“An idea is not true simply because a large number of well-educated people happen to believe it.”
Conceded, though I never made that claim. I was working with the assumption that most of the 1700 people in question in fact read/participated in the reports which concluded that Global Warming is, indeed, a “real” threat and that citizens, governments, and corporations should begin to act more responsibly, in order to lessen the problem. This conclusion, I assume, was made only after said 1700 people collected enough evidence to thoroughly support their conclusion.
The fact that these 1700 people, who (for the most part) are well-respected intellectuals and academics, agreed that the papers conclusion was sufficiently supported by the given evidence, is obvious in that they signed the Warning. So, to these 1700 people, the Warning is true.
That holds no merit, whatsoever, to you? Not in the slightest? They are still no more to be trusted than me, or the jolly Shodan, or David Wilson?
Who, then, do you go for for your facts? If we have no scientific foundation from which to work, how do we make progress?
Lasty, do you agree with the OP? Why or why not?
(More about the meat debate in the future, in a different thread.)
“An idea is not true simply because a large number of well-educated people happen to believe it.”
Conceded, though I never made that claim. I was working with the assumption that most of the 1700 people in question in fact read/participated in the reports which concluded that Global Warming is, indeed, a “real” threat and that citizens, governments, and corporations should begin to act more responsibly, in order to lessen the problem. This conclusion, I assume, was made only after said 1700 people collected enough evidence to thoroughly support their conclusion.
The fact that these 1700 people, who (for the most part) are well-respected intellectuals and academics, agreed that the papers conclusion was sufficiently supported by the given evidence, is obvious in that they signed the Warning. So, to these 1700 people, the Warning is true.
That holds no merit, whatsoever, to you? Not in the slightest? They are still no more to be trusted than me, or the jolly Shodan, or David Wilson?
Who, then, do you go for for your facts? If we have no scientific foundation from which to work, how do we make progress?
Lasty, do you agree with the OP? Why or why not?
(More about the meat debate in the future, in a different thread.)
“Well, he couldn’t prove what he said, but he is generally a really smart guy, so we’ll just take his word for it.”
TGD - please tell us that you don’t really think this is how science works.
People who win Nobel prizes tend to be very bright people - especially in their area of expertise. Outside that area, they are not always better off than anyone else. Witnessed by the examples of Lord Kelvin, who rejected the notion of radioactivity, as well as Shockley and Pauling, already mentioned.
What large numbers of scientists (by which I mean to exclude the Union of Concerned Scientists, who are not all scientists, nor Nobel prize winners) claim is true is worthy of examination, not acceptance. To simply take their word for something outside their sphere of expertise, is to accept second hand information when first hand is available - as C.S. Lewis mentioned as a major mistake.
If anyone wants me to accept that global warming is a real phenomenon apart from statistical fluctuation, and that it is caused by human activity, and that it is caused by CO2, and that the CO2 came from fossil fuels rather than volcanoes, and so forth, takes evidence. When people cannot produce the evidence, and start calling names and insisting they must be right because of the credentials of those who they claim agree with them, my BS goes off.
I do not know for certain if global warming is real, or no more than the advancing Ice Age they warned me about in the 70s. But it could be endorsed by every name in the Manhattan phone book, and I would not be prepared to believe in it unless they could produce good and sufficient evidence.
This is 8.8 times more scientists that signed the global warming petition. My scientists outnumber your scientists, so I trust you will immediately drop any belief you have in global warming.
Here’s the direct cite to the petition, including the names and credentials of EVERY person who has signed it: http://www.oism.org/pproject/. From this site we also learn:
In the appeal to authority wars, I call this a ‘slam dunk’.
Sam Stone drives to the hoop…David Wilson and the_great_dalmuti move to double team in the paint…and OOOOOOOOOH, Sam Stone flies over them like a bird for a monster jam!!
Regretabbly Mr. Wilson, the little troll, won’t read your post because you must be an anti-environmentalist CEO who hires death troops to kill anyone who disregards your thoughts and kills all environmentalists. Being rational about an issue doesn’t seem to mean much to Mr. Wilson.
I love how this works. You provided a link, which presents ideas that run contrary to the OP, and then you sit back and feel like a winner, while the other “winners” congratulate you. That’s rich.
The link you provided said this:
"Energy is essential for economic growth. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol – to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community – is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living. "
So, they’re rejecting the treaty on an economical basis, not on a scientific one. When did they become economists?
“These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies.”
Now they’re politicians? Also, we shouldn’t trust theoretical models? Then then the whole field of economics (in which I thought they were experts), physics, and mathematics are bunk, as they deal primarily with theoretical models? Silly stuff.
You said “Well, he couldn’t prove what he said, but he is generally a really smart guy, so we’ll just take his word for it.”
How, then do we prove something? The Data that the Warning To Humanity people proved, to them, that global warming was a real threat.
The site said “However, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised and premature.”
They didn’t prove anything. They just didn’t agree. Does one group disagreeing with another groups’ conclusions simply invalidate those conclusions? No. Not at all. Does it make the original problems being investigated, or the experiments carried out null and void?
No. Not at all. Your 15,000 (now 17,000 +) never said that there wasn’t a need to research in this area. They never said global warming wasn’t a problem. They never said the earth was not heating up. They never said humanity doesn’t have a profound effect on the environment.
They merely disagreed with the conclusions, not with the presmises.
So, all tens of thousands of said scientists aside, what about
your own observations? These floods, coral bleaching, the “brown smog over Asia”, the draughts, and melting ice caps don’t provide you with enough primary evidence to research the problem a little further? You can simply look at that cocktail of catastophies, and pass it off as “natural,” and having nothing at all to do with human activity?
“And yet, the total net effect of the Kyoto treaty over the next 100 years would be to reduce warming by about 7/10 of a degree. How many trillions of dollars are we willing to spend for that particular reduction.”
Can you think of something better to spend money on, than the possibilty of humanity to survive and thrive in the future? What would you rather spend it on? Cheaper beef? More knick-knacks for sale at more $1 stores? Designer shoes?
What is a better cause than bettering the environment, which houses every single human being on the planet?
[aside]
To sleestak and other fanboys, if you have anything useful to say, in the name of fighting ignorance, I’d be glad to hear it. But, if all you’re going to do is cheer and mock people like a bunch of frat boys, I’d ask you to try and contain yourself. Cheering someone on doesn’t do anything for anyone, except tie up the server.
[/aside]
-TGD
OK, TGD seems to have entirely missed the point that Argument from Authority is generally considered a weak debating tactic, despite having had it carefully explained to him at least three times. Whatever.
I would rather spend it on something that I can assume has a point.
I know you and DW are basically witnessing, and that there is no use in arguing with someone for whom blind faith is sufficient, but I’ll have one last go anyway.
Firstly, TDG: by how many degrees do you personally believe that the global average temperature will rise over the next 100 years? Just give me a figure, no need for a cite. Also, do you believe there is a critical temperature increase that will bring on all these so far unnamed disasters that you and Mr. Wilson are preaching will happen, and if so, what is it? Finally, will the assumed 0.7 degree reduction associated with full implementation of Kyoto put us below the critical temperature?
I love how it works, too. One person provides a link, cites, and evidence. The other urges us to take someone else’s word for it. Which one do you think is doing the better job of independent thinking?
Having demonstrated that you don’t know how science works, you now go on to show that you can’t even read. To remark that a prediction is based on a faulty model, and should therefore not be relied upon, is science, not politics. (You may have been misled by the word “policy” in the sentence.)
What they are saying is that we should not rely on theoretical models until they have been demonstrated to be reliable. The fields of physics and mathematics are based on such models. Global warming theories are based on computer models not shown to be valid - hence unreliable.
To imply that lack of proof of a model in one field shows that other fields have been disproven is silly stuff indeed. Not sure if this shows that you don’t understand science, or that you don’t understand English.
Actually, that was me. Again, work on your reading skills. Or else, as Churchill once stated, “try not to generate more indignation than you can conveniently contain”.
Not with arguments from authority, as a general rule. Especially in fields such as global warming, where experts disagree. As shown by the cite you so disdain, when it shows that you are mistaken.
How you believe rejecting the theoretical models underlying a conclusion does not constitute disagreeing with the premises is beyond me. Again, you either don’t understand science, you don’t understand logic, or you just don’t understand in general.
The difficulty being, as usual, that you have produced no conclusive evidence that the trillions involved would not be completely wasted. Can I think of a better use for trillions of dollars besides spending them on policies that will do no good and much harm? Who couldn’t?
One suggestion might to spend it on science education, and try to reduce the amount of fatuous foolishness preached in the name of the environment.
If global warming is not really caused by human activity, then spending money and bankrupting the West is not a good idea. Even if we mean nothing but good by it.
Maybe I mean well by donating a thousand dollars to the person who will cast demons out of my computer. But if my computer problems are not related to demon possession, couldn’t you think of a better use for my thousand dollars?
I am sure we are all deeply grateful for your advice. When I compare the quality of the posts on this thread, however, sleestak isn’t the first name that pops to mind when it comes to wasting bandwidth on half-baked blather.
*"I love how it works, too. One person provides a link, cites, and evidence. The other urges us to take someone else’s word for it. Which one do you think is doing the better job of independent thinking? *
Repitition and rhetoric. The OP provided a link, and a cite, complete with evidence. And it’s very typically American to put independant thinking above all else. That’s why America’s the great, big, obese, TV-watching, apathetic, Ronald McDonald-following place it is. But that’s a whole different thread . . .
“Again, you either don’t understand science, you don’t understand logic, or you just don’t understand in general.”
This adds nothing to the debate. Telling your debating opponent that he doesn’t understand is a much worse tactic than appealing to authority.
You chose to ignore these questions of mine from my previous post. Please see my last post for the context. So, I will ask again:
Does it make the original problems being investigated, or the experiments carried out null and void?
So, all tens of thousands of said scientists aside, what about
your own observations? These floods, coral bleaching, the “brown smog over Asia”, the draughts, and melting ice caps don’t provide you with enough primary evidence to research the problem a little further? You can simply look at that cocktail of catastophies, and pass it off as “natural,” and having nothing at all to do with human activity?
So, they’re rejecting the treaty on an economical basis, not on a scientific one. When did they become economists?
How, then do we prove something?
Can you think of something better to spend money on, than the possibilty of humanity to survive and thrive in the future?
What is a better cause than bettering the environment, which houses every single human being on the planet?
If you, or Sam Stone cares to answer, rather than trying to prove to all the other posters that you’re an intellectual rock star, then maybe the “debate” can go somewhere.
Can I think of a better cause to spend the money on? Well, let’s see…
IF the effect of the trillions spent on Kyoto is to have no measurable economic benefit, then I think making a few trillion paper hats with the money would be a better use of it. Then we could throw a big party and there would be peace and love in the world.
Or, we could just feed every hungry child on Earth.
Or, we could keep the money and increase economic growth by 1 or 2 percent more per year.
Or, we could spend a few trillion and start doing heavy research into things like asteroid mining, so that we can get more raw resources.
Or we could build a giant escalator to nowhere, or a big monorail around the Earth.
I mean, if we’re just flushing our money down a hole, let’s at least be creative about it.
On the other hand, perhaps we’ll discover that global warming is serious enough that the money is well spent. WHEN AND IF THAT DAY COMES, then I will jump on the bandwagon. But frankly, as of today we are just guessing. As I said, the current models do no better than random numbers at prediction. They are simply way too incomplete to be useful for setting worldwide policy. We need more time, we need more study.
If the world jumped every time you environmental extremists said frog, we would have been sterilizing people to prevent the ‘population bomb’ you guys said was heading our way, and we might well have been building huge CO2 emitters in order to increase greenhouse gases to prevent the ice age you said was coming.
Just flailing around blindly, throwing money at every scary half-baked conclusion out there in order to ‘save the planet’, is destructive and counter-productive. Some of us prefer to operate from better data. And some of us are skeptical of gigantic worldwide treaties that limit freedom and generally have more to do with politics than science (you might ask yourself why China, soon to be the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, wasn’t included in the Kyoto treaty).
Actually, no. What happened was that Sam Stone blasted your argument from authority out of the water. So far, all you have done is cling to the wreckage, and try to claim that swimming across the Atlantic is much better for the environment than sailing, and that we should all be forced to do it, because scientists agree that exercise is healthy.
My gosh, have I been whooshed!
Americans are fat because they value independent thought? Or are you contending that cult members are thinner than the average? Or that I could drop thirty pounds if I simply took your word for it about global warming?
Or WTF exactly are you saying?
I am almost sure I understood this one, so I will answer. Until the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon is established, it remains an unproven theory. In other words, the “original problem being investigated” has not been located, nor its causes determined.
Sort of like scheduling an exorcism before you have established that demons are, in fact, causing your headache. Maybe you have a headache, maybe it is all psychosomatic. Maybe it is demons. But to simply say “Well, Umboogo the witch doctor is smarter than I am, since he won the All-Tribal Award for Exorcisms in his rookie year, so bring on the trepanning tools” is just not a good way to approach your problems.
You are confusing “not proven” with “disproven”.
I am prepared to believe that there is no such thing as the luminiferous aether. Michaelson and Morley disproved that. I am not prepared to state conclusively whether or not global warming is a man-made phenomenon, brought about by burning fossil fuels. And I (and the 1500+ signatories of the statement cited by Sam Stone) are prepared to state that the weight of the evidence is not such that I am willing to sign on to the Kyoto treaty.
Are any or all of the alleged catastrophes you mention caused by human activities? I don’t know. Neither do you. Have there ever been floods before humans began using fossil fuels? Of course. Have there ever been droughts? Of course. Are there exhaled hydrocarbons over the Blue Ridge Mountains? Of course.
Of course, do volcanoes emit CO2? Heavens, yes - far more than humans do. Have there ever been large-scale changes in the climate not brought about by human activity? Oh my, yes.
Feel free to believe that every change in the weather is caused by your neighbor’s SUV if you like. Or take the word of some politically well-connected group with the local press corp on their Rolodex and an eye to emptying out your wallet for their own purposes. This is not, however, how science works.
But again, by now you probably know that.
I covered this one. They are rejecting the treaty based on the evidence (theoretical models) on which it is based. This makes them scientists evaluating evidence.
Besides, everyone with an IQ in double figures knows that wasting money based on panic is a stupid idea. Well, almost everyone.
I covered this one as well. Evidence, not arguments from authority. See previous posts for discussions on the problems of measuring global temperature changes, cities as heat sinks, the differences between ground level and lower atmosphere measurements, and so on.
Also covered. Yes, until you can establish that some action will do any good, it is not reasonable to insist on taking it.
Oh, how about feeding my children, reducing poverty, working in the cause of freedom, or amusing myself by posting on the Internet. As opposed to wasting time, money, energy, resources, and ruining the economy of the developed world, in furtherance of some cause I don’t even know is real.
What is a better cause than fighting the infestation of Martian invaders, which threatens the existence of everyone on the planet? Well, until someone shows us a Martian, practically any cause would be.
I am a little flattered that you think I have proven myself a rock star. The credit should go to those who have posted valid evidence and/or sound reasoning. Like Sam Stone, pldennison, El_Kabong, sleestak, jshore, and others (you know who you are).
I wouldn’t agree that the debate is going nowhere. Obviously it isn’t going the way you might like it, but that isn’t the same thing.
Now that I have addressed your questions, perhaps you could address El_Kabong’s questions. I could repost them if you missed them the last time.
I don’t think the OISM petition qualifies as an “argument from authority” if Ginger Spice can be an “authority.” And my dentist would seem to know a lot more about gases of the laughing rather than greenhouse variety.
Actually, if you’d like to check out the cite I posted, they mention that there have been some pranksters who submitted gag names, including Geri Halliwell. Those names, when found, have been eradicated.
If we can agree that the potential number of false signatures is small, then it’s a moot point. All it means is that instead of 17,000 valid signatures, they might have 16,800. Or 15,000. Or even 10,000, if you want to try and claim that there are 7,000 bogus signatures in the database. A database which, by the way, can be perused online. Feel free to contact one of the THOUSANDS of Masters and Ph.D holders on the list and see what they have to say.
In other words, this is a straw man argument. The existence of a few fake signatures in no way discredits the legitimate ones.
As for the ‘quality’ of the signatures, this does nothing but highlight the silliness of these types of appeals to authority. Because now all we’re left with is a pointless debate about who’s authorities are more ‘authentic’. Is a Nobel Prize in astrophysics a better credential than a Ph.D in Oceanography? Do 100 Nobel Prize winners ‘outweigh’ 3000 regular Ph.D’s?
In fact, is a Nobel Prize even a good predictor at ALL of the ability to judge arguments about the environment? People that win Nobel Prizes often spend years or decades in extremely narrow fields of research, which may make them even less suitable to pass judgement on other fields than another scientist who is more of a generalist and moves about in his field of study. The list of stupid sayings attributed to Nobel prize winners is long and distinguished.
This doesn’t mean they are wrong. It just means that appeals to authority are pointless. But if you want to engage in them, we skeptics can beat you anyway. You don’t have the science on your side, nor the economics, nor the appeals to authority. All that’s left is politics, and the tide appears to be turning on that as well.
Shodan…do you understand that weather and ecology are complex interconnected systems which defy mathematical precision…thus someone wanting proof{scientific proof}, will be waiting a possible lifetime.
The models are indicators, for which some of societies most highly awarded scientists endorsed. They are not a bunch of under-employed, fund starved, bored scientists wanting their wad of cash…to build more efficient killing devices.
The key indicators of ecology overkill will be, continued record breaking weather, social breakdowns, epidemiology studies and icebergs dropping off.
David Wilson…since I still don’t see “BANNED” under your name, I’ll continue to be amazed that you somehow haven’t crossed the line yet. You seem so close. I’m not calling for you to cross that line, I don’t want you to do anything that will lead to your banning, I’m just warning you yet again that some moderator is going to hop into a thread of yours some day…and it’ll be their judgment call.
You managed to be offended by my calling you “this David Wilson fellow,” and I still fail to understand how. In that first post I did nothing but give you suggestions, as you were a new poster. I replied once more to you, despite your hostile reaction, again giving you helpful advice on how to have your ideas taken seriously here.
You proceeded to make some pretty weak points consisting mostly of argument from authority, and Sam Stone attacked that position successfully by showing that authority is split. Rather than merely tell you that arguments from authority are flawed, as most here would agree, he went further than that. He showed that even authority wasn’t a slam dunk for your side.
That I celebrated his defeat of your weak argument was not a testament to your having gotten under my skin, nor anything of the sort. The one who has added a personal tone to this thread, from the very beginning, has been you.
A few hints for you…acting indignant might fool somebody who hasn’t been paying attention to context, it might give them the vague impression that there was something to be indignant about. Anyone who followed this thread will quickly learn that you have nothing to be indignant about. Your arguments are being attacked, and you are replying by resorting to name-calling and personal assaults against your critics.
The sorry thing about this is that you have some ideas about this topic. You have some knowledge, you have something to say…and nobody will ever care. You have presented your ideas so randomly, interspersed with personal attacks, that nobody is taking you seriously. You cross-posted to a Pit thread in which you attack Zaphod about something that happened on another message board. You accused him of being a troll, with absolutely no evidence or conjecture as to how you reach that conclusion.
If I take you at your word that your purpose is to show people the ecological problems you are concerned about, and suggest reasons to solve those problems, then you are frustrating your purpose by continuing in this manner.
I will speak no more on this here in this thread. If you continue to use these posting tactics, and I feel inclined to waste more of my time on addressing them (not likely, as law classes begin Monday), I will address it in a better forum than this. Everyone who has read this thread has seen your style for what it is, but perhaps if you clean it up a little you still have a chance not to lose face with the rest of this board.
