Are we sure global warming is bad?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Fri May 03, 2019 2:51 pm

It's closer to 100% of climate scientists believe in AGW. These surveys of 97% consensus tend to conflate one definition of 'believe in AGW' with another.
For example, the Skeptical Science run study by Cook had different definitions assigned by the people reviewing the abstracts of papers. The 97% consensus was for papers that mentioned global warming without attacking it. It could be a paper on materials science that mentions global warming in the abstract, and it's a yes. This consensus was then used to claim there was a 97% consensus that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. Many skeptical climate scientists found their papers listed in this consensus, again because the real consensus is close to 100%.

Global warmer Bart Verheggen did his own analysis of scientists, and he found a 2/3 consensus on humans responsible for majority of global warming, with the number going higher the more a scientist has published. This is lower than I would have expected, but makes more sense than 97%.

There is an eagerness to shut down debate by global warmers by claiming this 97%.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 2:56 pm

MikeN wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:51 pm
Many skeptical climate scientists found their papers listed in this consensus, again because the real consensus is close to 100%.
Makes me want to ask for your source/link? and for those qualified scientists who don't support AGW, what percent agree the Earth is Warming, and of those, what cause do they suppose?

Inquiring minds want to know. Review: for emphasis...."many skeptical climate scientists" contradicts "real consensus is close to 100%" especially when your reasonable point is that it is closer to 2/3rd? do you have a consistent point?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 3:06 pm

Consensus simply doesn't matter.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 3:13 pm

Of course it does landrew. 99% of what you think is the consensus position.

Don't recognize how you "think" do you.

amusiong.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 3:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 3:13 pm
Of course it does landrew. 99% of what you think is the consensus position.

Don't recognize how you "think" do you.

amusiong.
argumentum ad populum
argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 3:38 pm

99% of what you think is the consensus position.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 4:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 3:38 pm
99% of what you think is the consensus position.
:roll:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 4:02 pm

You don't get it do you.

Amusing.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Fri May 03, 2019 6:23 pm

I'm pretty well drained from the discussion about what "consensus" means. To say it doesn't matter and to repeat that it is argumentum ad populum just shows have far we have not come. Scientific consensus is a scientific term. There are books on it. It's a test question that can be graded and has a correct answer. It has flaws and limitations that are known and can be discussed, but it has a function and it works.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri May 03, 2019 6:57 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:26 am
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 9:13 pm
Just pointing out: 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. If there are 1000 climate scientists, then 3% naysayers = 30 who do not buy into AGW. 30 scientists can easily be described as 'many'.

Without a lot more evidence, any claim that the Eocene warming was faster than AGW is just bloviation.
You seem to think consensus confers truth. That is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Nonsense. If you could read, you would see that I am saying that "many scientists say . . ." does not confer credibility.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 8:14 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 6:57 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:26 am
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 9:13 pm
Just pointing out: 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. If there are 1000 climate scientists, then 3% naysayers = 30 who do not buy into AGW. 30 scientists can easily be described as 'many'.

Without a lot more evidence, any claim that the Eocene warming was faster than AGW is just bloviation.
You seem to think consensus confers truth. That is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Nonsense. If you could read, you would see that I am saying that "many scientists say . . ." does not confer credibility.
"Naysayer" implies someone who who disagrees merely for the sake of disagreeing. It's irrational to attribute such motives to someone who disagrees on the science. But science and politics never were compatible.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 8:17 pm

Lausten wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 6:23 pm
I'm pretty well drained from the discussion about what "consensus" means. To say it doesn't matter and to repeat that it is argumentum ad populum just shows have far we have not come. Scientific consensus is a scientific term. There are books on it. It's a test question that can be graded and has a correct answer. It has flaws and limitations that are known and can be discussed, but it has a function and it works.
LMFTFY: delete "we"..............add "landrew: aka the Club of One".
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 8:21 pm

Dictionary/Thinking Skills (because we think with words):

Naysayer: Someone with an aggressively negative attitude //// Not what you say at all. I think the word you are looking for is: Constipated.
► Show Spoiler
I'll bet 10 doughnuts you didn't even look it up before you posted on it? Prove me wrong with a link.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri May 03, 2019 8:34 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 8:14 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 6:57 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:26 am
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 9:13 pm
Just pointing out: 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. If there are 1000 climate scientists, then 3% naysayers = 30 who do not buy into AGW. 30 scientists can easily be described as 'many'.

Without a lot more evidence, any claim that the Eocene warming was faster than AGW is just bloviation.
You seem to think consensus confers truth. That is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Nonsense. If you could read, you would see that I am saying that "many scientists say . . ." does not confer credibility.
"Naysayer" implies someone who who disagrees merely for the sake of disagreeing. It's irrational to attribute such motives to someone who disagrees on the science. But science and politics never were compatible.
Do you actually value evidence, or do you just give it lip service?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 8:46 pm

Mindless nonsense does not rise to the level of lip service.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri May 03, 2019 8:49 pm

Consensus is not proof, but it is a strong indicator.

But AGW is real, and something we need to act on. I think arguing that point is a bit pointless.

The theme of this thread is how bad it is, not whether it is happening.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 9:22 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 8:34 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 8:14 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 6:57 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:26 am
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 9:13 pm
Just pointing out: 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. If there are 1000 climate scientists, then 3% naysayers = 30 who do not buy into AGW. 30 scientists can easily be described as 'many'.

Without a lot more evidence, any claim that the Eocene warming was faster than AGW is just bloviation.
You seem to think consensus confers truth. That is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Nonsense. If you could read, you would see that I am saying that "many scientists say . . ." does not confer credibility.
"Naysayer" implies someone who who disagrees merely for the sake of disagreeing. It's irrational to attribute such motives to someone who disagrees on the science. But science and politics never were compatible.
Do you actually value evidence, or do you just give it lip service?
Evidence is key, but it must be weighed, not just filtered out willy-nilly, based on the outcome you want to support. It's easy to conveniently discount evidence as "non-evidence" to suit your own bias, but the truth never gets properly worked out without confronting all the evidence, not the filtered batch you choose for yourself. Grown-up skeptics don't play such games. Pretending the opposition's evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it not exist. If they call it evidence, you should call it evidence, and determine if it has weight before you reject it. That's the grown-up thing to do.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 9:59 pm

landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 9:22 pm

Evidence is key, but it must be weighed,....
ie: establish the consensus. What a doofus.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Fri May 03, 2019 10:03 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 9:59 pm
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 9:22 pm

Evidence is key, but it must be weighed,....
ie: establish the consensus. What a doofus.
The weight of evidence is established by testing.
Consensus has nothing to do with it.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 10:16 pm

Dictionary/Thinking Skills (because we think with words):

Doofus:
landrew wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:03 pm
The weight of evidence is established by testing.
Consensus has nothing to do with it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Fri May 03, 2019 10:37 pm

>many skeptical climate scientists" contradicts "real consensus is close to 100%" especially when your reasonable point is that it is closer to 2/3rd? do you have a consistent point?

No it does not contradict. Because the very very close to 100% that I describe is for a different proposition than the 97% claims to be describing.
There is AGW, and CAGW(catastrophic), and in the case of SS, majority of AGW is caused by humans. For example, Dr Roy Spencer believes CO2 causes global warming, and that human released CO2 has caused and will global warming, but is of the opinion that the amount of the warming is small compared to naturally caused global warming. I don't know if he is one of the skeptics included in SS's list.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri May 03, 2019 10:56 pm

This is one of those silly situations when two people arguing are both correct, but neither lets up.

Consensus is strong evidence but not proof. In that sense landrew is correct. Consensus has often been reached in the history of science, and been wrong.

However, consensus is also strong evidence, because all those scientists agreeing with each other are not fools, and mostly consensus indicates something correct.

So why do you not both make a minor compromise and accept each others positions ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 03, 2019 11:31 pm

landrew: consensus is meaningless.

bobbo: 99% of what you think is based on consensus.

Lance: you are both correct.

Dictionary Skills/Thinking (because we think with words):

consensus: 99% of what people think is meaningless. ///// Well Lance: you got me.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 04, 2019 12:48 am

Bobbo

A few years back, 99% of medical researchers believed that ulcers were caused by stress. They were wrong. When continental drift was first mooted, the consensus was that it was wrong.

The point is that consensus itself can be wrong. I am not for a moment suggesting that the global warming consensus is wrong. In fact, I believe it is correct. But the point I am making is that consensus by itself is not proof.

Landrew is arguing ( a bit pointlessly in my opinion) that the global warming consensus does not prove AGW. In that, he is correct. You are arguing that the consensus has meaning. Both of you are correct.

Sometimes, the best way to end an argument is to see the other person's point and admit it, while adding your own.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat May 04, 2019 1:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 12:48 am
Landrew is arguing ( a bit pointlessly in my opinion) that the global warming consensus does not prove AGW. In that, he is correct. You are arguing that the consensus has meaning. Both of you are correct.
I am not.
I was refuting the assertion that consensus confers weight to a belief.
The weight of evidence (derived from scientific testing) which shows AGW to be credible is another matter.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 04, 2019 1:51 am

Humm

I think, landrew, you are being a bit too literal in your appreciation of the argument from authority. It is listed as a fallacy, but that is true only up to a point. Quoting an authority is not a certain way of getting your facts straight, but it can be and often is, a way of increasing the probability of being correct. If I was arguing the nature of black holes and I quoted Stephen Hawking, it would strengthen my argument. It does not prove it correct, but it becomes more likely to be correct, if someone with the authority of Hawking supports it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 04, 2019 2:06 am

analogy: a balance weight scale. Put the number of people who have studied the issue and find AGW on one side. On the other side put the number of equally qualified people who do not believe in AGW. The scales are overloaded on the first measure.

Quote landrew: "I was refuting the assertion that consensus confers weight to a belief." //// aka: not understanding his own analogy/metaphor ===> AS ALWAYS.

Lance: still can't read. ((((ie: all you do is repeat what has already been said as if you have a new idea or are correcting anything said. You aren't. Course....miles ahead of landrew, but still........can't you be more dialectic?))))
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 am

Bobbo

In the same vein, please try to write your posts more clearly.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5331
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat May 04, 2019 5:34 am

A much better measurement of consensus is combined impact factor of publications.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 04, 2019 9:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 am
Bobbo

In the same vein, please try to write your posts more clearly.
8th time: what is not clear? copy and paste: try to identify what you can't figure out in 30 seconds.

........................... I know:

...................................................................you won't.

But: try...........once?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 04, 2019 9:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 am
Bobbo

In the same vein, please try to write your posts more clearly.
No. YOUR failure to respond on point is NOT in the same vein as MY not writing clearly. Just the reverse as a matter of fact.

.................................... try.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11664
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat May 04, 2019 2:52 pm

It's easy to be misled by consensus, particularly when the empirical data isn't strong. They are only opinions after all.
In cases where opinion follows conclusive data, such as a "spherical earth," it's easy to correlate the consensus with the data, but it's a bit of flawed thinking to conflate opinion with data where the data is less certain. In that case, you merely have a large number of people sharing an opinion in lieu of hard data.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 04, 2019 4:29 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:52 pm
It's easy to be misled by consensus, ///// speak for yourself, and stop projecting

particularly when the empirical data isn't strong. //// then there is no consensus: not knowing what you are saying again

They are only opinions after all. //// No. You even reference data in your blather just above. You aren't very good at English.

In cases where opinion follows conclusive data, such as a "spherical earth," it's easy to correlate the consensus with the data, but it's a bit of flawed thinking to conflate opinion with data where the data is less certain. /// You already stated that obvious fact.

In that case, you merely have a large number of people sharing an opinion in lieu of hard data. /// and you double on that again as well. Restating the inappropriate and internally conflicting. Ha, ha: YOUR OPINION. .........on which the consensus is otherwise.

Wrong on everything again: good job.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat May 04, 2019 8:32 pm

In this case I have to disagree with landrew.

The consensus on global warming exists BECAUSE the data is there, and demonstrates the conclusion. We know the mechanism, which has been fully demonstrated in the laboratory. It is fully consistent with what we observe in the field. Other side effects that were predicted also occur, such as a fall in temperature of the atmosphere at high altitude. Satellites have measured the drop in infra red emissions in the predicted wavelengths from Earth due to greenhouse gas absorption. The consensus simply reflects the empirical data.

The general principle that argument from authority is possibly flawed is still correct, but in this case, the argument is backed up by a wealth of solid empirical data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat May 04, 2019 9:00 pm

Dictionary/Thinking Skills as we think with words: Like not using consensus correctly, all too many folks don't understand what argument from authority even means. This is almost universal when discussing AGW when Deniers will quote magaine headlines that "some scientist" predicted an oncoming cooling. The most often quoted example came from pop reporters interviewing fishermen. This is presented as "evidence" that science gets things wrong........even when NO SCIENTIST WAS INVOLVED in making such predictions.

iow: all too many Arguments from Authority Fallacies are no such thing as there is NO EXPERT INVOLVED.

Like everything else.....if you know what you are talking about (aka: use the dictionary) many very popular arguments are simply totally erroneous. landrew loves them.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Sun May 05, 2019 12:49 am

Paul Ehrlich and Obama's science adviser wrote a paper saying that global cooling was coming, and the solution was to melt the Arctic with release of black carbon. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19672
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun May 05, 2019 3:23 am

I doubt it. Link?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Tue May 07, 2019 6:04 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:52 pm
It's easy to be misled by consensus, particularly when the empirical data isn't strong. They are only opinions after all.
In cases where opinion follows conclusive data, such as a "spherical earth," it's easy to correlate the consensus with the data, but it's a bit of flawed thinking to conflate opinion with data where the data is less certain. In that case, you merely have a large number of people sharing an opinion in lieu of hard data.
Okay, I've rad a few of these and I just can't go on. Lance and landrew are consistently misusing the term. If the empirical data isn't strong, then you don't have consensus. If the opinions of all scientists were in 100% agreement, they would not call that a consensus, they would say it's the opinion of all of us. That's more like a bunch of guys in a bar all agreeing that the Patriots are the best football team ever, it's just opinion, but since they all agree, they could say they have a consensus. But they couldn't say they have a scientific consensus. Even if they got all they guys in all the bars to vote, it's still not. A scientific consensus arises because a majority of the scientists create and repeat experiments and the data is consistent and their interpretations are based on logic. Opinion never enters in to it.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13342
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue May 07, 2019 8:23 pm

Clearly, Lausten, you have not read enough, because that is a straw man.

Let me make this clear.

My view is that the global warming consensus is meaningful, because it is backed up by good empirical data.

Landrew has said that a consensus without such data means nothing, which is true.

You, however, are arguing against stuff we have not said.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Tue May 07, 2019 9:01 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 8:23 pm
Clearly, Lausten, you have not read enough, because that is a straw man.

Let me make this clear.

My view is that the global warming consensus is meaningful, because it is backed up by good empirical data.

Landrew has said that a consensus without such data means nothing, which is true.

You, however, are arguing against stuff we have not said.
Just count the number of times landrew uses the word "opinion" in the post I responded to.

As for you, you know better than to argue against the concept of scientific consensus, but you make up facts about there not being a consensus about how bad the data says things are.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com