Quote:Actually its called an "Appeal to Authority" and it occurs all the time. For example, lets say we were lawyers in a murder trail. There is a large amount of forensic evidence, critical to the outcome of the case. However that evidence is beyond either you or I to understand. So... somebody calls a forensic expert as a witness. He then outlines the case.
If you disagree with what Necratoid or anyone else is saying, fine. Present your evidence. An argument that boils down to "You're wrong because you aren't a professional" is about as useful and significantly less amusing than the average personal attack.
The opposition (you) can call a rebutal witness. But first this witness has to establish his credential, just like any other expert testimony.
In this case, we obviously don't have any climate scientists on the board. Therefore our side has cited the global consensus of the vast majority of the sceintific community as our witness.
I haven't tried to fight you on the exact specifics of a lot of the articles posted because I don't know much more than you do. The difference between me and you? I admit it.
And yes, this means that we can't have much of a talk about what is actually going on. Frankly, we aren't qualified. I would no more presume that I knew more about global climate change than the sceintists who studied it then I would presume I knew more about brain chemistry than a doctor or that I knew more about string theory than a particle physicist. Anything we layman say is, by its nature, uninformed and half-assed.
Now, what we can debate about is, "Who is a reputable authority figure to appeal to?" Which has been the thrust of my argument.
My argument (and the arguments of a few others here) is that when 99.9% of sceintists agree on something that makes them a reputible source. My evidence is the progress of sceince, its resistance to political or peer pressure and how, in the end, the actual truth has always dominated sceintific study.
Necratoid's argument is that this is some vast left-wing hippie environmentalist conspiracy designed solely for the purpose of punishing American businesses. His evidence is...
Uh, I'm not certain. Right wing blogs? Articles from journals taken out of context? Ann Coulter?
Oh yes, and his argument is also that because he doesn't understand statistic and the sceince involved and can't be assed to actual learn anything, that he should have just as much voice as those who do.
So, to sum up.
Yes, I do not know very much about global climate change. Neither do you. Yes, we should shut up. This debate is being handled by people far more erudite and informed than we. And in those circles, the debate is already over.
So, it comes down to this:
Do you presume that YOU are smarter than thousands of sceintists who are specialist in the field?
------------------
Epsilon