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

[Sparko]

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.


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?

As the OP shows there is a lot of confirmation bias at play here too. Scientists are looking to prove AGW wrong, they have too much invested in it and accept it as a basic fact and don't even check the math on studies very well apparently.

So no, I am not going to be impressed by an argument about how many scientists believe something to be true. It is a logical fallacy to argue it.

[TheLurch]

As the OP shows there is a lot of confirmation bias at play here too. Scientists are looking to prove AGW wrong, they have too much invested in it and accept it as a basic fact and don't even check the math on studies very well apparently.

So no, I am not going to be impressed by an argument about how many scientists believe something to be true. It is a logical fallacy to argue it.

I'm not making that argument. I'm quoting arguments you made, and pointing out they're bad arguments.

Please address what i'm actually saying, rather than argue about something i'm not.

[Sparko]

I'm not making that argument. I'm quoting arguments you made, and pointing out they're bad arguments.

Please address what i'm actually saying, rather than argue about something i'm not.

My argument is with Tassman, not you. I have no idea what you are going on about.

[TheLurch]

My argument is with Tassman, not you. I have no idea what you are going on about.

Your argument, regardless of who it was with, included some statements that involved incorrect information and assumptions. I quoted them, and either described or indicated some of the problems with them.

If you want to keep making poorly supported arguments, by all means - i can't stop you. But if you care about making sure what you say has a factual basis, i'm happy to turn this into a discussion, rather than an argument.

[Sparko]

Your argument, regardless of who it was with, included some statements that involved incorrect information and assumptions. I quoted them, and either described or indicated some of the problems with them.

If you want to keep making poorly supported arguments, by all means - i can't stop you. But if you care about making sure what you say has a factual basis, i'm happy to turn this into a discussion, rather than an argument.

Am I incorrect in telling Tassman that it is a logical fallacy to argue that I should believe in AGW because there is a consensus?

[TheLurch]

Am I incorrect in telling Tassman that it is a logical fallacy to argue that I should believe in AGW because there is a consensus?

You get to believe anything you want based on whatever reasons you want.

As detailed earlier in the thread, i'm not sure it's a logical fallacy, and i'm quite sure it's not the logical fallacy you identified it as.

But i find your misstatements as identified here much more interesting than your argument with some other poster, and they're what i'd rather talk about:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post600266

If you'd rather not, just stop quoting me.

[Tassman]

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

Do you?

so your idea of what is evidence is just your opinion and as I pointed out, a logical fallacy.

No, it is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists that do have a scientific background.

[Roy]

The only thing that counts is the evidence itself. And I find that to be a bit nebulous.

I've taken enough recent university science courses to find out that there is far more evidence for climate change than I could possibly know about without becoming a full-time researcher.

[One Bad Pig]

I've taken enough recent university science courses to find out that there is far more evidence for climate change than I could possibly know about without becoming a full-time researcher.

So... present some of it, eh?

[TheLurch]

So... present some of it, eh?

Could you narrow down what you're interested in a tiny bit? IPCC AR5's physical science section was over 1,500 pages long.

[shunyadragon]

Am I incorrect in telling Tassman that it is a logical fallacy to argue that I should believe in AGW because there is a consensus?

The consensus is not scientists personally, and I believe Tassman made this clear. The consensus, like in all sciences, is based on the objective evidence and vast amount amount of research over recent history.

[Sparko]

The consensus is not scientists personally, and I believe Tassman made this clear. The consensus, like in all sciences, is based on the objective evidence and vast amount amount of research over recent history.

A consensus by definition means a group that agrees on some belief or choice. So it is scientists personally.

[Tassman]

A consensus by definition means a group that agrees on some belief or choice. So it is scientists personally.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment of the community of scientists on the basis of scientific knowledge and research; you seem to be trying to belittle scientific achievement for some strange reason.

[Sparko]

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment of the community of scientists on the basis of scientific knowledge and research; you seem to be trying to belittle scientific achievement for some strange reason.

and we go in a circle. A bunch of scientists believing something doesn't make it true. Belief (consensus) does not drive reality. You keep arguing as if the consensus is what makes it true.

[Tassman]

and we go in a circle. A bunch of scientists believing something doesn't make it true.

Belief (consensus) does not drive reality. You keep arguing as if the consensus is what makes it true.