�Alarming� Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[oxmixmudd]

Wording it differently doesn't change what you are doing. You are using the popularity of a belief to claim it is true.

If I said that the majority of people on earth believe in God, is that a good reason for you to believe God exists? If so, why don't you?

This argument is mostly a excuse to allow one to dismiss scientific conclusions one doesn't like or agree with. Generally, a person not seriously well studied in a field of study is not qualified to comment on or challenge the conclusions of those that have spent the better part of their lives studying that field. It is a serious lack of humility to assume that just because something doesn't make sense to me it necessarily is wrong. Only if one takes the time to dig deep into the subject should one even conclude one might have enough knowledge to form an independent opinion on the subject. Now it is true sometimes an expert makes a mistake or loses objectivity on a topic, and sometimes people claim to be experts that are not. But on the whole, a person who has studied an area their entire life and has distinguished themselves in that study should be respected by those that have not.

It is sort of the inverse of the argument from authority. A true expert in a field should be given a substantial amount of respect from those that are not. Likewise a true expert in a field should not wield that expertise as a club to extinguish questions they do not like.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No problem with that. But when someone thinks the evidence is iffy or not conclusive, you (read:Tassman) can't just argue they are wrong because of a consensus. That IS argumentum ad populum. He needs to argue that the evidence is good and so I should believe in AGW, not that I should believe in AGW because a lot of scientists do.

I'm not seeing him saying that. I think what that says is that there are a large number of people that have spent a decade or more preparing themselves to study this issue, and that have researched the issue for decades after that. And of the people that have made that commitment and that have the mental power to make meaningful contributions in that area, vast majority of them agree with the conclusion we call AGW. And that unless one has a similar amount of training and expertise, one would do well to at least look very hard at why they think that before saying they are all wrong. It really is just massive ignorance and/or ego to assume my gut reaction or whatever it is that causes me to doubt that conclusion is necessarily wiser and more accurate than the hard work of thousands that have dedicated the better part of their lives to understanding all the data, physics, and details that drive that conclusion.


Jim

[Leonhard]

No problem with that. But when someone thinks the evidence is iffy or not conclusive, you (read:Tassman) can't just argue they are wrong because of a consensus. That IS argumentum ad populum. He needs to argue that the evidence is good and so I should believe in AGW, not that I should believe in AGW because a lot of scientists do.

That is definitely argument ad populum or argument from consensus. And I agree if you have your doubts and you're seeking information you deserve good answers and shouldn't accept anything less.

[TheLurch]

Wording it differently doesn't change what you are doing. You are using the popularity of a belief to claim it is true.

If I said that the majority of people on earth believe in God, is that a good reason for you to believe God exists? If so, why don't you?

Your own example highlights the differences between a scientific consensus and an ad pop fallacy. A global majority belief on anything is truly ad pop - very few of them have relevant expertise, we have little idea of what their ideas are based on, and so their opinion on a topic isn't especially informative about anything other than public opinion. It's like holding a global plebiscite on whether smoking causes cancer.

You're claiming that's analogous to the evidence-driven consensus among scientists with relevant expertise. This is selecting a small subset of the populum that's most likely to know what's going on, and having them evaluate the evidence that they are best positioned to understand. The two are not functionally or logically equivalent - one group is a small subset of the other with different properties. And i'm pretty sure that, if you can draw a logical distinction between two groups, then they can't be treated as logically equivalent.

Now, i don't know enough about formal logic to understand whether there are specific issues that have been pointed out with an argument-from-consensus-of-experts; if you do, i'd be happy to read up on the topic.



NB: I don't tend to use "consensus messaging" (as people who study this term it) mostly because i'm up on the details of a lot of the evidence. But i do feel it's both fair and important to ask people why they feel they know more than scientists who have spent decades studying the topic.

[Sparko]

Your own example highlights the differences between a scientific consensus and an ad pop fallacy. A global majority belief on anything is truly ad pop - very few of them have relevant expertise, we have little idea of what their ideas are based on, and so their opinion on a topic isn't especially informative about anything other than public opinion. It's like holding a global plebiscite on whether smoking causes cancer.

You're claiming that's analogous to the evidence-driven consensus among scientists with relevant expertise. This is selecting a small subset of the populum that's most likely to know what's going on, and having them evaluate the evidence that they are best positioned to understand. The two are not functionally or logically equivalent - one group is a small subset of the other with different properties. And i'm pretty sure that, if you can draw a logical distinction between two groups, then they can't be treated as logically equivalent.

Now, i don't know enough about formal logic to understand whether there are specific issues that have been pointed out with an argument-from-consensus-of-experts; if you do, i'd be happy to read up on the topic.



NB: I don't tend to use "consensus messaging" (as people who study this term it) mostly because i'm up on the details of a lot of the evidence. But i do feel it's both fair and important to ask people why they feel they know more than scientists who have spent decades studying the topic.

How do you know all of these scientists have relevant expertise or have examined the evidence? How do I know that? Merely arguing that a large number of scientists believe something doesn't make it true.

At one time a large number of scientists believed disease was caused by bad air. And a consensus of scientists believed that plate tectonics was balderdash. If the majority of scientists should always be considered correct then science would never move forward. Science has nothing to do with popularity of opinion. That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of science.

[TheLurch]

How do you know all of these scientists have relevant expertise or have examined the evidence? How do I know that? Merely arguing that a large number of scientists believe something doesn't make it true.

There have been multiple studies that used different standards - publishing in the field, membership in professional organizations like the American Geophysical Unions, direct evaluation of abstracts, etc.

To answer your second question, you would know that if you looked into the topic before starting an argument about it.

Do you acknowledge that, if this is the case, the two categories are logically distinct?

[Sparko]

There have been multiple studies that used different standards - publishing in the field, membership in professional organizations like the American Geophysical Unions, direct evaluation of abstracts, etc.

To answer your second question, you would know that if you looked into the topic before starting an argument about it.

correct because I would be examining the evidence instead of relying on a "consensus"

Do you acknowledge that, if this is the case, the two categories are logically distinct?

Not clear on what you mean by the "two categories"

My entire argument was with Tassman who keeps bringing up the "scientific consensus" as a valid argument in nearly every thread on the topic as if the consensus WAS proof of AGW.

[TheLurch]

Not clear on what you mean by the "two categories"

A survey of the general population vs. an evidence-based consensus among people with relevant expertise.

My entire argument was with Tassman who keeps bringing up the "scientific consensus" as a valid argument in nearly every thread on the topic as if the consensus WAS proof of AGW.

I have no issue with you saying a scientific consensus is insufficient evidence. But while arguing against that, you appear to be veering over into suggesting it's completely irrelevant, or that it's no more informative than a survey of random people on the street, etc.

[Tassman]

Wording it differently doesn't change what you are doing. You are using the popularity of a belief to claim it is true.

If I said that the majority of people on earth believe in God, is that a good reason for you to believe God exists? If so, why don't you?

Popular belief in gods is not supported by professional expertise.

[Sparko]

'Appeal to Authority' is another term for 'argumentum ad populum' - its the same thing: a logical fallacy.

Popular belief in gods is not supported by professional expertise.

Actually it is. People have Masters Degrees and Doctorates in Theology.

[oxmixmudd]

How do you know all of these scientists have relevant expertise or have examined the evidence? How do I know that? Merely arguing that a large number of scientists believe something doesn't make it true.

At one time a large number of scientists believed disease was caused by bad air. And a consensus of scientists believed that plate tectonics was balderdash. If the majority of scientists should always be considered correct then science would never move forward. Science has nothing to do with popularity of opinion. That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of science.

Sparko - if they have a degree in the field from a legitimate institution then you know the majority of them have 'relevant expertise'. Even more so if they've remained in the field and continued to work for relevant research organizations and published in peer reviewed journals. To do all that and be successful at it means they've proved themselves to others with similar or greater experience and education.

Do you so devalue education that the fact a person can manage to prove themselves through years of study and decades of valid research means absolutely nothing? That such people are no different than joe down the street with a general college education who barely passed college algebra and chemistry?

I just don't comprehend that mind set. I've a masters in Comp Sci and almost a masters in mathematics. I know what I had to do to get those. It was no picnic. And I also have a pretty good Idea what it takes to earn a Ph.D and a top University. It is just ridiculous to think that my internet reading on Global Warming would qualify me to offer a serious challenge to what the Ph.D's in the fields know and are doing. Though with my education I could come a lot closer to being competent to do that than many that blog on the anti-AGW side of things.

The excuse that sometimes science is sometime 'wrong' (usually incomplete) as a cover for dismissing the work of hundreds or thousands of legitimate scientists is itself a message that derives from ignorance. And that is not to say the 'consensus' is right. But it is to say that the people that will find what is wrong are not likely to be the uneducated bumpkins or even the reasonably well educated bloggers. It usually is people that are very intelligent and who can see an area the 'consensus' is accepting that is flawed and who have what it takes to do the research and the math and whatever else it takes to make a legitimate scientific case that tears down whatever blinders are keeping the consensus from seeing what is really going on in that area.

So far nothing legit has stepped up to the plate to show AGW is a mistake. And it is important to keep that in perspective in spite of the fact there is a lot political happening around the issue outside the scientific realm.






Jim

[Sparko]

Sparko - if they have a degree in the field from a legitimate institution then you know the majority of them have 'relevant expertise'. Even more so if they've remained in the field and continued to work for relevant research organizations and published in peer reviewed journals. To do all that and be successful at it means they've proved themselves to others with similar or greater experience and education.

Do you so devalue education that the fact a person can manage to prove themselves through years of study and decades of valid research means absolutely nothing? That such people are no different than joe down the street with a general college education who barely passed college algebra and chemistry?

I just don't comprehend that mind set. I've a masters in Comp Sci and almost a masters in mathematics. I know what I had to do to get those. It was no picnic. And I also have a pretty good Idea what it takes to earn a Ph.D and a top University. It is just ridiculous to think that my internet reading on Global Warming would qualify me to offer a serious challenge to what the Ph.D's in the fields know and are doing. Though with my education I could come a lot closer to being competent to do that than many that blog on the anti-AGW side of things.

The excuse that sometimes science is sometime 'wrong' (usually incomplete) as a cover for dismissing the work of hundreds or thousands of legitimate scientists is itself a message that derives from ignorance. And that is not to say the 'consensus' is right. But it is to say that the people that will find what is wrong are not likely to be the uneducated bumpkins or even the reasonably well educated bloggers. It usually is people that are very intelligent and who can see an area the 'consensus' is accepting that is flawed and who have what it takes to do the research and the math and whatever else it takes to make a legitimate scientific case that tears down whatever blinders are keeping the consensus from seeing what is really going on in that area.

So far nothing legit has stepped up to the plate to show AGW is a mistake. And it is important to keep that in perspective in spite of the fact there is a lot political happening around the issue outside the scientific realm.






Jim

First of all, not every "scientist" who agrees with AGW is actually in the field. Second the evidence for it is based on modeling and interpretation and the reality doesn't always match up with the predictions, so there is a lot of wiggle room here in interpreting and believing the "evidence" - It isn't a straight forward application of the scientific method of theory and experimentation and results. And there is a lot of politics involved in it. A lot of grant money on the line. So no, I don't accept the premise that a consensus of scientists believing in AGW means it is true. I find that to be a fallacious argument. The numbers of proponents do not equate to the truth of a proposition. The only thing that counts is the evidence itself. And I find that to be a bit nebulous. Nobody can claim to understand or predict the climate, or even model it correctly. It is too complex of a system.

I am not saying AGW is wrong. I am just arguing against the use of a "consensus" to claim it is true.

[JimL]

First of all, not every "scientist" who agrees with AGW is actually in the field. Second the evidence for it is based on modeling and interpretation and the reality doesn't always match up with the predictions, so there is a lot of wiggle room here in interpreting and believing the "evidence" - It isn't a straight forward application of the scientific method of theory and experimentation and results. And there is a lot of politics involved in it. A lot of grant money on the line. So no, I don't accept the premise that a consensus of scientists believing in AGW means it is true. I find that to be a fallacious argument. The numbers of proponents do not equate to the truth of a proposition. The only thing that counts is the evidence itself. And I find that to be a bit nebulous. Nobody can claim to understand or predict the climate, or even model it correctly. It is too complex of a system.

I am not saying AGW is wrong. I am just arguing against the use of a "consensus" to claim it is true.

No, actually you are arguing that you know and understand the evidence better than do 99% of the experts who have studied and understand it. In other words you are driven by your agenda, not by evidence.

[TheLurch]

Second the evidence for it is based on modeling and interpretation and the reality doesn't always match up with the predictions, so there is a lot of wiggle room here in interpreting and believing the "evidence" - It isn't a straight forward application of the scientific method of theory and experimentation and results.

The only thing there that's accurate is that reality doesn't always match up with predictions, but that's true of every field of science. This isn't only based on modeling - there's plenty of empirical evidence and correct predictions, it's based on an inevitable outcome of basic physics, etc.

A lot of grant money on the line.

Do you somehow think we didn't fund grants into climate research prior to our current worries about climate change? (if so, how do you think we ended up worried about it?) What do you think the percent change in the funding for climate science by the US has been over the last 15 years or so?

[Sparko]

No, actually you are arguing that you know and understand the evidence better than do 99% of the experts who have studied and understand it. In other words you are driven by your agenda, not by evidence.

Where have I said that? I am merely arguing against Tassman (and sometimes YOU) trying to argue that a consensus makes it true and "settled science"

You nor Tassman have any scientific background whatsoever so your idea of what is evidence is just your opinion and as I pointed out, a logical fallacy.