Now they're trying a new tack: Try to undercut the consensus demonstrated in the IPCC. Their strategy is to lie about and misrepresent the IPCC review process. It was pretty muddled on TV, but I think that's what Horner was trying to put across.

This latest round seems to be based on a denialist piece titled The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax which claims the IPCC consensus on AGW was reviewed by only seven qualified scientists. This has already drawn some debunking such as Blatant Hypocrisy Among Global Warming Skeptics: IPCC Chapter 9 and John McLean and the NRSP. I'd venture to say there will be more debunking to come, as the skirmishing of disinformation and smackdown plays itself out yet again.

As far as "mine is bigger than yours" goes, this short description of the IPCC process offers some numbers:

From more than 4,000 nominated scientists, about 600 were chosen as authors in the Fourth Assessment; and all those not chosen are automatically included amongst reviewers of the drafts.

... Several thousand scientists are asked to review the authors' drafts, at two different stages; and there are also two stages of review by governments.

And in regards to the IPCC's data:

However, a new development in the Fourth Assessment is that it concludes, from an examination of 29,000 data sets, that the impacts of climate change occurring now can be observed everywhere on our planet. It is evident in its impacts on animals, plants, water and ice. This is traditional science-based observation and measurement, not "arm-waving" with computer models.

I just finished reading "Amusing ourselves to Death," a book about how television has eliminated rational discourse through the printed word and public debate. The one positive about your appearances is that it draws readership to Grist where rational discourse and debate still happens using the printed word, while simultaneously improving its legitimacy (thanks to TV worship). The book was written in the mid eighties long before anyone ever heard of blogs.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Did the "400" actually sign something put out by Inhofe? Kurzweil and Dyson and the others? That seems very unlikely!

First, "scientific consensus" is a misnomer. What you have if you have anything at all isn't a scientific consensus but rather a consensus of scientists.

Second, "authority of science" is also a misnomer. Science has no particular "authority." Science is simply a process; a methodology. The authority you appeal to isn't the authority of science, but rather the authority of scientists.

The "appeal to authority" mentioned by Mr. Horner is one among a number of logical fallacies which ironically includes ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy because one's authority does not inherently make a thing true.

Appeal to consensus or popularity is also among the logical fallacies.

Moving on, you say on the Hannity & Colmes piece, "If you want to know what climate scientists think you should go ask climate scientists, not weathermen. They don't study climatology in meteorology school."

I find it strange that you should be so dismissive of meteorologists when the IPCC itself was established (in part along with the UN Environmental Program) by the World Meteorological Organization.

And if you bother to look, you'll find that those from various meteorological institutions figure quite prominently among the contributing authors as well as reviewers of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

You'll also find physicists, geologists, biologists, etc.

You essentially do what one of your fellow authors here did yesterday in his piece on the Inhofe list; pick a few from the list who may well be deserving of criticism, and use them to offhandedly dismiss everything else said by everyone else on the list.

And finally, in the Hannity & Colmes piece, you say "A slight look at this list turns up some real gems. People with no relevant knowledge about the science."

You then immediately follow this up with your coup de gras as to how closed the debate is by saying "Here's a statistic for you. In 2006 the new CEO of Exxon Mobil accepted the IPCC's conclusions..."

So now let me get this straight. Because some of the people on the list of 400 have "no relevant knowledge about the science," we're to dismiss everything said by all 400 of them. yet because the CEO of Exxon Mobil accepted the IPCC's conclusions, we should unquestioningly accept them as Gospel?

What sort of utter nonsense is that? Exactly what "relevant knowledge about the science" does the CEO of Exxon Mobil possess which the others you mention don't?

I see now why you wouldn't want your children to watch it.

k

More of the same strawman reports which these stonewallers love to put out.

Featuring some of our favorites:
John Christy(Completely reversed my atmospheric trend data on 'accident', lied about it on national TV, and then went shilling)

S. Fred Singer
(I still think the ozone hole doesn't exist and smoking doesn't cause cancer)

we're to dismiss everything said by all 400 of them

Except that they didn't really 'say' anything that was backed up by peer reviewed science.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

Except that they didn't really 'say' anything that was backed up by peer reviewed science.

And that somehow inherently makes everything which was said false?

k

You really have to admire the lying technique of the CEI lawyer too.  Claiming 51 scientists on the IPCC against 400 on the Inhoffe list.  These are very skilled liars indeed.  They know you can't sound bite an examination of their list.  Or their claim that only 51 climate scientists agree with the IPCC.

Throwing out seemingly prestigious names of organizations and titles for the 400, brilliant.  Do I smell a Rove behind this strategery?

That hits at the consensus argument.  Mine's bigger than yours.  The problem is that relying on consensus (a numbers game) made our side vulnerable to that tactic.

Once again, they have a bumpersticker, we have an essay.  Maybe Satan is real?  Hehey.

Colmes was great though, he is usually painted as a wimp.  On a positive note, only the very faith filled bush fans still watch fauxnews, and we will never convince them anyway.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The ONLY thing a layman can do is appeal to "the authority of scientists" or any other semantical construction of that phrase.  That the average person should sit back and decide for themselves what the science says is absurd to the point of being insulting.  The NAS was set up specifically to advise policymakers on matters of science, and for 30 years they have shown this to be a problem.  The idea that people and government should instead listen to Marc Morano's list of 400 scavanged names is stupiditiy in motion.

And when Exxon Mobil stops funding think tanks, it shows exactly where the CEI is in the spectrum of political interference.

When your sons are older, and understand these things, don't be surprised if they watch this brief adventure of their dad's with great pride.

Randy baby,
the World Wildlife Fund went after the Rock & Co. like tigers, so outraged were they by the abuse of "WWF" -- and they won!

Back to the question of "authority": Apparently we still have work to do, by way of untangling the different senses of that word.  Trusting the teaching of an authoritative master from a sense of "ipse dixit" is not at all the same as trusting that teaching because it is in accord with good, responsible critical thinking.

Plato was quite right, that "size does not matter": the many should not be trusted to know the truth, just because they are many.  But Aristotle's quibble makes sense too: sometimes size matters, sometimes democracy works, when the issue is so fuzzy and nebulous that no one can be believed to have any clear vision of it, and the judgment of the many has a slightly better chance of getting us to the truth than the opinion of any minority.

And so, "discernment is the mother of all the virtues," as a Christian Platonist of the 5th century CE said.  And in the case of the climate crisis, knowing what we know about how scientists struggle, grapple and squabble, we have discerned very well indeed if we go along with Al Gore and DR, and trust the IPCC.

Here is a little story, a` la juive, which just goes to show that some people can never be convinced:

Five rabbis were out walking, and as they walked, they argued about a point of the Law.  Rabbis Nahum, Eliezer, Moshe and Yitzhak said that a certain commandment strictly forbade a certain practice; but Rabbi Shmuel refused to accept their judgment, and more and more angrily insisted that the practice was permitted.

At last, he lost patience, and, turning his face heavenward, prayed: "O God!, show these men that I am right!  Give them a sign!  Make this staff that I am holding blossom into flower, in spite of its being made of dead wood, if I am right and they are wrong!"

Hardly had he said this, when a golden beam of light fell from heaven above, directly onto Rabbi Shmuel's staff, and the staff burst into the most beautiful lily-flowers.

At that, Rabbi Shmuel turned to the others and said, "Ha!  Now you know!"

But Rabbi Moshe said, "So big deal.  Before, it was one against four.  Now, it's two against four."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The more important point is that science is not done by public statements or press releases. It's done in peer-reviewed journals, and none of the people Inhofe turned up have published peer-reviewed papers questioning the basic consensus.

Also, as or more important than the number of scientists who state one or another position (whose is bigger) is the trajectory of the science. For decades, the basics of anthropocentric warming have been getting stronger and stronger, more and more fleshed out. The science is proceeding in a very clear direction.

They want it to be about people and personalities. I should have stressed more that such things are utterly irrelevant to the practice of science.

grist.org

Whats wrong is that there's no substance behind their argument.  

They effectively don't have an argument any stronger than a pre-schooler's:
"I'm right because I said so."

Which is made even weaker by the fact that most of these people do not even have relevant credentials.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

Whats wrong is that there's no substance behind their argument.

Um... ok...

They effectively don't have an argument any stronger than a pre-schooler's: "I'm right because I said so."

Er, and how exactly is your "there's no substance behind their argument" argument any stronger?

Which is made even weaker by the fact that most of these people do not even have relevant credentials.

And what exactly are the "relevant credentials"?

se

Cheney is evil, of course, but Murdoch is evil cubed.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog