3 ms·

Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased

by anodari 13y ago

Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

gavanwoolery 13y ago
Yes, the question of "Is there AGW?" is not a debate, at least among scientists. The important question is "how much do humans affect the warming of the earth?" To date, we have not been able to determine this accurately because there are so many factors (our CO2 emissions, emissions from cows, volcanoes, under-sea vents, emissions reduced by trees and plants, increased output from the sun, etc - let alone measuring one of these accurately across the globe). A million variables, no way to isolate any two of them. There might be a "consensus" but that does not guarantee accuracy - I encourage you to write a computer program that will determine the global temperature next year, and see how accurate your prediction is - you will likely find it impossible, because among other things you do not know which volcanoes will erupt and how much more radiation the sun will output. 10-20 years ago, the consensus was that sea levels would rise by a few meters, but that has not happened.
- anodari 13y ago
  Ok, but it seems simple to calculate the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, since oil production is controlled by a handful of companies and require them to collect from our air the wastes of the product they sell, just as is done with producers batteries and tires.
brc 13y ago
Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.
- anodari 13y ago
  I'm not trying to argument by consensus. I'm saying "look, the researchers in this field are saying..." Why so much people thinks he knows more about a subject than the researchers?
  - brc 13y ago
    It's still the same thing. You can state that the researchers say one thing...but that doesn't make that thing true. 10 years ago if I had a stomach ulcer, all the researchers and doctors would have told me I had stress and that is what caused it. They would have prescribed me treatments and told me to change my behaviours, which would have all been ineffective. Two researchers thought outside the box, went against the consensus, ignored what all the researchers said, and proved that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria. An entire industry and field was turned upside down, and Nobel Prizes were handed out. What's my point? You can never tell when research is right or wrong, so you must always be sceptical, and never say 'the science is settled, because there is a consensus'. You can never rely on the word of researchers, only on the proof that they have or have not generated. Edit : I re-read the parent, which goes like this: >"Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases" I read this statement as saying correlation is proven by consensus - which is wrong no matter what the topic.
    - anodari 13y ago
      Not the same thing, they was not an ordinary person who discovered it, was a scientist with many years of research. I prefer this metaphor: just as there are many healers around claiming to know the "true" cause of mental illness, I still prefer to believe the researchers. Do you're refuting climate scientists simply because you believe they are wrong?
      - brc 13y ago
        I make no claims about anything - I merely read an interpret the published results. The reason 'healers' are wrong about mental illness is because their hyphotheses are either untested, or proven to be wrong. Not because lots of researchers agree with the opposite. The 'ordinariness' of a person is immaterial - Einstein was a patent clerk who had a book published refuting his views by 100 experts. He was still right. The point I am making here is that you should never argue a point by consensus, or by authority, for that matter. You should argue a point based on the results of testing a hypothesis and finding it true or false. Scientists of any discipline do not become automatically right because they don a white cloak and publish in a journal - not when one does it, not when an entire industry does it. It is a fundamental mistake to believe in an argument from authority or an argument from consensus. Quite frequently, authorities do get it right (precisely because they have studied it for a long time), and most of the time, they all agree with each other (forming a consensus). But these things flow from the fact that something is right (and observable, and reproduceable) - not the other way around. I say this to try and elevate the level of debate quite apart from climate science, or GMO, or any of the other fashionable arguments.

by anodari 13y ago

gavanwoolery 13y ago

Yes, the question of "Is there AGW?" is not a debate, at least among scientists. The important question is "how much do humans affect the warming of the earth?" To date, we have not been able to determine this accurately because there are so many factors (our CO2 emissions, emissions from cows, volcanoes, under-sea vents, emissions reduced by trees and plants, increased output from the sun, etc - let alone measuring one of these accurately across the globe). A million variables, no way to isolate any two of them. There might be a "consensus" but that does not guarantee accuracy - I encourage you to write a computer program that will determine the global temperature next year, and see how accurate your prediction is - you will likely find it impossible, because among other things you do not know which volcanoes will erupt and how much more radiation the sun will output. 10-20 years ago, the consensus was that sea levels would rise by a few meters, but that has not happened.

anodari 13y ago
Ok, but it seems simple to calculate the CO2 produced by fossil fuels, since oil production is controlled by a handful of companies and require them to collect from our air the wastes of the product they sell, just as is done with producers batteries and tires.

brc 13y ago

Argument by consensus is simply argument by headcount. It isn't an argument. I can point out a long laundry list where the 'consensus' was completely wrong, yet every person with a letter behind their name supported it. Consensus doesn't prove anything but the fact that a bunch of people agree on something. It doesn't make that thing true or false.

anodari 13y ago
I'm not trying to argument by consensus. I'm saying "look, the researchers in this field are saying..." Why so much people thinks he knows more about a subject than the researchers?
- brc 13y ago
  It's still the same thing. You can state that the researchers say one thing...but that doesn't make that thing true. 10 years ago if I had a stomach ulcer, all the researchers and doctors would have told me I had stress and that is what caused it. They would have prescribed me treatments and told me to change my behaviours, which would have all been ineffective. Two researchers thought outside the box, went against the consensus, ignored what all the researchers said, and proved that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria. An entire industry and field was turned upside down, and Nobel Prizes were handed out. What's my point? You can never tell when research is right or wrong, so you must always be sceptical, and never say 'the science is settled, because there is a consensus'. You can never rely on the word of researchers, only on the proof that they have or have not generated. Edit : I re-read the parent, which goes like this: >"Unfortunately, in this case there is a correlation: "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases" I read this statement as saying correlation is proven by consensus - which is wrong no matter what the topic.
  - anodari 13y ago
    Not the same thing, they was not an ordinary person who discovered it, was a scientist with many years of research. I prefer this metaphor: just as there are many healers around claiming to know the "true" cause of mental illness, I still prefer to believe the researchers. Do you're refuting climate scientists simply because you believe they are wrong?
    - brc 13y ago
      I make no claims about anything - I merely read an interpret the published results. The reason 'healers' are wrong about mental illness is because their hyphotheses are either untested, or proven to be wrong. Not because lots of researchers agree with the opposite. The 'ordinariness' of a person is immaterial - Einstein was a patent clerk who had a book published refuting his views by 100 experts. He was still right. The point I am making here is that you should never argue a point by consensus, or by authority, for that matter. You should argue a point based on the results of testing a hypothesis and finding it true or false. Scientists of any discipline do not become automatically right because they don a white cloak and publish in a journal - not when one does it, not when an entire industry does it. It is a fundamental mistake to believe in an argument from authority or an argument from consensus. Quite frequently, authorities do get it right (precisely because they have studied it for a long time), and most of the time, they all agree with each other (forming a consensus). But these things flow from the fact that something is right (and observable, and reproduceable) - not the other way around. I say this to try and elevate the level of debate quite apart from climate science, or GMO, or any of the other fashionable arguments.