Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
I didn't appeal to an authority.
|
You appealed to wikipedia, which relies on dopes for information, so I concede your assertion that you did not appeal to authority. More precisely, you appealed to dopes. We can define the logical fallacy of appeal to dopes, if you insist.
Quote:
|
it's the climate contrarians
|
Who are the climate contrarians and what are they contrary to? For the record, I do not deny that there are various climates, and they change over time due to a variety of factors. Rapid change causes more stress on species to adapt, in general.
Quote:
|
that use and abuse this logical fallacy by denying the scientific consensus, and by appealing to your climate experts.
|
What specifically are you claiming consensus on? I acknowledge CO2 concentrations are increasing and a major factor is attributable to humans pursuing flourishing via utilization of stored fossil fuel energy. That has an impact on the various climates. Some of those impacts positively affect human interests, and some of them negatively impact human interests.
What specifically are you claiming?
To illuminate my personality a bit, someone could be actively hunting and shooting at me, and my instinct would not be to seek out which authority I should surrender all agency to in the hope that they will solve my dire problem. My instinct is that I will use every faculty under my control to solve the problem that besets me, and resist the temptation to surrender agency (liberty) to a faceless bureaucracy in the hope that they are the true salvation.
Quote:
|
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
|
- Michael Crichton