Posted by Dee Norris
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.
By Luke
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.
I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.
I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW – ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,
In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).
Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:
- The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
- The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
- the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
- The theory of prions – the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease – was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
- The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.
As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.
It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment –
- The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.
I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.
[The opinions expressed in this post are that of the author, Dee Norris, and not necessarily those of the owner of Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts, who graciously allows me to pontificate here.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Counters,
If AGW was just another theory, and two sides were arguing it back and forth just as we do many other theories, then there wouldn’t be such a stink about it.
But the scientists behind AGW keep hiding their data and methods, and re-writing history. What exactly is the point of trying to do away with the MWP? Why does it take extraordinary effort to get data out of AGW’s main proponents?
If the scientists pushing AGW were completely above-board and open with their data, their algorithms, and their methodology they wouldn’t be catching flack like this.
If the IPCC was responsive to informed criticism and worked to correct the errors pointed out by many scientists, they might be gaining credibility and respect rather than slowly losing it.
So the scientists behind AGW have only themselves to blame for the increasing skepticism. They’ve spent 20 years giving us terrifying predictions, all while playing hide-and-seek with the methods and data that others could use to replicate their results.
Now add in the fact that the AGW proponents have significant influence over the purse strings for entire economies. So we’re not just batting theories back and forth here, we’re talking about the fiscal livelihood of nations. If global warming is that dire a threat, I want to see a free and open scientific discussion of it.
So I’ll be skeptical until I’m convinced otherwise. I don’t have anything to prove. Rather, its the warmists who need to prove their case to me. And hiding their data and methodology doesn’t leave me feeling very confident in them.
The discussions about the different types of reasoning seems purely academic for a person who has worked over 30 years in design, construction, operation, and maintenance of plants and never discussed what kind of reasoning was going to be used to solve a particular problem but the problems were solved; however, this may be entirely different in the scientific community.
Reply – For most day-to-day problems, a formal analysis of the process used to reach an outcome is unnecessary and a waste of time. But in extremely complex issues, have some understanding of the process will help eliminate errors. – Dee Norris
J. Peden (20:05:36) : So far, I have no idea what “abductive” reasoning is.
evanjones (20:18:49) : I worship the sun every morning. ..
LOL, evan.
Deductive reasoning is arriving at a conclusion from a know starting point: “all crows are black, X is a crow, therefore X is black”
Inductive reasoning is deriving the antecedant or cause using reverse logic. “All crows I’ve ever observed are black, therefore all crows are black”
Abductive reasoning is essentially the same as inductive reasoning but a probability is assigned to each antecedant and the antecedant (cause, if you will) giving the highest joint probability is sometimes selected although more often a list of possible causes
Note that both inductive and abductive reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusion. This means that testing the conclusion becomes imperative.
Better example of abduction, using medical diagnosis, might be: The patient has the following symptoms {X, Y, Z}. It is known that diseases {A,B,C}. can cause these symptoms with the probabilities Xa, Xb, Xc, Ya, Yb, etc. The most probable cause of the patient showing ALL of the symptoms is disease H, a member of {A,B,C}. IOW: the joint probability of X, Y, Z is at a maximum given H. Note: joint probability or X,Y,Z means the probability of X AND Y AND Z.
It’s possible to proceed with abduction even when the values of the probabilities of effect given cause are only known qualitatively (high, low, REALLY low, etc.). An example: what you are calling an alien UFO was most likely a bird you didn’t see clearly. Of the two possible causes, the bird has a higher probability assigned and alien visitation has an extremely low assigned probability. These probabilities are not only qualitative but subjective as well.
Better example of abduction, using medical diagnosis, might be: The patient has the following symptoms {X, Y, Z}. It is known that diseases {A,B,C}. can cause these symptoms with the probabilities Xa, Xb, Xc, Ya, Yb, etc. The most probable cause of the patient showing ALL of the symptoms is disease H, a member of {A,B,C}. IOW: the joint probability of X, Y, Z is at a maximum given H. Note: joint probability or X,Y,Z means the probability of X AND Y AND Z.
Dav, I like you, but you have no idea about how medicine is actually practiced, at least in the ER, and hopefully elsewhere. All of your logic I would go through in about 1/2 second, tops, abjective or not. The idea is to redress what can be redressed asap, without having endless meetings about it. Believe me, probabilities are ruled out on the spot, by observation, tests, and action. No one does a “probability” calculation about the whole thing. We want to save the patient, which can even make the least likely cause the most likely.
In fact, any practioneer should actually “eschew” your m.o., and get to the actual cause of the problem asap., without calculating “probabilities”. If you have any sense about diseases, you don’t need calculations. All you have to do is to think about why you might not understand what is going on, then go for that possible diagnosis and solution.
Reply – I suspect even in the ER, all three types of reasoning are in use but not on a group basis or even on a conscious level. Our models of reasoning are simply descriptive of how the neural network in the brain when processes data. All humans use these processes, but by knowing how they work, we improve our reasoning abilities. – Dee Norris
Our new friend Mr Dan must think us either very rude or very stupid
I endeavor always to err on the side of stupidity.
I believe in this case it can be said that I have succeeded, Q.E.D.–except that the evidence has since been snipped by Strict Anne. (I, myself, had approved it originally in its uncut form.).
P.S.: FB, you inferential abductor, you!
I am weak on the cloud cover documentation.
So is everyone. the AquaSat has been tracking it for the last few years–and the news is very grim for the AGW advocates, according to Spencer. The NOAA and NASA hem and haw in a most encouraging manner. (I read the paper; it was one big Ralph Kramden “hammana-hammana-hammana” from start to finish.)
Excellent summary. I might add it is informative to look Atlas Shrugged with a focus on Dr. Robert Stadler – who become a sell-out, a scientist who had great promise but squandered it for social approval, to the detriment of the free. He worked for the State Science Institute and thought he lead the project and direction, only to find he was a figure head being manipulated for the politicians.
As AGW begins to fall apart, the politicians will simply note they were mislead by the scientists. The politicians like Al Gore will portray themselves as the victims of poor science. What could they do? They were mislead and misinformed?
Reply – I sort of imagined myself as Dagny from time to time, but I seem to be still looking for John Galt. – Dee Norris
Mr counters said(17:44:05) :
“And what of being skeptical of the evidence, data, and theory contributed by “skeptics?”
My biggest problem with the skeptic community is that, in my opinion, they preach a double-standard. While many skeptics take a hard-line, skeptical attitude towards all aspects of it – theory, evidence, and predictions – they take any contrary theory, evidence, or predictions on faith. ”
… … … … …
Hello again Mr Counters, I would say it’s nice to encounter you again but that would be a very bad pun so I won’t, but it is a pleasure to engage in debate with you again.
If I might say so, I think the part of your comment I have quoted confuses scepticism with impartiality. What you cite as a double standard is not a double standard at all.
Those of us who like life the way it is need to be persuaded that it should change. Someone coming along and saying “I have analysed why it should not change” will be told to go away because we do not need his theory, the truth of life supersedes hypothesis. It is the person who wants to change our lives who bears the burden of proof and it is his ideas which are subject to examination. If he fails in his attempt to persuade us, we carry on as before. There is no double standard in ignoring the person who tells us to carry on and questioning the person who tells us to change.
[…] sheer coincidence, the same story is taken up on Watts Up With That? today; and […]
Dee,
As the petition of scientists’ “purpose” page says, the 31,000 signatories do not consider themselves “skeptics”. The following should be a block quote, though I’m not much of a hand with Anthony’s HTML tags:
Reply – I wasn’t so much interested in proving the skeptic’s case, as I was in exploring what it means to be a skeptic. I excluded a number of examples in the interests of keeping the post short and to the point. I was confident that the excluded material would be brought out in the comments area during the subsequent discussion. – Dee Norris
Rats. The quote left out from the “petition purpose” is as follows, in simple quotation marks this time:
“It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.””
Reply – As I have implied in my post, the title ‘skeptic’ is being twisted into an ad hominem attack by using the term inter-changeably with ‘denier’. ‘quack’ or some other term that degrades or devalues the opinion & facts held by the person so labeled. In the quote about, I felt that the author’s use of quote symbols indicated he was responding to the AGW spin of ‘skeptic’ rather than the traditional definition. Rather than speculate, perhaps someone can email the project and obtain exactly what they meant in this case. – Dee Norris
Dan,
Re: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
The paper was co-written, but Sallie Baliunas’ name is not among the authors. Perhaps you know something?
A great article and thread,
I’m left with the overall impression.
settled science = (political) dogma.
NB – I do hope J. Peden is wrong about Europe, but I think he is right.
Edcon: “Brendan H (17:56:14)
“Currently, AGW is gaining mainstream acceptance against rejection by sceptics, just as in the examples above.” Please describe the mainstream besides tabloid journalism, politicians seeking power, and corporation’s financial benefits.”
By mainstream I mean the generally accepted view, but more specifically the view embodied in most climate scientists, science journals, major scientific organisations and professional societies, world leaders, major media. Coming up the rear is the commercial and industrial world, which over the past few years has moved towards the AGW position.
I’m speaking here of a general impression, which cannot be easily quantified, but I think my view is in line with that of many sceptics, who for example claim a general and widespread AGW bias by the likes of scientific journals and the wider media.
Lets summarise the ‘denier-skeptic-religous right oddball’ argument.
Take scientific evidence, add a particularly large splash of finance from companies that will be affected by neccesary changes to protect the environment, add the conspiratorial goofballs, from the deniers in the anti AGW camp add a huge dollop of jealousy, a tinge of regret. Add to the mix a vat of ignorance and while mixing pick out the actual scientic evidence if it doesn’t quite fit and replace it with innacuracies, hopeing that if said loudly enough some fools that don’t want to pay a little extra on fuel will believe (works on holiday if the locals don’t speak English, why not here where the locals don’t understand science!), add a lot of slander, pseudo-religous comparisons and a pich of twittering from pseudo-intellectuals.
There it is, the whole anti AGW argument served in a pie! Listen…can you hear them….the death throes of your ‘argument’!!
Reply – I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but it almost sounds like you are talking about the AGW Believers, not the skeptics. – Dee Norris
Glad to see you’re up early and on the ball! To summarize I’m saying that any of the theories, such as solar, to describe the recent temperature trends have been shown to be lacking. The theory of AGW is still working, still strong despite, or maybe because of, being tested to extremes. Even the ‘Hockey Stick’ has survived, mainly because the science behind it has been tested. Independant Proxy measurements have shown the science is sound. With something as complex, and with so many branches of science working on it, off course it will be continually updated but, like all strong theories such as evolution, plate tectonics etc. it still holds its own.
If you look at the anti AGW arguments they usually spout out phrases as ‘Religion’, ‘Sect’, ‘Believers’, ‘Dogma’, ‘Demonization’ etc. This language suggests the mind-set of these individuals is more ‘faith’ based than ‘science’ based, and the whole point of faith is it can’t be tested, you either believe it is or it isn’t. AGW projections from 30 years ago are manifesting themselves, the predictions are being verified.
When the anti AGW camp actually come up with theories that explain recent warming trends better than AGW then we will listen, but in the meantime the time scale is too short and, as the vast majority of scientist know, inaction now will have devastating results.
Like most who have studies AGW, we do not want to see the global warming modelled, and if we can do something about it then for future generations sake we better get moving and do it…fast.
Reply – I think that AGW adherents would like the general population to believe that the few skeptics are as you describe them. Certainly yours and Luke’s original comments would make it seem the rank and file AGW believer buys into it.
As a skeptic, I doubt the anthropogenic part of climate change because of the weakness in the science used to support it, specifically the GCMs and the decreasing effect of CO2 on temperature as concentration increases. There are a number of other minor points plus some historical data that further contribute to my skepticism. When the AGW proponents come up with better science supporting humanity’s role in climate change, I will carefully review that data and adjust my opinions accordingly. – Dee Norris
“To summarize I’m saying that any of the theories, such as solar, to describe the recent temperature trends have been shown to be lacking.”
Mary Hinge, does it ever occur to you that we look for alternative hypotheses to explain “the recent temperature trends” because AGW completely failed to predict it?
Do you understand that current temperatures are below even the error bars on the IPCC’s predicted temperature range? That AGW has been falsified by observation?
People clinging to AGW in the face of all the evidence is what brings to our minds words like sect, believers, and dogma.
“I think that AGW adherents would like the general population to believe that the few skeptics are as you describe them”
The points I made are well illustrated in the posts above, the examples of language I used are all present.
While I can understand that some scientists, such as yourself can indeed be called ‘skeptics’ and are working constructively to find out the causes of the recent unprecedented global warming, I’m afraid the vast majority are not ‘skeptics’ but ‘[snip]’ in that they will ignore any evidence that goes against their beliefs and attempt to destroy supporting evidence for AGW using bad science, slander and pure lies (to say you can get the same results as the Hockey Stick using a phone book is a typical example).
Research and debate is of course a good thing in science and the process that makes theories strong . This particular subject has been thoroughly tested, the science is not, as you call it ‘weak’.
I do not understand what you mean by “When the AGW proponents come up with better science supporting humanity’s role in climate change, I will carefully review that data and adjust my opinions accordingly.” The science involved in a hugely complex and multi-disciplinary arena has been tested and supported by the vast majority of scientists. It is also supported by the UN and by the majority of political leaders, even George W.Bush. This is about as successful as science can get.
You will always get ‘[snip]’ in any branh of science, even good science such as evolution. On this blog I had a discussion with an AGW [snip] about [snip]
If high profile anti AGW proponents get this basic science wrong, how can you trust their judgements on such a complex subject as climate change?
Reply – I guess you have the same concerns about all the mistakes and distorts in An Inconvenient Truth? The only test if science is successful is if it stands up to the rigorous inspection of other scientists and the test of time. Any other definition is just politics. – Dee Norris
More Reply – Anthony banished the word ‘denier’ for the exact reason under discussion. It was created solely as an ad hominem attack by AGW proponents. I have [snipped] it from your post. I have also snipped your rehashing of a discontinued discussion on this blog about evolution vs creationism. If you feel I have overstepped, please discuss the matter with Anthony. – Dee Norris
Mary,
Even when AGW is the correct theory, we simply don’t know how to change people. Use your intuition, consider that for thousands of years, teachers, sages, preachers, gurus, saints, and politicians, have been trying to change people “for the better”. I think this point is naively overlooked by most environmentalists. Think about how many years people spend in therapy, going to counsellors, attending church, visiting psychologists, going to weightwatchers, and most people, over the course of 10 or 20 years, change very little. Most people simply carry on making the same mistakes that they always made. They keep having inappropriate affairs, or they keep drinking, or they keep being sexist, or they keep overeating. Most people cannot be changed. Even if you got rid of multinationals and corrupt politicians, you still wouldn’t have changed people’s basic values and desires.
It is off topic for this forum but I fear it keeps coming up in the background–the idea that the root cause of people disagreeing with AGW is purely about “selfish motives”. Well, d’uh. The point is Mary, you can’t change those motives, which pushes the environmental movement to impose change… eventually by coercion and force.
The wisdom needed to change the world peacefully for the better, simply doesn’t exist at the moment in anywhere near the number of people required. Most environmentalists simply don’t have it. So if you want to talk about people’s selfish and corrupt motivations, then just notice that, you talking about them doesn’t change anyone.
The more the scientific elite tries to preach to us what we should be doing based on evidence, the more they will be ignored by the public. Environmentalists, through not understanding people, are doing far more damage than you could imagine. You probably don’t see it because you are on the inside, on the “right” side. Good luck with that. The public may be selfish, but they are very savvy about efforts to control them. Just consider things like Iraq, and get a feel for the true nature of your fellow man. Oil companies didn’t make people greedy warmongers, they just are greedy. It’s natural. Some philosophers used to talk about how man is corrupted by a corrupt social system, but that sorta died along with the myth of the noble savage.
Sorry this is so off topic, but these threads are supposed to be about science, and comments like Mary’s just keep dragging it back to “human motivation”, so I try to comment on where that leads..
“add a particularly large splash of finance from companies that will be affected by neccesary changes to protect the environment, add the conspiratorial goofballs, from the deniers in the anti AGW camp add a huge dollop of jealousy, a tinge of regret. Add to the mix a vat of ignorance…” — Mary
An environmentalist once said to me, “we reduce CO2 because that reduces consumption, reducing CO2 reduces greed”.
I see, so you’re going to try to reduce greed… and somehow succeed with this project where all the lineages of Buddhas and all the sages failed?
I used to be satisfied that AGW is 100% correct and I was elated one day when I heard that Kyoto was going ahead. Then I began to notice the direction environmentalists were going with the “solutions”… and I’m sorry Mary but it just isn’t tenable.
Mary Hinge:
This blog is about forms of reasoning used by scientists. It is not about excuses used as justifications by politicians and science administrators.
You assert:
“To summarize I’m saying that any of the theories, such as solar, to describe the recent temperature trends have been shown to be lacking. The theory of AGW is still working, still strong despite, or maybe because of, being tested to extremes.”
Sorry, but – in the context of scientific scepticism – you are plain wrong on both counts.
Proving one thing is wrong (e.g. “solar”) says nothing about whether another thing (e.g. AGW) is right or wrong. Your claim that AGW is supported by faults in other theories is an example of the logical error commonly called a “straw man” argument.
And your assertion that “The theory of AGW is still working” is plain wrong according to the normal rules of science. The theory of AGW would be disproved if there were one clear disagreement between the predictions of AGW theory and empirical observation, and all (yes, ALL) predictions of AGW fail the test of comparison with empirical reality; see
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
However, your assertion that the “theory of AGW is still working” is demonstrably right in so far as the “theory of AGW” is a method to obtain research funding
(at least $5 billion per year from governments alone at present)
and to excuse political policies
(e.g. the ‘Florenze Report’: ref. EU Document (2008/2001 (INI)) dated 22.1.2008 issued by the ‘Temporary Committee on Climate Change’ of the EU Parliament).
Richard S Courtney
Carbon Dioxide causes warming like wet roads cause rain
Inductive?
Deductive?
Abductive?
or what?
If there were no such things as computer models, would there still be global warming?
Discuss …
(Mary Hinge)
I think the starting point for most ‘proper’ science should be observation and data, I think you would agree.
Let’s look at just a few facts against the alarmist predictions.
1 (a). We were told years ago that if we didn’t reduce the amount of man made CO2 in the atmosphere that temperatures would rise inexorably at a fairly unprecedented rate for modern times. We were told that just leaving the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would still cause temperatures to rise due to the time lag for its effect.
1 (b). Facts… We have actually continued to pump man made CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate since these warnings. Result- the climate has been on a cooling trend since 2001!
2 (a). We were told that sea level rise would accelerate at a huge rate in the 21st century producing a total sea level rise of at least 2-6 meters.
2 (b). Facts…. There has been no acceleration in the 21st century indeed the rate of sea level rise has fallen in the last few years.
3. (a) We were told that sea temperatures would rise sharply in this century causing problems for flora and fauna and a further out gassing of CO2.
3. (b). Facts…. Sea temperatures have actually fallen slightly over the last few years.
4. (a) We were told that there would be a huge reduction in global ice levels.
4. (b) No sign of such a thing. AGW proponents tend to only talk about NH events but when you include the SH ( which accounts for 90% of global ice) then there is no reduction in global ice. Indeed Antarctica has been getting cooler for some time now with all that means for global ice volumes, given that the largest part of global ice is based there.
Now just these few facts would, you would think, cause Nasa etc to return to their models and try to adjust them to take account of this data.
There is no sign of them doing so because any proven natural factors would overturn their CO2 theory in an instant. The CO2 theory was based on a ‘Last Man Standing’ concept when all other natural factors were rejected because of their calculated maximum effect.
If natural factors can be shown to have this amount of cooling affect then of course a similar combination of effects could have had that amount of warming affect in the first place making a monkey of the CO2 theory.
It would be interesting to see what their models would produce if they reduced the hypothesised sensitivity of the Earth to increased CO2 and increased the hypothesised sensitivity to Solar factors. After all we have no idea what is the magnitude of feedback mechanisms triggered by changes to the Sun eg cloud cover etc. After all we know that Ice ages are triggered by changes to the amount of TSI received by the Earth but the percentage changes do no seem nearly enough to produce such a violent change. Obviously the Sun is triggering other feedback mechanisms but no one has been able to effectively describe and quantify them. Even Milankovitch knew that the changes due to his identified cycles were not enough on there own to trigger an Ice age.
So what are all these ‘proper’ scientist doing with this new data and observations?
All I here from them is phrases like ‘noise’ and Natural Variability’. Personally I don’t recognise these as scientific expressions. I recognise variability but not in the sense that these people are trying to state it. They are trying to give the impression it’s as if the Earth tosses a coin each year to decide whther it is to be colder or warmer and that the current cooling trend is just some ‘luck of the draw’. The Earths climate is indeed variable but this is only in response to certain factors. It’s as if they are afraid to look seriously at the developing situation and these because they see no advantage vis a vis their stated position and reputation.
Alan
“Note that both inductive and abductive reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusion.”
Note also that deductive reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusion – Consider the following argument:
All roses are legumes
This plant is a rose
Therefore this plant is a legume.
The conclusion is wrong, roses are not legumes. Nevertheless the logic is impeccable. What is wrong is that the major premise “All roses are legumes” is wrong.
In more familiar terms – ‘garbage in garbage out’.
Abductive reasoning as explained in this blog seems to be just the (necessary) application of common sense so as to ensure that we don’t attempt to run down every single logical possibility, but concentrate only on those which experience and native ingenuity and wit tell us are the most likely to yield significant results. And yes, many an experimenter has left out something considered unlikely to be significant only to discover that the assumption (for that is what it is) was unjustified. But if the scientific method is pursued with some rigour, and the data, methods and so on are available for independent scrutiny, then even the most subtle of such oversights will eventually be discovered and put right. The systematic methodology by which science is done lies at the heart of the matter. Obfuscate data or methods, and restrict scrutiny and you discard the cloak of scientific respectability to become merely supposition and hearsay.
Mary Hinge (02:18:41) wrote: “Glad to see you’re up early and on the ball! To summarize I’m saying that any of the theories, such as solar, to describe the recent temperature trends have been shown to be lacking….” ad nauseam.
For what it’s worth, my experience with Hinge suggests she will forever (if allowed) continue her insane dialogue using some of the most convuluted logic immaginable. If you want to see “illogic in motion,” continue respopnding to her diatribe… it’s a hoot!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
[Throwing oil on the flames will only produce more CO2 – lets not have to keep you both in different rooms – Dee Norris]