From Abracadabra to Zombies

• a
• b
• c
• d
• e
• f
• g
• h
• i
• j
• k
• l
• m
• n
• o
• p
• q
• r
• s
• t
• u
• v
• w
• x
• y
• z

reader comments: climate skeptics

11 Dec 2007

One of the oft-repeated axioms among skeptics regarding science is that a majority view does not automatically make something true. Science is not democratic. Another way to look at it is, as Carl Sagan put it in his Baloney Detection Kit, "Arguments from authority carry little weight." This point is hammered home time and again in skeptical magazines and skeptical web sties. And yet, a near universal mantra of "scientific consensus" is almost always included when discussing Anthropomorphic Cataclysmic Global Warming (ACGW). And now, the Skeptic's Dictionary has resorted to this same emotional plea in the very second sentence where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is mentioned.

reply: The argument from authority involves asserting or implying that something is true because an authority says so. The ad populum fallacy involves asserting or implying that something is true because large numbers of people accept it as true. Both of these appeals are fallacies because neither who accepts or supports a claim nor how many accept or support it are relevant to the truth of the claim.

It is not always irrelevant to identify who or how many people make a claim. In this case, noting the consensus view is relevant and necessary. In climate change studies, we are dealing with probabilities. More important, we are dealing with a political situation in which powerful politicians and misguided journalists wrongly proclaim either that we are not justified in making changes as long as there is some doubt about an issue or that because there is a minority opinion, the issue is "controversial." A similar situation exists with respect to intelligent design and so-called "alternative" therapies. Perhaps, we need a new fallacy name: false charge of irrelevant appeal to authority and popularity.

If you read Carl Sagan correctly, you will not find him claiming that it is always irrelevant to cite the scientific consensus.

The IPCC consists of just over 3,800 scientists. And yes, these 3,800 scientists do say humans are the greatest causal factor in the 1-Degree of global warming that has occurred over the past 100 years and that this increase will result in cataclysmic disaster. What the Skeptic's Dictionary does not mention are the facts that the IPCC does not do any research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

What is also not mentioned is that over 17,200 scientists have publicly signed the so-called Oregon Petition stating, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

reply: I wonder how many "scientists" we could get to sign the following statement: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is not causing or will, in the foreseeable future, not cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

If you read the Wikipedia article on the Oregon Petition, you'll find some interesting things. For example, it was signed by Perry Mason, Redwine, Ph.D., and one of the Spice Girls. The article cites Scientific American:

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers—a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

Now I won’t commit the same fallacy many do by saying just because one side of this debate has more scientists than the other side, then it must be true. But I will point out that the consensus view is not on the side of ACGW. In other words, between the numbers 17,200 and 3,800, 17,200 is the consensus.

reply: I don't think so.

That doesn't mean they are automatically right. But when the other side can't do simple math, I must be highly suspect of their other claims involving numbers.

Chris Henderson

reply: The other side? And I thought we were friends.

climate skeptics