[NatureNS] Global warming

From: "Wild Flora" <herself@wildflora.com>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <4840A002.7070202@hfx.eastlink.ca> <4841AAD6.8090803@glinx.com> <4841FFA2.5070106@hfx.eastlink.ca> <4842CD53.8395.14D4A72@uhoeger.dal.ca> <53F62D54-9CA9-4B76-A254-A0A5F86526B5@ns.sympatico.ca> <48474B65.2030706@hfx.eastlink.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:10:16 -0300
Thread-Index: AcjGsfHmpgT7N3kDShqsnS/kHiP0gQAUb7Iw
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
Lois, 

Chris did not make an "ad hominem argument." (I think you'll find that the
second word is spelled with an 'e' not a 'u', by the way.)

If the only claim being discussed were the claim that climate change is real
(call this Claim A), then you could reasonably argue that we should restrict
discussion to the scientific evidence on both sides of the claim. Even so,
the scientific qualifications of the scientists conducting the research
would be a legitimate topic for discussion as it bears on the quality of the
evidence being assessed.

As it happens, however, Claim A is not the only claim being made. A Claim B
has also been made - namely, that people who believe Claim A should
reconsider because 31,000 scientists have at some time signed a petition
stating the contrary.

Because Claim B has been made, discussion of the characteristics of the
scientists on the list of 31,000 is relevant as long as it bears on the
claim that their opinion matters. It is absolutely legitimate to raise and
answer questions such as Who are these 31,000 scientists? What are their
qualifications? What are their motives? Do any of them have a history of
making false or biased statements? In short, are their opinions worthy of
consideration?

To paraphrase the definition of 'ad hominem' in the Wikipedia, these
arguments address the substance of the argument and produce evidence against
the claim being made. Hence they are not ad hominem.

Flora

-----Original Message-----
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of Lois Codling
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:12 PM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Global warming

Hi Chris,

I have taken a few days to answer your e-mail because, to tell the 
truth, it made me really angry.  Name-calling is not part of the 
scientific method, as far as I am aware.  Philosophically it is called 
an "ad hominum" (to the man) argument, and is a logical fallacy because 
it doesn't deal with the argument at all, but with the man presenting 
the argument.  Your e-mail apparently accused 31,000 American 
scientists, including over 9000 Ph.D.'s, of every politically incorrect 
view going.

I guess I must be a consensus denier as well.  I am heartily sick of 
hearing that the consensus of scientists is that human-caused climate 
change is undeniable.  As the scientists who signed the Petition Project 
state, "if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in 
opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in 
favor of it."  The large number of scientists who signed clearly shows 
that there is no consensus in the sense you are implying. They claim 
that the Project includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously 
involved in the United Nations IPPC process.  See their website at: 
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

I personally have no stake in, or connection to the Petition Project.  I 
have only recently learned of its existence.  But I am concerned for 
truth, and for freedom of speech.  The path to truth is by dealing with 
arguments, not by slinging mud.

Lois Codling



Christopher Majka wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There are a coterie of climate change deniers who (primarily for 
> ideological, or more frequently financial, reasons) would like to keep 
> alive the notion that anthropogenic climate change is still a 
> "debatable" topic. It is interesting (and insightful) that many of 
> these same people, organizations, public relations and ad firms, etc. 
> that constitute the "denial industry" are (in one guise or another) 
> the same as those who were employed by the tobacco industry for years 
> making claims that there was no evidence that smoking was related to 
> lung cancer.
>
> They have also borrowed tactics from the Holocaust denial movement, 
> and those who deny the reality of evolution, trying to couch their 
> arguments in pseudo-scientific terms and arguing that they are 
> presenting another perspective on what is still a debatable issue. It 
> is a dreadful and disgraceful tactic.
>
> For those who are interested there is an excellent discussion of this 
> movement (with citations and links to many further sources of 
> information) in the Wikipedia at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
>
> Beyond this, or a sober viewing of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient 
> Truth," or an detailed read through the report of the 
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), 
> possibly the most extensive, well researched, comprehensive, and 
> credible international scientific study ever undertaken in history 
> (their full report is available on the website), an easily 
> understandable and insightful article on this topic is "The cold truth 
> about climate change" by Joseph Romm published by Salon Magazine:
>
>
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.ht
ml 
>
>
> We ignore the peril of climate change at the risk of potentially 
> catastrophic consequences.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chris
>
> On 1-Jun-08, at 4:24 PM, uhoeger@dal.ca wrote:
>
>> Well,
>>
>> given the scope of the journal in which this REVIEW article was 
>> published
>> (Journal American Physicians and Surgeons) it makes me personally
>> wonder why this review article wasn't published in a journal with a more
>> appropriate scope, readership, and referees .......
>> And how it made it into this journal since it is not really fitting 
>> into the usual
>> landscape .............
>> Looks to me that it was either turned down by those journals, or 
>> there was
>> the intention of the authors to fly low under the radar screen to 
>> avoid critical
>> and qualified discussion ......
>>
>> Same applies to the 31000 American scientists that signed the 
>> petition.......
>> Who are those people and what is their expertise?
>>
>> What I want to say is that it is very easy to get mislead and 
>> blindsided.
>> Facts can be interpreted in many different ways, and review articles 
>> are not
>> only a presentation of other people data it's also an interpretation 
>> by a third
>> person who picked those "references" in the first place.
>>
>> Anyway I have a few red flags going up!
>>
>> Ulli
>>