# brazil84's Global Warming Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693 "2007-12-12T02:16:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2008, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/261 "2008-03-08T11:56:56Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] What I am claiming is the same as I’ve been claiming since post #1. If you didn’t read it, or understand it, the first time around, I don’t see a point in reposting it over and over in simpler and simpler terms. [/quote] Post #1 says nothing about Richard Lindzen, as far as I can see. So you are just “dodging and weaving” again. > [@](#): > > The simplest way for you to find out is to read. The onus is not on me to do your research for you. > [@](#): > > There’s no reason for the inflection point because there’s no inflection point. I don’t know if “inflection point” is the proper term, but earlier you stated the following: > [@aptronym](#): > > I agree that Figure 9.5b in the IPCC 4AR WG1 report shows that average temperature should have decreased around 1950 if it weren’t for anthropogenic effects. Are you taking this back now? > [@](#): > > The IPCC has admitted that a lot of past models have fudge factors, and some of the present ones, but the trend is moving away. So what? Am I supposed to be impressed by that? > [@](#): > > Have you no shame? :Shrug: **jshore** is the one who, in essence, overstated the contents of the IPCC report. ---
**Author:** ![BrainFireBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e495f1/32.png) [@BrainFireBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainFireBob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/262 "2008-03-09T08:23:38Z")
aprtonym: Re-read the last couple pages of the locked thread. There’s detailed replies on brazil’s debating methods, which aren’t ethical and focus on attempting to create collapsing tautologies and forcing false dichotomies. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/263 "2008-03-09T14:54:40Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] RealClimate has an article about this that explains it in more detail, but the bottom line is that scientists never made those forecasts. [/QUOTE] This is incorrect. There was not scientific consensus, but some scientists were making the predictions. > **[131047.pdf](https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)** > > 681.55 KB > [@](#): > > The seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who in 1963 published the first up-to-date temperature reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate averaged temperatures into latitudinal bands. His analysis showed that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940 before the start of a steady multi-decade cooling (Mitchell 1963). > > … > > The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Figure 1 for the number of articles and Figure 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered wrong in the sense of getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered. They are one cooling paper (Bryson and Dittberner, 1976) and one warming paper (Idso and Brazel, 1977) and both were immediately challenged (Woronko 1977, Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but not reversed. And so on. The article gives several examples of people with scientific credentials making predictions of global cooling, although it indicates that this was not the consensus. We can’t wave our hands and hope that those embarrassing predictions made in the 1970’s are going to just disappear. But the fact that they were made does not diminish the case of AGW any more than millenia of a geocentric universe diminishes the case for a heliocentric solar system. Unfortunately, given that the average American is a scientific ignoramus of jaw-dropping stupidity (and that nowadays a cited “scientist” is sometimes a teenager who has a blog somewhere, or who posts a lot on a message board…), this myth of a consensus of a coming Ice Age is going to be around for a very long time. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/264 "2008-03-09T16:14:42Z")
[QUOTE=BrainFireBob] aprtonym: Re-read the last couple pages of the locked thread. There’s detailed replies on brazil’s debating methods, which aren’t ethical and focus on attempting to create collapsing tautologies and forcing false dichotomies. [/QUOTE] i.e. your arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/265 "2008-03-09T16:33:00Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] i.e. your arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning. [/QUOTE] Do you actually think you’re winning these debates when you flail around and evade? Are you actually under the impression that you’re \*debating \*here? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/266 "2008-03-09T16:44:24Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] We can’t wave our hands and hope that those embarrassing predictions made in the 1970’s are going to just disappear. [/quote] Don’t forget predictions that were made in the 30s: > [@](#): > > TWO pieces of evidence were recently presented to substantiate the views held by most geologists that some day there will be no frozen North and that vessels will sail in Arctic seas now imperilled by ice floes. From the New York Times, January 28, 1934. > [@](#): > > But the fact that they were made does not diminish the case of AGW I think that the failure of past predictions shows a couple things: First, people like to make dramatic predictions. Second, many types of predictions have a tendency to turn out wrong. Michael Crichton summed it up very well: > [@](#): > > Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? > > But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about. > > Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. Now, I think it’s safe to predict that there will be a couple earthquakes in California between now and 2100. And that computers will probably be faster and cheaper. And that the world will be a lot wealthier. Beyond easy stuff like that, things start getting very sketchy. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/267 "2008-03-09T16:46:37Z")
[QUOTE=Lobohan] when you flail around and evade? [/quote] That’s utter nonsense. > [@](#): > > Are you actually under the impression that you’re debating here? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/268 "2008-03-09T17:02:21Z")
By the way, I’m a little tired of the “meta-debate” i.e. people participating in the thread not to discuss the actual issues, but to accuse me of using unfair tactics. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/269 "2008-03-09T18:16:54Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] This is incorrect. There was not scientific consensus, but some scientists were making the predictions. > **[131047.pdf](https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)** > > 681.55 KB And so on. The article gives several examples of people with scientific credentials making predictions of global cooling, although it indicates that this was not the consensus. We can’t wave our hands and hope that those embarrassing predictions made in the 1970’s are going to just disappear. [/QUOTE] However, it is important to point out that even the few scientists who did predict cooling often did so without a lot of confidence. E.g., the paper by Rasool and Schneider in 1971 that is often cited was quite clear about thinking that their work was a first attempt and not a final answer to the question. And, when another scientist wrote a comment on their work, they used part of their reply to re-iterate just how many potential problems there were with their calculation. It is one of the only replies to a comment I have ever seen that rather than strongly defending their original work actually said something to the effect of “We agree with the comment that this is a potential problem with our calculation but think that there are these other potential problems that are even worse”! > [@](#): > > I think that the failure of past predictions shows a couple things: > > First, people like to make dramatic predictions. Second, many types of predictions have a tendency to turn out wrong. So, the fact that **any** scientist has ever made an incorrect prediction in the field negates all future work no matter how much more certain the scientific community becomes?!?! This seems rather ridiculous. Better would be to look at the past predictions and see what happened and compare it to now. What one finds is that back then, there was some uncertainty about whether cooling due to aerosol pollutants or warming due to greenhouse gases would dominate. Most scientists seemed to favor the warming but a few did favor the cooling. When the NAS was asked to weigh in on the subject in the mid-1970s, they correctly concluded that there was no consensus and that further study was needed. I see nothing in that history that should give us cause for concern now. In fact, I am rather impressed with how the scientific community as a whole did not overstate its knowledge and how they already had the basic ideas in place (e.g., greenhouse gases cause warming, aerosols probably cause cooling, and the long-term trend due to orbital oscillations is cooling but over a much longer timescales on the order of 20000 years). And, even among those specific scientists who thought cooling might predominate, I have yet to find even one specific peer-reviewed paper that would be any way “alarmist” in the sense of stating the conclusion confidently and saying that we have to do something about it! Maybe such a paper does exist but it sort of amazes me that it has yet to be found. The claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus on global cooling is not just untrue. It is so far from being true as to be ludicrous. I.e., more peer-reviewed papers were advocating warming than cooling and not even a single solitary paper has yet to be produced on cooling that could be categorized as “alarmist”. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/270 "2008-03-09T18:25:17Z")
[QUOTE=aptronym] Actually, one just came out today. > **[RealClimate: The global cooling mole La excusa del enfriamiento global](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/)** > > RealClimate: By John Fleck and William Connolley To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" -... [/QUOTE] By the way, I was gratified to see that Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck reached conclusions in their study that were similar to those that I reached on the basis of my smaller and less scientific survey just of the archives of _Science_ in post #248 of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/271 "2008-03-09T18:53:09Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] So, the fact that **any** scientist has ever made an incorrect prediction in the field negates all future work no matter how much more certain the scientific community becomes?!?! [/quote] Lol. Nice strawman. > [@](#): > > I see nothing in that history that should give us cause for concern now. How many scientists are confidently predicting catastrophic global warming if CO2 is not mitigated? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/272 "2008-03-09T19:12:11Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] How many scientists are confidently predicting catastrophic global warming if CO2 is not mitigated? [/QUOTE] Actually, I would like to phrase the question a little bit differently: What percentage of scientists in the appropriate field are confidently predicting catastrophic global warming if CO2 emissions are not significantly mitigated? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/273 "2008-03-09T19:14:28Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] By the way, I’m a little tired of the “meta-debate” i.e. people participating in the thread not to discuss the actual issues, but to accuse me of using unfair tactics. [/QUOTE] But that is also part of debating, it is indeed the application of logic that shows who really has the weak or false argument. Just here there is a demonstration, You claimed to absolutely understand what is an appeal to authority fallacy, Yet you still in the end of the closed thread insisted that mentioning experts in the field not shying away from referring to the Hockey Stick as valid were appeals to authority. An Appeal to authority fallacy happens when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds a position, but who is not actually an authority in the area of discussion, Michael Crichton is an authority in science fiction but not in climate change. Indeed a true appeal to authority fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/274 "2008-03-09T19:27:08Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. Nice strawman. [/QUOTE] Paradoxically what you are doing here is the strawman, **jshore** is demanding a clarification, and you are once again omitting the rest of the quote choosing just do deal with a part that can be misrepresented if you omit the context. A strawman[sup]2[/sup] ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/275 "2008-03-09T19:35:01Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] But that is also part of debating, it is indeed the application of logic that shows who really has the weak or false argument. [/quote] True, but what was posted by **Lobohan** and **Brainfirebob** is getting very far afield. Anyway, I stand 100% behind what I said in that other thread. > [@](#): > > Michael Crichton is an authority in science fiction but not in climate change. Indeed a true appeal to authority fallacy. There’s a difference between (1) Here is what Michael Crichton says and you should believe it because Michael Crichton says so; and (2) Here is a persuasive argument which was made by Michael Crichton. If you can’t grasp the difference between (1) and (2), then I would suggest you stop discussing the “appeal to authority” fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/276 "2008-03-09T20:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] True, but what was posted by **Lobohan** and **Brainfirebob** is getting very far afield. Anyway, I stand 100% behind what I said in that other thread. [/quote] Of course what you said was that Mann was crushed, the evidence still shows he is still respected and continues to contribute to the science of AGW. (if you stand 100% in what you say then even throwaway lines are valid to throw back at you) [QUOTE=brazil84] There’s a difference between (1) Here is what Michael Crichton says and you should believe it because Michael Crichton says so; and (2) Here is a persuasive argument which was made by Michael Crichton. If you can’t grasp the difference between (1) and (2), then I would suggest you stop discussing the “appeal to authority” fallacy. [/QUOTE] So should I be generous and assume you do know that while it is persuasive you are aware already it is not accurate? :dubious: Of course if you already know it is only persuasive this is really evidence that you are bringing misleading ideas to the discussion. In any case, it is not a persuasive argument either. > **[RealClimate: The global cooling mole La excusa del enfriamiento global](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/)** > > RealClimate: By John Fleck and William Connolley To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" -... > [@](#): > > During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details): > > ``` > * 7 articles predicting cooling > * 44 predicting warming > * 20 that were neutral > > ``` > > In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales. > > We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the > 1970s. What Michael Crichton is doing is indeed propping up a strawman, models are based on physical, chemical reactions and the readings on the field (history enters later when you have to test the models). Virtually all the examples he mentioned did not have the physical, chemical or global readings to base their predictions. In other words, irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/277 "2008-03-09T20:28:37Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. Nice strawman. [/quote] Well, then what exactly are you saying? It has been shown that there were only a few scientists, in fact a minority, who were predicting cooling rather than warming…and we are not sure of any that were doing so with a great degree of confidence or even advising we had to take serious actions now to deal with it. > [@](#): > > What percentage of scientists in the appropriate field are confidently predicting catastrophic global warming if CO2 emissions are not significantly mitigated? I don’t know about it in terms of percentages. It is not usually that useful or easy to take good direct surveys of scientists. But, clearly the overwhelming view of the peer-reviewed papers published in the field that take any stand on this support it. And just about every major scientific society from the IPCC, through the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the councils of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and recently even my own professional organization, the American Physical Society are saying this is a serious problem. I don’t know if all would say “confidently predicting” it (because partly it would depend on the degree of confidence implied by the word "confidently) but they are saying the science is sufficiently clear that it is important to start taking actions now. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/278 "2008-03-09T20:30:42Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] What Michael Crichton is doing is indeed propping up a strawman, models are based on physical, chemical reactions and the readings on the field (history enters later when you have to test the models). Virtually all the examples he mentioned did not have the physical, chemical or global readings to base their predictions. In other words, irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Also, I don’t really see that much relevance to Crichton’s claim. If it is true that we are going to come up with new energy sources to replace fossil fuels, for example, then I don’t see why we wouldn’t want to have the proper market incentives in place to have this happen sooner rather than later…and the way you do this is to put some sort of cost on the emission of greenhouse gases like CO2. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/279 "2008-03-09T20:34:23Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] In any case, it is not a persuasive argument either. [/quote] Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, but your point that I was committing some kind of fallacy simply by quoting Crichton is just dead wrong. And if you can’t understand why, then I suggest you stop trying to make points about appeals to authority. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693/280 "2008-03-09T21:09:53Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, but your point that I was committing some kind of fallacy simply by quoting Crichton is just dead wrong. And if you can’t understand why, then I suggest you stop trying to make points about appeals to authority. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: [QUOTE=brazil84] There’s a difference between (1) Here is what Michael Crichton says and you should believe it because Michael Crichton says so; and (2) Here is a persuasive argument which was made by Michael Crichton. [/quote] Point #1 is ridiculous as and it was not my point. If you want anyone to believe point #2 was your position (a choice you made here) we have to assume now that you do know or are aware that Crichton, while persuasive, is not really accurate. (“Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t”) It still remains an appeal to authority fallacy, with the intension to mislead added to it. Context is everything to me, it is very important to point out who your sources are, not just mention them and make many arrive to the conclusion that he was a valid critic. (nowhere in the quote we get the context or who Crichton is) If you already know Crichton is **only persuasive** this is really evidence that you are bringing misleading ideas to the discussion. (a point you are now evading) The reason of looking into the fallacy is indeed to see if your point has any solid footing, as I and **jshore** mentioned with evidence, Crichton is being misleading. This demonstrates why the fallacy exists, some people are very persuasive, what they say really has no weight at all when they are not working in the field. And you still have to learn that they are misleading you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brazil84s-global-warming-thread/429693.md?page=15)