Furthermore, as compassionate human beings with children and grandchildren, and with concern for the future of humanity, these same scientists must hope that they are wrong. Sadly, their evidence offers them no solace.
The Climate Change Denier Responds:
Our hypothetical opponent may still be unconvinced, and thus not quite done with us. Here are a few denialist responses that I have encountered personally, and which are no doubt familiar to those who have been following the climate debate.
What do you know? You are not a climate scientist!
Granted. I am not a climate scientist. So I rely on the findings of those who are.
But neither is Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity, or Senator James Inhoff, or any of the denier Republicans in Congress, climate scientists. In fact, the only Member of Congress to come close to expertise in the subject is physicist Rush Holt (D, NJ). And he, of course, believes in climate change.
So you are a victim of the fallacy of argument from authority.
Guilty as charged. Almost everything I know is via someone else's say-so.
Likewise yourself, gentle reader. Indirect knowledge (from "authority") is an indispensable condition of education and of modern civilization.
I know directly that it is sunny outside, that I'd rather be paddling in the Pacific Ocean right now, and that my wife is about serve me a spaghetti dinner (I just checked). Virtually everything else -- that Barack Obama is President, that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and so on ad infinitum -- I know "by authority." And regarding the boiling point of water: if I confirm that by looking at a thermometer, I believe it only on the authoritative assumption that the thermometer is accurate.
So "argument by authority" is unavoidable. But it is also occasionally fallacious. If my doctor writes out a prescription, I trust that he is qualified to do so. But if a retired Olympic skating champion tells me on TV that I should take Vioxx, I should be skeptical. How do we know how to make that distinction? By examining the qualifications and motives of the alleged "authorities."
In short, some alleged "fallacies" aren't. Distinguishing sound from fallacious reasoning requires a critical "case-by-case" examination of the alleged "fallacies." (See my "That's Just Your Opinion").
So it comes down to this: My hypothetical critic takes me to task for "citing authorities," which he says is a "fallacy." In return, he cites his own "authorities," as he must. How do we settle this "he said - she said" confrontation? By examining the qualifications of the opposing "experts," and the empirical foundations of their research. On my side thousands of qualified climate scientists, with conclusions following billions of dollars and billions of hours of peer-reviewed research. On the other side purchased "biostitutes" and corporate funded public relations campaigns.
No contest.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
