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
Poptech says:
December 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm
….You seem to be unfamiliar with the sheer weight of peer-reviewed evidence supporting skeptic arguments,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me extend to you a heartfelt thanks for all the work you have done compiling that list and defending it against the slurs and arrows.
Poptech says:
Dan in Nevada says:
Poptech, I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you when it’s obviously important to you to believe that Saddam was a genuine threat to the United States. Who knows, maybe you’re right, although it would seem the powers-that-be would have been trumpeting this to justify the money and lives lost. I stand by everything I said, but it’s too tiring to argue the point.
-Dan
Gail, you are welcome.
Dan, I made no claim regarding his threat status to the US, rather my problem is specifically when it is claimed he did not have WMDs when he clearly did.
Gunga Din, PopTech, Roger Knights,
All I’m saying is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to say CAGW advocates arguments are nullified by their use of perjoratives, then we should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Merry Christmas one and all.
Out here.
izen said @ur momisugly December 20, 2012 at 8:28 am
At http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/tobacco.gif you will find a chart showing the curves for tobacco consumption and lung cancer rates in the population. Clearly, from the chart it’s possible to predict the rate of lung cancer from the rate of petrol usage by that population. It is also clearly impossible to predict the lung cancer rate from the rate of tobacco consumption. Elsewhere in Athol Robinson’t book Driving into Danger he demonstrated that the curve for ischaemic heart disease is almost identical to that for lung cancer.
See also:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030698779190263X
izen. Although surprised by your bothering to return 😉
I am not surprised by your counters.
There is no there, there. You are not even wrong. Etc.
The evidence we all need is missing. Utterly missing. As I have said before, the very first piece of evidence showing that mankind’s addition to the carbon budget of planet Earth caused the slight, benign warming at the end of the 20th century will become the most cited piece of science in the history of, well, science itself.
It does not yet exist. Claiming that it does does you no favors.
The only field where all agree is full of sheep.
Poptech says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Gail, you are welcome.
Dan, I made no claim regarding his threat status to the US, rather my problem is specifically when it is claimed he did not have WMDs when he clearly did.
_____________________________________–
For what it is worth, I often entertain at birthday parties for the children of soldiers at Fort Brag. A friend who was Blk Ops mentioned the WMDs were moved across the border to Syria.
Let’s face it the USA was not exactly silent about what they were [planning].
Was he telling the truth? Don’t know.
Here is a photo of Iraqi trucks hauling WMD’s to Syria in early 2003. [Sorry, I don’t remember where I got it, but that’s what it was said to be showing].
Given what’s going on in Syria right now, if true and the WMDs are still intact, this creates quite a conundrum for the current administration, no ? Could this be why Hillary’s looking so aged all of a sudden (although I’m guessing that there’s probably a medical reason too)?
Whatever, I do wish her well, while wondering how her “dumb as a box of rocks” successor is going to handle it.
Are you kidding? The majority of posting on this blog falls prey to the exact thing you complain of. Have you read half of the stuff here? It personally attacks working climate scientists over and over again. This is the definition of hypocrisy.
Dwayne Kellum,
Your content-free comment is nothing but an appeal to a largely corrupt authority. “Working climate scientists” — by which you obviously mean the climate alarmist, “carbon” demonizing crowd — are the true hypocrites. They hide out from any debate, they hide their data, their metadata, their proxies, and their methodologies, and they actively block honest skeptics from peer reviewed publications and funding [haven’t you ever read the Climate gate emails??? It’s all there]. They squeal and cry like spoiled children whenever someone disagrees with them. If Michael Mann had to delete all the pejoratives from his comments, his articles would be about one paragraph long.
You really do have some despicable HE-ROES. Run along now back to your thinly trafficked echo chamber blog. You need some new talking points.
Dwayne Kellum says:
December 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Are you kidding? The majority of posting on this blog falls prey to the exact thing you complain of. Have you read half of the stuff here? It personally attacks working climate scientists over and over again.
No (successful) climate scientist has been criticized at any time in the writing in the thread.
The unsuccessful, hypocritical, lying, and money-wasting so-called “scientists” who ARE wasting our time and money have, however, been criticized……
What are you talking about? WUWT has never attacked Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Christy, Dr. Michaels or Dr. Spencer.
and I rest my case.