The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is Runaway climate change greatest threat in human history? in Global
Here is a video by Ben Goldacre, Author of Bad Science talking about when he stops communicating with climate change deniers. It is for those very reasons I also stop.
What's your point? I haven't engaged in any ad hominems, nor has anything I've posted been persuasively refuted. You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think. Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the "scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific method.
They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.
When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in
the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus. Of
course group-think is unavoidable
Ad Hominem Circumstantial number 2.
I see, so you just want to talk to people who believe global warming is
the greatest threat to humanity and ask them if they believe global
warming is the greatest threat to humanity. How apropos. It fits right
in with the group-think that is the hallmark of climate alarmism.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 3.
You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only
listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to
claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.
For the benefit of other readers and possibly yourself:
Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a
claim by saying that the person making the claim is only making it
because it's in his/her interest or because of his/her circumstances.
This actually has no bearing on whether or not the claim is true or
false. http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/circumstantial_ad_hominem_examples/522/
LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.
Non Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material.
Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the
"scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific
method.
Really? A global scientific community ignoring the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method.
You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only
listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to
claim
Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.
LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of
science. When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they
believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high
consensus. Of course group-think is unavoidable. If you open the
question up to scientists in related fields, the "consensus" drops
considerably;
Cherry picked data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) that makes up only a small percentage of those that reject the consensus of global warming and thus been refuted.
And again, just to reiterate here and drill some facts home:
In 2010, a Gallup poll
found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was
manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like
those indicate controversy. But in truth, among scientists who study the
Earth's climate, there is no controversy whatsoever. The rise in global
temperatures over the past few decades is undoubtedly caused by human
activities.
Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey
of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97%
endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last
week, a report leaked
out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are
driving global warming.https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/settled_science_that_is_controversial/climate_change_is_largely_manmade.html?state=stop
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics
'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of
abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7%
rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the
consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers
expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing
a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract
ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among
papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our
analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on
AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
And yes, when it comes to the scientific consensus that is something that can not be taken lightly. This is known as deferring (not appealing) to authority and is perfectly valid here ( a reliable heuristic) just as it would be if this was a case of whether one needed brain surgery or not and the majority of specialists concluding that this was the case.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being
true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.
Facts are never fallacies. Whether or not you admit you're affected by group-think is irrelevant.
LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.
Non
Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The
scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion
of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about
as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material.
Fact's are never fallacies.
Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the
"scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific
method.
Really? A global scientific community ignoring
the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists
ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed
belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate
amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes
about via the use of the scientific method.
Apparently the term "scientific method" is new to you. Here are the steps used in the scientific method;
1) Formulation of a question
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Testing
5) Analysis
That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.
You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only
listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to
claim
Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.
Projection, and a lame attempt at that.
Cherry picked data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) that makes up only a small percentage of those that reject the consensus of global warming and thus been refuted.
And again, just to reiterate here and drill some facts home:
In 2010, a Gallup poll
found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was
manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like
those indicate controversy. But in truth, among scientists who study the
Earth's climate, there is no controversy whatsoever. The rise in global
temperatures over the past few decades is undoubtedly caused by human
activities.
Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey
of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97%
endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last
week, a report leaked
out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are
driving global warming.https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/settled_science_that_is_controversial/climate_change_is_largely_manmade.html?state=stop
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics
'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of
abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7%
rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the
consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers
expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing
a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract
ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among
papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our
analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on
AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
And
yes, when it comes to the scientific consensus that is something that
can not be taken lightly. This is known as deferring (not appealing) to
authority and is perfectly valid here ( a reliable heuristic) just as it
would be if this was a case of whether one needed brain surgery or not
and the majority of specialists concluding that this was the case.
True, your 97% stat is a great example of cherry-picked data. No doubt 97% of cherry-picked literature that expressed an opinion from authors who are predisposed to confirmation bias are concerned that man is destroying the planet. Chicken Little lives on through many people. The real surprise is that the actual findings of the poll completely undermine your position. Only 32.6% of the cherry-picked papers said humans were causing global warming. If you are in need of remedial math education, less than 1/3 is not a majority.
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill-informed position, which by Reasoning he never acquired" - Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish poet, satirist, essayist, and political pamphleteer
I also have to agree with climate change scientist John Cook that said the conspiracy theories put forward by the climate change deniers make the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy look amateur in comparison. He explains here as well as other things to drill it facts home:
Furthermore, the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill-informed position, which by Reasoning he never acquired" - Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish poet, satirist, essayist, and political pamphleteer
I also have to agree with climate change scientist John Cook that said the conspiracy theories put forward by the climate change deniers make the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy look amateur in comparison. He explains here as well as other things to drill it facts home:
Furthermore, the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.
Hmmm, a video who's screenshot promotes a lie, as your last post illustrates. There's one I'll be sure to check out. In the meantime, maybe you can point me to the models that have predicted the recent years of global cooling we've been experiencing.
What I am about to say here and throughout this post will be for the benefit of other readers as it is becoming abundantly clear that the above person quoted is not capable of being swayed by reason at least regarding the climate change debate. And I am also making comment here despite it feeling like we've got sucked into some climate change conspiracy debate. Anyway, without ado lets get at it.
First of all, I am not going to discuss what were fallacies in one or more previous posts. I've already called out the errors in reasoning and explained why they're errors in reason in those post/s which can be evaluated by other readers and they can make up their own minds. So, now to take issue with this post I will be pointing out any errors in reasoning, as well as any factually incorrect claims, and so forth.
Now, with the first link quoted above is a website called "What's up with that" which is a "promoting climate change denial blog site" created in 2006 by Blogger Anthony Watts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?.
With the second link that involves a media article written by Michael D. Lemonick about supposedly American climatologist Judith Curry who according to the very article turned on her own colleges.
And yes she could indeed have been a climatologist too as there does exist corrupt and dishonest scientists out there, and in if in not all cases then definitely most cases this behavior eventually leads to their demise in their career. Hence probably for the reason, the likes of Anthony Watts and Judith Curry do what they do.
By the way, for a more comprehensive view about Anthony Watts and Judith Curry myths and what the actual reputable science says can be found here:
Credentials held
Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]
Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
The fact that anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy is branded a climate heretic illustrates the emotional nature of global warming alarmism and undermines any scientific basis it may have.
Now I might be wrong here but the inference I am making out here is that what is being suggested is that the whole global scientific community that endorses AGW consensus do so because they are all emotional alarmists, which I hardly need tell you is a ridiculous thing to say. If that is not what is meant and something else is meant then apologize, but this is indeed what it sounds likes.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being
true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.
Facts are never fallacies. Whether or not you admit you're affected by group-think is irrelevant.
The original post put forward to me was "You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think."
The issue here is that what's not stated is what my admittance or non-admittance of being affected by groupthink is irrelevant to. The fact is I was told that I claimed I was not affected by groupthink when I made no such claim and readers can check this out for themselves by scrolling up. What's actually irrelevant here is the mere arguing against me as opposed to actually taking issue with the content of the argument.Basically, what's being suggested here is because someone believes the other person is affected by group think and so is coming to their conclusion based on that; this is akin to claiming a person is forming their conclusions based on biases, and hence we have ad hominem circumstantial. While it is true that one may be affected by group think/biased is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.
Non
Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The
scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion
of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about
as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material.
I have to say, this bit was rather amusing. The actual fact is that the statement "science by consensus is the opposite of science" is nothing more that a nonsensical assertion. If anyone can prove that scientific consensus is the opposite of science, well I wish them good luck!
Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the
"scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific
method.
Really? A global scientific community ignoring
the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists
ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed
belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate
amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes
about via the use of the scientific method.
Apparently the term "scientific method" is new to you. Here are the steps used in the scientific method;
1) Formulation of a question
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Testing
5) Analysis
That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.
The first part here regarding the distorted belief about the "scientific" method being new to me is completely incorrect. Everything else is almost correct but not quite.
Scientific Method
Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Hey TK, if it is that obvious, what reasoning
do you suggest for why the overwhelming majority of the global
scientific community cant see it? If you are able to see how false it
is so easily, why can't the people all over the world who spend their
lives studying this not see it?
That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.
Regarding this bit, I would just like to go over what I said before which was that a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method. I never claimed that or implied the scientific method involved "determining the consensus." This was, however, a nice little rebuttal against that strawman. Anyway, the fact is that a strong scientific consensus is a naturally logical progression as a result of decades of research that was conducted via the use of strict adherence to the scientific method, and thus research that will be backed up by empirical and objective evidence.
You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy. You only
listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to
claim
Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.
Arguments
Ad Hominem Circumstantial. http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/circumstantial_ad_hominem_examples/522/
And yes, when it comes to the scientific consensus that is something that can not be taken lightly. This is known as deferring (not appealing) to authority and is perfectly valid here ( a reliable heuristic) just as it would be if this was a case of whether one needed brain surgery or not and the majority of specialists concluding that this was the case.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
True, your 97% stat is a great example of cherry-picked data. No doubt 97% of cherry-picked literature that expressed an opinion from authors who are predisposed to confirmation bias are concerned that man is destroying the planet. Chicken Little lives on through many people. The real surprise is that the actual findings of the poll completely undermine your position. Only 32.6% of the cherry-picked papers said humans were causing global warming. If you are in need of remedial math education, less than 1/3 is not a majority.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
I also have to agree with climate change scientist John Cook that said the conspiracy theories put forward by the climate change deniers make the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy look amateur in comparison. He explains here as well as other things to drill it facts home:
Furthermore, the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
With the second link that involves a media article written by Michael D. Lemonick about supposedly American climatologist Judith Curry who according to the very article turned on her own colleges.
Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Judith_Curry.htm
Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm
- Make an observation.
- Ask a question.
- Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
- Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
- Test the prediction.
- Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Another amusing fact here is that these points, as well as the 5 points above from CYDdharta, contradict what was said by CYDdharta in previous posts:- Assume something
- Prove that assumption true.
And yet it is me who doesn't know much about the scientific method? Well, I'll let other readers be the judge of that.The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 20  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra