3 ms·

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 exp

• 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.