American Physical Society sets climate deniers straight

macdoc · 16th November 2009, 06:06 AM

in no uncertain terms....

Quote:

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison)

continues

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...nier-petition/

related

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-si...tition-exposed

and that's hardly all recently

Quote:

Last month, scientific institutions released a statement about climate change.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. …

contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.

Who were those minor little organizations that put their institutional power and reputation behind those words?

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

APS’s continuing review of the petition is what led to it not being among them.

And, a month later, the APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement and, implicitly, joins those 18 institutions in seeking to inject science into the policy discussion about how best to tackle climate change.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/2...ally-and-if-w/

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 07:30 PM

Ouch, that's pretty damning. I wonder where all of our AGW-deniers are? Weren't many of them the ones crowing on and on about how all of these physicists were signing on to statements which denied climate science?

That's some pretty hilarious fail...

riptowtan · 16th November 2009, 07:37 PM

Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere.

Eyeron · 16th November 2009, 07:37 PM

Sorry, but this won't stop them and they'll do what they can to be as disruptive as possible.

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by riptowtan

Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere.

Linky

CapelDodger · 16th November 2009, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by riptowtan

Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

RealClimate of course http://www.realclimate.org/

Climate Progress keeps up with the latest junk http://climateprogress.org/

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Sorry, but this won't stop them and they'll do what they can to be as disruptive as possible.

True, but it is yet one more piece of evidence which reveals the deniers & their tactics for what they really are... and it just might help convince legitimate fence-sitters.

macdoc · 16th November 2009, 07:54 PM

What I found amusing was it now puts the instigators of the survey firmly into the conspiracy camp.
They put out quite the effort.

Quote:

The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

so much for the innocent inquirers - organized manufactured controversy.

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by macdoc

What I found amusing was it now puts the instigators of the survey firmly into the conspiracy camp.
They put quite the effort.

so much for the innocent inquirers - organized manufactured controversy.

I think "cynical, lying bastards" would be a more appropriate description

GreNME · 16th November 2009, 08:05 PM

Hey, the anti-Climate-Change folk are Just Asking Questions™ about the subject.

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 08:11 PM

You know what would be really great? If someone could dig up that old thread about the APS's members signing on to the AGW-deniers' petition...

Oh, lookee what I found

APS's 50,000 physicists are off the Global Warming woo

GreNME · 16th November 2009, 08:34 PM

I'm sure mhaze and kallsop are typing up their cogent and logical explanations for this news right now...

BenBurch · 16th November 2009, 08:38 PM

I don't think the deniers will have even one word to say on this one. They would rather let it drop off the front page.

lomiller · 16th November 2009, 09:27 PM

the silence is deafening...

MattusMaximus · 16th November 2009, 09:38 PM

Yup, it sure is...

Btw, I just put together a little blog post on this - enjoy

lomiller · 16th November 2009, 09:57 PM

in other news it looks like bristlecone pines make excellent thermometers afterall

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116163206.htm

I wonder if they will be equally silent about that

Quote:

Increasing temperatures at high altitudes are fueling the post-1950 growth spurt seen in bristlecone pines, the world's oldest trees, according to new research.

Megalodon · 17th November 2009, 12:43 AM

Funny how nobody is coming to counter the OP.

Lukraak_Sisser · 17th November 2009, 02:53 AM

Personally I've never really seen what the problem with combatting human pollution is.

Even if the AGW'ers are right and all the scientific data pointing to a human component to global climate change is just a pure coincidence, why is it BAD to stop pumping so much random pollutants into the air?
Most of the stuff is poison to either humans or the environment, so surely not doing that makes sense regardless?

I know the economic impact is often cited, but will it really be so much worse than, to name but a random example, greedy bankers plunging the whole world into a depression?
At least we can plan for whatever the extra costs of cleaner life would be.

BenBurch · 17th November 2009, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Funny how nobody is coming to counter the OP.

They can't even SEE it. I am convinced that some people are so psychologically effected by ideology that they can look right at something and never have their minds acknowledge that it is there.

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 07:20 AM

I've never been one who made the argument from authority to begin with, and I'm not impressed by this latest instance of it.

Megalodon · 17th November 2009, 07:51 AM

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject.

You can also follow Mattus' link to get acquainted with the background history.

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject.

In other words he is never one to accept a logically sound argument?

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 08:15 AM

Ok, more seriously. All discussions of technical or scientific topics between layman are ultimately arguments from authority. The key isn’t to think you are smart enough to understand everything, that’ll just make you fodder for con artists. What you need to do is develop a toolkit to identify legitimate authorities and valid sources of information.

MattusMaximus · 17th November 2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

I've never been one who made the argument from authority to begin with, and I'm not impressed by this latest instance of it.

Okay, so evidence that the GW-deniers claims about the APS "revolt" are shown to be absolutely false is somehow an argument from authority?

Wow

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject.

No, it's still a fallacy if the authority is an authority.

Originally Posted by lomiller

In other words he is never one to accept a logically sound argument?

I've considered (and continue to consider) the arguments. I accept that there is likely a warming trend in the works, and there is likely an anthropogenic component contributing to that trend.

I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire.

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 08:44 AM

Seems you need to learn a little more about what is/isn’t a logically sound argument. Citing a legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, the logical fallacy is the argument from illegitimate authority.

Ivor the Engineer · 17th November 2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

<snip>

I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire.

What would convince you?

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

What would convince you?

excellent question.

Megalodon · 17th November 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

No, it's still a fallacy if the authority is an authority.

You are quite wrong. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it concerns a false authority. For instance:

-Al Gore says AGW is true;
-Al Gore received a Nobel Prize;
-What Al says it's true.

This is a fallacious argument, since Gore has no claim to expertise in the science of GW.

But if you say:

-Almost all Science Academies and/or Institutes in the world say AGW is in all probability real;
-These are almost all the Science Academies and Institutes in the freaking world, whose members do almost all of the Science in said spheroid;
-AGW is in all probability real.

Then it's not a fallacious argument.

Quote:

I've considered (and continue to consider) the arguments. I accept that there is likely a warming trend in the works, and there is likely an anthropogenic component contributing to that trend.

I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire.

Yes, we know, you're in the fence... but somehow always using the arguments of the small swamp of fail inside that fence.

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Seems you need to learn a little more about what is/isn’t a logically sound argument.

One of us does.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Citing a legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, the logical fallacy is the argument from illegitimate authority.

Not exactly. The fact that one is a legitimate authority does not mean one's conclusion is correct. Newton was a legitimate authority in the field of light, and the weight of his authority delayed recognition of the wave nature of light for decades. While an authority's conclusions may be more likely to be correct, and may deservedly be accorded more credibility than the conclusions of someone who is not recognized as an authority, authorities are not infallible. For most of the 20th century, the consensus opinion by authorities was that plate tectonics (or "continental drift") was a load of nonsense, demonstrating that a gaggle of authorities is also fallible.

I recognize you folks and PopTech like to compile lists of authorities; I prefer to consider the arguments themselves.

bokonon · 17th November 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Ok, more seriously. All discussions of technical or scientific topics between layman are ultimately arguments from authority. The key isn’t to think you are smart enough to understand everything, that’ll just make you fodder for con artists. What you need to do is develop a toolkit to identify legitimate authorities and valid sources of information.

I disagree. Relying on authorities is ultimately just an excuse to avoid thinking for yourself. I may not be smart enough to understand everything, but I'm smart enough to understand anything, and if it's important to me, I'll spend time trying to determine the facts and draw my own conclusions.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Okay, so evidence that the GW-deniers claims about the APS "revolt" are shown to be absolutely false is somehow an argument from authority?

Wow

It's an argument from authority if you're using it to say something about the truth and extent of AGW. If the purpose of the OP was simply to address some claim I ignored about an APS revolt, then no, I'd say that claim has been refuted.

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 09:54 AM

Bokonon, there is no particular rule in science that says experts can’t change their opinion on a subject. When they do the same rule regarding argument from authority still apply I..E. “is said person an authority”, “is there general agreement between authorities in the field” “was the person truly making that claim”.

If the consensus view of the experts change then the laymen should indeed follow. Laymen who think they can spend a few hours reading on the internet and know better then the experts field who have dedicated most of their lives to studying the question is a classic hallmark of the people sucked in by woo.

macdoc · 17th November 2009, 10:01 AM

Boko
To have an "informed opinion" on the science one must have some basic grasp of the science.

Failing that, established scientists working in the field MUST provide guidance.

That you neither have the first nor accept the second .....well.....conclusions can be drawn.

MattusMaximus · 17th November 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

It's an argument from authority if you're using it to say something about the truth and extent of AGW. If the purpose of the OP was simply to address some claim I ignored about an APS revolt, then no, I'd say that claim has been refuted.

Point taken. It is the latter, of course.

ETA: Still waiting for our pals kallsop, mhaze, PopTech to show up...

MattusMaximus · 17th November 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by bokonon

I recognize you folks and PopTech like to compile lists of authorities; I prefer to consider the arguments themselves.

That's what I have done for over 20 years on this topic, and it's why I've - slowly but surely - moved from legitimate GW-skeptic to having currently accepted the reality of AGW. But I do still have some questions, like you. For instance, the extent and projected outcomes of AGW are some areas of much greater scientific uncertainty, but that's for another thread, methinks.

lomiller · 17th November 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by macdoc

Failing that, established scientists working in the field MUST provide guidance.

Clearly you need to do this anyway, otherwise you don’t have any data to consider to begin with. The far right in the US has long since adopted the attitude that they don’t really need to deal in fact, they only need to control where their subjects go for information. Again, it’s an example of the trouble you can get into if you don’t have a suitable toolbox for identifying credible sources of information.

lionking · 17th November 2009, 01:52 PM

In relation to the petition, I would like an honest answer. Would anyone here put their name on a document, even if they thought it was accurate, if they knew without doubt that they would metaphorically be put in stocks and have rubbish thrown at them by a mob yelling "kill the witch"?

Megalodon · 17th November 2009, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

In relation to the petition, I would like an honest answer. Would anyone here put their name on a document, even if they thought it was accurate, if they knew without doubt that they would metaphorically be put in stocks and have rubbish thrown at them by a mob yelling "kill the witch"?

And tell me where that has happened? There are respected scientists that disagree with AGW, and weren't persecuted for it. It's only when you are utterly dishonest that you are vilified, and even then more softly and politely than in other fields.

As for your question, yes. I had my name in a petition supporting AGW theory at a time where the simple mention of it could kill your grant application. Some colleagues thought I was wrong, the data turned their opinion over the years.

lionking · 17th November 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

And tell me where that has happened? There are respected scientists that disagree with AGW, and weren't persecuted for it. It's only when you are utterly dishonest that you are vilified, and even then more softly and politely than in other fields.

It's not fellow scientists, in the main, who would be hurling the rubbish. I mean, look at the tone of this thread.

And further, you acknowledge that airing unpopular opinion can kill grant applications. Why would a scientist, nowadays, put his or her name to a petition knowing this will be the outcome?

Guybrush Threepwood · 17th November 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

In relation to the petition, I would like an honest answer. Would anyone here put their name on a document, even if they thought it was accurate, if they knew without doubt that they would metaphorically be put in stocks and have rubbish thrown at them by a mob yelling "kill the witch"?

Do you read the posts in this forum? I can think of at least 20 posters off the top of my head who would regard that as an inducement to sign

Personally, If the vilification was the only result, then I wouldn't. If I thought that the evil environmentalists had gagged the entire scientific establishment with their global conspiracy in order to destroy capitalism, then I would sign if I thought it would help destroy the conspiracy.

16th November 2009, 06:06 AM	#1
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	American Physical Society sets climate deniers straight in no uncertain terms.... Quote: Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on. It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage. Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison) continues http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...nier-petition/ related http://www.desmogblog.com/another-si...tition-exposed and that's hardly all recently Quote: Last month, scientific institutions released a statement about climate change. Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. … contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. Who were those minor little organizations that put their institutional power and reputation behind those words? American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Society of Agronomy American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research APS’s continuing review of the petition is what led to it not being among them. And, a month later, the APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement and, implicitly, joins those 18 institutions in seeking to inject science into the policy discussion about how best to tackle climate change. http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/2...ally-and-if-w/
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

16th November 2009, 07:30 PM	#2
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Ouch, that's pretty damning. I wonder where all of our AGW-deniers are? Weren't many of them the ones crowing on and on about how all of these physicists were signing on to statements which denied climate science? That's some pretty hilarious fail...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti Last edited by MattusMaximus; 16th November 2009 at 07:31 PM.

16th November 2009, 07:37 PM	#3
riptowtan Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 62	Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere.
riptowtan Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 62

16th November 2009, 07:37 PM	#4
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Sorry, but this won't stop them and they'll do what they can to be as disruptive as possible.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

16th November 2009, 07:44 PM	#5
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by riptowtan Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere. Linky
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

16th November 2009, 07:44 PM	#6
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 14,137	Originally Posted by riptowtan Anyone have any good books or websites that go over and debunk all of the AGW deniers claims? I know this forum has tons of threads on the subject but I was wondering if there is a nice summary somewhere. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ RealClimate of course http://www.realclimate.org/ Climate Progress keeps up with the latest junk http://climateprogress.org/
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

16th November 2009, 07:45 PM	#7
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by Eyeron Sorry, but this won't stop them and they'll do what they can to be as disruptive as possible. True, but it is yet one more piece of evidence which reveals the deniers & their tactics for what they really are... and it just might help convince legitimate fence-sitters.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

16th November 2009, 07:54 PM	#8
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	What I found amusing was it now puts the instigators of the survey firmly into the conspiracy camp. They put out quite the effort. Quote: The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage. so much for the innocent inquirers - organized manufactured controversy.
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.} Last edited by macdoc; 16th November 2009 at 07:56 PM.

16th November 2009, 07:55 PM	#9
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by macdoc What I found amusing was it now puts the instigators of the survey firmly into the conspiracy camp. They put quite the effort. so much for the innocent inquirers - organized manufactured controversy. I think "cynical, lying bastards" would be a more appropriate description
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

16th November 2009, 08:05 PM	#10
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Hey, the anti-Climate-Change folk are Just Asking Questions™ about the subject.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

16th November 2009, 08:11 PM	#11
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	You know what would be really great? If someone could dig up that old thread about the APS's members signing on to the AGW-deniers' petition... Oh, lookee what I found APS's 50,000 physicists are off the Global Warming woo
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

16th November 2009, 08:34 PM	#12
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	I'm sure mhaze and kallsop are typing up their cogent and logical explanations for this news right now...
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

16th November 2009, 08:38 PM	#13
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	I don't think the deniers will have even one word to say on this one. They would rather let it drop off the front page.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

16th November 2009, 09:27 PM	#14
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	the silence is deafening...
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

16th November 2009, 09:38 PM	#15
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Yup, it sure is... Btw, I just put together a little blog post on this - enjoy
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

16th November 2009, 09:57 PM	#16
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	in other news it looks like bristlecone pines make excellent thermometers afterall http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116163206.htm I wonder if they will be equally silent about that Quote: Increasing temperatures at high altitudes are fueling the post-1950 growth spurt seen in bristlecone pines, the world's oldest trees, according to new research.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 12:43 AM	#17
Megalodon Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,847	Funny how nobody is coming to counter the OP.
	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

17th November 2009, 02:53 AM	#18
Lukraak_Sisser Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 97	Personally I've never really seen what the problem with combatting human pollution is. Even if the AGW'ers are right and all the scientific data pointing to a human component to global climate change is just a pure coincidence, why is it BAD to stop pumping so much random pollutants into the air? Most of the stuff is poison to either humans or the environment, so surely not doing that makes sense regardless? I know the economic impact is often cited, but will it really be so much worse than, to name but a random example, greedy bankers plunging the whole world into a depression? At least we can plan for whatever the extra costs of cleaner life would be.
Lukraak_Sisser Scholar Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 97

17th November 2009, 06:53 AM	#19
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,786	Originally Posted by Megalodon Funny how nobody is coming to counter the OP. They can't even SEE it. I am convinced that some people are so psychologically effected by ideology that they can look right at something and never have their minds acknowledge that it is there.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

17th November 2009, 07:20 AM	#20
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	I've never been one who made the argument from authority to begin with, and I'm not impressed by this latest instance of it.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 07:51 AM	#21
Megalodon Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,847	Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject. You can also follow Mattus' link to get acquainted with the background history.
	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

17th November 2009, 08:08 AM	#22
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	Originally Posted by Megalodon Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject. In other words he is never one to accept a logically sound argument?
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 08:15 AM	#23
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	Ok, more seriously. All discussions of technical or scientific topics between layman are ultimately arguments from authority. The key isn’t to think you are smart enough to understand everything, that’ll just make you fodder for con artists. What you need to do is develop a toolkit to identify legitimate authorities and valid sources of information.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 08:19 AM	#24
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by bokonon I've never been one who made the argument from authority to begin with, and I'm not impressed by this latest instance of it. Okay, so evidence that the GW-deniers claims about the APS "revolt" are shown to be absolutely false is somehow an argument from authority? Wow
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

17th November 2009, 08:29 AM	#25
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by Megalodon Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an authority in the subject. No, it's still a fallacy if the authority is an authority. Originally Posted by lomiller In other words he is never one to accept a logically sound argument? I've considered (and continue to consider) the arguments. I accept that there is likely a warming trend in the works, and there is likely an anthropogenic component contributing to that trend. I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 08:44 AM	#26
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	Seems you need to learn a little more about what is/isn’t a logically sound argument. Citing a legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, the logical fallacy is the argument from illegitimate authority.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 08:45 AM	#27
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by bokonon <snip> I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire. What would convince you?
	__________________ "Nothing is impossible for an engineer." - Isambard Kingdom Brunel

17th November 2009, 08:57 AM	#28
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer What would convince you? excellent question.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 09:19 AM	#29
Megalodon Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,847	Originally Posted by bokonon No, it's still a fallacy if the authority is an authority. You are quite wrong. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it concerns a false authority. For instance: -Al Gore says AGW is true; -Al Gore received a Nobel Prize; -What Al says it's true. This is a fallacious argument, since Gore has no claim to expertise in the science of GW. But if you say: -Almost all Science Academies and/or Institutes in the world say AGW is in all probability real; -These are almost all the Science Academies and Institutes in the freaking world, whose members do almost all of the Science in said spheroid; -AGW is in all probability real. Then it's not a fallacious argument. Quote: I've considered (and continue to consider) the arguments. I accept that there is likely a warming trend in the works, and there is likely an anthropogenic component contributing to that trend. I'm not convinced that the warming trend will continue, that the anthropogenic component is significant enough to require immediate action, or that the effects of any warming still to come will be dire. Yes, we know, you're in the fence... but somehow always using the arguments of the small swamp of fail inside that fence.
	__________________ Stupid is depressing... Last edited by Megalodon; 17th November 2009 at 09:27 AM.

17th November 2009, 09:21 AM	#30
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by lomiller Seems you need to learn a little more about what is/isn’t a logically sound argument. One of us does. Originally Posted by lomiller Citing a legitimate authority is a perfectly valid argument form, the logical fallacy is the argument from illegitimate authority. Not exactly. The fact that one is a legitimate authority does not mean one's conclusion is correct. Newton was a legitimate authority in the field of light, and the weight of his authority delayed recognition of the wave nature of light for decades. While an authority's conclusions may be more likely to be correct, and may deservedly be accorded more credibility than the conclusions of someone who is not recognized as an authority, authorities are not infallible. For most of the 20th century, the consensus opinion by authorities was that plate tectonics (or "continental drift") was a load of nonsense, demonstrating that a gaggle of authorities is also fallible. I recognize you folks and PopTech like to compile lists of authorities; I prefer to consider the arguments themselves.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 09:34 AM	#31
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by lomiller Ok, more seriously. All discussions of technical or scientific topics between layman are ultimately arguments from authority. The key isn’t to think you are smart enough to understand everything, that’ll just make you fodder for con artists. What you need to do is develop a toolkit to identify legitimate authorities and valid sources of information. I disagree. Relying on authorities is ultimately just an excuse to avoid thinking for yourself. I may not be smart enough to understand everything, but I'm smart enough to understand anything, and if it's important to me, I'll spend time trying to determine the facts and draw my own conclusions. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Okay, so evidence that the GW-deniers claims about the APS "revolt" are shown to be absolutely false is somehow an argument from authority? Wow It's an argument from authority if you're using it to say something about the truth and extent of AGW. If the purpose of the OP was simply to address some claim I ignored about an APS revolt, then no, I'd say that claim has been refuted.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,224	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

17th November 2009, 09:54 AM	#32
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	Bokonon, there is no particular rule in science that says experts can’t change their opinion on a subject. When they do the same rule regarding argument from authority still apply I..E. “is said person an authority”, “is there general agreement between authorities in the field” “was the person truly making that claim”. If the consensus view of the experts change then the laymen should indeed follow. Laymen who think they can spend a few hours reading on the internet and know better then the experts field who have dedicated most of their lives to studying the question is a classic hallmark of the people sucked in by woo.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,346	__________________ War, war never changes...

17th November 2009, 10:01 AM	#33
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Boko To have an "informed opinion" on the science one must have some basic grasp of the science. Failing that, established scientists working in the field MUST provide guidance. That you neither have the first nor accept the second .....well.....conclusions can be drawn.
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

17th November 2009, 10:12 AM	#34
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by bokonon It's an argument from authority if you're using it to say something about the truth and extent of AGW. If the purpose of the OP was simply to address some claim I ignored about an APS revolt, then no, I'd say that claim has been refuted. Point taken. It is the latter, of course. ETA: Still waiting for our pals kallsop, mhaze, PopTech to show up...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti Last edited by MattusMaximus; 17th November 2009 at 10:14 AM.

17th November 2009, 10:18 AM	#35
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by bokonon I recognize you folks and PopTech like to compile lists of authorities; I prefer to consider the arguments themselves. That's what I have done for over 20 years on this topic, and it's why I've - slowly but surely - moved from legitimate GW-skeptic to having currently accepted the reality of AGW. But I do still have some questions, like you. For instance, the extent and projected outcomes of AGW are some areas of much greater scientific uncertainty, but that's for another thread, methinks.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti