Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

I have to disagree since the point of debate here is entirely about who said what, not what they said. It's all about credibility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In this specific instance, perhaps. But I'm speaking of in general. No matter what a study says, the only reply most people make is "it must have been paid for by an oil company."

To that, I say, "So what". Unless you have proof they've falsified the data or that the scientists involved are known for being sloppy, it's just an adhom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prejudice from a particularly deep pocket with vested interests in the outcome is never Ad Hominem. Yes, you should back up your credibility attack with data to further discredit the study, but vested interests (whether by lobby or otherwise) are not fallacious simply because there exists other manners of proving the falsity of their conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YES IT IS.. If you can show previous instances of a particular scientist or think tank "cooking the books", then you may have a point. But simply dismissing any science paid for by people you don't like is not science. That's politics.

 

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But if I hired a civil engineer to provide me with a reconstruction of an accident, it is judicially important and relevant as to the amount that was paid by me (my client) for his analysis. It is not fallacious to assume that the civil engineer could have doctored the results because of the amount or the fact that he was paid, particularly when the adversary provides a different account showing a reconstruction more favorable to him at a lesser cost.

Ad Hominem, by definition, means an attack on the person, as opposed to the opinion. It is therefore termed a "fallacy" in logic. Bias and credibility through a purchase of a scientific opinion go to the weight of the evidence, not to a personal quality of the person. Does this logically mean the results were in fact doctored? No. But it is not illogical or fallacious (i.e Ad Hom) to take the same into consideration, along with other factors.

 

OK. Now I see where you're coming from. Those jokers who provide "expert testimony" for the right price during trials aren't scientists. I'm talking about peer reviewed studies that follow established protocols. Not Dr. Nick Riviera.

 

Okay, let's assume that this is the case...

Even if our unprecedented tonnage of atmospheric Carbon somehow magically appeared by way of gypsies or Jesus or some other mythical beings in their chariots, who ever said being more fuel efficient and developing sustainable domestic energy was a bad thing?!