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

[Chasuk]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 21:42, Jo Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

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

The law of gravity is testable by everyone who has ever lived. The
humans-caused-global- warming hypothesis isn't testable by anyone.  I
don't see how the two are comparable.

> 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.

I'll be honest, that is one of the most shocking admissions that I
ever ever read.  Scientists have no infallibility, on empirical claims
or otherwise.  They have been wrong before, and they will be wrong
again.  Having said that, I do tend to trust scientists over laypeople
concerning matters in their domain, but there is no absolute consensus
among scientists about many things, the cause(s) of global warming and
the reality (or not) of cold fusion being well-known examples.

> 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.

Consensus demonstrates nothing except that a lot of people agree.  I
understand this, I'm sure you understand it, and it is evident that
Gary does.  Having dispensed with consensus as possessing relevance to
the argument, Gary (and I) move on to the next claim, which is that
your scientists have impressive credentials.  My opposing scientists
also have impressive credentials - effectively rebutting your point.

This is almost as silly as debating abortion or creationism and
expecting resolution.  It is a pleasurable way to get the neurons
firing, but ultimately pointless.  Most of us pick sides that we are
not qualified to take, like couch potatoes watching a football game
that we are too fat or too old or otherwise too unfit to play.