By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Special to the Financial Post (reposted here with permission from the author)
“But there’s a CONSENSUS!” shrieked the bossy environmentalist with the messy blonde hair.
“That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” I replied.
I was about to give a talk questioning “global warming” hysteria at Union College, Schenectady. College climate extremists, led by my interlocutor, had set up a table at the door of the lecture theatre to deter students from hearing the sceptical side of the case.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.
A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.
One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.
Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.
Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.
The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.
Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence”. However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.
“Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. Merely because a group has a reputation, it may not deserve it; even if it deserves it, it may not be acting in accordance with it; and, even if it is, it may be wrong.
“But it’s only if we include a strong warming effect from Man’s CO2 emissions that we can reproduce the observed warming of the past 60 years. We cannot think of any other reason for the warming.” That argument from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. We do not know why the warming has occurred. Arbitrarily to blame Man is impermissible.
“The rate of global warming is accelerating. Therefore it is caused by us.” That is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the red-herring fallacy. Even if global warming were accelerating, that would tell us nothing about whether we were to blame. The IPCC twice uses this fallacious argument in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Even if its argument were not illogical, the warming rate is not increasing. The notion that it is accelerating was based on a statistical abuse that the IPCC has refused to correct.
Superficially, the red-herring fallacy may seem similar to the fallacy of argument from ignorance. However, it is subtly different. The argument from ignorance refers to fundamental ignorance of the matter of the argument (hence an arbitrary conclusion is reached): the red-herring fallacy refers to fundamental ignorance of the manner of conducting an argument (hence an irrelevant consideration is introduced).
“What about the cuddly polar bears?” That is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of inappropriate pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s – hardly the population profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. There is no need to pity the bears (and they are not cuddly).
“For 60 years we have added CO2 to the atmosphere. That causes warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the argument from false cause. Merely because one event precedes another it does not necessarily cause it.
“We tell the computer models that there will be strong warming if we add CO2 to the air. The models show there will be a strong warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” This is the argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion.
“Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.” This is the inappropriate argument from the general to the particular that is the fallacy a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 at landfall. The true reason for the damage was failure to maintain the sea walls.
“Arctic sea ice is melting: therefore manmade global warming is a problem.” This is the inappropriate argument from the particular to the general that is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. The Arctic ice may be melting, but the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.
“Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk of the Parliaments says he isn’t, so everything he says is nonsense.” That is the argumentum ad hominem, the attack on the man rather than on his argument.
“We don’t care what the truth is. We want more taxation and regulation. We will use global warming as an excuse. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” That is the nastiest of all the logical fallacies: the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.
In any previous generation, the fatuous cascade of fallacious arguments deployed by climate extremists in government, academe and the media in support of the now-collapsed climate scare would have been laughed down.
When the future British prime minister Harold Macmillan arrived at Oxford to study the classics, his tutor said: “Four years’ study will qualify you for nothing at all – except to recognize rot when you hear it.” The climate storyline is rot. To prevent further costly scams rooted in artful nonsense, perhaps we should restore universal classical education. As it is, what little logic our bossy environmentalists learn appears to come solely from Mr. Spock in Star Trek.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Myrrh says:
April 23, 2012 at 3:21 pm
For goodness sake, get over yourself. Jews were just one of the groups considered deficient according to the eugenics classification, from the link I posted earlier
=======================================
Myrrh, I do not consider your link to be the evidence.
As an evidence I would except things like “1000 scientists studied Jews and 997 of them came to the conclusion” and of course references to the studies. This is how scientific consensus looks like. A narrative without references is not an evidence.
OK we are done with Jews, Eugenics, and similar discussions – all further replies on this topic will be deleted wholesale. – Anthony
I’m not reading it as that Smokey, I think Greg is concerned that the anti-semitism aspect is diluted by its association with the idea ‘science consensus eugenics’ – I can understand that would hurt because the Jews have been subjected to two thousand years of persecution and the Holocaust is so appalling – it was certainly the general anti-semitism of the Germans at the time which allowed it to happen, they were for the most part willing or frightened participants in demonising the Jews. Some though it has to be stressed, were children brainwashed into this, they didn’t know any different and grew up thinking it normal.
It seems extraordinary now to think that for a brief period of time the Germans were completely into the idea of themselves as superior race and what was happening to the Jews around them was shut out of mind, they wanted to believe they had been sent away to work camps where they were living well, propaganda pieces were filmed to show such. The gas chambers became an imperative when they quickly found that the ordinary soldier was appalled to be a part of mass murder of civilians, even with the indoctrination that Jews were subhuman and their enemy..
John Whitman,
nice try but no cigar.
proposition 1 – an assumption.
proposition 2 – an assumption
proposition 3 – two assumptions
proposition 4 – two assumptions
proposition 5 – an assumption
proposition 6 – an assumption
Conclusion a – an assumption
Conclusion b – an assumption
you forgot to ask if there were factual fallacies.
prop 1 – a simple model would suggest that the average T will rise with co2 in the atmosphere. That is not validation of the assumption.
prop 2 – mankind emitting more co2 than previous times is something that can be validated but mankind causing the increase in ppmv is not.
prop 3 – a good argument can be made that there is more co2 now than in the fairly recent past but it is pure speculation that it is an unnatural amount.
prop 4 – a good argument can be made that it is warmer now than in the fairly recent past, often referred to as the little ice age. It is speculation that current temperatures are above the midieval warm period or that there is something strange or unnatural with our present temperature or rate of change.
prop 5- The size of human emission is a tiny fraction of the sizes of other sinks and sources which are called natural and consist of poorly understood processes and are never in equilibrium but rather chase each other around trying to achieve equilibrium. Some of these also affect the 13/14 ratio. Consequently, your irrefutable fact is merely another hypothesis founded on a lack of knowledge.
prop 6 – out of ignorance of alternatives, one can make that claim. If one realizes that a rise in temperature releases more co2, then a general rise in temperature, such as exiting the little ice age, will cause an increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Also, one cannot have substantial net positive feedback in a system because it would be unstable an unable to maintain operation except at the limit where it cannot go further.
conclusion a – is a set of assumptions and not a conclusion based upon any solid argument provided.
conclusion b – nothing provided even hypothesizes that there would be a single negative or detrimental result from an increase in T. Is that a non sequiter?
if you really think you know something about this subject, why don’t you go over to the other WUWT recent article featuring the video of Murry Salby and try to refute anything he says in the video?lol
[SNIP: Sorry, but Anthony said we were dropping this topic. -REP]
The trolls are understandably worried by the ease with which it can be demonstrated that many of the most frequently-deployed arguments of the climate extremists are instances of elementary and long-established logical fallacies. They seem more than usually determined to confuse the issue, so let me straighten a few points out.
First, I am grateful to Anthony for bringing to an end the hijacking of this thread by Mr. House with his red herring about eugenics and the Holocaust (a topic which was not mentioned at all in my head posting). To introduce an extraneous and irrelevant consideration is to perpetrate the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi – ignorance of the method of conducting a rational argument.
Next, Mr. House yet again attempts to assert that, in effect, the argument from consensus is not a logical fallacy. He says: “People reasonably rely on scientific consensus because they have no other choice.” Try telling that to Galileo, Newton or Einstein, all of whom overthrew the pre-existing scientific consensus because they had a choice – to do science properly, rather than relying upon mere head-count to reach their conclusions.
Anyone who relies upon a logical fallacy is not conducting a reasonable argument, and anyone who believes the conclusion of a fallacious argument on the basis of the fallacy is unwise. Sorry, but the argument that “global warming” will prove catastrophic unless the economies of the West are hobbled or shut down because there is an alleged consensus to that effect is a fallacious argument. Further attempts to assert that this or any argument from consensus is reasonable or rational are pointless. As I said to the rabid environmentalist at Union College, the argument from consensus is intellectual baby-talk. Time for the trolls, and the climate extremists generally, to stop drooling and grow up, intellectually speaking.
Brendan H tries to maintain that citing an authority is an instance of the fallacy of appeal to authority. No. This sort of muddled thinking seems all too frequent among the climate-extremist faction. If I rely upon a previously-established scientific result as one step in an argument of my own, I am guilty of plagiarism unless I acknowledge those upon whose result I rely. The fallacy of appeal to authority or reputation – the argumentum ad verecundiam – arises when the sophist asserts that a conclusion is true solely or chiefly because the experts say so.
Brendan H also asserts that the fallacy of appeal to authority is legitimate as long as it meets conditions such as “genuineness” and “consensus”. This really will not do. An argument must stand on its own internal merits: to pray external forces in aid is to misunderstand the process of logical thought altogether. After all, who is to say whether the “experts” are acting with “genuineness”, rather than in response to peer pressure, political predilection, social convenience, or financial profit? And, since the argument from consensus is itself an elementary fallacy, praying it in aid to shore up the fallacy of appeal to authority seems desperate, and is scarcely a rational approach.
John Whitman misunderstands – or at any rate misstates – the distinction between the truth-values generated by the Boolean truth-functors that are the nuts and bolts of propositional calculus and the truth or falsehood of an argument’s conclusion. To establish that an argument is logically valid (i.e., that the premises properly entail the conclusion), it is essential to assign the correct truth-values “T” or “F” to the truth-functors, in accordance with the widely-available and readily-demonstrable truth tables for each functor. However, the conclusion of a logically valid is not necessarily true, just as the conclusion of an invalid argument is not necessarily false. On the other hand, if the premises of a valid argument are all true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, for instance, the argument from consensus tells us nothing about whether the conclusion to which the consensus allegedly assents is true or false.
Mr. Whitman goes on to attempt to construct two logical arguments. However, it is clear that he does not understand the process by which a truly logical argument is constructed. For instance, the first premise of his first argument is to the effect that “The precautionary principle is the highest overriding principle in the protection of free democracies.” Since this is a political statement, it may be held to be true or false depending upon one’s point of view. For this reason, it is unsuitable as the premise of a logical argument intended to determine the objective truth – as opposed to the mere logical self-consistency – of the conclusion. In fact, the economic literature demonstrates that the cost of attempts to mitigate future global warming is very likely to exceed the cost of any climate-related damage that the future warming might cause: and, as they say at Lloyds of London, if the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. That is a precautionary principle worthy of the name.
Mr. Whitman’s second attempt at a logical argument is no more successful than the first. He conflates at lest two premises as his first premise, asserting that more CO2 implies warming directly and that more CO2 implies indirect warming via temperature feedbacks. However, as I have pointed out in earlier comments here, there is no agreement in the scientific literature as to whether feedbacks are net-positive at all, so we cannot be sure that feedbacks will cause warming.
His fourth premise is to the effect that warming has occurred at an unprecedented rate. Yet this is untrue. From 1695-1735, the temperature in central England (and probably globally, for the Central England Temperature Record is not a bad proxy for global temperature changes where it coincides with the global instrumental record) rose at a rate equivalent to 4 Celsius degrees per century, while the warming of the 20th century was a mere 0.74 Celsius.
His sixth premise is that there is no other reasonable explanation for 20th-century warming. But I exposed precisely this contention in my head posting as the fundamental logical fallacy that is the argumentum ad ignorantiam – the argument from ignorance. Since the warming of the 20th century was well within the natural variability of the climate, no other explanation is necessary: a point that Professor Lindzen has made time and again.
The first of his two conclusions is that the warming of the 20th century has been “unprecedented”. But that was also one of his premises, so he has here perpetrated the argumentum ad petitionem principii – the circular or begging-the-question argument, in which one of the premises is also the conclusion.
His second conclusion is that there must be negative impacts as a result of our enriching the atmosphere with CO2. Yet the premises do not entail this conclusion at all. It is a non sequitur. This conclusion might properly belong to an argument to the effect that there is some ideal global mean surface temperature, and that a sufficiently large warming compared with this ideal temperature might be dangerous.
Myrrh says that in the past I have claimed the authority of settled scientific consensus as to the existence of the greenhouse effect. No. To say that a scientific question is settled is not the same thing as to argue that it is settled because one has taken a head-count among the experts about it. The greenhouse effect has been sufficiently and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment (one of the earliest such experiments, and the first to demonstrate due rigor, was that of John Tyndall at the Royal Institution, London, in 1850). The effect has also been explained right down to the quantum level, and appears to behave in accordance with that explanation. Therefore, I do not care how many scientists say there is or is not a greenhouse effect. There is one, and that is that, just as the Pythagorean theorem is demonstrably true, and that is that.
Logic – particularly in its recently-developed branch, mathematical logic – is a highly rigorous subject. Anyone familiar with it will at once realize that the trolls I have cited here either know very little about the subject or are doing their best to obscure the fact that the case for climate hysteria is founded very largely upon numerous gaping logical fallacies. Or perhaps both.
So here is a puzzle for the trolls to attempt. Equilibrium climate sensitivity depends upon as precise knowledge of the value of the CO2 radiative forcing; of the Planck parameter; of the water vapor feedback; of the lapse-rate feedback; of the surface-albedo feedback; of the cloud feedback; and of the CO2 feedback. At minimum, we must know, and know precisely, the values of each of these seven parameters before we can determine equilibrium climate sensitivity. Yet not one of these quantities can be measured directly or indirectly; the feedbacks cannot be distinguished either from one another or from the forcings that triggered them by any observational method; and there is no theoretical method that will determine any of these seven quantities to a sufficient precision. To make matters worse, we do not know and cannot measure the (probably negative) anthropogenic forcing from particulate aerosols, nor the fraction of total greenhouse-gas forcing attributable to each greenhouse gas; nor the fraction of equilibrium warming that will occur by, say, 2100. Nor do we know all of the processes by which the climate evolves, particularly at sub-grid scale. Even if we did, the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object, so that, since we cannot know its initial state to anything like a sufficient precision, the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible by any method. Since 1950, the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 C/century, and the maximum warming rate sustained for more than a decade since 1850 has been 1.6 C/century, yet the IPCC maintains, on no evidence, that the rate of warming will accelerate to 3 C/century over the next 90 years. So here is the puzzle. Given these numerous unknowns and unknowables, how can there possibly be a reliable scientific consensus to the effect that the warming – contrary to what has been observed to date – will be anything like as large as the IPCC and its acolytes would have us believe?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Mr. House yet again attempts to assert that, in effect, the argument from consensus is not a logical fallacy. He says: “People reasonably rely on scientific consensus because they have no other choice.” Try telling that to Galileo, Newton or Einstein, all of whom overthrew the pre-existing scientific consensus because they had a choice – to do science properly, rather than relying upon mere head-count to reach their conclusions.
====================================================
Let me tell you for the third or forth time on this thread: the argument from consensus is a logical fallacy. Yes, it is. It is.
Such an argument is absolutely wrong in a scientific debate. But I am not talking about scientists, Christopher, for the third time, I am specifically talking about non-scientists, ordinary people, policy makers, journalists. Do you expect a construction worker to check your equation on climate sensitivity? Or heads of states? Or TV anchors?
All these people have no other choice, than to rely in their everyday life upon what they think is scientific consensus. Their logically fallacious, yes, opinion is however crucial, because they vote, make decisions, convince other people. If they are convinced, that there is scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming, they will behave accordingly and we all will have a problem.
I see only 2 ways to deal with this problem: 1) to prove, that there is no scientific consensus on global warming or 2) to prove, that all of them are wrong.
Well, there is, of course, another way, like your telling people about their fallacy, but this will change nothing, because your construction is merely equal to saying “scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming MIGHT be wrong”. This is a very weak point, I am sorry.
I have just read your new article, where you changed the line to “there cannot be a global warming consensus”. Well, generally there can be consensus on the stupidest thing, why not on global warming? On the positive side, you have made a step forward in that article, where you are questioning the 3,7 number now. This is nice, but not enough for the non-scientists.
Now, Christopher, I can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. Are you interested in that?
The climate Cassandras on Intrade are overconfident that this will be a warm year and have driven the odds of that happening to unreasonably high levels, offering a good opportunity for climate contrarians to bet against them. The first three months of 2012 averaged 0.407, per GISS. Here are the latest odds (anomalies are those of GISS. The 2011 anomaly was 0.51.):
2012 will be THE warmest year ever (i.e., over 0.63 or so): 15%
2012 anomaly will be over 0.55: 42% (If you put up $58, you stand to win $42)
2012 anomaly will be over 0.50: 78% (Put up $22 to win $78)
2012 anomaly will be over 0.45: 84%
You can sell you bets for a profit if the odds move in your direction. (Intrade works like a futures market.) Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=91036
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm
The greenhouse effect has been sufficiently and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment (one of the earliest such experiments, and the first to demonstrate due rigor, was that of John Tyndall at the Royal Institution, London, in 1850). The effect has also been explained right down to the quantum level, and appears to behave in accordance with that explanation.
==================================================
Christopher, Tyndall has indeed demonstrated that water vapour, CO2 and some other gases absorb and emit IR radiation, this is true, but he did not measure the “greenhouse effect” in sense of how much warming or cooling this effect might cause. You really need to check it. Instead, he simply speculated about warming. Arrhenius did it, too.
The first scientist who really experimentally estimated the possible warming seams to be professor Wood, and the results of his experiment were disastrous for the warmists (1909): http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
Oops–I should have said, “equal to or greater than”
Greg House,
Referencing Billy Connolley is like citing a Scientologist on a science question. Connolley is a devious propagandist, and he should be dismissed from any science-based discussion.
Here is a legitimate paper, ulike Connolley’s anti-science propaganda, which empirically verifies R.W. Wood’s experiment. Good for you for questioning Connolley, who specializes in pseudo-science and censorship.
Smokey says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Greg House,
Referencing Billy Connolley is like citing a Scientologist on a science question. Connolley is a devious propagandist, and he should be dismissed from any science-based discussion.
==================================================
It might sound funny, but I did not understand at first, what do you mean by “Connolley”. I do not care about him at all, I am just referring to the Wood’s article he posted on his site. I even did not read his comments properly. Only the Wood’s article is important.
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:37 am
Guys, again on the idea of Lord Moncktons about Holocaust based on scientific consensus, I have not seen any clear evidence of it.
You skipped right over it, then.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/#comment-964483
You asked for the scientific consensus and Tietze specifically stated what it was and why it changed.
Brendan H says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:25 am
Bill Tuttle: “Argument from authority” is the *definition* of the type of fallacy.”
No. “Argument from authority” is the *name* of the legitimate argument. The definition would be: “an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority”.
That’s the beauty of the English language — its versatility. It’s perfectly proper to say that that type of argument is defined as “argument from authority.”
The name of the fallacy would be “fallacious argument from authority” or “argument from false authority” or similar.
You definitely have a problem with English comprehension. The fallacy is called “argumentum ad verecundiam.” “Verecundiam” is “reverence” or “deferrence,” the implication being “superior to oneself,” as in, “someone in authority.” Aristotle described the fallacy, so he has naming rights.
Bill Tuttle says:
April 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm
You skipped right over it, then.
============================================
I thought this topic was closed.
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:53 am
People know, that what other people say might be untrue, but they REASONABLY rely upon scientific consensus, because they have no other choice.
Hence it does not change anything, if you tell people, that climate consensus MIGHT be wrong. Either you show them there is no consensus, or you prove that the consensus is wrong, like flat earth consensus. Otherwise they will not change their mind.
Generally, people *do* have the choice to research and come to their own conclusions. However, if someone were to form his opinion based solely on “the scientific consensus” by choice, your conclusion also holds true.
Fine useful piece by Lord Monckton.
I miss one thing: one that comes up all the time: that infuriating STRAWMAN trick.
Bill Tuttle: “It’s perfectly proper to say that that type of argument is defined as “argument from authority.”
What type of argument? The argument we are discussing is the argument from authority. If so, you appear to be claiming that the argument from authority is defined as the argument from authority.
But that can’t be so. A definition consists of two parts: the definiendum, or the term(s) to be defined, and the definiens, the words that define (describe) the term(s).
Therefore, in the case of the argument from authority, “argument from authority” is the definiendum, and “an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority” (or similar) is the definiens.
Thus an example of the full definition: “argument from authority is an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority”.
“The fallacy is called “argumentum ad verecundiam.”
Just above you said: “that type of argument is defined as “argument from authority.” So is “argumentum ad verecundiam” the name of the fallacy or is it the definition of the fallacy?
“Verecundiam” is “reverence” or “deferrence,” the implication being “superior to oneself,” as in, “someone in authority.”
Crack open a dictionary and you will find that an authority can be a person who is considered to be a legitimate expert on a subject. The term is not just confined to those who wield institutional authority. Indeed, the English is a thing of beauty.
Monckton has time for angry ladies, but not time to reply to Hadfield.
and also,
– – – – – – –
cba & Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
Thank you both for your considerable replies.
It is perhaps my lack of clarity that caused you to misunderstand my comment @ur momisugly April 23, 2012 at 12:16 pm (the comment with 6 propositions and 2 conclusions). It appears you thought I was claiming that argument correct and that I was making a case in support of the argument . I am not supporting such an argument nor have I ever supported it. It is posted as an example of the argument I find at Skeptical Science, Real Climate, from lukewarmers and within the supporters of the IPCC, etc. The argument I presented is given as an example to be logically analysed by skeptics, not as a means by me to promote that argument. It was an attempt to offer up a common argument to use for the purpose of using it in a logical analysis exercise in the same spirit that Christopher Monckton of Brenchley offered up arguments to be analyzed in the logical exercises in his original post. It appears my intention was wonderfully fulfilled since both of you offered your considerable analysis of the example argument.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, to be quite direct with you, I was indeed quite surprised that by implication it appears you are calling me a troll here on WUWT blog. Please clarify whether you intentionally implied I was a troll or not.
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, I will respond separately about truth values and the relationship between premise and conclusion in logical forms. This is a very interesting topic, whether it is only the forms of reasoning that logic deals with formally or does logical also deal with the truth values of the concepts within the forms. I look forward to continue discussion in that area.
John
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm
The trolls are understandably worried by the ease with which it can be demonstrated that many of the most frequently-deployed arguments of the climate extremists are instances of elementary and long-established logical fallacies. They seem more than usually determined to confuse the issue, so let me straighten a few points out.
With more obfuscation?
Myrrh says that in the past I have claimed the authority of settled scientific consensus as to the existence of the greenhouse effect. No. To say that a scientific question is settled is not the same thing as to argue that it is settled because one has taken a head-count among the experts about it.
Bit dollop of doo doo again. You are still arguing from consensus, and authority. That, as you have so ably pointed out, are logical fallacies.
The science is not there. If the science was there you would be able to present it in all its detail instead of waving in the general direction of Tyndall who never said anything about the Greenhouse Effect, and Arrhenius who came up with the utter physical stupidity of carbon dioxide forming a greenhouse trapping heat! Carbon dioxide has a heat capacity less than 1, even less capable of trapping heat than oxygen and nitrogen, it can’t trap heat. That he claimed such a thing, absurd as it is, is one thing, but he has never shown that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has any effect on raising the Earth’s temperature.
The greenhouse effect has been sufficiently and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment (one of the earliest such experiments, and the first to demonstrate due rigor, was that of John Tyndall at the Royal Institution, London, in 1850).
Again, he did no such thing. Show, bring to this discussion, here, now, where he demonstrated the Greenhouse Effect.
To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support the Greenhouse Effect.
The effect has also been explained right down to the quantum level,
More idiocy masqerading as science – show and tell. The pretence to superior scientific understanding is proved because you never show proof, your argument from authority is worthless even if it wasn’t a logical fallacy.
and appears to behave in accordance with that explanation. Therefore, I do not care how many scientists say there is or is not a greenhouse effect. There is one, and that is that, just as the Pythagorean theorem is demonstrably true, and that is that.
If it were true, if it has been so often proved, if it is standard science about carbon dioxide, why can’t you provide any detail? Surely, there must be tons and tons and tons of proof that you warmists are so confident that such an effect exists? So where the hell is it?
You’re, b*llsh*tt*ng. That’s all you ever do. You’re not only arguing from consensus and pretended scientific authority, you’re arguing from a scientific fraud masquerading as consensus because unproven physics. You dare bring in Pythagoras to hide your paucity of science proof.
Logic – particularly in its recently-developed branch, mathematical logic – is a highly rigorous subject. Anyone familiar with it will at once realize that the trolls I have cited here either know very little about the subject or are doing their best to obscure the fact that the case for climate hysteria is founded very largely upon numerous gaping logical fallacies. Or perhaps both.
You’re the troll Monckton. You loudly and with great logic, and great passion, argue for science truth, for honesty, but you hide your own propaganda consensus cleverly within it and hope no one notices. Calling me a troll doesn’t change that – ad hominem. You use it distract from your failure to provide proof, or any detail.., just as you use screaming, demeaning tactics against those who pull you up on it, all the while hypocritically pretending you’re of the same mind as the greats you quote who did hold that the truth in science is the only target worth aiming for. You use the logical fallacies in your arguments yourself to browbeat opposition to your views, your opinions, your unsupported claims. You deliberately, I assume, or perhaps in ignorance you really can’t see what you’re doing, keep promoting the unproven Greenhouse Effect conjecture illogically claiming it exists and is proven. Until you can show that it is proven, that is all you’re doing. And that isn’t honest science.
So here is a puzzle for the trolls to attempt.
Attempt to fetch proof that the Greenhouse Effect exists. You should have over a hundred years worth of it..
=========================
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Monckton of Brenchley says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm
The greenhouse effect has been sufficiently and repeatedly demonstrated by experiment (one of the earliest such experiments, and the first to demonstrate due rigor, was that of John Tyndall at the Royal Institution, London, in 1850). The effect has also been explained right down to the quantum level, and appears to behave in accordance with that explanation.
==================================================
Christopher, Tyndall has indeed demonstrated that water vapour, CO2 and some other gases absorb and emit IR radiation, this is true, but he did not measure the “greenhouse effect” in sense of how much warming or cooling this effect might cause. You really need to check it. Instead, he simply speculated about warming. Arrhenius did it, too.
The first scientist who really experimentally estimated the possible warming seams to be professor Wood, and the results of his experiment were disastrous for the warmists (1909): http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
Monckton is a warmist, he refuses to listen to any questioning or arguing on the physics of the claim while never providing any proof of its actual existence. He argues from authority, a logical fallacy, while never providing proof that his authorities proved it or even touched on it in their own work. It is what is has always been in the AGWScience Fiction, a sleight of hand, a science con.
Arrhenius was dubunked at the beginning of the 20th century, AGWSF continues to hide this fact.
Which is why is cannot be fetched, it doesn’t exist to be fetched.
For amusement, here’s a press clipping on Arrhenius’s claim: http://www.real-science.com/father-global-warming-predicted-top-farming
From a link posted by ES on that page – http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf
“But the more important question is: Was Arrhenius´ theory based on indisputable facts? Or is it
merely theory?
Once again Casey: “Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may
claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be
anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the
impossible condition that in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a
hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air’s optical
properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark
contrast to Arrhenius’ claims about Fourier’s ideas:”
This was at the very beginning of such research and much of it very muddled thinking, by our applied science standards now. If the best the Greenhouse Effect claimers can do is wave in this general direction all the while bullying that it does exist rather than providing evidence of their claim, it’s because they know it doesn’t exist.
Casey’s page where I orginally found his look at the history of this confusion: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/ “However, without the “Greenhouse Effect”, how can anyone honestly describe global warming as “anthropogenic”?”
Exactly. What’s the logical fallacy here..?
Greg House says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Bill Tuttle says:
April 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm
You skipped right over it, then.
============================================
I thought this topic was closed.
I didn’t step into closed territory, I addressed your request for evidence of the scientific consensus.
Brendan H says:
April 24, 2012 at 1:07 am
“The fallacy is called “argumentum ad verecundiam.”
Just above you said: “that type of argument is defined as “argument from authority.” So is “argumentum ad verecundiam” the name of the fallacy or is it the definition of the fallacy?
No, I said, ““It’s perfectly proper to say that that type of argument is defined as ‘argument from authority’.” As in, “What do you call that type of fallacy?” “That type of fallacy is defined as the ‘argument to authority.”
“Verecundiam” is “reverence” or “deferrence,” the implication being “superior to oneself,” as in, “someone in authority.”
Crack open a dictionary and you will find that an authority can be a person who is considered to be a legitimate expert on a subject. The term is not just confined to those who wield institutional authority.
True. However, the fallacy *is* “argument to authority.” Go argue with Aristotle — he named it.
Indeed, the English is a thing of beauty.
Ain’t it just?
Bill Tuttle says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Generally, people *do* have the choice to research and come to their own conclusions. However, if someone were to form his opinion based solely on “the scientific consensus” by choice, your conclusion also holds true.
===============================================
Bill, do you expect the vast majority of people who are not scientists to come home after work and do research on global warming and many other things? Let us be realistic.
A lot of people already have the strong impression that there is scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming and act accordingly as voters in the first place. To change that requires what I described above. It will certainly not be changed by statements of Lord Monckton’s like “there is global warming and it is partly man made, but it is not so dangerous”. This is not an exact quotation, but I watched him conveying that message on videos. Please, correct me if I am wrong on his message. Such statements actually reinforce the impression of the public, the press and the politicians.
I this context I do not see how the references to logical fallacies can improve anything.
Greg House says:
April 24, 2012 at 10:17 am
===============================================
Bill, do you expect the vast majority of people who are not scientists to come home after work and do research on global warming and many other things? Let us be realistic.
A couple of hours ago, I would have answered that I expect the vast majority of them will come home from work, pop a beer, and vegetate until suppertime. But I just participated in an hour-long bull session with a Ukrainian helicopter mechanic, a Spanish medic, a US personal security specialist, a Mongolian weapons specialist, a US intel analyst, and a Slovenian IT guy. The topics went from String Theory and ‘branes to the Permian Extinction to paleo atmospheric composition and finished up with speculations on what type of life forms we figure the Russians will find in Lake Vostok. Then half of them split to go to midnight chow. So, speaking realistically, I think world citizenry may be a lot more scientifically savvy than I’d thought.
I this context I do not see how the references to logical fallacies can improve anything.
It certainly improved the thread count…
Bill Tuttle: “As in, “What do you call that type of fallacy?” “That type of fallacy is defined as the ‘argument to authority.”
Here is a definition: a polar bear is a large, white, carnivorous Arctic mammal.
In answer to the question: “What do you call that type of bear?” you would not answer: “That type of bear is *defined* as a polar bear.”
Rather, you would answer: “That type of bear is *called* a polar bear.”
You are confusing the label with the description.