Global warming: Wikipedia article on controversy. Please advise.

Belz...

Fiend God
Belz...
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
96,875
Location
In a post-fact world
This link, given to me by a friend,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

describes the controversy surrounding global warming and the scientific consensus about it.

I'd like to have some knowledgeable people's opinions about the article. I'm not very well versed in the subject, myself, but I'd like to be able to tell if the points raised within make sense or not. The fact that the article has a link to Canadian Free Press doesn't seem to help my confidence in it.

Thanks,
 
Belz... said:
This link, given to me by a friend,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

describes the controversy surrounding global warming and the scientific consensus about it.

I'd like to have some knowledgeable people's opinions about the article. I'm not very well versed in the subject, myself, but I'd like to be able to tell if the points raised within make sense or not. The fact that the article has a link to Canadian Free Press doesn't seem to help my confidence in it.

Thanks,
Click to expand...
Why a new Global Warming thread, based on nothing better than Wiki, when so many Global Warming threads exist already? Do you have anything specific and not yet covered that you'd like to draw attention to?
 
There's a link to a main article in it that discusses the various organizations that have voted among their members to endorse it. These include some of the most prestigious scientific associations in the world. The national science academies of the G8, along with their counterparts in Brazil, China, and India, the three largest producers of greenhouse gases in the developing world, all endorse it. The US National Research Council endorses it. The American Meteorological Society endorses it. The American Geophysical Union and American Institute of Physics endorse it. The US National Academy of Sciences endorses it. The Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society of Britain all endorse it.

The biggest problem is that organizations that don't endorse it always seem to rely on energy companies, a high percentage directly or indirectly on Exxon, for their funding. This creates at least the appearance of impropriety, whether the reality is there or not. To quote the Wikipedia article,

"The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists."

I don't think there's a great deal more to be said. It's happening, and we did it and are doing it. That's a heckuvalot of scientists in those organizations I named up there. Sure, there's dissent; there always is. Some is honest, some is hypocritical, some is intended to be deceptive. It's never unanimous. But in the strong opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists, and an even higher majority of the scientists qualified to hold an opinion, there is no more question and has not been for over a decade.
 
Schneibster said:
To quote the Wikipedia article,

"The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists."
Click to expand...

And within the AAPG, of which I am a member, there are a substantial number of geoscientists pushing to withdraw the AAPG's public statements against anthropogenic GW.
 
From the Wikipedia article:

Timothy Ball asserts that those who oppose the "consensus" have gone underground: "No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."(Canada Free Press, February 5, 2007)
Click to expand...

This is ironic, given that Tim Ball is currently suing an academic for pointing out that he's exagerated his credentials.

More details here and in the Wiki article for Timothy Ball. It's worth reading the linked legal documents under "Lawsuit".
 
Last edited:
Brian the Snail said:
Ball accuses others of stifling free speech amongst academics, yet launched a frivolous (IMHO) law-suit against an academic who challenged him.
Click to expand...


I read your link and the way it reported the exchange I thought the challenge against him was an ad hom attack. Hence not irony, but rather reinforcing his point
 
Geckko said:
I read your link and the way it reported the exchange I thought the challenge against him was an ad hom attack. Hence not irony, but rather reinforcing his point
Click to expand...

He regularly bills himself as "Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 (or 32) years, and first Climatology PhD in Canada", which gives the impression that he's a major authority on the subject. It's perfectly fair to point out that these claims are untrue. Just like it's fair to say that "Drs" Kent Hovind and Gillian McKeith got their PhDs from diploma mills.
 
Brian the Snail said:
He regularly bills himself as "Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 (or 32) years, and first Climatology PhD in Canada", which gives the impression that he's a major authority on the subject. It's perfectly fair to point out that these claims are untrue. Just like it's fair to say that "Drs" Kent Hovind and Gillian McKeith got their PhDs from diploma mills.
Click to expand...

Not on the same level as bogus qualifications a la the Poo lady surely

And attacks on McKeith's bogus qualifications do nothing to debunk the nonsense she peddles. Only sensible rebuttal does that.
 
Geckko said:
Not on the same level as bogus qualifications a la the Poo lady surely
Click to expand...

Sure, not on the same level as the "poo lady". But surely any exageration of ones credentials is wrong and misleading?

And attacks on McKeith's bogus qualifications do nothing to debunk the nonsense she peddles. Only sensible rebuttal does that.
Click to expand...

True. But rightly or wrongly, credentials impress people. Otherwise, why lie about them in the first place? Or sue anyone who challenges them?

This is getting away from my original point, however.
 
Brian the Snail said:
Sure, not on the same level as the "poo lady". But surely any exageration of ones credentials is wrong and misleading?



True. But rightly or wrongly, credentials impress people. Otherwise, why lie about them in the first place? Or sue anyone who challenges them?

This is getting away from my original point, however.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we deplore ad hom attacks?
 
Geckko said:
Shouldn't we deplore ad hom attacks?
Click to expand...

It isn't an ad hom attack:

Ad Hominem

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
Click to expand...

In this case, Person A is making a claim X. However, nobody is saying that A's claim is false because Person B makes an attack on person A. A's claim is false because A's claim is, in fact, false, and can be shown to be false.

In this case, nobody is saying that Tim Ball's claims about climatology are false because he wasn't a Professor for 28 years. His claims about climatology should be considered separately. They're saying that Tim Ball was not a Professor for 28 years, despite his claims to the contrary. That's it.

Of course, as a result of this people may choose to doubt his credibility on other matters, or to no longer consider him as an authority (and to appeal to a false authority is, in itself, fallacious). This still doesn't mean that pointing out the truth about his credentials is an ad hominem.
 
Really ?

And I was just trying to find out if I needed to debunk the article to my friend or if I just had to nod and accept the "controversy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom