Global warming

[Rover]

 

Could you direct me to the peer reviewed scientific literature you got this information from?

 

Please stop putting the burden of proof on the negative side.

 

Actually, a lot of people think that CO2 is the independent variable and that global temperatures are the dependent, but I personally think it's the other way around i.e. CO2 is the dependent and global temperatures are the independent.

 

I asked for peer reviewed science to back your claims up since you're going to counter to the prevailing consensus among climate scientists while you are a non-scientist yourself. Should I just take you at your word?

If you're the one going against 96% of climate scientists, you better have some peer reviewed science to back you up. Because that's how the consensus was established in the first place, peer reviewed science based on multiple lines of evidence. I'd say the same if you voiced an opinion that runs counter to the opinions of 96% of geologists or astronomers. That's why there is a consensus among scientists about relativity, a consensus about tectonic plate theory and a consensus about big bang cosmology.

I ask again, what peer reviewed science papers can you point to in support of your views. Otherwise you're just another lay person with a completely meaningless opinion.

[Axeldeath]

I am an agnostic atheist.

 

 

Off topic, aren't those conflicting theories?

 

No, that means is that he doesn't think there is a god, but there could be (right?). If he was an agnostic theist it would mean he thinks that there is a god, but there's also a chance that there's not. Amirite Dan?

[danielsangeo]

That one's kind of off-topic, but, why not. I'll quickly explain.

 

Agnosticism comes from the root word "gnosis" meaning "knowledge".

Atheism comes from the root word "theos" meaning "belief".

 

I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that, on the subject of God, I don't know and I don't believe. Until I get some evidence, I can't know and can't believe. An agnostic theist would be someone that doesn't know but believes.

[ProHypster]

Offtopic:

 

Actually that's all very cool but I don't even think there is one person on earth who can truly call himself a gnostic theist/atheist....

 

But I guess you can call some a very hard believer.

 

Ontopic:

 

I have to say Kiev's winters are not like they used to be..... they are now sort of slushy... and they were very solid winters since the middle ages to the late 1990's.

 

Indeed, either change in climate is a quick sudden effect or we are contributing to global warming very badly.

[Axeldeath]

I'd say that there are definitely gnostic theists.

[ProHypster]

That is due to the fact that theo or God is a very vaguely defined word. In some defintions it's almost certain that god exists so one can assume it as a fact.

For example I consider myself monotheist because I believe that this world is guided by some force towards something and that for me is god.

 

But right now I am talking about an omniscent intellectual spirit that created us which is unknowable.

[Michael Archer]

The vast majority of the people believe that gravity is a force that 'pulls' you to the ground. Does that mean that it doesn't exist? There is loads of evidence for it.

 

No, it means that just because people believe that gravity exists doesn't inherently mean that it exists.

 

Environmentalists don't think that nature should be saved at the expense of human well being.

 

Really? Explain how people who go around parading that production should be halted (e.g. cutting down trees) for the sake of some sort of "innate value" don't hate capitalism.

 

Why would they be?

 

Atheists don't believe in god and they think that any theory that says there's a god is wrong i.e. they take an objective, absolute stand. The agnostic entertains any arbitrary idea as possibly valid i.e. they entertain any subjective idea and don't believe in absolutes.

 

Do you believe that I, as a person, have the right to protect myself from harm?

 

Yes, but that's off topic.

 

I asked for peer reviewed science to back your claims up since you're going to counter to the prevailing consensus among climate scientists while you are a non-scientist yourself. Should I just take you at your word?

 

If there's no evidence to the contrary, the negative wins. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative e.g. Affirmative side says "There is man made global warming."

 

 

If you're the one going against 96% of climate scientists, you better have some peer reviewed science to back you up. Because that's how the consensus was established in the first place, peer reviewed science based on multiple lines of evidence. I'd say the same if you voiced an opinion that runs counter to the opinions of 96% of geologists or astronomers. That's why there is a consensus among scientists about relativity, a consensus about tectonic plate theory and a consensus about big bang cosmology.

 

Consensus has nothing, literally nothing to do with science. Reality doesn't care whether people agree with it or not, since it exists outside of consciousness. For science, all it takes is for one person to be right; it doesn't matter how many people disagree with him, he's right.

 

Also, how is 96% of people a "consensus?"

 

I ask again, what peer reviewed science papers can you point to in support of your views. Otherwise you're just another lay person with a completely meaningless opinion.

 

I do not have to prove the negative; the affirmative must be proved.

 

Besides, I don't really discuss actual, physical evidence of global warming since I honestly know little about it; I just discuss the implications of what people would do should they decide to fix global warming. I say that the actions taken against individuals would be immoral, should governments decide to fix global warming.

[Rover]

There is some legitimate evidence that the global temperature is rising and melting the ice caps, but there's no solid evidence linking human emissions that are causing it; this is reality.

 

There's a correlation between CO2 and the warming temperatures that's it. It means nothing.

 

Actually, a lot of people think that CO2 is the independent variable and that global temperatures are the dependent, but I personally think it's the other way around i.e. CO2 is the dependent and global temperatures are the independent.

 

I don't really discuss actual, physical evidence of global warming since I honestly know little about it

 

Good thing there are people who do spend their lives understanding climate, they're called climatologists.

I think we're done.

[Michael Archer]

I don't talk to irrational, condescending, and dismissive people who think that the Argument From Authority fallacy is the irrefutable trump argument.

 

You're right, this discussion is over.

[rridgway]

Still, there comes a point where distrusting the argument from authority is akin to idiocy. I don't ask the opinion of a common person on grand military strategy, instead I ask people who've been educated in the discipline. In climatology, a sufficiently complicated field, I would do the same, as it is too complicated to make large assumptions without proper education. I would trust their opinions as they are much more likely than the layman to answer correctly.

[Michael Archer]

Rridgway, argument from authority is when a person states "Authority says it, therefore it's true and whatever you lay people say is ignorant. I know this because the authority says you're ignorant!"

 

Argument from authority is not: "This paper written by someone who's an authority points out all these logically deduced facts." Just because you reference or trust an authority does not mean it's a fallacy. It's only a fallacy when you regard the authority as infallible.

 

It's a juvenile way to argue when you say "You're wrong because the authority say you're wrong and you can never discuss this because you're not an authority!" and that what's Rover was doing.

[rridgway]

Ah. Fair enough. That's what I had understood was the argument from authority fallacy. Sorry.

[Rover]

I don't talk to irrational, condescending, and dismissive people who think that the Argument From Authority fallacy is the irrefutable trump argument.

 

You're right, this discussion is over.

 

What you were doing was the equivalent of giving medical advice without any hint of medical training.

You were making comments on the state of climate science which were either incorrect or unsubstantiated, not supported by the current body of climate research. It is upon all this research that the consensus, any consensus in any field, is built.

How hard is it to understand that two very simple facts that A: Climatologists know more about climate than you do.

Their knowledge deficit < your knowledge deficit. Therefore, their opinions are far more credible than yours.

B: the vast majority of them has so far concluded, again based on research, human factors are contributing to climate change.

This is the state of current peer reviewed climate research.

And you think you can negate an entire field by calling it a logical fallacy?

 

I'm not saying they're infallible, but at least show where you get you information if what you're saying runs counter to what most experts in a certain field are saying, while you yourself are a lay person. That's all I asked, and you kept shrugging that burden off even though you later admitted to not even know a lot about the science involved!

[Michael Archer]

What you were doing was the equivalent of giving medical advice without any hint of medical training.

 

And how is that different from what you're doing?

 

At least I admit I'm not a scientist; that's why I said earlier that I try discuss the implications and not actual facts. If we discussed facts, all it would lead to is eventually one side calling the other side liars since we're not scientists.

 

You were making comments on the state of climate science which were either incorrect or unsubstantiated, not supported by the current body of climate research.

 

I do not need to substantiate or provide evidence for the negative.

 

It is upon all this research that the consensus, any consensus in any field, is built.

 

Irrelevant, but I ask again: how is 96% a consensus?

 

How hard is it to understand that two very simple facts that A: Climatologists know more about climate than you do. Their knowledge deficit < your knowledge deficit. Therefore, their opinions are far more credible than yours.

 

I can find you scientists that will tell you that humans are not causing climate change. What's your point?

 

B: the vast majority of them has so far concluded, again based on research, human factors are contributing to climate change.

 

Truth and reality do not care about the majority.

 

And you think you can negate an entire field by calling it a logical fallacy?

 

I'm negating your assertion that "you're wrong and man-made global warming exists because the majority of authority figures say so", because it reeks of fallacies. Somehow, you managed to use the Argument from Authority and Argumentum ad Populum fallacies in a single post.

[Rover]

You were making comments on the state of climate science which were either incorrect or unsubstantiated' date=' not supported by the current body of climate research.[/quote'] I do not need to substantiate or provide evidence for the negative.

 

Sounds like something BTG would say after blurting out some wildly inaccurate statement concerning evolution.

If you were making incorrect statements which you asserted to be factual about the state of current evolutionary biology research, would it be unreasonable for me to point out that most biologists disagree with you and that I'd like to see the information on which you base your statements? It's a way to expose your knowledge deficit with that the inherent weakness in your statements.

 

Irrelevant, but I ask again: how is 96% a consensus?

I think you're confusing consensus with unanimity. They are not the same.

If not you'll need to clarify.

 

I can find you scientists that will tell you that humans are not causing climate change. What's your point?

That is, in fact all I asked. Not that I don't know there is still dissent and debate. But point out your sources.

Then again, search hard enough and you can find genuine scientists who are creationists, doesn't mean there is valid doubt concerning the basis of the theory of evolution.

 

B: the vast majority of them has so far concluded' date=' again based on research, human factors are contributing to climate change.[/quote']

Truth and reality do not care about the majority.

 

What part of "based on research" did you not understand? You're suggesting any opinion which is shared by a majority of scientists is merely opinion pulled out of thin air.

 

And you think you can negate an entire field by calling it a logical fallacy?

I'm negating your assertion that man-made global warming exists because the majority of authority figures say so' date=' because it reeks of fallacies. Somehow, you managed to use the Argument from Authority and Argumentum ad Populum fallacies in a single post. [/quote']

 

What I was saying was: the majority of climatologists, the people doing the actual research have so far found, while following the scientific method and publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals that human activity contributes significantly to climate change. That you are largely unaware of this, or choose to remain unconvinced because of some other reason is not my problem. However you set up a straw man which held that referring to and pointing out the current state of a body of scientific research compiled by and agreed upon by a majority of scientists constitutes an argument from authority and ad populum.

[Michael Archer]

Sounds like something BTG would say after blurting out some wildly inaccurate statement concerning evolution.

 

Guilt by Association fallacy. Seriously, how many of these are you going to use?

 

The difference between me and BTG is that BTG spouts arbitrary claims and insists that we disprove them. BTG puts the burden of proof on the negative.

 

I think you're confusing consensus with unanimity. They are not the same.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Definition of Consensus: general agreement ; unanimity

 

I think I am confused.

 

That is, in fact all I asked. Not that I don't know there is still dissent and debate. But point out your sources.

Then again, search hard enough and you can find genuine scientists who are creationists, doesn't mean there is valid doubt concerning the basis of the theory of evolution.

 

Exactly. I could also show you scientists who say that the world is flat.

 

Because we're not scientists, if we tried to present sources, all that would end up happening is one calling the other side a liar. This is why I personally don't discuss scientific evidence in a field I know little about.

 

What part of "based on research" did you not understand? You're suggesting any opinion which is shared by a majority of scientists is merely opinion pulled out of thin air.

 

I'm saying that just because there's on opinion shared by the majority of scientists does not necessarily mean it's factual.

 

There's also research by some that says there's no correlation between human's emissions and temperature rises, just not as much.

 

What I was saying was: the majority of climatologists, the people doing the actual research have so far found, while following the scientific method and publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals that human activity contributes significantly to climate change. That you are largely unaware of this, or choose to remain unconvinced because of some other reason is not my problem.

 

And then you heavily implied, "therefore, they're right and you're wrong." That's ad Populum and Argument from Authority.

 

However you set up a straw man which held that referring to and pointing out the current state of a body of scientific research compiled by and agreed upon by a majority of scientists constitutes an argument from authority and ad populum.

 

No, no, no.

 

I'll say it one more time: your assertion that humans cause global warming because of this fact is ad Populum and Argument from Authority.

 

The scientists are probably not committing these fallacies (they may committing other fallacies along with those, I'm not sure. I'll assume they're not until evidence is presented), only you are.

[Rover]

We could go on like this forever so I'll end it by simply saying that I believe I have a greater chance of possessing the correct information by sticking to the peer reviewed science. Most of which happens to indicate humanity is contributing to climate change. I am not a climatologist either so I believe it entirely reasonable to defer to the opinions of those who are. I drew a parallel to climate change denial and evolution denial because in both cases the scientific evidence is incredibly lopsided.

I'll say it one more time: your assertion that humans cause global warming because of this fact is ad Populum and Argument from Authority.

What I was trying to say was, the evidence is so overwhelming there is no longer much doubt among climatologists that humanity contributes significantly to climate change, the acceptance of evidence is what leads to the consensus.

 

On a side note, the oxford dictionary defines consensus as a general agreement, and dictionary.com as a majority of opinion.

And with that I bid you goodnight.

[Michael Archer]

That's fine, I can accept that.

 

Just keep in mind that quantity of evidence is not the same thing as veracity of evidence i.e. just because it's lopsided, doesn't make it true. And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it.

 

Also that climate change denial is not remotely the same as evolution denial. The supporters of the latter rely on the use of arbitrary claims.

 

Good night. I will continue discussing the implications and whatnot.

[danielsangeo]

Could I see this "peer-review evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it"?

[Michael Archer]

*facepalm*

 

danielsangeo, it's one of the most basic laws of logic and epistemology that you're never called upon to prove a negative--it's not possible.