The invention of global warming

[Sunsettommy]

The Consensus Fallacy
BY BRIGGS POSTED ON MAY 17, 2014

Excerpt:

Here is the word-for-word opening in the Vox “explanatory journalism” tidbit “John Oliver shows how to debate climate deniers“:

That climate change is occurring, and that humans are the primary cause, is beyond dispute at this point. Surveys have found that 97-98 percent of climate researchers and 97 percent of climate papers expressing a position on the subject agree with the consensus view that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.

If one wants to claim the proposition “That humans are the primary cause of global warming is beyond dispute” is true, one immediately defeats oneself by saying only 97% of climate researchers agree. If 3%, or 2%, or 1%, or even just one solitary climate researcher, disagrees that humans are the primary cause of global warming, the proposition is not “beyond dispute”. It is, in stark opposition, actively disputed.

I am one of the climate researchers who disputes the proposition. Again, therefore, the proposition is not “beyond” dispute. Dispute is not only a live option, it is a respectable scientific position to take. It is not, of course, a politically correct position; no small point.

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Thought Co

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Numbers)

By
Austin Cline

Updated March 06, 2019

Excerpt:

Fallacy Name:
Argumentum ad Populum

Alternate Names:
Appeal to the People
Appeal to the Majority
Appeal to the Gallery
Appeal to Popular Prejudcie
Appeal to the Mob
Appeal to the Multitude
Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum

Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation
This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

• When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds.

LINK

============

Only stupid people go the consensus route.

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa will have to ignore this documented consensus failure over Ulcers:

Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers

February 9, 2005
Author: Tanenbaum Jessica
Institution: History of Science/Medicine

Excerpt:

In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease (P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn't the medical community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch's golden age of bacteriology. Why didn't doctors laud Warren and Marshall for their findings? Why didn't long-term ulcer-sufferers champion Warren and Marshall's discovery that with a standard course of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through their coats to distract from their ulcers' gnawing pain. Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ULCER TREATMENT

LINK

======

Now watch this ignorant fool flail all over it......

Why are you infatuated with ulcers . Google “ peptic ulcers”
it’s free

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dagosa will have to ignore this documented consensus failure over Ulcers:

Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers

February 9, 2005
Author: Tanenbaum Jessica
Institution: History of Science/Medicine

Excerpt:

In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease (P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn't the medical community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch's golden age of bacteriology. Why didn't doctors laud Warren and Marshall for their findings? Why didn't long-term ulcer-sufferers champion Warren and Marshall's discovery that with a standard course of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through their coats to distract from their ulcers' gnawing pain. Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ULCER TREATMENT

LINK

======

Now watch this ignorant fool flail all over it......

Why are you infatuated with ulcers . Google “ peptic ulcers”
it’s free

Why are you terrified about Consensus failures?

Good bye troll!

 

[ReinyDays]

concensus is a philosophical position, n

So, you disagree with 3400 universities. Funny, since they all are in general agreement on a host of topics from AGW to the theory of evolution. Consensus is nothing more then general agreement.....so only politicians can agree and not scientists ?

I wasn't aware there were 3400 universities who offer Atmospheric Science as a degree program ... have a citation? ... California's System of Higher Education used to confine this coursework to just UCLA ... I can't think of a more well-funded university than the University of California ...

There's certainly 3400 universities that offer Philosophy degree program ... so it's easy to see these institutions can all agree on a consensus ... ha ha ha ...

Yes ... only politicians can come to agreement in matters of dispute, that's what voting is about ... scientists require cold hard evidence to resolve any disputes, not votes ... it was the numerous photographic plates from the solar eclipse in 1919 that resolved the disputes of GR ... and absolutely nothing less would do ... 200 years of 100% consensus was overturned in just a few brief minutes ...

Still haven't seen any scientific citations from you ... before you grandstand your massive scientific knowledge anymore, I'd like know how deep it goes ... back any of your claims with a proper reference (not Wikipedia) ... I don't suppose you know any math, do you? ...

 

[Dagosa]

concensus is a philosophical position, n

So, you disagree with 3400 universities. Funny, since they all are in general agreement on a host of topics from AGW to the theory of evolution. Consensus is nothing more then general agreement.....so only politicians can agree and not scientists ?

I wasn't aware there were 3400 universities who offer Atmospheric Science as a degree program ... have a citation? ... California's System of Higher Education used to confine this coursework to just UCLA ... I can't think of a more well-funded university than the University of California ...

There's certainly 3400 universities that offer Philosophy degree program ... so it's easy to see these institutions can all agree on a consensus ... ha ha ha ...

Yes ... only politicians can come to agreement in matters of dispute, that's what voting is about ... scientists require cold hard evidence to resolve any disputes, not votes ... it was the numerous photographic plates from the solar eclipse in 1919 that resolved the disputes of GR ... and absolutely nothing less would do ... 200 years of 100% consensus was overturned in just a few brief minutes ...

Still haven't seen any scientific citations from you ... before you grandstand your massive scientific knowledge anymore, I'd like know how deep it goes ... back any of your claims with a proper reference (not Wikipedia) ... I don't suppose you know any math, do you? ...

An accredited university with a science program does not have offer a degree in any particular area to have a valid consensus of AGW. It’s normal for all universities to scrutinize the findings of anyother and come to a general agreement. But your welcome.....find just one that doesn’t...just one.

 

[Dagosa]

wasn't aware there were 3400 universities who offer Atmospheric Science as a degree program ... have a citation? ... California's System of Higher Education used to confine this coursework to just UCLA ... I can't think of a more well-funded university than the University of California

It’s a rediculous assumption. AGW crosses all natural science boundaries. You don’t need to offer a degree in anyone particular area. Biology would suffice As would all natural sciences.
yours is a hideous idea,

 

[Dagosa]

Yes ... only politicians can come to agreement in matters of dispute, that's what voting is about ... scientists require cold hard evidence to resolve any disputes, not votes ... it was the numerous photographic plates from the solar eclipse in 1919 that resolved the disputes of GR ... and absolutely nothing less would do ... 200 years of 100% consensus was overturned in just a few brief minutes ...

So again, you disagree that every university, every climate research facility and every govt. in the world who has signed on, supports AGW and are all in general agreement. You’re arrogant .

btw, there is no dispute of the AGW in general.

 

[Dagosa]

Still haven't seen any scientific citations from you ... before you grandstand your massive scientific knowledge anymore, I'd like know how deep it goes ... back any of your claims with a proper reference (not Wikipedia) ... I don't suppose you know any math, do you? ...

hold your breath..

 

[Sunsettommy]

concensus is a philosophical position, n

So, you disagree with 3400 universities. Funny, since they all are in general agreement on a host of topics from AGW to the theory of evolution. Consensus is nothing more then general agreement.....so only politicians can agree and not scientists ?

I wasn't aware there were 3400 universities who offer Atmospheric Science as a degree program ... have a citation? ... California's System of Higher Education used to confine this coursework to just UCLA ... I can't think of a more well-funded university than the University of California ...

There's certainly 3400 universities that offer Philosophy degree program ... so it's easy to see these institutions can all agree on a consensus ... ha ha ha ...

Yes ... only politicians can come to agreement in matters of dispute, that's what voting is about ... scientists require cold hard evidence to resolve any disputes, not votes ... it was the numerous photographic plates from the solar eclipse in 1919 that resolved the disputes of GR ... and absolutely nothing less would do ... 200 years of 100% consensus was overturned in just a few brief minutes ...

Still haven't seen any scientific citations from you ... before you grandstand your massive scientific knowledge anymore, I'd like know how deep it goes ... back any of your claims with a proper reference (not Wikipedia) ... I don't suppose you know any math, do you? ...

He is one of those fellas who downs handfuls of BLUE pills everyday.

One of these days, he will take a Red pill by mistake, will quickly go to emergency to get his stomach pumped, can't have the truth revealed you know.

 

[ReinyDays]

It’s a rediculous assumption. AGW crosses all natural science boundaries. You don’t need to offer a degree in anyone particular area. Biology would suffice As would all natural sciences.
yours is a hideous idea,

Your idea has a formal name ... it's the logical fallacy of "Appealing to Authority" ... argumentum ab auctoritate ... there's many very smart biologists in the world, and they do amazing work in biology ... but that doesn't mean they know very much about fluid mechanics and the thermodynamic complexities of water changing it's state-of-matter all the time and in every way ...

Why would you ask a weather forecaster if you have pancreatic cancer? ...

Anyway ... no citations so you're just making this up as you go along ... just checked NOAA though, doesn't say climate change is catastrophic anywhere ... I'm not going to bother yarding up NHC's press releases on what they think of climate change ... you know, the guys that got kicked off the IPCC ... Mark Landsea is a name to look up ...

But thank you for showing us the new tofu vomit from the National Enquirer, SciAm and PBS ... I remember the good old days where we only had 97% consensus, then is was 98% and today we've reached 100% ... sure, I'll bid 102%, what could go wrong? ...

AGW crosses all natural science boundaries

So, you agree AGW must comply with the laws of physics? ... SB in particular? ...

 

[mamooth]

The consensus on peptic ulcers changed almost instantly when better evidence was presented. Thus, it's a good example of how science will embrace new data if it's better data, even if it overturns old theories.

And that's bad news for deniers. Needless to say, deniers haven't been able to present any better data to overturn the current good data. Quite the contrary. Their dumb theories were the ones that were originally overturned by the better data.

Deniers, just what is your theory of denialism? What is causing the current fast warming? We know it's not natural cycles, because the current natural cycle should be cooling the earth.

If you can't propose a theory, you're not doing science, so nobody will listen to you.

 

[mamooth]

Your idea has a formal name ... it's the logical fallacy of "Appealing to Authority" ... argumentum ab auctoritate ...

Nope. You just lack understanding of the concept of consilience. When multiple indepedent disciplines all converge on the same result, that gives added weight to the results.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nope. You just lack understanding of the concept of consilience. When multiple indepedent disciplines all converge on the same result, that gives added weight to the results.

Nope ... this is your lack of understanding of physics ... it doesn't matter how many soft sciences converge ... violate just one law of nature and your claims are bogus ... every single claim of doom and dispaire due to global warming violate one or more of the three Laws of Thermodynamics ... except maybe sea level rise ... all the rest require magical forces to drive the created energy that brings more order to the universe ...

200 years of 100% consensus evaporated in just a few short minutes in the Australian Outback in 1919 ...

 

[mamooth]

Nope ... this is your lack of understanding of physics ... it doesn't matter how many soft sciences converge ... violate just one law of nature and your claims are bogus ...

And since that doesn't ever happen with AGW theory, the consilience matters.

every single claim of doom and dispaire due to global warming violate one or more of the three Laws of Thermodynamics ...

Got it, you understand next to nothing about thermodynamics.

except maybe sea level rise ... all the rest require magical forces to drive the created energy that brings more order to the universe ...

Were you the one talking about the magical power of organization that only the magical life force possesses? It's been a while.

200 years of 100% consensus evaporated in just a few short minutes in the Australian Outback in 1919 ...

Ummm ... whatever.

 

[Dagosa]

The consensus on peptic ulcers changed almost instantly when better evidence was presented. Thus, it's a good example of how science will embrace new data if it's better data, even if it overturns old theories.

And that's bad news for deniers. Needless to say, deniers haven't been able to present any better data to overturn the current good data. Quite the contrary. Their dumb theories were the ones that were originally overturned by the better data.

Deniers, just what is your theory of denialism? What is causing the current fast warming? We know it's not natural cycles, because the current natural cycle should be cooling the earth.

If you can't propose a theory, you're not doing science, so nobody will listen to you.

Deniers are all just waiting for Hannity and crew to give their latest guess. Their explanations always start with, “I’m no scientist but......” they then proceed to pretend they are and know more then literally, every major science organization in the world.

 

[ReinyDays]

Deniers are all just waiting for Hannity and crew to give their latest guess. Their explanations always start with, “I’m no scientist but......” they then proceed to pretend they are and know more then literally, every major science organization in the world.

I took a class in meteorology ... it's not much but it's more information than you have ... and at least Mammory reads the National Enquirer regularly ... how about yourself, who's tufu puke have you been chewing on? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

And since that doesn't ever happen with AGW theory, the consilience matters.
Got it, you understand next to nothing about thermodynamics.
Were you the one talking about the magical power of organization that only the magical life force possesses? It's been a while.
Ummm ... whatever.

All fluff, no substance ... if people think the Middle East is tropical, then all the cold hard data that says otherwise doesn't matter ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

The consensus on peptic ulcers changed almost instantly when better evidence was presented. Thus, it's a good example of how science will embrace new data if it's better data, even if it overturns old theories.

And that's bad news for deniers. Needless to say, deniers haven't been able to present any better data to overturn the current good data. Quite the contrary. Their dumb theories were the ones that were originally overturned by the better data.

Deniers, just what is your theory of denialism? What is causing the current fast warming? We know it's not natural cycles, because the current natural cycle should be cooling the earth.

If you can't propose a theory, you're not doing science, so nobody will listen to you.

No that is a flat out lie, they took a while to accept it, meanwhile YOU still haven't understood WHY their consensus over ulcers was so stupid in the first place, since there were ZERO science research establishing that claim in the first place, it was a long running BELIEF is why they didn't at first take Dr. Warrens claims seriously...., they were so stuck on consensus to see that it was full of shit from day one.

Here is the article you obviously avoided reading, which I posted 40

Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers

February 9, 2005
Author: Tanenbaum Jessica
Institution: History of Science/Medicine

Excerpt:

In 1983, Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall isolated Helicobacter pylori, the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease (P.U.D.). However, decades passed before most doctors prescribed antibiotics to their afflicted patients. Why didn't the medical community hit itself on its collective head? After all, most bacterial diseases had been discovered a century before during Robert Koch's golden age of bacteriology. Why didn't doctors laud Warren and Marshall for their findings? Why didn't long-term ulcer-sufferers champion Warren and Marshall's discovery that with a standard course of oral antibiotics, patients no longer have to swig antacid, feel guilty for leading a stressful life, or massage their stomachs through their coats to distract from their ulcers' gnawing pain. Understanding these questions reveals how complex scientific processes mold contemporary medical discoveries and their reception.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ULCER TREATMENT

LINK

large size and bolding mine

 

[Dagosa]

Deniers are all just waiting for Hannity and crew to give their latest guess. Their explanations always start with, “I’m no scientist but......” they then proceed to pretend they are and know more then literally, every major science organization in the world.

I took a class in meteorology ... it's not much but it's more information than you have ... and at least Mammory reads the National Enquirer regularly ... how about yourself, who's tufu puke have you been chewing on? ...

As usual, you’ve stated no specifics what so ever, just the dumb insinuated claim that you’re smarter then literally, every related institution. Gee, go ahead. Tell us exactly where I’m wrong and Trump is right.