[Vision2020] Warning From Copenhagen: 2500 Participants: 1400Scientific Presentations: Warming Irreversible For a Thousand Years

[Jo Campbell]

Do you think we don't know that the law if gravity is true? It seems  
that your argument supports that claim too.

Besides I never said we know That global warming is true. I just  
claimed that there was a consensus view among people in the know.  
Since it is an empirical xlaim it seems that the reasonable thing to  
believe what the scientists believe. That is my view.

But that wasn't the point I made in my post to Crabtree anyway. My  
point was either the listing of scientists was supportive of tge view  
the endorse or not. If not, then Crabtree's agrgument is fallacious.  
If it is relevant, then the fact that more folks in the know accept  
global warming would be even more relevant. So I'm not sure what point  
Crabtree is supposed to be right about.

On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 07:45, Jo  
> Campbell<philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The number of scientists who accept global warming is overwhelming,
>> not tens like you acknowledge. If your list is supposed to make a
>> point, then why wouldn't the other list make an even stronger point?
>
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Gary on this one.
>
> Global warming is either caused by humans, or it isn't.  Actually,
> let's add a third choice: global warning is exacerbated by humans.  So
> we have:
>
> 1.  Global warming is caused by humans.
> 2.  Global warming is exacerbated by humans.
> 3.  Global warming is happening, but the existence or the actions of
> humans aren't contributing to it in any measurable way.
>
> I phrased choice number as I did three because we obviously exert some
> influence on our environment -- more than a zero sum influence, even
> if our existence/actions on global temperature are so negligible as to
> be insignificant.
>
> I'm assuming that we know indisputably that global warming is
> occurring.  Or maybe I shouldn't assume that.  Relatively speaking, we
> didn't crawl out of the muck that long ago, and we didn't invent
> science until very, very recently.  Which means that our scientific
> observational skills are new.  I know that we've learned to
> forensically interpret the body of Mother Earth via geology and other
> clever ologies, but deciphering climatic history is a science that we
> will be figuring out for a long time.
>
> That's the strength of science.  It allows us to logically (and
> without shame) revise our conclusions.  It isn't dogmatic.
>
> Those who insist that we KNOW that global warming occurs and that it
> is caused by humans certainly seen dogmatic to me, but that is another
> subject.
>
> Anyway, so we have global warming that is almost indisputably
> occurring, and the majority of scientists possessing expertise in
> relevant disciplines apparently all concur that it is our fault.
>
> Then have we already established that the majority are never wrong?
> Have we already established that consensus determines fact, even in
> matters of objective reality?
>
> If the answer to both of the above questions is "yes," then Gary
> doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If the answer is"no," then we can
> still have a conversation.
>
> Gary's point wasn't that numbers of believers determine fact, but that
> many of those embracing the minority conclusion hold equally germane
> credentials, and that being in the minority doesn't make them wrong.
> In other words, he is saying, "You apparently place great stock in the
> credentials of your scientific heroes, so here is my list of
> credentialed scientists who disagree with their position vis-à-vis
> global warming, which should, logically, compel you to acknowledge
> that this dispute isn't settled, after all."
>
> Of course, Gary is right, and you know it.