Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

One thing that all business people learn is that by the time the information gets perfect, the opportunity is gone.

Likely is about as good as it gets in time to act.

 

[orogenicman]

In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

 

[PMZ]

It seems that the earth simply refuses to conform to conservative expectations. They say 'A', it does 'B'. It's almost like it has its own mind rather than conforming to what's convenient to their beliefs.

Who knew that the universe is not under their control?

 

[bripat9643]

Who would you go to when you need an operation.

A plumber?

Choosing a professional to perform a service has nothing to do with determining whether an argument is logically correct.

Professionals in any field are the authorities in their field. You would claim that following your doctor's medical advice is appeal to authority. Or following your lawyers legal advice. The IPCC members and supporters are the professionals in climate science. You and I are very much amateurs.

No I wouldn't. That's what you're claiming. If my doctor started claiming that eating vegetables was bad for me, then I wouldn't take his advice, and I would conclude that he was a quack. Likewise, the IPCC and the so-called "climate scientists" are telling us that eating vegetables is bad for us. Claims like that require ironclad proof, not just the say-so of some potential quack.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems that the earth simply refuses to conform to conservative expectations. They say 'A', it does 'B'. It's almost like it has its own mind rather than conforming to what's convenient to their beliefs.

Who knew that the universe is not under their control?

You mean it refuses to conform to left-wing expectations. They say the globe is warming, but the temperature remains constant for 15 years. They claim whether will become more "extreme," but hurricanes and tornadoes are less frequent.

You know how one can determine what the facts are? Just assume they are the exact opposite of whatever you claim.

 

[bripat9643]

In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

Oh puhleeze. Then change the date to 1960.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

A ridiculous statement. Scientists devote their entire lives to understanding the natural world.

And they can still be wrong. And once in a great while you probably can be right about something, but I haven't seen it so far.

 

[westwall]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

 

[PMZ]

Choosing a professional to perform a service has nothing to do with determining whether an argument is logically correct.

Professionals in any field are the authorities in their field. You would claim that following your doctor's medical advice is appeal to authority. Or following your lawyers legal advice. The IPCC members and supporters are the professionals in climate science. You and I are very much amateurs.

No I wouldn't. That's what you're claiming. If my doctor started claiming that eating vegetables was bad for me, then I wouldn't take his advice, and I would conclude that he was a quack. Likewise, the IPCC and the so-called "climate scientists" are telling us that eating vegetables is bad for us. Claims like that require ironclad proof, not just the say-so of some potential quack.

They have the science, you have the politics. Nobody in their right mind would grant that you're more likely to be right. Science discovers what's true. Politics sells what's best for the politician. You lose.

 

[westwall]

In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary.

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought we had already gone through this. If your authorities are actually experts in their field AND if their is a consensus among them (that supports your argument) AND your argument is inductive, argument from authority is valid.

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.

From Wikipedia's article on the topic:

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

I get the impression, here and elsewhere, that you don't always read everything I write.

Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority.

What you're saying is that whether claim 'A' is valid has no bearing on whether the authority's opinion determines whether claim 'A' is valid.

It's hard to believe anyone who claims to understand logic could utter such a Rube Goldberg syllogism.

I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

You and PMS and all the other AGW cultists are making a deducting argument. Every time you claim claim AGW is true because of the so-called "scientific consensus," You aren't referring to the evidence. You're only invoking the so-called "authority" of the IPCC and so-called "climate scientists." If you're making a case based on the strength of the evidence, then post the evidence. Don't claim it's true because the IPCC or Michael Mann says so.

It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

Likelihoods are just another truth about reality. The likelihood that I will die of cancer may not be known by me or my doctor, but it's still a scientific fact that there is a certain likelihood of it occurring. Insurance companies invest millions of dollars trying to determine the likelihood of various kinds of life events, but they still come up with incorrect numbers and get soaked for billions of dollars.

The fact is that the IPCC doesn't have a clue what the temperature of the Earth's climate will be in 2050. Their guess so far have been abysmally wrong. Based on their track record they aren't experts. They are charlatans.

The bottom line is, no matter how brilliant, no matter how educated, and no matter how dedicated an expert supposedly is, he can still be dead wrong about something he is supposed to have expert knowledge about.

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

 

[bripat9643]

Professionals in any field are the authorities in their field. You would claim that following your doctor's medical advice is appeal to authority. Or following your lawyers legal advice. The IPCC members and supporters are the professionals in climate science. You and I are very much amateurs.

No I wouldn't. That's what you're claiming. If my doctor started claiming that eating vegetables was bad for me, then I wouldn't take his advice, and I would conclude that he was a quack. Likewise, the IPCC and the so-called "climate scientists" are telling us that eating vegetables is bad for us. Claims like that require ironclad proof, not just the say-so of some potential quack.

They have the science, you have the politics. Nobody in their right mind would grant that you're more likely to be right. Science discovers what's true. Politics sells what's best for the politician. You lose.

"We're right. You're wrong" is an easier way to say that, but it has the drawback of making the fatuousness of your "argument" more obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. I know I've seen that claim all over the web, but it's just plain wrong. In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary. They didn't move with respect to one another. That theory was dead wrong. The consensus was wrong, and every "valid authority" on the subject was wrong.

Experts are not infallible, so the fact that they hold a particular position, even on a subject that are supposed to be authorities on, doesn't gaurantee that their position is true.



Wikipedia is wrong, and I already quote the comments that explain why it's wrong. There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature.

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

 

[westwall]

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat. It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building. It is quite comical in light of what was already known about plate tectonics.

These clowns are EXACTLY the same.

 

[orogenicman]

.

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

So the hundreds of scientists who have contributed to the latest IPCC report are all wrong but you are right.

Oh, and please explain to us how all the geologists in 1950 were wrong about continental drift, but all the geologists today making essentially the same claims are not?

 

[orogenicman]

I'm sorry Paddy, but it is you that are wrong - and fundamentally so on every count here. I don't think you've put on your thinking cap here.

Just as an FYI: Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The model builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first few decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted the theory after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

And whether or not the experts are actually correct about the point in question actually has no bearing on whether or not it is logically valid to call upon their authority. I think for a starter that you ought to look up the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument. It will tell you where you went wrong when you said "There is no "valid authority" when it comes to truths about nature". I am not claiming truths. I am claiming likelihoods. The opinion of the experts is a valid reference when claiming that one thing is more likely than another.

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

So what you are saying is that it is okay to get one's facts wrong as long as one is a right wing fanatic, because they are somehow allowed to look stupid to everyone else. Well, sir, I can agree that you look stupid, but I don't agree that looking stupid is the right way to go.

 

[orogenicman]

This is not exactly true. Harry Hess had to promulgate the modified theory in the form of a poem in 1962 to not ruffle feathers. The real serious work on it had begun in the 1930's. It was finally accepted when J. Tuzo Wilson provided the mechanism of transverse faults and described how they would be found (accurately BTW) that the theory was finally widely accepted.

Until that time the geologists of that era treated plate tectonics theorists the same was as the fraudsters treat the AGW climate sceptics.

They're quibbling about the date because they have nothing else to attack. They know the historical facts of how plate tectonics came to be accepted make the irrationality of their appeals to authority obvious.

Picking out a trivial detail of someone's argument and then viciously attacking it as if it was central to the argument is a favored tactic with left-wing demagogues.

I know, but what's funny is when they do that in this case, they open themselves up to a crushing defeat. It is VERY well known just how vociferously the entrenched geologists were AGAINST Wegener's theory.

Find any National Geographic Atlas from the mid 1960's and they are STILL promulgating the shrinking Earth theory of mountain building. It is quite comical in light of what was already known about plate tectonics.

These clowns are EXACTLY the same.

What is comical is that you think that the vast majority of geologists in the 1960s subscribed to the shrinking Earth hypothesis, or even the more widely accepted expanding Earth hypothesis championed by Paul Dirac, Pascual Jordan, and later by Samuel Warren Carey and others. The fact is that both of these ideas were easily shown to violate the laws of thermodynamics, a fact that was well understood by many in the geologic community, so was finally rejected for all time when plate tectonics was proposed and finally accepted. Yes there are still stragglers who simply won't let it go, much like there are crackpots who think that global warming is a conspiracy by government scientists in order to gain government grants.

The primary argument against Wegener's theory was that it lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics finally gave us the requisite mechanism - mantle convection.

 

[bripat9643]

Incorrect. Continental drift was already widely accepted by then due to the discovery of global oceanic rifting. What it needed was a mechanism. When Wadati–Benioff zones (what we today call subduction zones) were discovered, the mechanism of mantle convection was formulated, and today we call the totality of the theory plate tectonics.

Bullcrap. Harry Hess had to refer to plate tectonics in a poem as late as 1962. They didn't finally obliterate the old guard of the geology field till J. Tuzo Wilson described the transverse faults and their method of operation, plus how they would be found, that the old guard finally scurried off and hid.

The point is that the claim that "In 1970 the consensus among all professional geologists was that the continents were stationary" is wrong. And by the way, your point doesn't refute mine. Congratulations.

You have to be a moron to believe that's the point.

 

[bripat9643]

All the geologists in 1950 were dead wrong about continental drift. That fact alone should make anyone pause before claiming some theory is true because authorities 'X,' 'Y' and 'Z' says it's true.

So the hundreds of scientists who have contributed to the latest IPCC report are all wrong but you are right.

Oh, and please explain to us how all the geologists in 1950 were wrong about continental drift, but all the geologists today making essentially the same claims are not?

They aren't making the same assertion, nimrod. All modern geologists accept the theory of continental drift. In 1950 they all rejected it.

And, yes, it's easily possible that all the so-called "climate scientists" working for the IPCC are wrong and I'm right.