Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball
A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.
People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.
The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately.
The IPCC hypothesis was untested. Professor Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that consensus was claimed before the research even began. The IPCC tried to prove the hypothesis, putting them in the untenable position of eliminating, ignoring, or manipulating anything that showed the hypothesis was wrong. They had to shoot the skeptics who were the messengers of the problems.
Evidence showing that the hypothesis was wrong continued to emerge. But the IPCC and the vast majority of mainstream media simply ignored it. IPCC projections were wrong because the hypothesis was wrong. That the skeptics were correct was verified as CO2 levels continued to rise, while temperatures leveled and declined. But instead of amending the science, as is proper science, alarmists simply changed the terminology. They stopped talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit for 2004 explained:
Asher Minns, Communication and Centre Manager at the Tyndall Centre: “In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
Bo Kjellén, former Chief Climate Negotiator, Sweden; senior research fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute: “I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labeling than global warming.”
Climate change was an ideal label because activist scientists could use it to explain any weather event; hotter, colder, wetter, drier, it was all climate change. The public would not know that such events are normal, so alarmists would have an endless supply of frightening examples. The public also does not know that climate change in general is normal. It has often occurred more quickly and with greater magnitude than most people are aware. Current conditions are well within normal.
Those who knew how much climate changes naturally were those previously called global warming skeptics. They now became climate change deniers with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The fallacy is that they were anything but deniers. Indeed, they spend their careers educating people about the amount of climate change that has and is occurring.
Next time you witness personal attacks on scientists, call the attacker to answer for this despicable tactic. Ask them to address the outstanding science questions only. A hand wave toward the IPCC in response is insufficient.
Soon, when someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers will come to see it as conclusive proof that the abuser knows nothing about climate or scientific method. Then, the attacker, not the scientist being attacked, will be shunned
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
izen says:
But this is circular reasoning when the inquiry is into whether the consensus got it wrong.
Scientist X makes an analysis and finds the consensus in error. Well he is obviously a crank / shill / contrarian / mistaken. Why? Because the consensus is very likely to be right. But what if it isn’t? Science is self correcting and consensus can be trusted. But here is scientist X trying to contribute to a correction…? No we ignore him because he is a crank. How do you know? Because he disagrees with the consensus.
You are basically saying that there is a point of no return in science where self-correction stops and thereafter all facts and errors are fixed forever. Even George Soros wrote a whole book about the problems for society when society forgets its own fallibility. Once you deny fallibility, you are open to any dogma and oppressive power structure. You can impose any oppression you like because it is for the greater good and this is never questioned. Apartheid lasted in the minds of whites because to the question, “the world has sanctions against you”, they simply replied, “the world doesn’t understand South Africa”.
Steven – it might have been more helpful to declare what porportion of the GW signal, you believe is anthropogenic in nature. Does that agree with the IPCC, James Hansen, and the Mann made warming conjecture. If not, then you are a heretic and are guilty of Climate denial, just like the rest of us.
Everyone accepts the IR properties of CO2, but some disagree that signal is of sufficent size to be detectable on the century scale or anything more than a technicality.
Just how much purple coolade have you drank. Hopefully not as much as Mr. Izen. GK
Whether one “believes” in a scientific theory or not is a question of philosophy. Belief has nothing to do with science.
Science has only one purpose. To predict. Many believe science exists to explain, but it doesn’t. Religion explains. Science doesn’t tell you why the sun shines, only the process by which it does shine. Religion tells you the sun shines because it was god’s will to separate the dark from the light.
When a dog chases a rabbit, they are both practicing science. The dog cannot head for the rabbit if it hopes to catch the rabbit. The rabbit will have moved by the time the dog arrives. Instead, the dog must predict where the rabbit will be when the dog arrives. This is science in action, though we may not at first recognize it for what it is.
At the same time, the rabbit is also practicing science. It is predicting what path will be the hardest for the dog to predict, and doing its best to follow an unpredictable path. And over thousands and millions of years, evolution has gotten rid of digs that could not predict the path of rabbits as well as rabbits that could not follow unpredictable paths.
Human science is simply a formalized extension of the example of the dog and the rabbit. We have found principles and methods that allow us to improve the accuracy of prediction and thereby gain survival advantage. However, at the point where science delivers unreliable predictions, is decreases our survival advantage.
This is the situation we are seeing in climate science. The predictions for the magnitude and direction of climate change have not proven reliable. Given that the predictions are not proving reliable, how likely is it the proposed remedies will be any more reliable?
The halt in warming with increased CO2 cannot be explained by current AGW theory – without a recogmition that natural variability is much greater than previously assumed. However, if natural variability is greater than assumed, then how can one be confident that what we have seen previously was not simply natural variability? The simple answer is that you cannot.
The evidence for AGW is weaker and weaker each year the halt in temperature rise continues. 15 years was the published limit by which AGW would be falsified. We are now past that limit.
Steven Mosher says:
December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Ball:
“attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
“This is driven by a political agenda, not science,”
Hmm. Looks like you are attacking their motives.
Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.
Steven, would you then say that “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain” IS more likely driven by science, rather than politics? For surely there is a motive for such ttacks, either way.
Referring to your “belief in AGW” reveals that you have taken some sort of a leap of faith to arrive there. Your politics would seem to inform your “belief” at least equally to an accumulation of scientific fact. And if your “belief” turns out to have been simply wrong, what is the opportunity cost of the hundreds of billions that have already chased your “belief”? Trillions upon trillions? Hopefully, not too late, Mankind will realize your “belief” may well be unaffordable.
Future generations may well find puzzled amusement in whatever rude shelter can be obtained with the telling of the tale of the goose that laid the golden egg, who was eventually killed because the golden egg was believed to cause the seas to rise or the sky to fall in the distant future.
No Mr Ball is correct. My belief in AGW is all based on politics. It’s us damn conservatives.
He is not unlike mann who tried to argue that skepticism was driven by Oil Shills.
Shame. I will tell you this. Reading the motives of people is something which climate audit
would not allow, especially in a top post. Steve Mc, understands that reading peoples hearts is not a ‘science’. But you all go believing that the science of reading peoples motives is settled.
Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.
izen:
At December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am you write
Yes! And the opposite is also true; i.e.
One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to THE ABSENCE OF AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
There is no evidence for discernible AGW; none, zilch, nada.
But there is much evidence which refutes the existence of discernible AGW; e.g
missing ‘hot spot’
missing ‘Trenberth heat’
lack of accelerated Antarctic warming,
missing ‘committed warming’
failure of all modeled AGW predictions
lack of warming for 16 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2
etc.
Richard
Dr. Ball, an interesting article which points out the failure of the basic premise: whilst CO2 levels have risen average temperatures have not. So there is no scientific reason for a tax on carbon in some form or another so obviously it is due to a political agenda. But politicians will never admit they are wrong, they just change the subject, global warming to climate change etc.
Izen:
You have forgotten or neglected the benefits of CO2 which may outweigh the costs by an order of magnitude.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
==========
Actually, you are ignoring the most basic of scientific principles. That no amount of evidence “proves” a theory correct, because you can always find positive examples of anything you wish to prove. No matter how many tall, red-headed men I find, it doesn’t prove red hair makes men tall.
On the other hand, one short red-headed man proves that red hair does not make men tall. This is the case will all scientific theories. They exist because you cannot find a single contrary example.
In the case of AGW however, there are contrary examples. The current lack of temperature rise being only one of many. Under the principles of science, it is these contrary examples that hold sway, regardless of how many positive examples one might find.
The problem is that many people lack fundamental scientific training and don’t understand this principle. The founding principles of science have been largely undermined by the principles of “political correctness”. It has become socially unacceptable for science to make public finding that are not “politically correct”.
Truth has become subordinate to politics. It has become socially acceptable to publish a lie so long as you do so for “a good reason”. Thus, facts are suppressed and science suffers because there is no way to determine what is truth and what is “a good cause”.
Steven Mosher:
With respect, you misunderstand the political issue because you are conflating it with the American situation.
Only in the US are views on AGW divided on a left-right basis and (as you say) that division is not exact there. Elsewhere, people of all political persuasions are found on both ‘sides’ of the issue so, for example, I am a left-wing socialist who is absolutely certain that the AGW-scare is dangerous bunkum.
However, continuance of the AGW-scare as promoted by the IPCC is completely political.
The IPCC was established to promote the AGW-scare (as its charter says). And a scientific issue would not plough-on like AGW if it was refuted by much empirical evidence and supported by none (as is the case for AGW).
Richard
{ richardscourtney says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:18 am }
LOL-Good tongue in cheek.
What makes you think Mann didn’t know perfectly well what he was doing? “Censored” folder ring any bells?
Religion doesn’t “explain”, it proclaims, without facts. Your last sentence is a perfect example of that. There is no explanation there, just a proclamation.
@Steven Mosher
“Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.” (Steven Mosher Dec 19 2012)
Was it your falsification that led to this prediction, Steven?
“By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.” (Steven Mosher, July 6 2012)
Only 12 days to go…
@- Mark Bofill
“Mixing an appeal to authority with an appeal to popularity doesn’t make either of them any less a logical fallacy. Why waste your time (not to mention the blogreaders time) with this?”
Pointing out the consilience of the evidence is neither an appeal to authority or popularity. It is the objective measurable evidence that I am pointing out is overwhelmingly supporting AGW. It is an attempt to remind posters here that there is over a century of scientific endeavour behind AGW which, despite monthly claims on this website to the contrary, has NOT been refuted by any credible contradictory findings.
I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
Wrong.
During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.
The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordance with the CO2 effect as is shown by this well known skeptic –
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/
To Steven Mosher and other CAGW alarmists –
To date, there has been no proof of man’s influence on the climate through CO2 emissions. In fact, there has been no global warming for over a decade. So it is pretty safe to say the CAGW theories have been falsified, and should be rejected. Many of the advocates of CAGW have been shown to be hypocrites, charlatans, cheats and frauds. They have cost society hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Yet the hoax goes on. So Mr. Mosher and friends, as far as I am concerned, there are no words harsh enough for the CAGW advocates. If you choose to side with the likes of Mann, Gore, Hansen and friends, you’ll be painted with the same brush strokes.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
I wouldn’t call John Nielsen-Gammon a skeptic… More of lukewarmer…
Will Nitschke says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm
An even more applicable term would be “dissident”, since what we are opposing is religious belief rather than scientific rationale.
dis·si·dent adjective \-dənt\
: disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief
So regardless of what else you might be politically or theologically, if you disagree with the Anthropogenic component in AGW, you are an Anthropogenic Global Warming dissident.
Another term you might call yourself is simply “scientist”, for if the AGW crowd can’t show, demonstrate, or identify their supposed anthropogenic component in global warming and yet they continue to run with that meme in a blind, irresponsible manner, they are obviously not scientists.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 3:42 am
“Many scientists since the 1890 have said that warming is produced by rising CO2. This understanding is based on the physical properties of CO2 and basic thermodynamics, NOT a political agenda.
Historically it has been shown that it is the warming that forces an increase in CO2, not the other way around.
FAO richardscourtney
‘OK. I understand that. You are saying the ‘D’ word should be applied to you.’ it doesn’t compute. Because I go with the accepted science. But ‘frankly I don’t give a damn’, what you call me! I’ve been called a lot worse for upholding to the AGW theory! ‘but we climate realists [?] do not use such offensive language’ if you think that is offensive, then you are too sensitive and perhaps gone too far down the PC path!
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
If you are not appealing to popularity or authority, then you need to particularize. ~shrug~
Specifically, what measurable evidence do you refer to, ‘that you are pointing Further, it is not clear how this relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.out overwhelmingly supports AGW and that has not been refuted by any credible contradictory findings?’ If you don’t give specifics, you can’t reasonably expect to persuade anyone, unless you are hoping that readers will fall victim to the logical fallacies I referred to above.
Further, it is not clear how the rest of your post relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.
See, when you state:
‘I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompat ible with rising CO2.
Wrong.
During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is ST ILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events .
The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordanc e with the CO2 effect as is ..’
You are not supporting your assertion that the weight of the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and that it has not been refuted by any credible contradictory finding s. By failing to specifically address this digression (some here), it’s unclear to what post/s you are referring where you say ‘some here are claiming’.
It appears to me that you are stitching together two completely separate arguments without segue. Pardon me for suggesting it, but this has a ‘cut and paste’ feel to it…
Here – let me help you out. Come back and answer me with a post summarizing some dozen pieces of solid evidence from this overwhelming stockpile you mention, that cannot credibly be refuted and that demonstrate the validity of AGW, and if your summary is indeed irrefutable, I will cheerfully concede my error and thank you for helping to correct it. Perhaps in the process you will persuade others that AGW is valid. Everyone’s time would be better spent that way.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
“I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
Wrong.
During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.”
Izen, you sound like you believe the sun influences the climate. Careful there, your fellows might think you’re switching sides.
Now, what with the evidence for the “measured energy imbalance in the downwelling and outgoing LWIR.”. I’m really interested in your source.
oops – mangled up my response. Sorry about that.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
….
If you are not appealing to popularity or authority, then you need to particularize. ~shrug~
Specifically, what measurable evidence do you refer to, ‘that you are pointing out overwhelmingly supports AGW and that has not been refuted by any credible contradictory findings?’ If you don’t give specifics, you can’t reasonably expect to persuade anyone, unless you are hoping that readers will fall victim to the logical fallacies I referred to above.
Further, it is not clear how the rest of your post relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.
See, when you state:
‘I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompat ible with rising CO2.
Wrong.
During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is ST ILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events .
The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordanc e with the CO2 effect as is ..’
You are not supporting your assertion that the weight of the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and that it has not been refuted by any credible contradictory finding s. By failing to specifically address this digression (some here), it’s unclear to what post/s you are referring where you say ‘some here are claiming’.
It appears to me that you are stitching together two completely separate arguments without segue. Pardon me for suggesting it, but this has a ‘cut and paste’ feel to it…
Here – let me help you out. Come back and answer me with a post summarizing some dozen pieces of solid evidence from this overwhelming stockpile you mention, that cannot credibly be refuted and that demonstrate the validity of AGW, and if your summary is indeed irrefutable, I will cheerfully concede my error and thank you for helping to correct it. Perhaps in the process you will persuade others that AGW is valid. Everyone’s time would be better spent that way.
Brian says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm
C’mon… Maybe you guys had reasons to complain before, but you guys throw everything and the kitchen sink at your rivals now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People are DYING because of this idiocy.
You expect us to be very polite and continue imitating a rug while CAGW activists say:
And if you think that is an idle threat you are nuts.
Be darn glad that skeptics are a heck of a lot more civilized that the run-of-the-mill eco-freak activist.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
The scribbling of a troll.
“One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.”
Cite a single piece of said evidence. You know the one. The one that “… points conclusively to AGW …”. Not evidence of warming – of which there appears to be an endless supply. Not model output.
Empirical evidence pointing to the Anthropogenic component of Global Warming toward the end of the 20th century.
Just one. It should be very easy for you.