Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis (Feb 2013)
Regarding ad homininum (circumstantial)
Let X be AGW
1. Person A makes claim ~X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim ~X because it is in A’s interest to claim ~X.
3. Therefore claim ~X is false.
If Person B’s assetion is that ~X is false simply because the persons surveyed are petroleum engineers, I agree that argument is fallacious.
But there is a deeper problem. The author obscured the actual scope of the survey, so we aren’t even in agreement about the identity of “Person A”. And the identity of “Person A” has great relevance on the claim, since the whole op-ed is an argument from authority. In the beginning … “these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.” … and again in the end …”Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves” … much less the title of the piece … “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis”
How does the Forbes op-ed construct this consensus of scientists?
Through a fallacy of composition
1. A ‘consensus’ A makes the claim ~X OR ~Y
2. All A are an element of B
3. All B are an element of C
4. Therefore a ‘consensus’ of C makes the claim ~X OR ~Y
A is petroleum engineers from Alberta
B is geoscientists
C is scientists
X is ‘AGW’
Y is ‘crisis’
(note how Taylor mixes skepticism of causes (X) and consequences (Y) to construct his ‘majority’ and ‘consensus’)
The composition fallacy is more apparent when the actual group surveyed is revealed which is why it wasn’t and why noting the population surveyed isn’t fallacious. The source of the survey doesn’t prove/disprove ~X OR ~Y; it identifies the composition fallacy.
Dear Dr Russell,
First, congratulations on your recent analysis and observations regarding the recent interaction of the massive coronal mass emission and the thermosphere.
On the other hand, I am sure you must be aware by now how your comments regarding the event are being used to suggest that CO2 in the lower atmosphere does not act as a ‘global warming’ gas. For instance, this article …
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
Do you concur with the author’s conclusion that “The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. “
Thank you in advance for any response
Thanks for your question. There has been a widespread misconception about what was discussed in this web release and I welcome the chance to clarify what we said. Nothing could be further from the truth to say that “The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. “ The cooling due to CO2 being referred to in our web article occurs 60 to 155 miles above the surface of the earth (100s of kilometers in altitude). SABER is looking at the energy balance and climate of the upper atmosphere, not down at the surface. This atmospheric region has no effect on global warming in the lower atmosphere near the earth surface. The earth surface is heated by the sun and then cooled by infrared radiation being radiated back to space. CO2 in the lower atmosphere is a strong absorber of this radiation ( as is other greenhouse gases) and it radiates much of this radiation back to the earth surface causing the warming to occur. I liken CO2 in the lower atmosphere to a thick blanket that traps much of the radiated heat from the surface preventing it from escaping resulting in warming in the lower atmosphere. As altitude increases, the “blanket” gets thinner letting more radiation escape to space. In the 60 to 155 mile altitude range reported on in our article, the “blanket” is very thin letting most of the CO2 radiation escape to space causing the cooling we refer to.
So first, the observations we reported on have no bearing on the question of global warming due to the greenhouse gas CO2 and secondly, they do not in any way contradict statements made by NASA , the IPCC or other reputable groups studying climate change that CO2 increases lead to global warming.
I hope this response addresses your question, but if you wish more information, do not hesitate to contact me.
SABER Principal Investigator
Newly released arrest numbers show a significant increase in illegal immigrants crossing along the southwest border, despite claims as recently as Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the border is more secure.
“I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows,” Napolitano told reporters this week in Houston.
But figures released Thursday by Customs and Border Protection to Fox News tell a different story.
Arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year….
… and now … the rest of the story …
In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.
— Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States, Archibald, 2008
The following is not intended to “prove” that AGW does not lead to CAGW (defined as extinction events and/or collapse of civilization), but rather outlines why I don’t currently believe it. I do not consider myself well-informed regarding palaeobiology or palaeoclimate, so I welcome corrections to what I have outlined.
|My private corner of the internet has been interrupted by Steve-Goddard-spam. His 2011-2007 comparison of Sept 26 seems to be a real hit among some. This is tied into the tired ‘sea ice recovery’ meme. Of course, he isn’t comparing 2007 sea ice minima with 2011 minima. So I did it myself. Per IJIS, the 2011 minima was 20110909 and 2007 minima was 20070924. So I grabbed those two pics from the Cryosphere archive, color inverted one, and overlayed them. Click for the result.|
The hockey stick purports to do 2 things; show the current temperature rate of increase is unprecedented and that current temperatures are unprecedented; the first is rebutted by this:
The second here, Figure 3 is good:
The Chinese monsoon paper is actually pretty interesting, but jackerman had the same instinct that I did: verify Jo Nova’s graph. He used “wood for trees” and came up with different figures than Nova reports. So did my first pass using CRU’s data set. But careful reading of Jo Nova’s graph (presented in a post titled The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters ) shows she used the monthly data set from UK MET. So I thought I would give that a go …