It's a common feature of many in your position, Crock: none of you know much about the science and are usually happy to admit as such. Which is odd when we are talking about a scientific topic is it not?

All you rely on is picking out what you think are logical fallacies of argumentation after reading about them on Wikipedia, but with no actual content on the data whatsoever.

I am not polite to be sure, but at least I do have other interests. I also tend to believe the scientists and scientific organisations that have reviewed the data. The peer review system is not perfect certainly, but it's light-years ahead of any of the alternatives in determining the veracity of claims. To argue against the conclusions drawn from the scientific synthesis of multiple studies on what you think is a logical fallacy or erroneous style of argument by a blogger is a bit of a narrow focus don't you think? It's not a scientific position you are taking, nor even one interested with the truth from what I can tell, because no one is going to convince you out of your position, of that I am fairly sure. Because the internet for most of you is not a place to discuss and weigh the truth of the science, that happens without you (thank goodness). For you, it is a place to voice your opinion and to have it reinforced by others that think the same way as yourself.

The position adopted by persons happily admitting ignorance of the science pale, as they become something akin to "I am ignorant of the processes and data used to derive the conclusions but I since there is a political element to this stuff, it is probably stupid/wrong/a left wing conspiracy/[insert silly conclusion of choice here].

Of course I always live in hope that someone tries what Arjay did, that stuff is gold man.

Oh, and one last piece of advice: try and post in multiple threads when puppeteering, it makes it more believable.

Crock, apparently paraphrasing me: "X august individuals and or organisations say this is true so don’t you dare question it"

Sure, you can question it, and by "it" I assume you mean the scientific finding that the current regime of climate change is caused by humans. Nobody is stopping you. To do so you should have the capacity to understand and analyse the science.

The best way to question it would then be to publish your finding in the climate science journals, and have it look at by other climate scientists, not by putting it in a policy opinion forum such as this.

Ian Castles is one such person that tries to deliver articles that look like a scientific analysis here, yet admits:

Ian Castles: "there’s not even a remote possibility that a climate science journal would accept this article"

Essentially, I can't see any valid reason not to trust the findings of the world's top science organisations on this issue.

What concerns me are the individuals deliberately trying to trip up policy development for climate change by:

(a) manufacturing an artificial "the jury is still out" controversy, when in fact if you look at the climate science journals you will see that there is no controversy within the climate scientist community on the question of whether humans, mainly through CO2, are causing the current climate change

(b) putting together some shoddy and obscure pseudo-science that would never be accepted in a science journal, and pushing out into places like OLO and other public media

(b) conjuring up some absurd conspiracy theory that all of the governments and the climate scientists of the world are colluding on fake results, so that climate scientists can get rich (sadly laughable if you've ever seen their wages)

I admit that it makes me angry because these people are putting us all in danger in return for satisfying their vested interests.

Bugsy: "All you rely on is picking out what you think are logical fallacies of argumentation after reading about them on Wikipedia, but with no actual content on the data whatsoever."

Are you talking to crock or Sams?

"To argue against the conclusions drawn from the scientific synthesis of multiple studies on what you think is a logical fallacy or erroneous style of argument by a blogger is a bit of a narrow focus don't you think?"

Are you suggesting fallacy and error are acceptable means to seeking truth?

Sams: " The best way to question it would then be to publish your finding in the climate science journals, and have it look at by other climate scientists, not by putting it in a policy opinion forum such as this." Can you provide a reference for one of your peer-reviewed climate science papers?

"Ian Castles is one such person that (sic) tries to deliver articles that look like a scientific analysis here..."

Ian refutes this in the commentary on his article above, so it's quite cowardly to repeat it down here. Speaking of fallacies, this is an example of what literary critics Beardsley and Wimsatt call the Intentional Fallacy - it is fallacious to argue what someone has intended in their work, and then say that they have failed for not meeting your idea of the intention (and then you admit that you haven't even read the article!). Quite hilarious.

Ian has written an opinion piece (this is an opinion site) and your quotes above are deceitfully taken out of context. If you only care about "peer" reviewed climate science papers, well by all means, go to them, but the one thing you haven't been able to do here is respond to Ian's clear and concise article.

Sorry, to write this here on your thread Mark, but one endeavours to follow and expose the tangled web Sams weaves

Excellent points, fungochumley.

Bugsy and Sams: Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you two seem to be saying is basically this: I (crock) am not a scientist, therefore I should agree what a majority of climate scientists (not all climate scientists) say, or become a climate scientist myself and subject my theories to peer review. Or otherwise, if I am of sufficiently unsound mind not to blindly accept authority even when authority is unable to convince me with well-put, comprehensible arguments , I should not open my mouth about it to anyone because I am undermining this important mission to save humanity from itself. (And we know how good science is at saving the world, don’t we? )

On the basis of this, you are presumably saying that a consensus of specialist scientists can never be questioned or doubted except by specialist scientists.

To me that is a recipe for fascism. I can think of numerous examples in which specialist scientists haven’t had all the facts available and have been wrong, and people without scientific training have suffered because of their mistakes. For example specialist scientists who make medicinal drugs, or who have incorrectly described physical ailments. Eventually through trial and error they get it right. Maybe the same process is happening with climate science, which as I understand it, is a relatively new discipline. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The funny thing about fascism is that people who subscribe to it tend to believe they have the best interests of humanity at heart, and that people who question them are evil.

Despite your tactics, I will continue to remain open-minded about the the possibility that global warming is influenced by people, will continue to conserve electricity and water, ride my bicycle when possible and support the development of non-fossil power sources. meanwhile, you guys won’t win any hearts and minds with self-righteous rage and nasty accusations and insinuations that you know you can’t prove. Maybe the bottom line is that you're not really into saving the world at all ... you're just into control.

Oh Crock, well done you, likening your opponents to Fascists. Like that hasn't been done on the internet before. Who's indulging in a few fallacies now eh?

I especially love the argument by false analogy, hilarious when done properly.

One of the most ironic things about this thread is about the repetitive assertive nature of your "appeal to authority" fallacy. Because Sams use of authoritative panels of climate scientists recommendations and endorsement of findings after reviewing the data actually carry weight and it is not a fallacy. It would be a fallacy perhaps if say, Dr. Ian Frazer said it and it was argued that "if Ian Frazer said it must be true". But citing many panels of experts from many fields that work with climate data? No, that's not a fallacious appeal to authority.

Perhaps you should have read the Wikipedia article after all.

Crock & Co. Nuff said ... I understand (mostly) where you're coming from.

Sams & Co. Nuff said ... Houston, we have a problem.

Let's forget sun-spots for the moment (apologies to Mark) and if I can suggest: Sams or Crock (best dressed) start a new OLO general discussion where we can attempt to rationally (with respect) address the issues raised by the two of you.

How about I kick off the discussion by posing 2 questions:

1. Crock, what will it take for you to believe the scientific orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming?

2. Sams, what can all the academies of science you list do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with anthropogenic global warming?

It would help if we put ourselves in each others shoes.

Your call.