[Vision2020] Warning From Copenhagen: 2500 Participants: 1400Scientific Presentations: Warming Irreversible For a Thousand Years

[Chasuk]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 07:45, Jo Campbell<philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> The number of scientists who accept global warming is overwhelming,
> not tens like you acknowledge. If your list is supposed to make a
> point, then why wouldn't the other list make an even stronger point?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Gary on this one.

Global warming is either caused by humans, or it isn't.  Actually,
let's add a third choice: global warning is exacerbated by humans.  So
we have:

1.  Global warming is caused by humans.
2.  Global warming is exacerbated by humans.
3.  Global warming is happening, but the existence or the actions of
humans aren't contributing to it in any measurable way.

I phrased choice number as I did three because we obviously exert some
influence on our environment -- more than a zero sum influence, even
if our existence/actions on global temperature are so negligible as to
be insignificant.

I'm assuming that we know indisputably that global warming is
occurring.  Or maybe I shouldn't assume that.  Relatively speaking, we
didn't crawl out of the muck that long ago, and we didn't invent
science until very, very recently.  Which means that our scientific
observational skills are new.  I know that we've learned to
forensically interpret the body of Mother Earth via geology and other
clever ologies, but deciphering climatic history is a science that we
will be figuring out for a long time.

That's the strength of science.  It allows us to logically (and
without shame) revise our conclusions.  It isn't dogmatic.

Those who insist that we KNOW that global warming occurs and that it
is caused by humans certainly seen dogmatic to me, but that is another
subject.

Anyway, so we have global warming that is almost indisputably
occurring, and the majority of scientists possessing expertise in
relevant disciplines apparently all concur that it is our fault.

Then have we already established that the majority are never wrong?
Have we already established that consensus determines fact, even in
matters of objective reality?

If the answer to both of the above questions is "yes," then Gary
doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If the answer is"no," then we can
still have a conversation.

Gary's point wasn't that numbers of believers determine fact, but that
many of those embracing the minority conclusion hold equally germane
credentials, and that being in the minority doesn't make them wrong.
In other words, he is saying, "You apparently place great stock in the
credentials of your scientific heroes, so here is my list of
credentialed scientists who disagree with their position vis-à-vis
global warming, which should, logically, compel you to acknowledge
that this dispute isn't settled, after all."

Of course, Gary is right, and you know it.