ant

I told you to stop squirming and evading.

Answer the question.

Do you, or do you not, understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on any logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

JKJ,

What is this 'Appeal to Absent Authority' you're always on about? It sounds made up to me. I Googled 'appeal to absent authority' and the best I got was your post on Yahoo questions in which you weren’t really asking a question and, subsequently, had your arse handed to you because of that (http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121225062907AA7NElc).

The Appeal to Authority is a recognised fallacy, but what’s an appeal to an absent authority? Is it just a fancy way of conveying the denialist denial that a consensus exists amongst the relevant scientists with regards to climate change?

Are you trying to coin your own fallacy? That's cute, but you're no PZ Myers.

"The Appeal to Authority is a recognised fallacy, but what’s an appeal to an absent authority?
[...] a consensus exists amongst the relevant scientists with regards to climate change[.]"

Thank you for conceding the general issue and thus the entire argument.

We have now established by common agreement, and your acknowledgement, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs about catastrophic man-made global warming.

Having acknowledged that your and ant's technique of appealing to authority is fallacious, you acknowledge your argument is fallacious since it consists of no other attempt at proof than endlessly bleating your allegation of some unidentified, unspecified, absent, unquestionable authority somewhere else.

Do you think the reason for your squirming evasion is not obvious?

Obviously if you assert that scientific proof can rely on logical fallacy, you demonstrate that you don't understand the first thing about science, and are in no position to talk down to others about it.

But if you admit that science cannot rely on logical fallacy, we have established by agreement that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs that we face catastrophic global warming from man-made CO2 that policy can improve.

So either your appeal to absent authority disproves you, or if it doesn't, then you accept that I completely disprove your argument to your own standard, by your own methodology, by appeal to the same authorities.

You are denying the science which has been established by consensus.

There. How do you like it? Please acknowledge that you consider this to be a total disproof of your argument; or if not, then you admit your argument is wrong.

If there's a "consensus" that 2 + 2 = 9, then according to you, that constitutes a scientific proof that 2 + 2 = 9.

Yes? That's what you're arguing?

Fool. You're only proving that your religious enthusiasm has long since cut all traces with the concept of rational proof.

Ant
Answer the question and stop your evasion: do you understand, or do you not understand, that a scientific proof cannot rest on logical fallacy including appeal to authority?

Jardine,

I notice you didn't answer AJ's question. Why do you think the authority of scientists is absent?

And how can AJ's post be conceding the entire argument when AJ wasn't previously participating in that argument?

"We have now established by common agreement, and your acknowledgement, that there is no scientific basis for your beliefs about catastrophic man-made global warming."
That would only be true if the scientists were basing their own work on consensus and ignoring the data. But they're not; they're basing it on observed data and theoretical predictions.

You misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to authority. You seem to think the authority of experts should always be ignored and everyone has to explain absolutely everything to your satisfaction otherwise they've lost an argument!

But you're a hypocrite! You frequently spout logical fallacies such as the one I just quoted. Indeed that one looks almost sensible compared to your claim on another thread of "appeal to alleged or assumed supernatural or magical forces"!

There will never be a consensus among experts that 2 + 2 = 9 as the only people who could believe that are those who can't add up and those who don't know what the symbols = + 2 and 9 mean. Among the experts, the consensus will always be that 2+2=4. A consensus among experts is not proof, but it is generally an indicator that something is likely to be right. And although it would only take one person with a sufficiently good explanation to disprove a consensus, no such explanation has been made (though in the case of AGW, many have tried).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alice Thermopolis,

Melting of ice on land means more fresh water is flowing into the sea, reducing local salinity levels (especially near the surface) thus making it easier for water to freeze. So an increase in seasonal sea ice is what would be expected from global warming. Which is good because it's a negative feedback mechanism.

Jardine

The Appeal to Authority does not apply when there is a consensus view in relation to what is being discussed. Deniers like to try and turn concepts upside down and apply them inappropriately.
Politicians from around the world have taken notice of what scientists have been informing us; they are now part of the consensus view.

Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al provide much science to show that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Those Agencies are part of the consensus view generally; so if you are planning on using technical terms: Jardine, use a term properly.
Science Journals that publish papers about climate change support the views of man created climate change generally shown through the few papers published by skeptical scientists.

All that deniers are able to come up with is sophistry, there is a lack of completely up to date references to support their views. All we get is nit picking; saying things are wrong but supplying no references to show how something is wrong.

Even ExxonMobil support the view of anthropogenic climate change. Deniers have had to back track in relation to comments about ExxonMobil.

Aidan

“Why do you think the authority of scientists is absent?”

It’s absent because the warmists, for all their proof of what is in issue, are referring off to the authority of persons who are absent from this forum.

“That [i.e. logical invalidity of warmist argument by referring off to other people elsewhere] would only be true if the scientists were basing their own work on consensus and ignoring the data. But they're not; they're basing it on observed data and theoretical predictions.”

So you’re unashamedly arguing that the proof that an appeal to authority is not fallacious, is in the appeal to authority itself? Yes? Admit this please? And do you admit and allow an equal right for me to use the same technique against you to settle the question in issue?

Can’t you see that your argument depends on everyone agreeing with you as a precondition of entering into the discussion?

But what if they don’t? All you have then, for proof, is endlessly insisting that you must be right because, without offering any proof or reason, you tell us that someone, somewhere else, has satisfied you enough for you to believe it.

But that’s not science. It’s just a fallacy. The onus is on you to prove it. Ant has the onus of proof back-the-front, expecting me to prove a negative, when he hasn't proved anything but his own belief that science means illogic.

“You misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to authority. You seem to think the authority of experts should always be ignored …”

Not always. If the disputants are agreed, then no issue arises. But if they do not agree, there has to be a dialogue of reason. You have to prove. Your belief that "science" means just blind unquestioning credulity without reason or evidence, but only authority, is flatly incorrect, simple as that.

Otherwise you’re contradicting yourself, because you’re arguing simultaneously that
1. No discussion will be brooked; you simply will not allow that the principles of logic could possibly falsify your argument, AND