Martin Cruz Smith’s Polar Star:
Oh touche!
Now shouldn’t you go and fetch… a shrubbery!
In the exact same way that the number of people who listen to Rush has no effect on the accuracy of his statements.
LilShieste
You’re right, that was phrased badly. I’m not entirely sure how to put it. Their opinions don’t matter one jot as to whether it’s happening, in and of themselves. But their opinions are based on a) the evidence they’ve personally seen or learned through other’s research and b) their interpretation of that evidence as trained professionals in the area concerned. It would be reasonable to say that “It is likely that global warming is happening because of all the evidence supporting it”. The opinions of scientists in the matter is directly related to the amount of, and learned interpretation of, said evidence.
Several have asked whether this thread is a whoosh or a parody. A pit thread has been opened to that effect.
It is not fair to mislead people and that is not my intent. I have presented the argument as Rush Limbaugh made it today, and I’ve provided a direct link to his arguement.
I feel strongly that the argument Rush Limbaugh has made is obviously not to be taken seriously or at face value. I think that is obvious, and doesn’t require an explicit statement.
Allow me to quote my statement from the pit thread:
That is how I interpret Rush’s statement. He has not said that that is what he meant, but I think it’s pretty obvious.
Yeah, but has he won a Peabody Award? Like Bill O’?
CMC fnord!
Since you mention it, you should know that he has been nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
I have it on good authority* , that the following holds regarding Rush’s audience:
27% Agree always
14% Agree sometimes and vehemently disagree other times
32% Are only listening because their spouse turned it on
7% Are in rental cars and can’t figure out how to change the radio station
- All statistics have been checked, double checked, cross checked, audited, verified, modified, substantiated, extrapolated and completely fabricated by Dicker, Dicker and Co. LLC
Thanks for the clarification, Scylla. I have to admit that I’m slightly relieved. 
On a side note, I think it’s interesting that Rush is trying to point out some kind of logical fallacy, while demonstrating a strawman argument at the same time. I mean, really - global warming isn’t real just because everyone says so. (I’m not aware of a single person who even thinks that.) It’s real because the evidence shows it. It just so happens that scientists usually come to a consensus when presented with strong evidence to a particular claim.
LilShieste
Well, that was not too hard was it? 
Well, duh! A broken clock is accurate twice a day, no debate here as I suspected.
Having a “consensus” of experts that have independently investigated something is significantly different than having a majority of listeners that have limited access to the data Rush is presenting regarding any given topic.
I don’t think his point is made because he picked such a poor counter example. If he had picked an example of scientific experts with a consenus on a different topic that turned out they were wrong, then he would have made his point.
I agree.
One of Al Gore’s argument’s in “An Inconvenient Truth” was that consensus had been reached. A few weeks ago there was a report out that was widely publicized that stated that “the debate was over.”
I happen to feel that there are very strong arguments for man’s contribution to global warming, but I respect the right of other people to investigate the facts and come to their own opinion.
I think that regardless, waste and pollution are to be avoided from an ethical standpoint to whatever extant is reasonably possible.
I do not think that the arguments for manmade global warmig or so strong that they are incontrovertible and that dissent should be shouted down. You may disagree and feel that I am mischaracterizing but that is how I interpret the “debate is over” and “consensus has been reached” and the “no longer tolerant of dissent” arguments.
You can have good science and bad arguments on the same side of a debate and in this particular case, I think we do.
I’m going to see my physician tomorrow. When she tells me her diagnosis of how well I’m doing with my allergy shots, I’ll be sure to accuse her of this same logical fallacy.
Ok, thanks for clarifying, but I think it amounts to an equivocation of contexts. It’s true that appeals to the opinions of others are generally not reliable indicators of truth, but there are exceptions, and one of those exceptions is when it comes to expert opinion. I’m pretty sure that you generally take the word of your doctor for what’s wrong with you and what you should do about it. There might be circumstances where you would seek corroborating opinions, but even so, you would still be seeking opinions, and more than that, you would be seeking a consensus. You would trust that consensus (even of two or three doctors) because it was informed and unbiased.
The consensus on Global Warming is not just informed and unbiased, it’s also huge. If 100 thousand doctors from all over the world, none of whom had any motivation to lie, all examined you and told you had cancer, would you believe them or would you dismiss it as meaningless “opinion?”
Even if you think virtually all the climatologists in the world (except the ones who are coincidentally being paid by the energy industry) are either lying or mistaken, you still don’t have to take their word for it. You can read the journals and examine the evidence for yourself.
Well, you have a point, but the available evidence points to no other conclusion. Should new evidence point do a different conclusion, I would expect the consensus to cluster there instead. Do you remember when birds were first presented as descendants of dinosaurs?
Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion about anything. For example, I can have an opinion on how to set all the levels and dials on the 747 instrument panel in order to get the best take-off (even though I have never taken a course in flying an airplane and never really even stepped into a cockpit). But, I hope that you would be wise enough to give that opinion the weight it deserves.
Just checking in: has anyone figured out what the point of this thread is yet or what its doing in this forum?
Nonsense, you are using the adequate, but hardly superlative, Random House Dictionary. YOUR OWN CITE also provides the superior American Heritage Dictionary that gives the definition as
while then mentioning the sloppy and casual definition upon which you relied. (Sloppy and casual, of course, are appropriate to a defense of Slush Limbaugh, but have nothing to do with the Strraight Dope.)
News viewers have done nothing to provide an opinion “as a whole” (unlike the scientific community of meteorolgists and related sciences of whom the community as a whole (barring only those shills who are on the payroll of polluters and extreme right-wing think tanks), have come to a consensus of the understanding of the scientific data.
If Rush’s “consensus” argument was based on popular vote or even the opinions of politicians, he would have a point beyond the one atop his head. However, when he uses it casually to dismiss the views of those scientists who are from widely different backgrounds (saving only those who are funded by oppositional institutions), he is pretending that he is refuting an ad populum fallacy when he is really just propping up the same old vested interests.
DTC:
While that’s an interesting argument it ultimately doesn’t hold water. Let’s say I go to a Doctor and he tells me I have Brucellosis abortus bang, a rare form of spontaneous explosive bovine abortion. I feel skeptical about this, so I seek a second opinion.
I go to another Doctor, seeking a second opinion and he, too diagnosis Brucellosis abortus bang through independant testing. He is unaware of the previous Doctor’s diagnose and has arrived at his own independant conclusion.
Having independant corroboration from blind unconnected sources I now have confidence in the diagnosis, and treat it as fact.
Sadly, it is impossible to have that kind of confidence and disconnection and independance in something as well-known and cross-analyzed and political as the global warming debate, and because of this the analogy fails.
But the underlying implication is that the consensus was reached by evaluating the evidence available. Since I know that good science means basing your conclusions on the evidence you see, and I assume that all scientists thrive to follow good science, I conclude that if a majority of scientists side with a particular explanation for some phenomenon then that explanation must be strongly based on the facts available.
I agree 100%. I certainly don’t think that people should stop investigating the facts for themselves, and just blindly “follow the herd”. I do think that it’s important to know how the majority of scientists view a particular scenario, though.
If I don’t have the time to conduct any research for myself (or if I realize that most of the scientists who are dealing with a matter have much better access to resources that can help them come to a more sound conclusion than I) then I’m basically left with making an educated guess. In which case, I would side with the conclusion of the majority.
We certainly share the same opinion there.
I agree that there should not be a stifling of opposing viewpoints. And I don’t think you’re mischaracterizing things with your interpretation of “debate is over”, etc. I think that this “debate” was just poorly framed/termed. When people hear the word debate, in a context like this, they usually picture something like a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. But in a case like this, it’s more comparable to a 433-2 House vote. It’s kind of misleading (even if accidentally).
LilShieste