4 ms·

> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect

> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number. 97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming - how large the positive feedback effects are (without these, there is little warming from CO2 alone) - how bad global warming will be - what are the right policies to address it What happens in public discourse is that people just dangle the 97% to justify anything, literally anything they say. You don't want diesel engines? but 97%....why do you hate polar bears? You don't want to ban plastic straws? 97% of scientists want to ban them You don't want to live in a small house? but 97%...why do you hate the planet? You don't think *this* hurricane is caused by global warming? 97% of scientists disagree Thermometer shows 100F today in Arizona, it's because of global warming, 97% of scientists agree. It's getting ridiculous, to be honest. It's the pinnacle of appeal to authority.

syops 5y ago
The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others. The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...
- flavius29663 5y ago
  it is a fallacy to appeal to authority (97%) for anything other than "humans do cause global warming". Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this: > The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more. I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%
  - syops 5y ago
    If you read my posts you’ll see that I addressed gravity, weather events and policy. The claim I make is that it is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the advice and knowledge of a large majority of experts in their area of expertise. For instance, note that I don’t appeal to climate scientists for advice on how best to implement policies to reduce CO2 since they aren’t policy experts. It is reasonable to appeal to their authority on the necessity of doing this though.

syops 5y ago

The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others. The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...

flavius29663 5y ago
it is a fallacy to appeal to authority (97%) for anything other than "humans do cause global warming". Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this: > The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more. I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%
- syops 5y ago
  If you read my posts you’ll see that I addressed gravity, weather events and policy. The claim I make is that it is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the advice and knowledge of a large majority of experts in their area of expertise. For instance, note that I don’t appeal to climate scientists for advice on how best to implement policies to reduce CO2 since they aren’t policy experts. It is reasonable to appeal to their authority on the necessity of doing this though.