Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[zygalski]

The most 'critical' entry on that list of organisations which apparently oppose the consensus stance on AGW is The Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Here's their refutation of AGW:

https://www.spe.org/disciplines/hse/climate-change...

'Given that SPE does not have technical expertise or mandate for assessing climate science or guiding policy, the Task Force does not recommend that SPE develop a public position statement on climate science and climate change. SPE’s mission comprises the collection, dissemination and exchange of technical knowledge concerning the exploration, development and production of oil and gas resources, and related technologies. To inform its members on relevant developments in climate science and policy, which are outside of SPE’s core competency, SPE is recommended to draw on information from other competent sources.'

Seems like that list was jinxed.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Beebs CC propoganda today

Climate change: Water shortages in England 'within 25 years'

Within 25 years England will not have enough water to meet demand, the head of the Environment Agency is warning.
The impact of climate change, combined with population growth, means the country is facing an "existential threat", Sir James Bevan is expected to say in a speech.

The average rainfall in the UK is approximately 100 times more than we use. If the government hadn't flogged of the water industry to a load of foreigners, who promptly sold of space reserved for future reservoirs, we wouldn't have a 'problem'. Plans for pumping water from the north to the south also went out the window, as the various water companies couldn't agree on the cost sharing. Climate is nothing to do with it at all. Politics in full flight here.

Absolute Rubbish again.

Climate scientists have been saying for years that one of the primary effects of Climate Change will be the disruption to the water cycle and the knock on effect on Sanitation, Drinking Water and Food Production.

Or did you think that a changed weather pattern from that which our civilisation has been developed within would be a good thing as well as the increase in CO2?

Oh and by the way, best not to shout too loudly about the privatisation of the water industry, your ultra right wing comrades will be appalled at your stance on that issue.

Calm down TB, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

As reported in the Telegraph in May last year:

Britain’s leaky pipes are threatening to cast large areas of the country into drought, officials have warned. The Environment Agency last night challenged major water companies to improve their infrastructure as it said they were losing the equivalent to 20 million people's water usage every day.

In a major report, the agency said three billion litres of water a day are lost through leakage, which combined with population growth and the effects of climate change threaten to cause significant shortages in coming years.


Now, of course, the BBC article doesn’t mention the leaks, it’s all to do with the issue they’ve signed up to promote and proselytise: CAGW.

Re-read the BBC article you illiterate buffoon.

Second to last and penultimate paragraphs:

The Environment Agency has previously warned of water shortages by 2050 and the government has already suggested that people's water use be reduced, in its 25-year plan published last year.

Its report in May last year found enough water to meet the needs of 20 million people is lost through leakage every day.



Got that ONE scientific Institute yet?

Did you not hear the BBC Today package of this this morning? I suggest you do so on Listen Again or BBC sounds or whatever it's called this week. They did not mention leaks, and that's what I was referring to. It was all gloopal wombling bks as usual.

That the water companies allow the equivalent of water enough for 20 million people per day to leak out means that if they were to stop all leakages, the theoretical problem would not exist until at least [insert some date well into the future]. I say theoretical problem because of course this prediction is the bd stepchild of GCM models, and like all such predictions will fail.

Remind us how much population is predicted to grow by 2050?

Bullst. You never once mentioned the BBC Today package, we were talking about Robinessex’s BBC rant at the report on their website.

Why do you post such piss-poor replies that are so obviously a load of old tosh to anyone who’s following this thread?

Are you suffering from PMT today? Relax chap, none of these doomsday predictions will ever come to pass. It’s all just aimed at the sheep and the terminally gullible like you and an army of impressionable school kids with their placards.

Do remind us how much population is predicted to grow by 2050 and do the maths with regard to water leakage. Report back when you’ve done this. Until then, I’ll imagine you’re cowerin* in the corner of your cave trembling in fear waiting for the world to end,

Again with the non-sequitur.

Who cares about the population? That wasn’t being discussed by anybody except for you in your weird mind

Got that Scientific Institute yet?

If you’re a PhD holder/Professor I’m a fking astronaut.

Clearly you were unable to read and compute that which you were citing (yet again). It’s getting all a bit predictable with your considerable lacunae, unlike the climate predictions from failed GCM models, natch.

If you had been able to process such basic information (tough ask obviously), you would have been able to figure out for yourself (unlikely without the help of Skeptical Science and their how to deal with tight wearing contrarians) that the water lost each day through leakage adds up to vastly more than the predicted (and recently downardly revised) population growth estimates. Ergo, the crisis is nothing of the sort but rather yet another unfounded scare story that will never come to pass.

BBC foregrounds Cwimate chwange rather than water company failure. PH - prirorities matter.

And once again out comes the conspiracy theory only this time the BBC are in cahoots with the Environment Agency and Sir James Bevan. What credentials in the Environment world do you hold? Let me guess

You flat earthers are a real hoot.

And again, for the umpteenth time your deflection is noted.

Got that single scientific institution that agrees with you yet faux-pro???

As a master in the art of research surely you can find ONE?

Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 20th March 08:06

[zygalski]

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
https://www.iogp.org/blog/benefits-of-oil-and-gas/...

Links to this document concerning climate change risk management from Chevron, which includes the following:
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/docum...

'Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. We recognize the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere, which contribute to increases in global temperatures. As we work to address climate change, we must create solutions that balance environmental objectives with global economic growth and our aspirations for a better quality of life for people across the world.'

Oops!

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Beebs CC propoganda today

Climate change: Water shortages in England 'within 25 years'

Within 25 years England will not have enough water to meet demand, the head of the Environment Agency is warning.
The impact of climate change, combined with population growth, means the country is facing an "existential threat", Sir James Bevan is expected to say in a speech.

The average rainfall in the UK is approximately 100 times more than we use. If the government hadn't flogged of the water industry to a load of foreigners, who promptly sold of space reserved for future reservoirs, we wouldn't have a 'problem'. Plans for pumping water from the north to the south also went out the window, as the various water companies couldn't agree on the cost sharing. Climate is nothing to do with it at all. Politics in full flight here.

Absolute Rubbish again.

Climate scientists have been saying for years that one of the primary effects of Climate Change will be the disruption to the water cycle and the knock on effect on Sanitation, Drinking Water and Food Production.

Or did you think that a changed weather pattern from that which our civilisation has been developed within would be a good thing as well as the increase in CO2?

Oh and by the way, best not to shout too loudly about the privatisation of the water industry, your ultra right wing comrades will be appalled at your stance on that issue.

Calm down TB, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

There's none so gullible as the inherently gullible.

I find it extraordinary that our thread's Alarmists live on the same planet as the rest of us, a planet thriving with regard to optimum climate to sustain life, yet all they choose to believe is alarm, doom and gloom.

You can guarantee they're going to fall for each and every 'climate piece' hook, line and sinker every time, just look at gadgets response above of "Absolute Rubbish again!". He instantly dismisses reality in favour of naive appeals to authority.

Please just spend 30 seconds to re-read what gadget typed. I find it a sad sign of the depth of indoctrination and true belief, that his perceived authority must not be questioned.

Ah good, Deeps is back from his stint delivering leaflets to give us the wisdom of his experience in the Climate Change arena.

Well people have reread it and so far nobody is arguing it. Which bit of it is wrong? Have climate scientists not been saying that climate change will affect the water cycle?

Here's NASA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&amp...

Here's another

https://www.waterdocs.ca/water-talk/2018/9/19/5-wa...

There are literally millions of references to it online from reputable sources.

So, do you disagree? On what basis do you disagree? What research of your own have you done that shows NASA and others to be wrong?

I'll wait while you look up the comments section of WUWT for your answer.

[gadgetmac]

zygalski said:

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
https://www.iogp.org/blog/benefits-of-oil-and-gas/...

Links to this document concerning climate change risk management from Chevron, which includes the following:
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/docum...

'Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. We recognize the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere, which contribute to increases in global temperatures. As we work to address climate change, we must create solutions that balance environmental objectives with global economic growth and our aspirations for a better quality of life for people across the world.'

Oops!

None of their lists EVER stands up to 5 seconds worth of scrutiny.

Jinx won't come back to explain these anomalies though

For deniers the quest continues for a scientific institution that agrees with them from the thousands in existence. It's like watching Jason and the Argonauts.

[zygalski]

You've got to understand, there's no consensus though.

[Diderot]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Beebs CC propoganda today

Climate change: Water shortages in England 'within 25 years'

Within 25 years England will not have enough water to meet demand, the head of the Environment Agency is warning.
The impact of climate change, combined with population growth, means the country is facing an "existential threat", Sir James Bevan is expected to say in a speech.

The average rainfall in the UK is approximately 100 times more than we use. If the government hadn't flogged of the water industry to a load of foreigners, who promptly sold of space reserved for future reservoirs, we wouldn't have a 'problem'. Plans for pumping water from the north to the south also went out the window, as the various water companies couldn't agree on the cost sharing. Climate is nothing to do with it at all. Politics in full flight here.

Absolute Rubbish again.

Climate scientists have been saying for years that one of the primary effects of Climate Change will be the disruption to the water cycle and the knock on effect on Sanitation, Drinking Water and Food Production.

Or did you think that a changed weather pattern from that which our civilisation has been developed within would be a good thing as well as the increase in CO2?

Oh and by the way, best not to shout too loudly about the privatisation of the water industry, your ultra right wing comrades will be appalled at your stance on that issue.

Calm down TB, I'm sure he didn't mean it.

As reported in the Telegraph in May last year:

Britain’s leaky pipes are threatening to cast large areas of the country into drought, officials have warned. The Environment Agency last night challenged major water companies to improve their infrastructure as it said they were losing the equivalent to 20 million people's water usage every day.

In a major report, the agency said three billion litres of water a day are lost through leakage, which combined with population growth and the effects of climate change threaten to cause significant shortages in coming years.


Now, of course, the BBC article doesn’t mention the leaks, it’s all to do with the issue they’ve signed up to promote and proselytise: CAGW.

Re-read the BBC article you illiterate buffoon.

Second to last and penultimate paragraphs:

The Environment Agency has previously warned of water shortages by 2050 and the government has already suggested that people's water use be reduced, in its 25-year plan published last year.

Its report in May last year found enough water to meet the needs of 20 million people is lost through leakage every day.



Got that ONE scientific Institute yet?

Did you not hear the BBC Today package of this this morning? I suggest you do so on Listen Again or BBC sounds or whatever it's called this week. They did not mention leaks, and that's what I was referring to. It was all gloopal wombling bks as usual.

That the water companies allow the equivalent of water enough for 20 million people per day to leak out means that if they were to stop all leakages, the theoretical problem would not exist until at least [insert some date well into the future]. I say theoretical problem because of course this prediction is the bd stepchild of GCM models, and like all such predictions will fail.

Remind us how much population is predicted to grow by 2050?

Bullst. You never once mentioned the BBC Today package, we were talking about Robinessex’s BBC rant at the report on their website.

Why do you post such piss-poor replies that are so obviously a load of old tosh to anyone who’s following this thread?

Are you suffering from PMT today? Relax chap, none of these doomsday predictions will ever come to pass. It’s all just aimed at the sheep and the terminally gullible like you and an army of impressionable school kids with their placards.

Do remind us how much population is predicted to grow by 2050 and do the maths with regard to water leakage. Report back when you’ve done this. Until then, I’ll imagine you’re cowerin* in the corner of your cave trembling in fear waiting for the world to end,

Again with the non-sequitur.

Who cares about the population? That wasn’t being discussed by anybody except for you in your weird mind

Got that Scientific Institute yet?

If you’re a PhD holder/Professor I’m a fking astronaut.

Clearly you were unable to read and compute that which you were citing (yet again). It’s getting all a bit predictable with your considerable lacunae, unlike the climate predictions from failed GCM models, natch.

If you had been able to process such basic information (tough ask obviously), you would have been able to figure out for yourself (unlikely without the help of Skeptical Science and their how to deal with tight wearing contrarians) that the water lost each day through leakage adds up to vastly more than the predicted (and recently downardly revised) population growth estimates. Ergo, the crisis is nothing of the sort but rather yet another unfounded scare story that will never come to pass.

BBC foregrounds Cwimate chwange rather than water company failure. PH - prirorities matter.

And once again out comes the conspiracy theory only this time the BBC are in cahoots with the Environment Agency and Sir James Bevan. What credentials in the Environment world do you hold? Let me guess

You flat earthers are a real hoot.

And again, for the umpteenth time your deflection is noted.

Got that single scientific institution that agrees with you yet faux-pro???

As a master in the art of research surely you can find ONE?

Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 20th March 08:06

You miss the point once again. This is a non story as the maths simply don’t add up. Moreover there’s no conspiracy as the BBC has openly signed up to promoting and proselytising CAGW.

Remind me about Sir James Bevan’s climate science credentials?

In the meantime do keep senselessly banging on about pointless and sophistic appeals to authority.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

You miss the point once again. This is a non story as the maths simply don’t add up. Moreover there’s no conspiracy as the BBC has openly signed up to promoting and proselytising CAGW.

Remind me about Sir James Bevan’s climate science credentials?

In the meantime do keep senselessly banging on about pointless and sophistic appeals to authority.

Dodged again

And you don't even understand when an appeal to authority is warranted and when it's not. And you have a PhD???

I'll help you out as your education obviously didn't extend to logical thinking.

It's valid to mention the consensus in order to refute the claim that there's significant controversy about whether or not humans are warming the planet. No such controversy exists among experts in the field. Other climate change issues have less consensus and so could accurately be described as “controversial,” but not the basic idea of anthropogenic warming. So if someone claims there is no consensus, giving proof that a consensus does exist is fine.

It's also valid for a layperson, who lacks the expertise to evaluate all the evidence about global warming, to offer the consensus as their rationale for believing humans are warming the planet. Laypeople rely on scientific consensus all day, every day. It's the most practical way for non-experts to make decisions about scientific issues. They are not using logic to make these decisions; they are using trust. If they're reasonably intelligent, they could devote the time and energy to examining the science themselves, but we simply can't do that with all the scientific questions we face. We can't be experts in everything, so we may decide to trust those who are experts.

Global warming isn't true because lots of people say it's true. It's true because that's the best explanation of the data. Nearly everyone who has expertise in this area and has examined the data agrees that it's the best explanation — which is worth noting if you yourself lack that expertise and must therefore outsource your logical analysis of the situation.

And this is from Rational Wiki

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, concluded that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[4] This doesn’t mean that the experts cannot be wrong, but it means that one cannot, at present, be justified in believing that those tenets are false. For a non-expert the only rational option is thus to adopt a high confidence in the tenets of ACC that reflect expert consensus.

This is not just a matter of experts knowing more facts, but experts having the ability to actually assess evidence in a proper manner. A non-expert is, accordingly, one who does not know how to properly evaluate how various observations or pieces of evidence should affect a given hypothesis. Being aware of numerous facts or factoids about a topic does not automatically make one an expert about that topic. In Bayesian terms, expertise should primarily be understood as the ability to provide reasonable values to the probability of an observation given a hypothesis or the probability of a hypothesis given an observation.

For instance, suppose that observations confirmed that there is more sea ice in Baffin Bay than originally thought. A non-expert would perhaps be dimly aware that this observation is relevant to the hypothesis that global warming is happening, but would lack the ability to assess whether and to what extent the observation should affect one’s confidence in global warming, since a non-expert has no means to assess the extent to which the observation is really an unlikely one given the hypothesis, or the extent to which it should affect one’s confidence in the hypothesis if it is, in fact, unlikely (that would depend, for instance, on an assessment of the totality of the evidence). In Bayesian terms, a non-expert lacks the means to properly update his or her confidence in the hypothesis when encountering a particular piece of information. As such, the only rational response is to defer to what the experts are doing with that piece of information.

Similarly, when engaged in a discussion about global warming, a non-expert may be unable to realize that most of the talking points presented by denialists appeal to hypotheses that have already been refuted (e.g. solar spots as a cause of global warming, or natural cycles), misunderstood (e.g. “the Hockey Stick is broken”) or incomplete.

Following Russell’s advice, the rational response for a non-expert when presented with denialist talking points is thus not “that’s interesting; I have to think about that,” but “why are you telling this to me? I don’t know how to evaluate this information. Why don’t you go tell the experts. If and only if you can convince them, will I follow suit.”

In short faux-pro an "appeal to authority" is entirely justified if...

You are not an authority (expert) yourself

The people you are quoting are authorities (experts)

There is a strong consensus amongst those experts (authorities) that something is a fact.

[Diderot]

Why are you posting irrelevant drivel from Wiki when the prevailing discussion is about the BBC puff piece on water shortages due to CAGW?

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

Why are you posting irrelevant drivel from Wiki when the prevailing discussion is about the BBC puff piece on water shortages due to CAGW?

The only person posting irrelevant drivel here is you as you refuse to answer any questions.

You said it was an appeal to authority, I've demonstrated that you don't even know what that means.

You say it's a "puff piece" but your glib remark again supposes that not only are the BBC involved in the AGW conspiracy but so are the Environment Agency. Who isn't involved in this deception?

What research have you undertaken to disprove the statement on water?

Do you seriously think your off-the-cuff response re population has been overlooked by everyone except for you?

Also you still evade the primary question I asked for you to name ONE single scientific Institute blah blah blah...

Can you do that YES or NO?

[Kawasicki]

There comes a point in time when a prediction needs to materialise....next year in this case

The Guardian said:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Here is the laughable (climate science supported) report.

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/P...

Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 20th March 12:45

[Lotus 50]

Kawasicki said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/2...

Here is the laughable (climate science supported) report.

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/P...

Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 20th March 12:45

In what way was that report a prediction? - It's exploring how the US govt may need to respond in the event of an extreme but very low probability climate change impact scenario. It wasn't saying it's going to happen, it was saying 'there is evidence that something like this might happen at some point in the future so we need to look into it further and think about what we might do if it did':

'The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.'

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 20th March 13:15

[zygalski]

Lotus 50 said:

In what way was that report a prediction? - It's exploring how the US govt may need to respond in the event of an extreme but very low probability climate change impact scenario. It wasn't saying it's going to happen, it was saying 'there is evidence that something like this might happen at some point in the future so we need to look into it further and think about what we might do if it did':

'The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.'

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 20th March 13:15

Tssk.
You're not supposed to actually read the links to stuff deniers post!

[micky g]

gadgetmac said:

What research have you undertaken to disprove the statement on water?

I posted this last night, perhaps you'd care to comment, it's hardly 'research' but this is politics

This link has the Met Office data for UK rainfall from 1910 to 2010: -

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jun...

To make life easy the table will paste directly into Excel.

I know this is the politics thread, but would someone care to tell me where the trend is that may support the concept that climate change is in anyway responsible for future UK water shortages?

[gadgetmac]

1. Your link is broken.

2. Why not post it on the science thread as you acknowledge it's not politics.

3. A list of annual rainfall figures in itself isn't proof of anything

5. Nobody said that Climate Change ALONE will bring about a water shortage just that it will be a contributory factor.

Of course deniers try to make out that it's all about the climate, but it isn't.

[gadgetmac]

zygalski said:

Lotus 50 said:

In what way was that report a prediction? - It's exploring how the US govt may need to respond in the event of an extreme but very low probability climate change impact scenario. It wasn't saying it's going to happen, it was saying 'there is evidence that something like this might happen at some point in the future so we need to look into it further and think about what we might do if it did':

'The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.'

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 20th March 13:15

Tssk.
You're not supposed to actually read the links to stuff deniers post!

That is sooooo bl**dy true isn't it.

[StevieBee]

gadgetmac said:

Dodged again

And you don't even understand when an appeal to authority is warranted and when it's not. And you have a PhD???

I'll help you out as your education obviously didn't extend to logical thinking.

It's valid to mention the consensus in order to refute the claim that there's significant controversy about whether or not humans are warming the planet. No such controversy exists among experts in the field. Other climate change issues have less consensus and so could accurately be described as “controversial,” but not the basic idea of anthropogenic warming. So if someone claims there is no consensus, giving proof that a consensus does exist is fine.

It's also valid for a layperson, who lacks the expertise to evaluate all the evidence about global warming, to offer the consensus as their rationale for believing humans are warming the planet. Laypeople rely on scientific consensus all day, every day. It's the most practical way for non-experts to make decisions about scientific issues. They are not using logic to make these decisions; they are using trust. If they're reasonably intelligent, they could devote the time and energy to examining the science themselves, but we simply can't do that with all the scientific questions we face. We can't be experts in everything, so we may decide to trust those who are experts.

Global warming isn't true because lots of people say it's true. It's true because that's the best explanation of the data. Nearly everyone who has expertise in this area and has examined the data agrees that it's the best explanation — which is worth noting if you yourself lack that expertise and must therefore outsource your logical analysis of the situation.

And this is from Rational Wiki

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, concluded that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[4] This doesn’t mean that the experts cannot be wrong, but it means that one cannot, at present, be justified in believing that those tenets are false. For a non-expert the only rational option is thus to adopt a high confidence in the tenets of ACC that reflect expert consensus.

This is not just a matter of experts knowing more facts, but experts having the ability to actually assess evidence in a proper manner. A non-expert is, accordingly, one who does not know how to properly evaluate how various observations or pieces of evidence should affect a given hypothesis. Being aware of numerous facts or factoids about a topic does not automatically make one an expert about that topic. In Bayesian terms, expertise should primarily be understood as the ability to provide reasonable values to the probability of an observation given a hypothesis or the probability of a hypothesis given an observation.

For instance, suppose that observations confirmed that there is more sea ice in Baffin Bay than originally thought. A non-expert would perhaps be dimly aware that this observation is relevant to the hypothesis that global warming is happening, but would lack the ability to assess whether and to what extent the observation should affect one’s confidence in global warming, since a non-expert has no means to assess the extent to which the observation is really an unlikely one given the hypothesis, or the extent to which it should affect one’s confidence in the hypothesis if it is, in fact, unlikely (that would depend, for instance, on an assessment of the totality of the evidence). In Bayesian terms, a non-expert lacks the means to properly update his or her confidence in the hypothesis when encountering a particular piece of information. As such, the only rational response is to defer to what the experts are doing with that piece of information.

Similarly, when engaged in a discussion about global warming, a non-expert may be unable to realize that most of the talking points presented by denialists appeal to hypotheses that have already been refuted (e.g. solar spots as a cause of global warming, or natural cycles), misunderstood (e.g. “the Hockey Stick is broken”) or incomplete.

Following Russell’s advice, the rational response for a non-expert when presented with denialist talking points is thus not “that’s interesting; I have to think about that,” but “why are you telling this to me? I don’t know how to evaluate this information. Why don’t you go tell the experts. If and only if you can convince them, will I follow suit.”

In short faux-pro an "appeal to authority" is entirely justified if...

You are not an authority (expert) yourself

The people you are quoting are authorities (experts)

There is a strong consensus amongst those experts (authorities) that something is a fact.

Excellent post!

[micky g]

gadgetmac said:

1. Your link is broken.

2. Why not post it on the science thread as you acknowledge it's not politics.

3. A list of annual rainfall figures in itself isn't proof of anything

5. Nobody said that Climate Change ALONE will bring about a water shortage just that it will be a contributory factor.

Of course deniers try to make out that it's all about the climate, but it isn't.

Sorry about the link, try this one: -

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jun...

If the politics is based on science then the science is relative.

It was a straightforward question, the rainfall appears to me to be unchanged so how is climate change, 'in any way,' responsible' for future water shortages. (Note I didn't say it was climate change alone or that it was proof. I never said I was a denier either).

[robinessex]

THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.

[Kawasicki]

Lotus 50 said:

Kawasicki said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/2...

Here is the laughable (climate science supported) report.

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/P...

Edited by Kawasicki on Wednesday 20th March 12:45

In what way was that report a prediction? - It's exploring how the US govt may need to respond in the event of an extreme but very low probability climate change impact scenario. It wasn't saying it's going to happen, it was saying 'there is evidence that something like this might happen at some point in the future so we need to look into it further and think about what we might do if it did':

'The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.'

Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 20th March 13:15

Here is the headline supported by that report, again.

The Guardian said:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.

That is what the public reads. They read it in a credible newspaper. They believe what they read. Climate science doesn't contradict the content, and is therefore complicit.