�Alarming� Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[TheLurch]

Welcome back!!!! So good to see you!

Thanks. Nice to virtually see you as well.

Among my distractions was a week long trip to Houston - conference at Rice followed by visits with some friends, one of whom has threatened to invite me back to give a talk. Any chance your part of Texas is anywhere near there?

[Cow Poke]

Thanks. Nice to virtually see you as well.

Among my distractions was a week long trip to Houston - conference at Rice followed by visits with some friends, one of whom has threatened to invite me back to give a talk. Any chance your part of Texas is anywhere near there?

Yup - just up the road! My wife does her cancer treatments near where you were, and I'm about an hour and a half WNW.

[JimL]

Sure it is.



One of which I am not.

I know, like with Trump, you only pretend to be one on Tweb.

[JimL]

Again, you are arguing that the consensus is the evidence that it is true. If it is true there will be a consensus, but a consensus doesn't make it true. That is agumentum ad populem. That is the cart before the horse. So just stop arguing about the consensus. It makes you look like an idiot.

The fact that there is a consensus amongst the experts, you know the people who actually study and know this stuff, is evidence to the rest of us that it is true. No, it doesn't make it true, but it is better that we listen and pay attention to the experts rather than acting like we are more knowledgeable than they are.

[Cow Poke]

I know, like with Trump, you only pretend to be one on Tweb.

Whatever you say, NAMBLA boy.

[Tassman]

Again, you are arguing that the consensus is the evidence that it is true.

[TheLurch]

Beyond that, there are a handful of climate scientists in the US who don't agree with the consensus (Lindzen, Curry, Christie, and Spencer). Despite representing a tiny fringe, they're often the ones who get invited on TV or to give Congressional testimony*, which makes it seem like there's a huge debate about this within the scientific community. Making people aware of the consensus provides important context for the things they're actually going to be likely to be made aware of.

Put in Sparko's recent terms, if someone's going to commit the logical fallacy of argument from expertise by presenting one of these four, then it's not a logical fallacy to point out that they hold a fringe opinion.


*CNN solved this for the recent climate report by not inviting any climate scientists on, and instead having Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay criticize the report and the scientists who wrote it.

[Sparko]

The fact that there is a consensus amongst the experts, you know the people who actually study and know this stuff, is evidence to the rest of us that it is true. No, it doesn't make it true, but it is better that we listen and pay attention to the experts rather than acting like we are more knowledgeable than they are.

That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Sparko]

Wording it differently doesn't change what you are doing. You are using the popularity of a belief to claim it is true.

If I said that the majority of people on earth believe in God, is that a good reason for you to believe God exists? If so, why don't you?

[JimL]

That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Different argument. If most all experts agree, then that in and of itself is evidence for the rest of us non-experts. It's absurd to say that the conclusions of the experts doing the scientific studies are not evidence. Unless of course you're a crazy conspiracy theorist. But the evidence is all around us anyway, the ice caps are melting away, the oceans are rising and are expected, for the same reason, to continue rising, the weather catastrophies are becoming worse and happening more often, the climate overall, around the world, is getting warmer etc etc.

[Sparko]

Different argument. If most all experts agree, then that in and of itself is evidence for the rest of us non-experts. It's absurd to say that the conclusions of the experts doing the scientific studies are not evidence. Unless of course you're a crazy conspiracy theorist. But the evidence is all around us anyway, the ice caps are melting away, the oceans are rising and are expected, for the same reason, to continue rising, the weather catastrophies are becoming worse and happening more often, the climate overall, around the world, is getting warmer etc etc.

No Jimmybob... The evidence is the only evidence. Not how many people believe something. Otherwise you should be a theist since most people believe in God. People who have studied the topic much more than you have and are experts on it.

[Leonhard]

No Jimmybob... The evidence is the only evidence. Not how many people believe something. Otherwise you should be a theist since most people believe in God. People who have studied the topic much more than you have and are experts on it.

I would agree with Sparko, as long as you add theory to that sentence. Some theories are better or worse supported, and that support hinges on evidence.

However, there's a difference between that and whether or not politicians should take scientists seriously when they collectively tell them that there's climate change happening; that the fault is human activity; and that it will have bad consequences where its cost-effective to do something pro-actively about it now rather than dealing with the fallout later.

I don't think we just throw the very notion of expertise on the bonfire, because there's a few dissenting scientists. You can find that for any field. Infamously there are individual historians who think the holocaust never took place, and there are a few doctors who argue that vaccines are dangerous.

Unless good reasons are provided, I think its wisest for politicians to go by the consensus of a field. In this case that would be the IPCC, and the various similar reports produced by those governments own scientific panels.

[Sparko]

I would agree with Sparko, as long as you add theory to that sentence. Some theories are better or worse supported, and that support hinges on evidence.

However, there's a difference between that and whether or not politicians should take scientists seriously when they collectively tell them that there's climate change happening; that the fault is human activity; and that it will have bad consequences where its cost-effective to do something pro-actively about it now rather than dealing with the fallout later.

I don't think we just throw the very notion of expertise on the bonfire, because there's a few dissenting scientists. You can find that for any field. Infamously there are individual historians who think the holocaust never took place, and there are a few doctors who argue that vaccines are dangerous.

Unless good reasons are provided, I think its wisest for politicians to go by the consensus of a field. In this case that would be the IPCC, and the various similar reports produced by those governments own scientific panels.

I am not saying throw expertise on the bonfire. I am saying not to rely on someone using "expertise" as an argument. Evidence should be the argument. Sometimes a lot of people are just wrong. Other times they are right. But the numbers of believers doesn't make something true or not.

If a bunch of experts went to Washington and said "Hey we experts all believe the sun will go out tomorrow, better get ready" - it might be enough to make someone take notice and find out more, but nobody would or should believe them just because a lot of them believe it. And that is what Tassman keeps doing. He throws out "consensus" as if it were evidence itself.

[Leonhard]

I am not saying throw expertise on the bonfire. I am saying not to rely on someone using "expertise" as an argument.

I agree, as that would be argument from authority.

If someone doubts that the climate is changing, perhaps because of reading other things themselves, having their own opinions, it doesn't do much to actually illuminate why would one should think otherwise.

So here I totally agree with you.

If a bunch of experts went to Washington and said "Hey we experts all believe the sun will go out tomorrow, better get ready" - it might be enough to make someone take notice and find out more, but nobody would or should believe them just because a lot of them believe it. And that is what Tassman keeps doing. He throws out "consensus" as if it were evidence itself.

Well, I don't think politicians should refrain from acting until they had gotten a full education in climatology, had written fourty papers themselves, etc. I think its perfectly fine for a politician to look at the reports submitted by NASA, the IPCC, the one commissioned by twelve different agencies in the US, and notice they're all saying pretty much the same thing and act accordingly.

On the other hand, unless that person has very good reason otherwise, I think it would be irresponsible. I've also seen antivaxxinationists use this exact strategy, claiming that more and more studies need to be made, over and over again, and every time they come back saying that vaccines are safe they ask for more to be commissioned. The point where we can claim enough certainty to act will always be a grey area.

On the other hand, by your example I likewise don't think we should believe the local astronomy department if they rushed Congress one night. But what if they warned that we'd have seven days of total darkness in the eighties, which was later confirmed in the nineties, and triple confirmed by international organisations of scientists in the early 2000s, would it be okay for politicians to postpone the duty of getting people ready, storing up food and seed grain, etc, ...

Maybe in the beginning, but I think you reach a crossing point where it would be irresponsible to act.

Personally I think we've long reached that.

[Sparko]

I agree, as that would be argument from authority.

If someone doubts that the climate is changing, perhaps because of reading other things themselves, having their own opinions, it doesn't do much to actually illuminate why would one should think otherwise.

So here I totally agree with you.



Well, I don't think politicians should refrain from acting until they had gotten a full education in climatology, had written fourty papers themselves, etc. I think its perfectly fine for a politician to look at the reports submitted by NASA, the IPCC, the one commissioned by twelve different agencies in the US, and notice they're all saying pretty much the same thing and act accordingly.

On the other hand, unless that person has very good reason otherwise, I think it would be irresponsible. I've also seen antivaxxinationists use this exact strategy, claiming that more and more studies need to be made, over and over again, and every time they come back saying that vaccines are safe they ask for more to be commissioned. The point where we can claim enough certainty to act will always be a grey area.

On the other hand, by your example I likewise don't think we should believe the local astronomy department if they rushed Congress one night. But what if they warned that we'd have seven days of total darkness in the eighties, which was later confirmed in the nineties, and triple confirmed by international organisations of scientists in the early 2000s, would it be okay for politicians to postpone the duty of getting people ready, storing up food and seed grain, etc, ...

Maybe in the beginning, but I think you reach a crossing point where it would be irresponsible to act.

Personally I think we've long reached that.

No problem with that. But when someone thinks the evidence is iffy or not conclusive, you (read:Tassman) can't just argue they are wrong because of a consensus. That IS argumentum ad populum. He needs to argue that the evidence is good and so I should believe in AGW, not that I should believe in AGW because a lot of scientists do.