6 ms·
The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination o
by saudioger 8y ago
The authority here is insurmountably large and the data is readably accessible. It's like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue despite the determination of every sighted person.
There isn't even a single point of authority here. The determination is made by climate scientists, biologists, ecologists, etc... across multiple independent governments, allies and enemies alike.
Argument from authority is meant to avoid groupthink, but there are many many disparate groups coming to the same conclusion here while relying on entirely different sets of evidence.
If you can use argument from authority to dispute this, then you can use it to dispute any consensus ever made.
- throwaway8879 8y agoThe sky isn't blue. Not always anyway. And not from everywhere.
- iris-digital 8y agoGreat point on how significant perspective is.
- dymk 8y agoAnd on how willful misinterpretation of an analogy isn't actually a point against the analogy
- iris-digital 8y agoThere's no misinterpretation here.
- SpecialistEMT 8y agoIt's a strawman
- mjfl 8y agoBut for other consensuses, for example evolution, any individual person can readily explain how it works to a anyone else. Then it is up to the person hearing the model to accept it as fact, and maybe they make some logical error rejecting it. But until you explain to them the model, I don't think you should have any expectation that they should believe you. It sounds like no one responding to me actually understands how climate models work. How do they work? What are their assumptions, their dynamical models, their uncertainties? I don't think you or anyone else in this thread can tell me that. You can tell me "the data is there", or vague assertions like "there are papers everywhere" - that's it, no specifics. If you were writing a scientific paper with such vague assertions it would be thrown in the trash. Only specialists are qualified to even enter the debate. That is the essence of the fallacious appeals to authority that undermine all climate arguments. And the specialists are terrible communicators.
- saudioger 8y agoYou can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across various complexities. You can go as deep as you want. Hell, there's a webcomic visualization (https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/) that cites multiple sources. There are multiple documentaries outlining it. How much more accessible are you requiring this information to be? You're going to lengths to make a weak argument here.
- lancewiggs 8y agoAnd if you don't want to/can't do that - then you can trust the climate science professionals who spend their life doing just that. And they are all screaming at the rest of us. I'm guessing that these deniers don't question other complex things like how their hardware and software works, how gravity works or how papers is made.
- mjfl 8y agoYou've shown no evidence whatsoever that you personally understand climate models. You are still making the "the data is out there" argument, without getting into specifics. You are doing, precisely, what I've been saying is bad for the past few replies. It's like you are just responding to the oldest post in the thread without reading through it. Did you read it? Did you process any of it? Clearly not. Don't say my argument is weak if clearly none of it registered in your conscious mind.