All posts tagged Climate Change Deniers

The Cassandra Effect and Insulting Climate Sceptics

There are two articles published today that are related. Bishop Hill posts about the “reverse Cassandra effect” and Jo Nova comments on Matt Ridley’s article in today’s Times on THE SCEPTICS ARE RIGHT. DON’T SCAPEGOAT THEM.

Bishop Hill refers to a Wired article on the late Julian Simon published some years ago:-

Simon always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they’d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.

I believe that the Cassandra effect is still working. What is relevant is how you view awful. Take a classic example of the Cassandra effect. Ignaz Semmelweis found that doctors washing their hands between examining each patient reduced mortality rates. The implied “awful” truth that every experienced hospital doctor in 1840s Vienna had to accept was that, due to their ignorance, they had killed people when they were in the business of saving lives.

But for environmentalists the “scientific truth” that the human race is destroying the planet confirms their beliefs. Politicians whose mission is to make a real difference to the world – an honourable motive – can now take part in saving the planet from an evil menace. Maybe not as spectacularly as James Bond, or Flash Gordon, but they can still expect to receive plaudits and a place in history. Or at least a pat on the back from green activists in Bali, Copenhagen, Cancun….

For those who believe materialism is ultimately depraved; or humankind is inherently sinful; or capitalism will collapse through its inherent contradictions; or the rich got where they are through trampling over those like themselves; – all can latch onto the cause as well. For all these people the awful truth for the world is not so awful for them.

This is why the Cassandra effect is still very much with us. The awful truth is that politicians now find themselves in the same position of those doctors in 1840s Vienna. When they thought they were saving the world, they are in fact harming the futures of their constituents. As Matt Ridley points out in the Times today of climate change:-

Sceptics say it is not happening fast enough to threaten more harm than the wasteful and regressive measures intended to combat it. So far they have been right.

My next article will show that even the most extreme climate change believers can postulate a big enough harm from climate change than the wasteful and regressive measures intended to combat it.

Kevin Marshall

by manicbeancounter on 18/02/2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 18/02/2014

https://manicbeancounter.com/2014/02/18/the-cassandra-effect-and-insulting-climate-sceptics/

Lewandowsky et al. 2012 MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE – Part 2

This post was based on the belief that the survey I took in June was the one used in the paper. I realize now this is not the case. The one I took at “Watching the Deniers” is a development of the 2010 survey. There are less questions on conspiracy theories (but “NASA faked the moon landing”, along with Diana, JFK and MLK assassinations are are still in) along with exactly the same questions on Free markets v Environmentalism. But the new survey has more on political beliefs (a good thing in my view) along with new sections on religious beliefs and GM foods. The summary I made back in June is here.

The paper Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac – NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (in press, Psychological Science) is one of the biased and pernicious surveys I have come across. The previous posting was on the opening remarks on the validity of climate science. There are a few points where the survey deviates from a professional and balanced opinion survey.

Problems with the survey

  1. The access to the survey. It was an internet based survey, with links posted on 8 “pro-science” blogs. Five skeptic blogs were approached. As such, one would expect that “pro-science” responses would far outweigh “denialist” responses. I cannot find the split.
  2. There should have been a record kept of abandoned survey results. The survey gets more dogmatic as it progresses, and becomes far longer than originally stated (74 questions, as against 40 in 10 minutes quoted at the outset). Moderate skeptics would have quickly abandoned the survey when they realised what was being inferred. Others, as the questions became more time consuming and “weird”. See if this is a valid conclusion by first reading the questions, then my analysis.
  3. Not reported is the relationship between “climate denial” and genetically modified foods. Is the correlation the reverse? Nor is there any reporting of the section on climate change against conservative Christian religious views, or climate change against views on corporations. The survey only reported the most dogmatic results. Could it be that there is something relevant, but adverse to the desired conclusions here, or no relationship?
  4. There were also final questions on age and gender. Again, this should be reported.
  5. The main inference of the survey is that those who oppose climate change science are nut-jobs, whilst those who agree with it are pro-science. This saves having to explain the lack of any credible scientific evidence for the projected global catastrophe that we all need to be saved from.
by manicbeancounter on 30/07/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Australia, Climate Change, Spin (Propaganda)
Tagged , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 30/07/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/30/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-2/

Lewandowsky et al. 2012 MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE – Part 1

The paper Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac – NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (in press, Psychological Science) is one of the most biased and pernicious surveys I have come across. This posting is about the opening remarks.

The paper starts by accepting the validity of science is from beliefs of scientists.


More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009)

The first paper simply says that of the climate scientists who are convinced of climate change arguments as far more numerous and publish far more than scientists that are unconvinced. The most positive spin you can put on this is that those who believe in and are passionate about what they are doing tend to succeed more than those who don’t. You would probably find similar proportions of belief within New Testament theology or Marxian economics. It says nothing about the truth and the validity of the main claim – unless we act quickly to reduce global carbon emissions, the planet is heading for catastrophic global warming.

The second paper asked two questions:-

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

It is only the second question that mentions the human element. In maths “largely” (i.e. > 50%) is a subset of “significant” (a measurable part). Neither is CO2 the only human factor causing climate change (Methane plus other gases increase the greenhouse effect, aerosols offset the warming). Further, the Doran and Zimmerman paper is (to put it charitably) is a hugely flawed survey. Reference to it in another “peer reviewed” survey shows does not bode well for the quality of the results.

Analysis of the Survey Questions here and actual questions here

by manicbeancounter on 30/07/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Australia, Climate Change, Spin (Propaganda)
Tagged , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 30/07/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/30/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-1/

97% of Climate Scientists claim they are not “Climate Deniers” Survey

In the back of my mind on analysing Charles Hanich‘s bogus Climate & Science questionnaire recently, was another, more prominent, survey. The 2009 questionnaire by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, amongst scientists, concluded

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to the policy makers and the public who mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Laurence Solomon has shown has biased the result actually was. First by excluding scientists who might be give greater emphasis on natural causes, like “solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.” Second, by whittling down the 3146 responses from “earth scientists” to just 77, they create an insignificant sample. Here I want to consider some points that can be drawn from the method and the conclusion

Questions do not isolate the trivial from the catastrophic

The Survey Questions were

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Most people would accept that temperatures have risen in the past 200 years. Most climate scientists who are active in the field of researching anthropogenic global warming will tend to think human activity has a significant impact. However, this could not mean as little as 10% or over 100% of recent surface temperature warming could be accounted for by human activity. As such the questions are far from sufficient to establish consensus that there on a high level problem that requires a high level policy response.

Identifiable responses create bias

Laurence Solomon has shown has biased the result actually was. First by excluding scientists who might be give greater emphasis on natural causes, like “solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.” Second, by whittling down the 3146 responses from “earth scientists” to just 77, they create an insignificant sample.

However, there is a further element. The responses were identified, hence the ability to classify the core scientists. What if you are a practicing climate scientist, who no longer believes in the scientific case for global warming? The scientist finds themselves in the position of a priest/pastor/minister of religion in the Christian Church who has lost faith. They may enjoy the status, and the work, and the people they work with. With a questionnaire such as this, there is a risk of being “outed”. There are three strategies to adopt. Firstly it is not to respond. Secondly, to respond, but rationalise or lie. The wording of the question allows for rationalising. Thirdly, is to answer truthfully, risking your career, along with possible damage to friendships and co-workers funding. This is a huge issue for opinion surveys on controversial subjects. The best way to get honest answers is to guarantee anonymity, and for the survey to be conducted by an independent polling organisation.

Publishing record is not a good indicator of scientific understanding

Climate science, like in many other empirical research areas, is full of papers with multiple authors. The issues are complex, and the workload enormous, so the bulk of the work is done by the research assistants, and often most of the science. The lead authors may act as a project manager, or even just a name to get the work published. Major journals need articles by big names to maintain readership and prestige. The leading scientists, by publishing in the major journals, and having lots of works cited are able to attract funding for further projects and thus promote the other department members and the prestige of the university or other institution to which they belong. Thus looking to a core group based on publishing record might be misleading. Some of the leading scientists might now be more managers than cutting edge scientists. Others might be so enmeshed in the detail and hard-working, that they might never step back and question the bigger picture.

On the other hand, highly intelligent people who believe that the science is flawed, or dogmatic, will never have the desire to enter the field, or move into other areas when they change their minds. Alternatively, they may stay in the subject, but keep quiet about their views, backing away from publishing.

The Boundaries of Climate Change Denial

Many of the “pro-consensus”, “pro-science” blogs call those who think the science is faulty, flawed, or unsubstantiated, “deniers” or “denialists”, without ever defining the characteristic features actually are. This survey gives us the minimum criteria for knowing that someone is not a denier. It is someone who supports the “mainstream” view that the world has warmed, and that humans are to some extent, part responsible for it. This survey can only be taken as a public proclamation by a small minority that they are true believers.

If, however, the definition of “denier” is anything different then there is the logical possibility that people can be both part of the mainstream and climate change deniers. As such the word “denier” is nothing more than a term of discrimination and abuse by those in the mainstream.

Update

Published in response to an article in Nature, mentioning “Deniers” in the Scientific literature for the first time. Responses by Anthony Watts, Bishop Hill and Warren Meyer.


by manicbeancounter on 18/06/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Skeptical Science, Spin (Propaganda)
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 18/06/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/18/97-of-climate-scientists-claim-they-are-not-climate-deniers-survey/

Michael Mann’s narrow definition of “Skepticism”

Climate Scientist MM continues his dogged defence of the climate consensus at Thinkprogress.

Consider the following statement

Make no mistake: Skepticism is fundamental to good science. Whenever a conclusion is drawn or a proposition is made, the demand that it stand up to scrutiny is the self-correcting machinery that drives us towards a better understanding of the way the world works. In this sense, every scientist should be a skeptic. Good science responds to good faith challenges, and to contradictory evidence that is presented, and climate-change science should be no different.

The spirit of the following statement is at first beguiling, and the spirit is something that many would agree with, although “good faith challenges” allows for discrimination against people you disagree with. However, it is his meaning of “scepticism” that I want to take issue with here.

Mann’s definition is most clearly expressed by John Cook of “Skeptical Science“, but also supported by (amongst others) Tamino of “Open Mind” blog. The clearest expression is in the article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”

Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.

Compare this with a more established source of word definitions – the Oxford English Dictionary. I don’t have the full 20 volume edition, but I think my 1983 book club edition of the Shorter OED will do well enough. There are a number of definitions of “sceptic” on page 1900.

Definition 1 pertains to a school of philosophy after the Greek Pyrrho, which doubts the possibility of knowledge of any kind.

Definition 2 is someone who doubts the validity of knowledge claims in a particular area of inquiry. This includes, but is not confined to the natural sciences. In the area of climate is the Climate Realists like Tallbloke, who doubt the greenhouse gas theory.

Definition 2.1 “one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to a particular question or statement“. The OED has this as the popular definition.

Definition 3 is one who doubts the truth of Christianity. An older definition, not applicable here.

Definition 4 is one who is seeking the truth. That is “an inquirer who has not arrived at definite convictions“. This is only occasionally used, at least in the late 20th century.

Cook’s definition is at odds with all the definitions in the dictionary. There is nothing there about how much evidence a genuine skeptic must consider. Indeed, it by his own definition Cook is not a skeptic. More seriously, Cook is disagreeing with the experts in their field. According to Cook’s definition, a skeptic is someone who formerly had a doubting attitude as in 2.1, but now has fallen into line. The philosophers are a school of deniers. (Desmogblog will no doubt now unearth evidence that they were in the pay of big olive oil producers.) Some who still doubts the truth of climate change will not have “considered all the evidence” yet. For those who have read the evidence, this category ceases to exist. The doubter of Christianity is irrelevant, whilst the seeker of truth is someone who is behind the curve.

But then who do you believe on the definition of “skeptic / sceptic”. A consensus of the world’s leading experts, or a group of dogmatic people using language for partisan purposes?

NB. I use sceptic with a “c” to denote the expert definition, and with a “k” to define the partisan definition. However, I quite realise the use of “c” was probably as a result of King George III trying the separate Britain from the revolting colonies by means of a common language.

With respect to Dr Mann, I may have got him totally wrong. Maybe he does not realise that skepticalscience.com is based on a misrepresentation. If Dr Mann (or a nominated associate) would like to clarify that he follows expert opinion, I will be more than happy to distance him from the polemicists who allegedly support him.

by manicbeancounter on 29/04/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Skeptical Science
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 29/04/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/

Outflanking Al Gore & other alarmists

At Wattupwiththat there is a proposal to build a database by

Find(ing) every false, misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the past twenty years. Create an index by name with pages listing those statement with links to the source. Keep it factual. Let their own words come back to haunt them.

My comment was

A database of all the exaggerations, errors and false prophesies on its own will do no good. No matter how extensive and thorough and rigorous, it will be dismissed as having been compiled by serial deniers funded by big oil. Getting a fair hearing in the MSM will be impossible. It the coming battle the alarmists have decided the field of battle and have impenetrable armour.

To be brief, there needs to be two analogies brought to the fore.

First is the legal analogy. If there is a case for CAGW, it must be demonstrated by primary, empirical evidence. That evidence must be tested by opponents. It is not the bits, that may be true – like lots more CO2 will cause some warming. But that there is sufficient CO2 to cause some warming, which will be magnified by positive feedbacks to cause even greater warming, and this substantive warming will destabilize the planet weather systems in a highly negative way. The counter-argument is two-fold – that many of dire, immediate, forecasts have been highly exaggerated and more importantly, the compound uncertainties that have been vastly underestimated. That the case is weak is shown by the prominence given to what is hearsay evidence, such as the consensus, or the proclamations of groups of scientists, or to the image of the hockey stick. In some cases, it has been tantamount to jury-tampering.

Second is the medical analogy. A medical doctor, in proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, should at last have a strong professionally-based expectation that post treatment the patient will be better off than if nothing was done. The very qualities that make politicians electable – of being able to make build coalitions by fudging, projecting an image, and undermining the opponents by polarizing views – make them patently unfit for driving through and micro-managing effective policy to reduce CO2. They will of necessity overstate the benefits and massively understate the costs, whether financial or in human suffering. They will not admit that the problem is beyond their capabilities, nor that errors had been made. The problem is even worse in powerful dictatorships than democracies.

I have tried to suggest a method (for those who are familiar with microeconomics) the IPCC/Stern case for containing CO2 here.

https://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/climate-change-policy-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-1-of-4/

Also, why there is no effective, global political solution possible.

https://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/climate-change-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4-the-mitigation-curve/

What is missing is why the costs of global warming have been grossly exaggerated.

by manicbeancounter on 17/07/2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Science & Non-science
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 17/07/2011

https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/07/17/outflanking-al-gore-other-alarmists/

Bishop Hill and Comment Moderation

BishopHill has been having problems with comment moderation.

The comments are getting completely out of hand. Once again, please do not call people names. Stay on topic. I’m simply snipping whole comments now, because I do not have time to edit our people’s poor behaviour.

 

Perhaps if people would have more courtesy towards their opponents they would start to understand the opposing arguments. Then they may contrast it with their own and moderate their views.

Dogmatically assuming that your side is right and by implication that the opposition are either betrays our own fallibility. It is only by demonstrating an overwhelming and coherent case that one can legitimately use this in current debates without appearing out of touch with reality.

We must remember that the burden of presenting the case is on the side those who say we must act to prevent catastrophic global warming
climate change climate disruption. That just not just mean showing the case for the science is, on balance, correct. Simplified it means

First to demonstrate that CO2 and other greenhouse gases can cause a bit of warming, and how much
AND THEN
Show that this small temperature rise will lead to an increase in water vapour at high level to cause massive positive feedbacks (despite negative feedbacks being the norm in science)
AND THEN
Show that this warming will be of massive net harm to humanity and the planet (and that neither human society, nor the other creatures, nor plants will be able to adapt – despite much evidence to the contrary).
AND THEN
Show that mitigation policies – carbon taxes, cap n’ trade, subsidies to “clean” energy – will reduce greenhouse gases in THEORY, so long as all countries participate.
AND THEN
Show that when most of the emerging nations, particularly China and India, do nothing to curb emissions, that curbing emissions in theory will still work for the OECD countries.
AND THEN
Show that the governments pursuing the policies are capable of delivering the theoretical results. That is only taking on policies that meet the cost criteria laid down by the IPCC or Stern. Then project managing in fine detail and quickly ending failing projects.

As well as making the case for each of Forecast, Consequences, Policy theory and policy Implementation (FCPI), it must be combined together to show that, on balance, there is an expectation that the policy outcome will be better than if nothing was done. I believe that it is only on the basis of extreme and untenable assumptions in ALL of these four areas that the current policies can be justified.

My concern is that the “consensus” quickly grasps onto obscure bits of detail, or fine points of theory, or relies on prestige and opinion when challanged. Alternatively they question the motives of the critics.


by manicbeancounter on 25/01/2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Eco-Fanatics, Global Warming, Uncategorized
Tagged , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 25/01/2011

https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/01/25/bishop-hill-and-comment-moderation/

Denialists become Superfluous

OR Who Needs Enemies when you have Friends like These

Climate Psychology is a blog specialising in mirror-posting articles from one side of the climate change argument, but with more lurid titles. The direct inference being that the truth of the science is so blatantly apparent that any criticism must be by the deluded, the deranged, or be in the pay of some sinister forces. One such mirror posting is of Tamino’s “Hockey Stick Delusion” at RealClimate under the Title “Tamino debunks the junk science of Montford and McIntyre for the umpteenth time — the hockey stick is still sticking around”

To anyone who looks at both sides of the argument – who properly compares and contracts each point made, will see that Tamino fails to address the points made. As I said in an earlier posting

 Look at

1. Who gives the fullest answers?

2. Which side evades the points, or attempts sleight of hand?

3. How are contrary or neutral points treated. Clue – look at how Judith Curry (who is trying to remain neutral) is treated. Further, look at how contrary opinions are treated.

4. Finally who are the real deniers in all of this?

This leaning on psychology is nothing new. It was used by the KGB to punish dissenters without trial (see also here and here). The recent publication of a statistical analysis of the Hockey Stick by McShane and Warner again shows which side of the debate the delusional mostly reside. The greatest irony is the blog has the following quote:-

“Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Barack Obama

by manicbeancounter on 16/08/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Hockey Sticks, Science & Non-science
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 16/08/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/08/16/denialists-become-superfluous/

The Hockey Stick and Climate Science

Posted Yesterday to the discussion at Climate Audit on the topic of “The Team Defends Paleo-Phrenology”

It may help …. to understand the nature of the science. It relies on statistical techniques to establish results. These, crucially, depend for their validity on the elimination of bias. If a researcher has faulty data, then the results are undermined. If the researcher is selective in the data, then the results are undermined. It outliers are not eliminated then the results are undermined. This all means that where there is extremely complex data, and problems of measurement, it is extremely difficult to establish conclusions that cannot be overturned. This is both true of economics and of paleoclimate.

I would contend that climate scientists, as a junior scientists, need to learn from other disciplines.
– From accountancy, about sense-checking the data (see link below)
– From research into new drugs, about the necessity for more technicians to collect and collate data, and to experiance dead-ends.
– From law, to distinguish between levels of evidence and distinguish baseless rhetoric from cogent arguement
– Most of all from statistical theory, where you will find you results will have no validity unless you take active steps to eliminate bias. Even then, with complex data, your results may still be later undermined, despite passing a battery of tests.

For all of these reasons, we should accept that the results of research are tentative. We should recognise the limits of our knowledge. In recognising the boundaries, and establishing procedures to quickly identify error, paleoclimate may be able to move forward.

 

The whole hockey stick issue, brought to a head with the Tamino posting, shows the problem of bias. To obtain a temperature reconstruction requires using data that usually gives a very weak signal indeed. Therefore any data needs to be carefully collected and every conceivable bias removed. It is only by eliminating bias that the statistical analysis can begin. In many cases there will be no significant results. Much painstaking work will achieve a dead end. And there is the rub. Careers are not made by failing to get a result. In this arena phenomenal fame and prestige can come to those who produce results that fortify the consensus. And there is plenty of recognition to those with supporting roles as well.

The original MBH98 may never have emerged in a more muted form if an expert reviewer had asked how such a novel result could be reconciled with the existing view that there was a medieval warm period. Hence my point about sense-checking in the previous blog posting. Similarly the comment that the 20th century warming was unprecedented should be answered with how do you know that? Read the Hockey Stick Illusion and you will find that the claim lacks scientific validity.  

If climate science it to mature it needs more painstaking data collection and analysis. As a science, it needs to find the current boundaries and limits of our current knowledge.

For those who believe that the Hockey Stick Team still have something worthwhile to say, should start with Steve McIntyres repost of “Tamino and the Magic Flute“. Compare that with Tamino’s posting “The Montford Delusion”.

Look at

1. Who gives the fullest answers?

2. Which side evades the points, or attempts sleight of hand?

3. How are contrary or neutral points treated. Clue – look at how Judith Curry (who is trying to remain neutral) is treated. Further, look at how contrary opinions are treated.

4. Finally who are the real deniers in all of this?

by manicbeancounter on 27/07/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Beancounting Methodology, Climate Change, Hockey Sticks, Science - the Boundaries
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 27/07/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/07/27/the-hockey-stick-and-climate-science/

Climate Change – New Scientist puts smears before science

The latest issue of the New Scientist features a series of articles on climate change deniers (see below). The second – “Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic” compares “climate” deniers with deniers of the holocaust, 9/11, Aids, vaccine, evolution and the harmful effects of tobacco. It is this last that I have just posted a fuller analysis.

Alternatively consider these two arguments.

1. The proposition that smoking is harmful to health was initially based on a study of 34,000 British Doctors. The study itself was “heralded a new type of scientific research”. The results have been replicated, refined and further issues identified. To deny that smoking is harmful  to health is equivalent to denying a simple fact. By implication you are going against science, so must either have an ulterior motive or be a crank.

2. The proposition that the climate system will be changed catastrophically is agreed upon by a very large number of scientists, as a result of a huge numbers published papers, using similar empirical methods to that used in medical research. So those who oppose the AGW consensus, must be equivalent to those who oppose the medical consensus on smoking.

This is bad science seeking to piggy-back on the reputation of good science. If the results of climate change science were so clearly unambiguous, then the counter-arguments would be easily dismissed by clear presentation of that science. But there are deep flaws in the science, so smears are necessary.  

 

 Hatip wattsupwiththat From their article is the following:-

 
Here’s links to all the New Scientist articles on “denial”. They did include one article from Michael Fitzpatrick that is a 
feeble attempt at balance,but even it too strays into the ugly territory of comparing climate skeptics with AIDS deniers.
by manicbeancounter on 15/05/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science & Non-science, Science - the Boundaries
Tagged ,

Posted by manicbeancounter on 15/05/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/05/15/climate-change-new-scientist-puts-smears-before-science/

« Older Posts