Is Runaway climate change greatest threat in human history?

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Here is a video by Ben Goldacre, Author of Bad Science talking about when he stops communicating with climate change deniers. It is for those very reasons I also stop.

What's your point?  I haven't engaged in any ad hominems, nor has anything I've posted been persuasively refuted.  You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think.  Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the "scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific method.

They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial. http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/circumstantial_ad_hominem_examples/522/

When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus.  Of course group-think is unavoidable

Ad Hominem Circumstantial number 2.

I see, so you just want to talk to people who believe global warming is the greatest threat to humanity and ask them if they believe global warming is the greatest threat to humanity.  How apropos.  It fits right in with the group-think that is the hallmark of climate alarmism.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 3.

You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.

For the benefit of other readers and possibly yourself:

Circumstantial Ad Hominem occurs when someone attacks a claim by saying that the person making the claim is only making it because it's in his/her interest or because of his/her circumstances. This actually has no bearing on whether or not the claim is true or false.  http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/circumstantial_ad_hominem_examples/522/

LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.

Non Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material. 

Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the "scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific method.

Really? A global scientific community ignoring the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method.

You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to claim

Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.

LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.  When you hire and fire people based on whether or not they believe in the global warming dogma, you're bound to get a high consensus.  Of course group-think is unavoidable.  If you open the question up to scientists in related fields, the "consensus" drops considerably;

The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus'

Cherry picked data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) that makes up only a small percentage of those that reject the consensus of global warming and thus been refuted.

And again, just to reiterate here and drill some facts home:

In 2010, a Gallup poll found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like those indicate controversy. But in truth, among scientists who study the Earth's climate, there is no controversy whatsoever. The rise in global temperatures over the past few decades is undoubtedly caused by human activities.

Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97% endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last week, a report leaked out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are driving global warming.https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/settled_science_that_is_controversial/climate_change_is_largely_manmade.html?state=stop

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

And yes, when it comes to the scientific consensus that is something that can not be taken lightly. This is known as deferring (not appealing) to authority and is perfectly valid here ( a reliable heuristic) just as it would be if this was a case of whether one needed brain surgery or not and the majority of specialists concluding that this was the case. 

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

Ad Hominem Circumstantial.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial number 2.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 3.

You don't seem to understand how logic fallacies work.  Facts are never fallacies.  We have seen people who so much as questions global warming alarmism driven from their positions.  The fact that anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy is branded a climate heretic illustrates the emotional nature of global warming alarmism and undermines any scientific basis it may have.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.

Facts are never fallacies.  Whether or not you admit you're affected by group-think is irrelevant.

LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.

Non Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material. 

Fact's are never fallacies.

Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the "scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific method.

Really? A global scientific community ignoring the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method.

Apparently the term "scientific method" is new to you.  Here are the steps used in the scientific method;

1) Formulation of a question

2) Hypothesis

3) Prediction

4) Testing

5) Analysis

That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.  

You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to claim

Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.

Projection, and a lame attempt at that.

Cherry picked data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) that makes up only a small percentage of those that reject the consensus of global warming and thus been refuted.

And again, just to reiterate here and drill some facts home:

In 2010, a Gallup poll found that 50% of those surveyed thought that climate change was manmade, while 46% believed it was due to natural causes. Numbers like those indicate controversy. But in truth, among scientists who study the Earth's climate, there is no controversy whatsoever. The rise in global temperatures over the past few decades is undoubtedly caused by human activities.

Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is manmade. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97% endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last week, a report leaked out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are driving global warming.https://www.realclearscience.com/lists/settled_science_that_is_controversial/climate_change_is_largely_manmade.html?state=stop

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

And yes, when it comes to the scientific consensus that is something that can not be taken lightly. This is known as deferring (not appealing) to authority and is perfectly valid here ( a reliable heuristic) just as it would be if this was a case of whether one needed brain surgery or not and the majority of specialists concluding that this was the case. 

True, your 97% stat is a great example of cherry-picked data.  No doubt 97% of cherry-picked literature that expressed an opinion from authors who are predisposed to confirmation bias are concerned that man is destroying the planet.  Chicken Little lives on through many people.  The real surprise is that the actual findings of the poll completely undermine your position.  Only 32.6% of the cherry-picked papers said humans were causing global warming.  If you are in need of remedial math education, less than 1/3 is not a majority.

ZeusAres42

"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill-informed position, which by Reasoning he never acquired" - Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish poet, satirist, essayist, and political pamphleteer

I also have to agree with climate change scientist John Cook that said the conspiracy theories put forward by the climate change deniers  make the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy look amateur in comparison. He explains here as well as other things to drill it facts home: 

Furthermore, the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill-informed position, which by Reasoning he never acquired" - Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish poet, satirist, essayist, and political pamphleteer

I also have to agree with climate change scientist John Cook that said the conspiracy theories put forward by the climate change deniers  make the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy look amateur in comparison. He explains here as well as other things to drill it facts home: 

Furthermore, the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.

Hmmm, a video who's screenshot promotes a lie, as your last post illustrates.  There's one I'll be sure to check out.  In the meantime, maybe you can point me to the models that have predicted the recent years of global cooling we've been experiencing.

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Ad Hominem Circumstantial.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial number 2.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 3.

You don't seem to understand how logic fallacies work.  Facts are never fallacies.  We have seen people who so much as questions global warming alarmism driven from their positions.  The fact that anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy is branded a climate heretic illustrates the emotional nature of global warming alarmism and undermines any scientific basis it may have.

What I am about to say here and throughout this post will be for the benefit of other readers as it is becoming abundantly clear that the above person quoted is not capable of being swayed by reason at least regarding the climate change debate.  And I am also making comment here despite it feeling like we've got sucked into some climate change conspiracy debate. Anyway, without ado lets get at it.

First of all, I am not going to discuss what were fallacies in one or more previous posts. I've already called out the errors in reasoning and explained why they're errors in reason in those post/s which can be evaluated by other readers and they can make up their own minds. So, now to take issue with this post I will be pointing out any errors in reasoning, as well as any factually incorrect claims, and so forth.

Now, with the first link quoted above is a website called "What's up with that" which is a "promoting climate change denial blog site" created in 2006 by Blogger Anthony Watts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?.

With the second link that involves a media article written by Michael D. Lemonick about supposedly American climatologist Judith Curry who according to the very article turned on her own colleges.

And yes she could indeed have been a climatologist too as there does exist corrupt and dishonest scientists out there, and in if in not all cases then definitely most cases this behavior eventually leads to their demise in their career. Hence probably for the reason, the likes of Anthony Watts and Judith Curry do what they do.

By the way, for a more comprehensive view about Anthony Watts and Judith Curry myths and what the actual reputable science says can be found here:

Climate Misinformation by Source: Judith Curry https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Judith_Curry.htm

Climate Misinformation by Source: Anthony Watts https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

I also found the following rather amusing:

Credentials

Credentials held Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8] Credentials not held Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

CYDdharta said

The fact that anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy is branded a climate heretic illustrates the emotional nature of global warming alarmism and undermines any scientific basis it may have.

Now I might be wrong here but the inference I am making out here is that what is being suggested is that the whole global scientific community that endorses AGW consensus do so because they are all emotional alarmists, which I hardly need tell you is a ridiculous thing to say. If that is not what is meant and something else is meant then apologize, but this is indeed what it sounds likes. 

Ad Hominem Circumstantial Number 4 as well as the bit in bold not being true; I never claimed I was or wasn't affected by groupthink.

CYDdharta said

Facts are never fallacies.  Whether or not you admit you're affected by group-think is irrelevant.

The original post put forward to me was "You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your opinion of global warming and try to claim, ironically, that you're not affected by group-think."

The issue here is that what's not stated is what my admittance or non-admittance of being affected by groupthink is irrelevant to. The fact is I was told that I claimed I was not affected by groupthink when I made no such claim and readers can check this out for themselves by scrolling up. What's actually irrelevant here is the mere arguing against me as opposed to actually taking issue with the content of the argument. Basically, what's being suggested here is because someone believes the other person is affected by group think and so is coming to their conclusion based on that; this is akin to claiming a person is forming their conclusions based on biases, and hence we have ad hominem circumstantial. While it is true that one may be affected by group think/biased is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

LOL, "science" by consensus is the opposite of science.

Non Sequitur. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. The scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of specialist scientist in a particular field of study that comes about as a result of critical peer-review; scrutinizing presented material. 

CYDdharta said:

Fact's are never fallacies.

I have to say, this bit was rather amusing. The actual fact is that the statement "science by consensus is the opposite of science" is nothing more that a nonsensical assertion. If anyone can prove that scientific consensus is the opposite of science, well I wish them good luck!

Applying your own actions industry-wide, you can easily explain the "scientific consensus" of a community that is ignoring the scientific method.

Really? A global scientific community ignoring the scientific method? Your implication that climate change scientists ignore the scientific method is based on nothing more than a flawed belief versus decades of scientific research backed up my an inordinate amount of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method.

CYDdharta said:

Apparently the term "scientific method" is new to you.  Here are the steps used in the scientific method;

1) Formulation of a question

2) Hypothesis

3) Prediction

4) Testing

5) Analysis

That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.  

The first part here regarding the distorted belief about the "scientific" method being new to me is completely incorrect. Everything else is almost correct but not quite.

Scientific Method

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Another amusing fact here is that these points, as well as the 5 points above from CYDdharta, contradict what was said by CYDdharta in previous posts: 

GenericName said:

Hey TK, if it is that obvious, what reasoning do you suggest for why the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community cant see it?
If you are able to see how false it is so easily, why can't the people all over the world who spend their lives studying this not see it?

CYDdharta said

They start from the assumption that it's true and their jobs are simply to find proof.

And so according to CYDharta, the scientific method is

1. Assume something
2. Prove that assumption true.
   

And yet it is me who doesn't know much about the scientific method? Well, I'll let other readers be the judge of that.

CYDdharta said

That's it, there's no Step 6 - Determine the consensus of the scientific community.  

Regarding this bit, I would just like to go over what I said before which was that a scientific consensus comes about via the use of the scientific method. I never claimed that or implied the scientific method involved "determining the consensus." This was, however, a nice little rebuttal against that strawman. Anyway, the fact is that a strong scientific consensus is a naturally logical progression as a result of decades of research that was conducted via the use of strict adherence to the scientific method, and thus research that will be backed up by empirical and objective evidence.

You stop listening any time anyone questions your orthodoxy.  You only listen to people who share your aopinion of global warming and try to claim

Are you sure this is something that you're not doing? I think you need to look a lot closer to home here.

CYDdharta said

Projection, and a lame attempt at that.

This is basically just an opinion which people are entitled to even if they do lack any logical inference. The truth is I was inviting CYDdharta engage in a little self examination before examining others outright with complete conviction and certaintity. From my experience it is indeed the deniers/conspiracy theorists is that they are so convinced that they're one's that are right and yet haven't been able to provide a singe argument backed up real objective and empiracl evidence. There are indeed people that could do with examing their position on climate change and I'm pretty sure it's not the scientific consensus.

CYDdharta said

True, your 97% stat is a great example of cherry-picked data.  No doubt 97% of cherry-picked literature that expressed an opinion from authors who are predisposed to confirmation bias are concerned that man is destroying the planet.  Chicken Little lives on through many people.  The real surprise is that the actual findings of the poll completely undermine your position.  Only 32.6% of the cherry-picked papers said humans were causing global warming.  If you are in need of remedial math education, less than 1/3 is not a majority.

This bit was lovely musing over; wild assumptions and lying/misleading with statistics; I mean it was so good it could be classed as at least half clever. The first bit in bold suggests that a whole global scientific comunity of experts in the field of climate science have only come to their conclusions becuase they're all predisposed to confirmation bias; this bit here ttruly is an imbecilic argument.

The second bit highlighted in bold is a misreporting of the actual abstract either intentionally or uninentionally; if it is the latter then reading comprehension isn't one of CYDdharta's forte. The truth is that the way CYDdharta portrays the findings tries to undermine my position. The actual findings do no such thing. Parts of the actual findings:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that

This is roughly 4000 papers by the way.

One must ask themselves if there were 4000 papers written up by a group of medical experts in about 72  countries across the globe that suggested you needed brain sugery to save your life who exactly are you going to listen to - this or some random online user that points to a few blog posts about brain surgery being a hoax or hysteria/alarmism? I know what I would choose.

By the way the full abstract with the source and other verifiable sources therin is again as follows

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Again, as I said before the scientific data collected over decades speaks for itself.