holy guacamole said..
Who said that CSIRO doesn't have sources? They're not some crackpot fossil fuel lobby group or pro-nuclear think tank.

Supply then please, for that comment you quoted.

holy guacamole said..
I don't have to justify what the CSIRO says. They're the experts.

You're making the claim that they're wrong or not to be trusted, so supply your sources.

Then they should supply the source for their statement, and it should be accessible.

No I'm not, I'm asking for the source that provides a factual basis of that particular statement.

Otherwise, whoever you think you are .... Hitchens' Razor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

And we know Hitchens said that because we got 4 citations for it. See how easy that is?

holy guacamole said..

www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information

"The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system."

Well, the thing is, its not backup. It's just a statement. I have no doubt that whoever wrote that and approved it to be included on the website probably thought it was true. They probably read the statement on NASA Climate's website and figured that was credible and did not bother to check that the references actually supported the statment. This is the problem when a supposedly reliable entity promotes misleading and factually incorrect information.

To backup facts you need to provide a source. CSIRO provide no source or reference, so the statement is not really one based on verifiable fact.

You can only confidently make that statement if you have polled a representative sample of the international scientific community and the results support the statement in its entirety.

There are no polls or studies that I am aware of that confirm that statement. No study on "consensus" combines "international scientific community" with "CO2" and "dominant contibution (50%+)" in them. So there can be no actual supporting backup for that statement unless the CSIRO have done thier own polls and have not released/referenced it.

In fact of all the studies referenced in relation to consensus NONE mention the role of CO2 solely (they all refer to AGW as a whole only and do not seperate) - for good reason.

The only study that really provides figures for that statement (on AGW as a whole not CO2) is Cooks original paper and the figures came out at a 2% support. Which frankly I don't agree with, we know it's higher, but they are his figures.

holy guacamole said..
They are the source. They contribute to the international scientific body of knowledge.

But of course you think that's all a fraud don't you?

I see your point of confusion -- they may contribute to the body of knowledge but they are not "the international scientific community".

If they're making statements representing the "acceptance" of "the international scientific community", or on behalf of "the international scientific community", then they need to show their working. Is there a survey, a poll, or study that has determined what "the international scientific community" actually thinks or "accepts" on the topic?

Supply the source.

ALL a fraud? You're trying to build a straw man again.

All I want to know is the source that provides the basis for that statement.

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
They are the source. They contribute to the international scientific body of knowledge.

But of course you think that's all a fraud don't you?

I see your point of confusion -- they may contribute to the body of knowledge but they are not "the international scientific community".

If they're making statements representing the "acceptance" of "the international scientific community", or on behalf of "the international scientific community", then they need to show their working. Is there a survey, a poll, or study that has determined what "the international scientific community" actually thinks or "accepts" on the topic?

Supply the source.

ALL a fraud? You're trying to build a straw man again.

All I want to know is the source that provides the basis for that statement.

Oh I'm not confused. I don't think this is a huge conspiracy.

There is a working group that all governments contribute scientific knowledge to. You know the one, the international one.....the IP..

The one all climate change deniers love to hate.

There isn't a government or major institution that disputes the core thrust of the findings.

Maybe this is the problem with climate change deniers, you want everything condensed into a simple link.....now where can I find such an amazing, internationally accepted, rigorous, scientific body of work that confirms the conclusion that most of the warming we have experienced since the middle of the last century seems to be almost solely from anthropogenic effects?

The conclusion that agrees with the CSIRO ACCESS research and statements....(based on a huge nation-wide effort using the most advanced super computing and intellectual capital) ?

Where can I find this link.....mmmmmm?

I'm "strawmanning" am I?

Awww, deflecty weckty.....it's too much..

A climate change denier complaining about deflecting....how precious.

Oh no it's extremely easy. Most people who aren't climate change deniers would know. It's common knowledge.

Governments around the world back the "source" too, except for the few pariah states run by climate change deniers of course.

Ring any bells yet?

holy guacamole said..
Oh no it's extremely easy. Most people who aren't climate change deniers would now. It's common knowledge.

LOL

"common knowledge"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

See why I wanted a source?

I think I just got a logical fallacy bingo! I got at least five....
thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Beersy said..
Okay, here is a peer reviewed and well referenced piece regarding how vested interests misrepresent the consensus on climate change (not the main point of the article.)

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000515

Cook et al 2013 used as a source for consensus. Perhaps that's why goly huacamole was reluctant to supply a citation because ....

This is actually what Cook concluded: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." (emphasis mine)

This is not the same conclusion as "Studies have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of climate scientists-around 97%-endorse the basic conclusion that the globe is warming from greenhouse gas emissions", which is the most common reduction.

Which is unrelated to "The international scientific community accepts that increases in greenhouse gases due to human activity have been the dominant cause of observed global warming [..]"

Which of the logical fallacies is that?

The logical fallacy is that one can draw a conclusion that the scientific consensus doesn't exist based on calculating a proportion of supportive papers. That's the mistake people make on both sides of the discussion.

Not all papers carry equivalent weight and credibility. For instance, many of those papers may be written by single authors or groups influenced by fossil fuel companies. They wouldn't carry that same weight as government backed organisations such as the CSIRO for example.

But of course, climate change deniers can't cite CSIRO because they disagree with the climate change denier's misguided ignorant opinion.

Kamikuza, aren't you even going to try and demonstrate your'e not a climate change denier by naming the organisation? It's pretty bloody obvious.

log man said..
**** that was funny!

Sorry there's no "consensus" about the hilarity of my conversation with a climate change denier. Sources please.

holy guacamole said..
The logical fallacy is that one can draw a conclusion that the scientific consensus doesn't exist based on calculating a proportion of supportive papers. That's the mistake people make on both sides of the discussion.

Not all papers carry equivalent weight and credibility. For instance, many of those papers may be written by single authors or groups influenced by fossil fuel companies. They wouldn't carry that same weight as government backed organisations such as the CSIRO for example.

But of course, climate change deniers can't cite CSIRO because they disagree with the climate change denier's misguided ignorant opinion.

Kamikuza, aren't you even going to try and demonstrate your'e not a climate change denier by naming the organisation? It's pretty bloody obvious.

You're so right in admitting that people on both sides misrepresent conclusions, I guess the penny finally dropped...? Bit of sneaky backpedaling there, I nearly missed it.

I personally am not suggesting that there's no consensus. That's irrelevant and not what's happening here. What's happening here is you're doing the same thing you falsely accuse me of but from the other side: namely, misrepresenting the conclusion to favor your position, and assuming what is true for a part is true for the whole.

That makes no sense LOL. Do you not understand the numbers presented in Cook's conclusion? They accounted for that. And you're committing argument from authority again.

Huh?

I've no idea what that's supposed to mean--what organization?

You're trying to make this about what I believe, which is irrelevant: you're supposed to be providing the source or citation that provides the basis for the statement made about what "the international scientific community" accepts.

For someone so down on others for lack of sources, I expect better. I mean, I'm only asking for one.

Red herrings, hasty generalizations, fallacy of composition... I'm losing count

holy guacamole said..

Taking a step back, what on earth are you deniers so afraid of? Afraid of the future? Afraid of technology? Afraid of a cleaner planet? Afraid of cheaper energy? Afraid of almost free energy?

What's your problem?

It's an interesting question that.

Frankly if you are labelling me a "denier" then you will have to define that for me as I actually have no idea what it means, except it's used as a label to brand anyone who doesn't 100% agree with someone else on the issue of Climate Change.

As to what I am afraid of, mostly it's ignorance and the unwillingness of anyone to unearth facts and seek truth rather than blind faith. I am afraid of a large percentage of people being mislead and not understanding the actual facts. Following that I am afraid of Governments spending large amounts of money on a soution to something that may not exist or may not be effected by efforts when that money could be better spent on other more important things to improve our planet and our existance. To make good decisions Governments and people need to look at the hard facts and outcomes from policy, not opinions or political views.

You seem to want to argue every position taken and do not seem willing to look at or accept the truth. You appear to have an unshakable faith in what you have been told and what you believe in and no amount of logical debate will sway your opinion. So let me ask you, what are you afraid of that you won't acknowedge facts that challenge your belief?