The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

well that doesn't answer my question at all. At least you tried. but seriously, you have no evidence of anything except one, CO2 levels increased and that you think Temps increased because of that, (cough). First, CO2 increases following warming, so any CO2 is due to the temps, not the other way around as Hoosier pointed out. The evidence, you failed to produce what I asked you for. So you failed.

 

Temperature rise from 1960 is about 1/2 of that.

All the energy comes from the sun and a lesser degree from the earth itself.

The unknown is how much of that is natural variability. If you don't know that then you cannot determine any increase due to man.

 

A common mistake many posters make is thinking that if they don't know something means no one knows. Do you not think natural variability has not been taken into account? What I have read it has not only been taken into account but natural variability would suggest a cooler earth.

 

What have you read that would suggest that natural variability suggests a cooler earth ??

 

NASA earth observatory for one. Just about all legit scientific publications say that the current warming can't be blamed on natural forcings. You can google if interested. I have problems posting links on my phone.

 

No it hasn't and the reason the slowdown in temperature rise had the CO2 centric scientists scrambling for an explanation like 'the heat is hiding in the oceans'. There is much unknown about natural variability. That in itself means it cannot be predicted as already proven.

 

What is the cause of this natural cooling ??

 

Heat isn't hiding in the ocean ...heat always goes from hot to cold.....always. If the ocean or any other thing is cooler the heat will migrate to the cool... always. So to say the ocean... being cooler absorbs heat is just common sense. Scientists are not scrambling for an explanation... deniers are.

 

Do you know how oceans are heated? Doesn't appear so.

 

You tell me.

 

The sun. The Pacific burped up a lot of that heat back during the last El Niño. The oceans have a significant effect on the atmosphere, not the other way around.

 

Yes, the amount of heat energy stored in the oceans is ~ 1000 X of that stored in the atmosphere.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/

 

The idea that science is somehow democratic, and the misapprehension that the popularity of an idea has any connection to whether or not it is true shows that you have a severe misunderstanding of how politicized this issue is.

It also indicates that you do not know why most living people have never heard of flogistenated air, nor why doctors do not discuss the humors. Both of these were incredibly popular ideas among scientists, but popularity had nothing to do with the fact that they were later resoundingly discredited.

It is a popular theory that a meteor strike caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, despite the fact that there are not thousands of iridium-covered fossils at the kt boundary. However little evidence there is to support the meteor-caused extinction theory, scientists and scholars persist in espousing it.

The use of surveys to support a proposition about a natural phenomenon indicates extraordinarily poor understanding of basic logic. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and as such does nothing whatsoever to advance the argument.

Just because a child does not have an alternative explanation for how the Easter eggs were hidden, it does not automatically follow that the Easter Bunny exists.

Historical geology indicates that the climate has always been changing. Were there no humans, all the historical indications are that the climate would still be changing.

The assumption that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to an increased global temperature loop completely disregards that billions of years before there were humans, there was a much higher aggregate level of CO2, methane, and other "greenhouse gasses". There does not seem to have been some corresponding climatological death spiral prior to the evolution of photosynthetic algae that reduced the CO2 and methane, and increased the O2 in the atmosphere.

 

I agree. Science is not and should never be a democratic process. The fallacy you are describing is known as an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"). It is a fallacy that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.

There are a couple of important concepts outlined above. Most importantly is the idea that "the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author". This means that it is a fallacy to assert that "Most people believe AGW is true". That would be a logical fallacy ... an argumentum ad populum. But to say "9.8/10 climate scientists support the AGW hypothesis" is NOT. It is not a fallacy because they are experts in the subject matter. I hope the distinction there is clear.

I am sure that you would agree that all of these examples (flogistenated air, the humors, and meteor strike caused the extinction of the dinosaurs) are irrelevent to the truth of the AGW theory. You are suggesting that scientists were wrong in the past when they agreed on stuff so therefore they must be wrong now if they agree on stuff. That is also a logical fallacy.

You don't seem to have a great grasp on what an "Appeal to authority" fallacy is.

Again there are some key aspects to this definition. The biggest is "when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise". It is a logical fallacy of the type 'argumentum ad verecundiam' to say that "Stephen Hawking says that cigarettes are bad for you ... so you should stop smoking". That is because you would not expect that Stephen Hawking, brilliant though he may be, would have any particular expertise on the subject of smoking and health. To say that a given lung cancer expert recommends that you stop smoking is NOT an argument from authority fallacy. Again, I hope that distinction is clear.

 

I have a very good grasp of what appeal to authority is, as well as how it is logically fallacious. It is completely irrelevant whether the authority is speaking outside his/her area of expertise.

Before you cite your definition, please hear me out.

To make a sound logical argument, only objectively true information and valid logic matter. What someone else, expert or not, thinks is neither evidence nor logic, so it contributes nothing to the argument.

The root problem of an appeal to authority is that the soundness of the authority's contribution remains both untested and untestable within the context of the argument. Appeal to authority fills a hole in an argument with the mere assumption that someone else constructed a sound argument to support his/her conclusion (which is inserted into the argument).

If by any chance, you still do not see that appeal to an expert is a fallacy, consider what happens when two experts disagree. Each could be cited in two different arguments, and lead to directly opposing conclusions, without either argument being "unsound". Even more obviously ridiculous is that two experts disagreeing with each other could cite themselves when arguing their individual points.

Providing instances of the unreliability of experts was a secondary reason for citing flogistenated air, the humors, etc., (in addition to demonstrating the irrelevance of popularity). I never said, or even implied, that scientists being wrong before demonstrates that they are wrong in this instance, only that they could be wrong, and that experts thinking something does not demonstrate that it is true.

 

The option is an appeal to amateurs. In science an appeal to authority is logically unsupported. But when it comes to Joe Sixpack and the public, we have quite enough armchair internet experts who ignore people who actually understand the science. We look to the experts for a consensus. Your argument is incorrectly applied.

Most people who are decision makers don't have the time or the luxury of becoming a climate expert and proving every claim for themselves. The idea that we don't look to the experts for a consensus, and everyone should do their own crackpot science, is simply ludicrous.

 

Maybe people should do their own doctoring. You know we can't trust Doctors or appeal to authority.

 

So you think doctors are infallible just like you believe the scientists that are producing the politically correct science are infallible. Or is it that you think some doctors are good because they tell you what you want to hear and what you believe and some doctors are bad because they tell you the bad news.

 

I never said doctors were infallible but I don't go to a mechanic when I get sick and I don't go to a journalist to fix my car.

 

But you could end up going to a doctor affectionately known as "the butcher" by the nurses that work with him.

 

You could also go to a website that fills your head with lies and propoganda. What is your point? I could also do a little research and find a good doctor. Or get a second or third opinion and rely on a consensus.

 

Or you could blindly follow those websites like (un)SkepticalScience and never look beyond to the actual science.

 

Not worthy of response.

 

Because it gets to the heart of the matter.

 

No because it just starts another unproductive chain of conversation.