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.
After Ted Kennedy publicly impugned the character of Judge Robert Bork, effectively denying him a position in the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Bork admitted that he made a mistake in not publicly responding to the false charges, thinking that they were so outrageous the public would recognize Kennedy as being over the top. But those character-assassinating words were picked up by others and repeated often enough to be taken as fact. A tactic of the left is their skill at using words to follow one of their mottos: “Words are used to shape reality, not report it.” Replace the first word of that motto with the word “Numbers” and you have the basis for computer-modeled climatology.
Greg House says:
December 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Really? OK, let us put aside the question, why you in fact indirectly call the skeptics, who are skeptical about the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” deniers. I just would like to know, what scientific reason you personally have to consider the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” to be a scientific fact. Let me guess: consensus? IPCC? What else?…..
___________________________________________
The little Ice Age and the historic record. Tony B. has been doing a lot of research on the subject. Records of snowfalls, frozen rivers, planting times, harvests, that sort of thing. The paper
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (see the linked pdf) goes into a lot of it.
Dr Joan Feynman did a really interesting bit of research using the historic record of the nile floods in Egypt and Aurora records from else where in the world. link More on The Oldest Records of the Nile Floods
Gail Combs says, December 19, 2012 at 5:41 pm: “The little Ice Age and the historic record. Tony B. has been doing a lot of research on the subject. Records of snowfalls, frozen rivers, planting times, harvests, that sort of thing.”
======================================================
Gail, even a cold winter is not an evidence for an “average cooling”. Because it can be compensated by a much warmer summer. Of course, it is a crazy idea to put summer and winter temperatures together, what “climate scientists” are doing, but it is much worse, if you can not stay logical even within this concept.
And what about Africa, Australia? Does not matter?
I am sorry, but such a fallacy of generalisation is not acceptable even at elementary school.
Or do you have calculations of “global temperatures” from the so called “little Ice Age”? No? I thought so.
How on Earth can you compare a “global temperature” with a “frozen river”? Unbelievable.
More attempts by Mosher to undermine WUWT. Will Mr. “B.A. in English Literature” please stop trying to tell Anthony what he can post to his website. Editorials are a nice break from pure science posts and add to the discussion here.
OT:
You can still be against the war and not be intellectually dishonest about the irrefutable fact that Saddam did have WMDs,
500+ Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says (U.S. Department of Defense, June 29, 2006)
Gail Combs said “If a world renown[ed] scientist like Dr. Jaworowski was treated in that way do you really think any of the lesser scientists would attempt to buck the system”?
Thanks, but I wasn’t really talking in my comment of scientists (particularly known contrarians) having difficulty obtaining funding for new research (which is a different topic in its own right, but rather a long way from “Labeling people Climate Change Deniers” as in this article); I was rather more talking of them just getting on with the day job properly – following the scientific method, objectively reporting results even contrary to hypothesis, sharing data and methods (particularly statistical methods) for others to scrutinise, etc, etc.
I’m getting to this post late. I’ve only skimmed the comments.
“Labels” are sometimes needed and properly used to identify a group or person’s position/viewpoint/opinion etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but even “purely scientific” context such verbal shorthand is used. A “label”, is a quick and easy identifier. When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.
The politcalization of the theory of greenhouse gases goes back at least as far as Wirth and Hansen.
42!
What did I win? What did I win??
There once was a fellow named Clyde
global warming he always denied
he said : “What’s-a-matta? When you look at the data,
the decline has no place to hide.”
Calling the very people who acknowledge continual climate change (natural) ‘climate change deniers’ is of a piece with the rest of the One Worlder/Warmist position: assert a blatant untruth loudly and repetitively to enforce acceptance. It one-ups the Goebbels tactic, graduating from the Big Lie to the Flood of Big Lies.
Jeff Alberts,
You win 54 quatloos!
“When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”
I should add that labels are used sometimes to misidentify a position.
Aww, I was hoping for an all expense paid trip to Magrathea.
Henry Galt says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Mark Bofill says:
December 19, 2012 at 10:27 am
🙂
It’s a wonderful evening (here already). We could listen to the crickets while we await izen’s no doubt comprehensive citations.
—————————————–
Come on Izen, there’s a crowd gathering for you.
If you can’t come up with twelve, why not shoot for three ??
.
One ??
Arfur Bryant says:
Only 12 days to go…
And if the current and recent temps in Russia, Ukraine and other parts of the NH actually get the proper balance in the “global average”, there should be quite a DROP in the global temperature for December. (temperatures don’t just happen in the US, y’know).
Jeff Alberts says:
42!
I bet that took some “Deep Thought” !
philincalifornia says:
Come on Izen, there’s a crowd gathering for you.
Seems he has taken leave….
.
.
.
.
of his senses.
Dr. Tim Ball: “Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, “
The satellite record shows basically a single step change at the 1998 El Nino.
Before that 1979-1998, the recorded is really pretty darn flat.
So, the question as to “if” there has been warming is down purely to that step change.
Unfortunately, because the land temps and the calcuation of global average land temperatures have been in the hands of the wrong people for so long, they are now TOTALLY UNTRUSTWORTHLY. (We have rabid warmist/alarmists in change of most record keeping and major calculations, not sensible). No one of rational mind could take any real credence in them. We know they have had any relationship to REALITY adjusted and manipulated amd homogenised into thin air.
So the question of how much warming,?? some, maybe, in little steps, …
..but I suspect that the real amount of warming would be FAR. FAR LESS than Hadcrud, Gush etc show.
[snip]
AndyG55 said “Before that 1979-1998, the recorded is really pretty darn flat.”
badly worded
I meant that the trend is basically flat in the satellite record from 1979-1998 before the ElNino.
And we know what happened to the “land temp”.. it got urbanised, homogenised, adjusted and Hansenised.
A lot of responses and questions after a nights sleep !
Too many to answser each in detail, but the demand to support my claim that the science exhibits
consilience is justified, and easy to do.
The history is described overall in Spencer Weart’s site. It provides a good overview, but lacks the
fine detail perhaps –
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
The weekly flow of research is also monitered at some sites, here is a typical example. I suspect
that some here are unfamiliar with the sheer weight of evidence that is published weekly in the
field.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/
But the responses reveal another problem with this essay. the division is not a neat binary split
between those that accept the qaccuracy of the AGW theory and those that reject it.
Both ‘sides’ divide into many factions. there is at least one ‘sky dragon’ here who thinks the 2LoT
refutes the GH effect. then there are those that hold that all the science is wrong or fraudulent
implying a level of hoax that would make faking the moon landings a mere bagattelle. I expect there
are some here that are closer to Lindzen and Spencer, they accept the basic science, but are holding
out for as yet undiscovered details that will ameleorate the severity of the projected effects of
AGW.
AndyG55 says:
December 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Yes, AndyG55, I agree. That’s why I felt comfortable challenging the prediction! However Steven Mosher tries to spin it, the official datasets are likely to demonstrate that, as Niels Bohr said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not in the US! 🙂
izen:
Thankyou for your post at December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am.
It confirms that you are not able to provide any evidence that AGW exists at a discernible degree.
We all knew that, but your confirmation of it is appreciated.
Richard
Arfurm ,
Much as I would like a bit more warming, to the benefit of the planet, I will also have much fun laughing at attempts of the AGW bletheren to justify the more probable cooling over the next several years, as the models and their CO2 forcing diverge even further from reality 🙂
izen says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am
the division is not a neat binary split
between those that accept the qaccuracy of the AGW theory and those that reject it.
Who is rejecting the theory? This is just another strawman, as is your idiotic “implying a level of hoax that would make faking the moon landings a mere bagattelle’.
Surely you can do better than that! Perhaps you didn’t get a good nights’ sleep?