AGW theorists are being misled by the principle of exclusion
Story submitted by Paul Macrae
In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.
The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform to build upon.
However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didn’t satisfy Darwin; he thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”
Darwin also argued, in 1839, that curious geological formations—what appeared to be parallel tracks—in the Glen Roy valley of Scotland were the result of an uplifted sea bed.
Darwin didn’t have any actual physical evidence to support these two hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theory—if X, then logically Y must be so—as opposed to induction, which builds a theory out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”[1]
As it turned out, Darwin was wrong on both hypotheses. Later physical evidence showed that Lyell’s volcano theory was closer to the mark, and the Glen Roy tracks were caused by glaciers, which were still a mystery in Darwin’s time.
Darwin later wrote of his Glen Roy hypothesis: “Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”[2]
While Darwin rejected the principle of exclusion, at least as a primary scientific tool, alarmist climate science has not. Instead, the principle of exclusion is one of the most-cited arguments to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis.
For example, in a 2010 interview with the BBC on the Climategate scandal, Climate Research Unit (CRU) head Phil Jones was asked: “What factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?” Jones’s reply: “The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.” In other words, Jones is using the principle of exclusion: while he and his colleagues can’t prove that human activities are causing warming, they can’t find any other explanation.
Canada’s Andrew Weaver also relies on the principle of exclusion when he writes, in his 2008 book Keeping Our Cool: “There is no known natural climate mechanism to explain the warming over the 20th century. And that is one of the many pieces suggesting that a substantial portion of the warming of the 20th century is associated with greenhouse gases.”[3]
Similarly, the IPCC’s 2007 report notes: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” The IPCC has no empirical proof that human carbon emissions are the main cause of planetary warming; the “proof” is that the scientists can’t find another explanation, i.e., the principle of exclusion.
It’s not unreasonable to claim that human activities are the main cause of global warming. If carbon emissions and temperatures increase at the same time, it’s possible they are connected although, of course, correlation does not equal causation. And many scientific theories are based on the principle of exclusion, including much of Darwin’s theory of evolution itself.
Where alarmists like Jones, Weaver and the IPCC betray the accepted principles of science is in claiming that a possible causal connection between human carbon emissions and temperatures is settled, certain, and, as Weaver puts it in his book, beyond debate (he writes: “there is no such debate [about the certainty of the AGW hypothesis] in the atmospheric or climate scientific community” (p. 22)).
Even worse, these scientists call anyone who dares to challenge their hypothesis a “denier,” deluded, a fraud, bought-off by the oil industry, or worse. One cannot imagine Darwin, a modest scientist, making similar claims of certainty for his two hypotheses, or throwing slurs at anyone who didn’t accept them.
Yet there may well be other explanations for a warming earth that we still don’t know about or enough about—the cosmic ray theory seems like a good contender, as do fluctuations in solar intensity and cyclical ocean temperatures: given the complexity of climate, there are many possible causes for a temperature rise (or fall).
But, then, the deductive rather than empirical (inductive) nature of alarmist climate science was stated clearly by climatologist Chris Folland two decades ago: “The data don’t matter… We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”[4]
And so, alarmist climate scientists find themselves under siege by skeptics and increasingly distrusted by the public because they blindly accept the principle of exclusion, in the face of considerable empirical facts that don’t fit the AGW hypothesis. For example, for more than a decade, the earth has not warmed as the AGW hypothesis predicts. Nor are the oceans warming as the hypothesis predicts. Yet, when skeptics point out the problems, alarmists cannot admit they have made a mistake because then the whole alarmist edifice (and the juicy research grants that go with it) would collapse.
Darwin himself battled the principle of exclusion in proposing the theory of natural selection. Up to Darwin’s time, no one could think of any other way to explain the creation of species than by an all-powerful god. This led scientists and clerics into all sorts of logical absurdities, such as claims that the earth was mere thousands of years old or that God had put fossils into the earth to test scientists’ faith. However, in the mid-1800s, there was no better explanation to hand.
Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace) supplied a better, more scientific explanation: nature itself, acting over eons of time, was the creator of species, an hypothesis so simple and so logical that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s main promoter, declared: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.”
The AGW hypothesis may well prove to be correct. However, the simplest and most logical explanation for climate change, in the past, now, and in the future, is natural variation. If so, then the AGW hypothesis, based on the treacherous principle of exclusion, will go the way of Darwin’s two hypotheses on the Glen Roy tracks and the creation of coral atolls.
And so, while alarmist climate scientists are quite within their rights to propose the AGW hypothesis, they should also be cautious: AGW is an hypothesis. It has not reached the status of a scientific theory (it has not passed enough scientific tests for that), nor is it a scientific fact, as the public is told. Instead, alarmist climate scientists have thrown the proper scientific caution to the winds to make claims that aren’t supported by the evidence, and to smear those who point out the possible errors in their hypothesis.
To repeat Darwin’s words: “My error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.” This caution is especially true when climate-science errors could lead to anti-carbon policies that will cost billions of dollars and destroy millions of livelihoods, while having no effect upon the climate because humans are only a small part of a much larger picture.
Darwin gave good advice: beware the principle of exclusion. It’s a pity that today’s alarmist climate scientists are unwilling to heed that advice.
[1] Darwin’s thought process is described in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962 (1959), pp. 99-106.
[2] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, I, London, 1887, p. 69. Quoted in Himmelfarb, p. 106.
[3] Andrew Weaver, Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World. Toronto: Viking, 2008, p. 59.
[4] Quoted in Patrick J. Michaels, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. Washington: Cato Institute, 1992, p. 83.
Paul MacRae is the author of False Alarm: Global Warming—Facts Versus Fears, and publishes the blog False Alarm at paulmacrae.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RB says:
June 8, 2011 at 2:35 am
Excellent comments on a fine article. I am fast approaching the conclusion that the climate modelling community is committed to creating a “Gaia Model” and that this commitment is what drives their intellectual concerns, though not their policy concerns. The fierceness with which they resist any and all discussion on the basis of science or scientific method points toward a non-scientific goal, a metaphysical goal. Such a commitment would explain their lack of interest in evidence and in the natural world generally. It would also explain their clumsiness as scientists; that is, if you cannot address any empirical matter until you have completed a model of The Whole, Gaia, then you will disengage from science or produce very sloppy science in the meantime.
Let us get real.
Admitting one’s ignorance does not
a) contribute to academic advancement;
b) obtain grant money;
c) receive press coverage;
d) win admittance to the UN Councils;
e) add your own here.
Providing a false claim does all of these wonderful things.
The honest truth is that we do not know what a global temperature is. We do not have a standard for taking such a temperature; the connection between minimax and average temperature is not well-established; the baseline for the stability of current sensing devices has not been established; temperature sites have either been altered by urbanization or moved to reduce urbanization effects; I could go on.
The honest truth is that we do not know what the carbon dioxide budget is. How much enters the ocean? How much escapes the ocean? What is the relation between these and the boundary air/water conditions?
Our ignorance is all but total. The actual study of these questions is just beginning.
Creating social policy based upon ignorance is folly.
And folly is where we are now.
Great post. I think this idea of allowing outsiders to submit posts is a great idea. Very good articles have come out of this. Thanks.
Tucci78 says:
June 8, 2011 at 12:58 am
“Couple the principle of exclusion with the precautionary principle and there are real troubles in the offing.”
As a decision matrix, the Precautionary Principle is equivalent to Pascal’s Wager, as are all choices that can be represented by a matrix containing “infinite” (indefinitely large) negative consequences. Given this fact about the Precautionary Principle, a rationally consistent Lisa Jackson, EPA Head, would be proposing a tax on Americans who do not attend church on Sunday morning.
To me the real fallacy is the belief that the globe is warming at all. Just outside of my front door I can see the edge of one and a third billion cubic kilometers of sea water. No one has yet been able to convince me that the average temperature of that body of water has warmed over the last century by 0.000001 degrees. My local weather varies, fairly moderately in this coastal location, in accordance with variations in air and ocean variations. There has been no weather event locally over the past forty years which cannot be attributed directly to these natural variations. Any competent weather man could today predict the temperature for this location fifty years hence and be confident that he will be accurate within a couple of degrees. Of course someone would have to inform him first in some detail as to what air currents and ocean cycles are going to be doing on that day! He would not, however, need any information as to what CO2 levels in the atmosphere will be in the future.
And yet the principle of exclusion is alive and well in many areas of science. The theory of evolution, itself, is a shining example. There is no empirical evidence of the transformation of one species into another, however, it is universally accepted that we evolved from one-celled life. Why? Because “science” has no alternate explanation. Deductive logic, anyone?
Which leads me to define Climatology as that frustrated rump of Meteorology that stinks locally, therefore emotes globally.
Such tunnel vision it is for Jones to blame CO2 for one stumbled upswing, while leaving the very similar one that preceded it unexplained:
http://oi45.tinypic.com/5obajo.jpg
Starwatcher says:
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 am
To be blunt; Alot more of us that know a little about this topic but not enough to evaluate high level discussion independently would be more understanding of the skeptical side if obvious charlatans, some of which that have multiple appearances on this very site, didn’t get such uncritical applause from what seems to be a plurality of skeptics. There is no excuse for holding people such as Christopher Monckton in high esteem.
“What you say Willis?”
Good post, well argued.
Maurice Garoutte says:
June 8, 2011 at 1:33 am
I think this is a good point. However, when I tell people that tornados and floods are no more proof of Climate Change than they are of Leprechauns they tend to think I’m just nuts. What else could explain believing in such unlikely things?
Using the AGW/IPCC/Wet Office/Advocate appeal to authority one can prove anything, as I have written elsewhere on this post before, i.e. out of 100 people, you ask who believes in leprechauns, & 95 people put their hands up. You then ask who doesn’t, or has doubts or is not sure, & the remaining 5 people raise their hands, job done. Leprechauns exist by majority vote!
Also as I have so boringly written before, the Sun apparently contains 99.9% of a the mass of the solar system, the Earth barely a few hundreths of that mass. To say a 1/10th of 1% change in TSI in the cycle of the Blue Whale couldn’t have an effect on the minnow seems arrogant to me, especially when many suspect TSI is not the whole story, as Extreme UV varies by between 6-10% over a Solar Cycle, then it seems a good candidate to me, & many others too boot! We know for a fact that space weather is caused by Solar activity. We know that volatile activity on the Sun can cause power outages, satellite failure, communications failures, etc. We know that the Sun & Moon affect the tides around the world. There is even evidence that volcanic & earthquake activity are linked to such activity, or the lack of it. However, they hell bent on thinking outside the box they haven’t bothered to simply look inot it instead! The Icecaps on Mars are receding, other planets in the Solar System are warming, but no, it’s not the Sun! Jeez.
@Starwatcher
That the IPCC took 1000 pages is beyond doubt. That within those 1000 pages it made it’s case is demonstratebly false.
If I remember correctly, Sherlock Holmes ascribed to God the beauty, the fragrance, and the perfection of a rose, since, in his opinion, these qualities of flowers had no thinkable purpose.
Thus, he (Conan Doyle) applied the principle of exclusion. And how wrong he was!
Excellent essay in both concept and execution. Moderate in tone. Highlights one of the most major faults of the pro-AGW argument. This easily-understood logical fault alone should give pause to all the cost-ineffective “mitigation” measures pushed by governments — at least, if they are sincere (not mere unscrupulous attempts to gain unearned power and money).
How stupid not to have written that myself.
“The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”[1]. ……To repeat Darwin’s words: “My error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.” ”
The Bard knew……..
Act 1: Hamlet:
“And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Elegantly written and argued, Anthony. You missed your true calling.
Starwatcher says:
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 am
“There is no excuse for holding people such as Christopher Monckton in high esteem.”
I personally do not require an excuse to admire Christopher Monkton, The man is an accomplished orator and debater, and has the balls to take on the CAGW establishment for no rewards beyond abuse from people like yourself. Certainly, Monkton has made some mistakes, he has his peccadilloes, but who amongst us has perfect knowledge of all areas of climate science. But for the most part, he gets it right.
What is a “travesty” is to put Monkton in the same category as Al Gore. Gore will not debate, will not field skeptical questions, leads an indulgent life while dictating that the hoi polloi make sacrifice to Gaia and has made a pile of money off CAGW to boot. Why don’t you just say that you loathe Christopher Monkton and be done with it?
I have been arguing this point for many years, citing that the rationale of the warmists was no more valid than the ancients blaming the displeasure of the god’s for bad weather. The ancients did not know any other explanation, so the gods must have been responsible…right?
What I did not know was that this type of argumentation has a name: The principle of exclusion, and that it has long been identified and put in its place. Thank you for the edification and the ammo!
A good follow-up post might be an expose of the precautionary principle which customarily is invoked after the postulation of the exclusionary principle.
If the exclusionary principle is arguing from ignorance, than the precautionary principle is arguing from fear engendered by ignorance.
Since we cannot find a reason for the increase in temperature, it must be caused by witchcraft. During the Little Ice Age many hundreds of people were burned as witches for causing the poor weather and crop failures.
Now today, the entire planets economic future is to be put to the stake, again on the suspicion that we are causing the climate to change. Not by the sin of witchcraft, but by the sin of industrialization.
Google: The little Ice Age: how climate made history 1300-1850. Brian Fagen page 91.
You’re destroying a long cherished belief of my own. Namely, the Holmsian saying that “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” A direct application of the principle of exclusion.
There are two types of exclusion
1) the type when you honestly know of no other or cannot imagine other possible mechanisms or combination of mechanisms that may explain an observation.
2) the type where your objective is attained by consciously ignoring other possible mechanisms or combination of mechanisms because it is convenient for you.
What they are really doing is applying the principle of exclusion to fake warming. You can pretty much explain the early twentieth century warming, from 1910 to 1940, by invoking solar influences but you can’t do that with the late twentieth century warming, so that warming must be anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Which is complete bull. That warming is anthropogenic all right but criminal, not gaseous. Satellites observing global temperature since 1979 simply cannot see it. What they do see is a temperature oscillation in the eighties and nineties, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino of 1998 arrives. But when you look at NASA, NOAA, and Met Office temperature curves they feature a steady rise of temperature during these years. Which is correct? To find out, compare the curves. Looking at these three curves you wonder what happened to the oscillations that satellites show. They do exist in two of these curves but you have to use the same high resolution as the satellite data to see them. Then you find that the oscillations have been monkied with. The peaks of this temperature oscillation, and there are five in twenty years, correspond to warm El Nino years. They have all been retained. But what is different is that the valleys between the peaks, the cool La Nina years, have all been lifted up and made shallow. And this has the effect of giving the entire curve an upward slope. I know of no natural process that can selectively and raise the temperature at the precise location of these valleys without changing the peaks too. If you want to see this graphically take a look at my figure 24 in “What Warming?” which compares HadCRUT3 from the Met Office with the satellite curve. It is pretty obvious that they simply reduced the valley depth to half and thereby created a rising curve. NASA GISS did the same but NOAA could not even be bothered and simply eliminated the valleys. This is a long-term, coordinated deception and not a rogue action by a few zealots. It had to start in the late seventies because prior to that there was no warming for thirty years. Its beginning coincides in time with Hansen joining GISS in 1978. His first assignment at his new job was to create an improved method for recording global temperature change, which he did according to GISS. The manipulation of temperature curves started about the same time and requires complicity by three organizations, one of them CRU of East Anglia University. It is a colossal fraud besides which the Climategate scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. But Climategate gives us clues. You will recall Phil Jones stating that they threw away the original temperature records and only kept the “value added” data set. The global warming movement that exists today got a kick start when Hansen testified that warming had started in 1988. The warming he testified about then was a fake warming but it still is present on official temperature curves. This is an international conspiracy to fake global warming, active over a long period of time, and should be investigated.
@SkyWatcher Name one fact that Christopher Monckton has said that is factually untrue. I can name many that Al Gore has said that are untrue. We can start with his implying that the ice core data shows that CO2 rises before temperature when in fact it is the other way around.
I will however agree with you on one point you made, “I banged my head against it for a while and still don’t get alot (sic) of it.” You got that right, you still don’t get a lot of it. Come back here for a real conversation when you understand a bit about what you are talking about. Quite frankly it really isn’t that hard. The fact that you find it so hard says more about you than it does about atmospheric science.
AGW should have gone the way of the dodo bird when it was discovered that CO2 lagged temperature. If CO2 causes warming, then there must be a signature in the paleo records that shows this. Over time CO2 will go up and down for reasons of chance, unconnected to temperature. If CO2 causes warming, then the signature will be there in the paleo records. The fact that this signature has not been found, only the reverse signature, that warming causes CO2, should have been sufficient to throw serious doubt on the AGW hypothesis.
The simple fact that Climate Science and the IPCC did not stand up and announce that there were serious problems with the AGW hypothesis when the lag between CO2 and temperature was discovered if strong evidence that Climate Science is not opperating in accordance with accepted scientific principles. The use of terms such as “the science is setled” and “incontrovertible evidence” are not used in any other branch of science except Climate Science.
As such, Climate Science is not engaged in Science – which is the quest for knowledge. Climate Science is engaged in politics, advertising, and promotion – advocacy of a particular point of view to the economic advantage of one group over another. It is a gravy train to benefit the few at the expense of the many. It is Robin Hood in reverse. Taking from the poor to give to the rich, dressed in the garb of science.
No other branch of science includes the word “science” in its name. You can be sure a country is not democratic when it includes “democratic” in its name. You can be sure a “science” is not science when it includes “science” in its name. Climate Science is as much a science as The People’s Democratic republic is a democracy.