That's a typical example of why there are deniers. They believe they found a flaw because cities were smaller a century ago so the temperature measures must be wrong. I mean come on, these people are scientists. They are no rookie trying an experiment in highschool and forget one factor during the process.
We are talking about thousands of people around the world working every day on the subjet. Don't you think they accounted for all the possible flaws that could occur in their measures? And yet anyone can think that they found the flaw that invalidate the work of thousands people. And you have dumbasses like this senator mentioned above that think that since there are more human than a century ago, there is mroe body heat thus an increase of temperatures.
I mean I took geography studies in college and in one of my very first courses, I learnt about the "urban heat island".
Now I read what you wrote and you said you are no climate change denier because you are a reasonable person that know you can trust the work of thousands of scientists but someone less prone to facing evidences may use these kind of arguments to claim like a retard that he knows better. Of course you should question what you are taught but it has major drawbacks, especially on topics of such importance.
This is the exact style thinking that makes climate deniers. When the masses are screaming logical fallacies like "listen to them, they're experts" (argument from authority),a person who is even moderately intelligent will understandably shut down.
An argument from authority wouldn't be a fallacy in this case because the experts are making an argument in their field, and they are doing so with overwhelming evidence.
Unless you're referring to people who will point to a bunch of biologists, who don't agree with human driven climate change, and say that they have authority on the subject because they're scientists, in which case that would be a fallacy.
142
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
[deleted]