Conservatives and climate change

[Bill Thompson]

Here is a perfect example of you getting basic facts wrong. I could provide a link to the actual definition of the "Argument from Authority", but I'd like to see if you can do the search yourself. Good luck.

If you believe something solely because some scientist tells you and you cannot do the math. That is because you consider him an authority.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I hate to break this to you but did you know that the movie you mentioned was fiction?

That was my point.

What is your point?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Wrong. The last glacial maximum occurred 20-25 thousand years ago, and the most recent glacial period ended only 10,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been living in Europe for the past 35,000 years.

Then NOVA lies. I will call PBS.

But first, tell me this. Where did you get your information?

 

[eeyore1954]

I know this thread has taken a different turn but it is troublesome that it has almost become a tenet of the republican party that you must not believe in man caused global warming.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Argument from authority is only a fallacy if used incorrectly. Citing the fact that ~97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change in order to claim the experts believe it to be true and therefore so should laymen is a legitimate appeal to authority.

I believe in man made climate change.
But I still like to look at their data and writings.

I can also tell you that the vast number of physicists thought Eienstien's relativity theory was wrong at first.

Science is not a deomcracy.

 

[Trakar]

I’m not talking about process interactions, at least not within the climate system. Until ~1960 it was understood that CO2 would cause warming but wildly believed that the Oceans capacity to absorb CO2 dwarfed anything humans could ever emit. Of course, we now know that even if the oceans could absorb CO2 rapidly enough to prevent global warming, it would exacerbate ocean acidification, which is in itself a problem that rivals global warming.

I agree that post 1930 there was little or no debate over the fact CO2 would exert a warming influence on the planet, but the notion anthropogenic CO2 could occur in quantities sufficient to do so was not. To me this marks 1960 as the point when global warming became wildly accepted because both pillars were in place, 1) CO2 does warm the planet, which had been known for decades before that, and 2) we are changing atmospheric CO2, which was a relatively new conclusion in 1960, but was made supported by conclusive evidence. Since then the scientific debate has centered on getting better predictions on how much warming and looking at other factors that may mitigate/exacerbate the problem.

I disagree with your assessment, it may bear some measure of accuaracy if we are talking about the larger more general scientific community, or if you are talking about a particular set of considerations and debates that arose during the '50s and early '60s among the growing number of researchers studying climate issues, but I've provided some support for my considerations which seem to be at odds with your statements above. I would be interested in looking at any supportive references and citations you are aware of, and can provide you with a more substantial listing of supporting references, but as these issues were really not controversial or subject to much discussion or debate outside of the narrow field of researchers specifically interested in these topics, we don't have the more intensive literature and researcher surveys of this time period to guide us to more accurate and objective perspectives on this particular subject. Regardless, I respect and value your opinions and considerations, and would have no problem being led to new considerations and understandings of my own on this subject, but for now, I guess we'll just have to settle on disagreeing.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I know this thread has taken a different turn but it is troublesome that it has almost become a tenet of the republican party that you must not believe in man caused global warming.

i believe in man made global warming. What I think is more troublesome is the idea that Nature is our friend. Since we caused this change and since we think Nature is good and wholesome, we are the bad guys. We seem to want to think this way. Products stamped with "natural" sell better in the stores.

Nature is not "good". Nature is not our friend. I want to see where global warming is bad.

Nature give us bad weather, diseases, and Ice Ages. If Global Warming puts an Ice Age on hold, that is a good thing.

 

[mhaze]

Wrong. The last glacial maximum occurred 20-25 thousand years ago, and the most recent glacial period ended only 10,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been living in Europe for the past 35,000 years.

Hey I gotta tell you, I DID NOT KNOW Playboy mag had been out for 35,000 years. Post some pics, eh?

Wikipedia seems to disagree a bit with your nits there.

. Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, or recent African origin hypothesis,[13][14][15] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent some 50,000-100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe. An alternative multiregional hypothesis posits that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from the worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.​

 

[W.D.Clinger]

another conservative's opinion on climate change

Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written on science for the National Review and other conservative magazines. He earned his BS in mathematics at MIT, and his PhD in business at the Wharton School.

In the summer of 2008, The New Atlantis published a long article by Manzi on climate change. The opening words of his article:

Global warming has for a long time been a partisan issue rather than a purely scientific one — and in important respects, conservatives have painted themselves into a corner. Based on the reasonable expectation that admitting a problem would lead to a huge government power-grab, those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have long used scientific uncertainty to avoid the issue. That game is up, and they suddenly find themselves walking unprepared into the middle of a sophisticated scientific and economic conversation about how to deal with the problem.

Manzi goes on to explain climate modelling in laymen's terms. He emphasizes the uncertainties, and says it's reasonable to hope those models overstate the problem. He also offers a well-informed economic analysis.

Some of his article already seems dated, but it's hard to argue with this part (italics as in original):

A sensible, science-based approach to climate change would be one that hedges by providing support for prediction, mitigation, and adaptation technologies.

...snip...

Global warming is a manageable risk, not an existential crisis, and we should get on with the job of managing it. Conservatives should propose policies that are appropriately optimistic, science-based, and low-cost.

 

[Trakar]

Uh huh. Which is humanity better able to survive, Global Warming or another Ice Age?

With appropriate planning, preparation, and action both are survivable by our species, if we tackle surviving an ice age like we are tackling surviving global warming, possibly neither. Both the current ice age, and the global warming we are forcing upon the planet's climate have the potential to kill our species.
If you are talking about the advancing glaciations which we seem to have put on permanent hold currently, then we are much better able to survive that potential than the episode of global warming we are currently forcing upon the planet.

 

[Upchurch]

Nature is not "good". Nature is not our friend. I want to see where global warming is bad.

Nature give us bad weather, diseases, and Ice Ages. If Global Warming puts an Ice Age on hold, that is a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

I guess it really depends on whether or not you consider keeping humans alive "good". Global warming will give us more bad weather, more ocean with a more acidic pH level, less land, and less food, among other things.

Do you consider that "bad"?

 

[Trakar]

That is called "Argument from Authority" and is a logical fallacy.

You are mistaken, "argument from authority" involves no fallacy when the individual being referred to is a legitimate expert on the subject, and a consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

Why would you think that referencing legitimate experts in a field of science to support your understandings of the science involves any sort of logical fallacy?

 

[Trakar]

Here is a perfect example of you getting basic facts wrong. I could provide a link to the actual definition of the "Argument from Authority", but I'd like to see if you can do the search yourself. Good luck.

Here's a hint though, it's not an Argument from Authority if you are asking experts about stuff that is within their field of expertise.

Edit - oh darn, stokes234 beat me to it. Bill, consider my post as further encouragement for you to learn the correct way to gain knowledge rather then just making **** up.

Yep, that horse was well dead before I thumped it as well!

 

[lomiller]

If you believe something solely because some scientist tells you and you cannot do the math. That is because you consider him an authority.

And if this scientist were:
1) Speaking about something inside his/her filed of expertise
2) Saying something not widely disputed by his/her peers in that field of expertise
You would be perfectly justified in doing so.

This is why an appeal to legitimate authority is a perfectly sound argument form while an appeal to illegitimate authority is a fallacy.

 

[Trakar]

...I can also tell you that the vast number of physicists thought Eienstien's relativity theory was wrong at first...

And you came to this knowledge how? It is not in accord with any facts that I'm aware of.

 

[DavidJames]

If you believe something solely because some scientist tells you and you cannot do the math. That is because you consider him an authority.

I have no idea what that means and how it relates to the definition of the Argument form Authority logical fallacy.

Should you learn how to do some research, become better at reading comprehension and evolve to the point where you can use those tools to construct a comprehensible argument, I won't bother you anymore.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Wrong. The last glacial maximum occurred 20-25 thousand years ago, and the most recent glacial period ended only 10,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been living in Europe for the past 35,000 years.

Hey I gotta tell you, I DID NOT KNOW Playboy mag had been out for 35,000 years. Post some pics, eh?

Wikipedia seems to disagree a bit with your nits there.

. Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

One view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, or recent African origin hypothesis,[13][14][15] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent some 50,000-100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe. An alternative multiregional hypothesis posits that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from the worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.​

Exactly what do you see in your wiki quote that you feel contradicts or disagrees with what Clinger stated?

 

[mhaze]

I have no idea what that means and how it relates to the definition of the Argument form Authority logical fallacy.

Should you learn how to do some research, become better at reading comprehension and evolve to the point where you can use those tools to construct a comprehensible argument, I won't bother you anymore.

Splendid!

That is certainly to the point.

Yes. Just like reading the bible to find truth one can believe in.

Bill Thompson should do some research, read what people says he should believe in, and BELIEVE. And then you'll "Leave Him Alone".

I BELIEVE that's true. If someone buys your BS, you'll....

leave them alone....

 

[stokes234]

I believe in man made climate change.
But I still like to look at their data and writings.

I can also tell you that the vast number of physicists thought Eienstien's relativity theory was wrong at first.

Science is not a deomcracy.

No, but given two opposing schools, a layman deciding that the 3% of experts are more likely to be right than the 97% is a stupid stance to take, especially in light of the fact that the 97% are on average more active in publishing papers.

The initial reaction to Einsteins theory of relativity is not equivalent to the current understanding of climate change because it was one new idea that needed to be studied and once studied and understood, was adopted as mainstream. Climate change is an idea that has already been studied and tested for decades (and has now been adopted as mainstream by the scientific community).

 

[lomiller]

I disagree with your assessment, it may bear some measure of accuaracy if we are talking about the larger more general scientific community, or if you are talking about a particular set of considerations and debates that arose during the '50s and early '60s among the growing number of researchers studying climate issues, but I've provided some support for my considerations which seem to be at odds with your statements above. I would be interested in looking at any supportive references and citations you are aware of, and can provide you with a more substantial listing of supporting references, but as these issues were really not controversial or subject to much discussion or debate outside of the narrow field of researchers specifically interested in these topics, we don't have the more intensive literature and researcher surveys of this time period to guide us to more accurate and objective perspectives on this particular subject. Regardless, I respect and value your opinions and considerations, and would have no problem being led to new considerations and understandings of my own on this subject, but for now, I guess we'll just have to settle on disagreeing.

This paper by Revelle and Suess is considered to be the first to convincingly make the case for humans making significant changes to atmospheric CO2 levels.
http://uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf

While the basics of CO2 uptake into ocean water were know several decades earlier, this paper was the first to look at how the back and forth exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere would impact how much anthroprogenic CO2 remained in the atmosphere.