causes.

It's amazing what you can get away with when you inject a new requirement like predominating.

[Daniel1960]

 dwar0123, on 2013-May-30, 14:12, said:

It's amazing what you can get away with when you inject a new requirement like predominating.

That is nothing new. That is the previous posters are claiming. If you wish to something more mundane like, CO2 has contributed, then fine, you are likely to get near unanimity. But that is not what supporters of the AGW theory state. See my previous post, about the outcome of a small CO2 contribution to global warming.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-30, 12:52, said:

The only questions to address are these: is there a causal link between the increase in CO2 from human activities and increased global temperatures.

I'd say that the most important question to ask Daniel is the following:

"Is there anything we can say or do to get you to shut up and leave us alone?"

Believe it or not, the main purpose of this forum is a community that focuses on discussing bridge.
Since your arrival here, you've contributed a grand total of zero topics outside the watercooler.

You aren't here to discuss bridge.
You aren't here to be part of the community.
You're an annoying troll.

There's an old saying "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
In your case, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you credit for both.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2013-May-30, 15:40, said:

I'd say that the most important question to ask Daniel is the following:
"Is there anything we can say or do to get you to shut up and leave us alone?"
Believe it or not, the main purpose of this forum is a community that focuses on discussing bridge.
Since your arrival here, you've contributed a grand total of zero topics outside the watercooler.
You aren't here to discuss bridge.
You aren't here to be part of the community.
You're an annoying troll.
There's an old saying "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
In your case, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you credit for both.

Please Hrothgar, desist, or it is you who will be leaving us