We’ve seen the “If 99 doctors said…” argument, or facsimiles, used often by global warming enthusiasts in recent months. George Clooney used it when interviewed at the Britannia Awards. (See the Open Letter to Lewis Black and George Clooney.) James Cameron used it in the trailer for the upcoming ShowTime series “Years of Living Dangerously”. (Refer to the open letter to Mr. Cameron and the other executive producers of that show.) And on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart included a clip of Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress using it (See the Open Letter to Jon Stewart.)
I responded to those arguments and discussed many other topics in the posts linked above, with links to more-detailed explanations and examples…and, of course, with links to my ebooks.
The following is something I wrote for my upcoming book with the working title The Oceans Ate My Global Warming (or another possible title CO2 is Not a Control Knob). I thought you might use for it when you see the “If 99 doctors said…” argument again.
# # #
Imagine you’re running a persistent slight fever. You visit a new clinic. The nurse takes your vitals and enters them into a computer program. A short time after the computer model completes its simulations, the doctor arrives, advises you of the computer-diagnosed ailment, and prescribes controversial high-cost medications and treatment.
You’re not comfortable with the service, diagnosis, prescription or treatment, so you check out online the computer model used by the clinic. It is proclaimed to be wonderful by its programmers. But, the more you research, the more you discover the model’s defects. It can’t simulate circulation, respiration, digestion, and other basic bodily functions. There are numerous research papers exposing the flaws in the model, but they are hard to find because of all of the other papers written by the model programmers extolling its virtues.
Of course, you would not accept the computer-based medical diagnosis from a model that cannot simulate basic bodily functions and processes. But that’s the position we’re faced with climate science.
We need a second opinion for the slight warming the Earth had experienced. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be coming anytime soon, not until there are changes to the political agendas that drive climate science funding.
# # #
Enjoy your Super Bowl Sunday…for those celebrating. For everyone else, enjoy your day.
After the doctor inputs all of the measured data on your health, the model spits out a diagnosis. But the doctor soon discovers that no matter what the symptoms of the patient, his wonderful computer program still spits out the same diagnosis.
Then the wise doctor inputs parameters for a perfectly healthy individual, and the computer models still spit out the same diagnosis.
What’s a doctor to do?
Gareth Phillips says…..
“…the overwhelming body of evidence points in one direction…”
And so you decided to march in the other direction. Classic!
On this page there is an ad for Roy W. Spencers “Blunder ….. ” It contains a medical analogy on diet that I think is much like your 99 doctors question. Clearly explained connection of what the scientific method is and how the IPCC science speculations are stupid beyond belief is more effective in winning arguments. IMHO.
Do you agree that observations should suffice? Do we have to have peer reviewed observations? I am referring to the IPCC surface temperature projections compared to observations and the 16+ years of surface temperature standstill. Imagine 99 climate scientists saying temps will rise in the next 16 years and they did not?
Anyway here are some of the observations and peer review by those very same climate scientists.
99 doctors from a big drug company told me I urgently needed to take their new medication. One independent doctor told me they must be having a laugh. I know what i would do. CAGW scientists are the pharma industry doctors.
One funeral at a Time . . .
99 doctors of dreer in the ranks
99 doctors of dreer
If one of those doctors should happen to tank
98 doctors of dreer
The doctors analogy is pretty silly when you think about it.
The patient in this case is healthy as a horse and never asked for medical intervention. In fact, feeding the atmosphere CO2, an indisputable nutrient for plants and life would only contribute to the patients health.
Try this one:
If most of the doctors grabbed a robust and rapidly growing teenager and insisted that his parents need to severely cut back on his protein consumption because protein is poison to the human body, then we have a proper analogy.
IOW, the dog would be 75% blue?
Gareth, do you have the peer reviewed evidence that shows that the steepish rise in global surface temperature since the mid 1970s was mostly caused by man’s greenhouse gases?
Also can you provide me with an explanation (no peer review necessary here) as to the cause[s] of the steepish global surface temperature rise between 1910 to 1940?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
What about the other 661,301?
There are 661, 400 physicians and surgeons in the United States in 2008. This is according to the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-doctors-in-usa/
If 99 doctors said that Seattle will win the Superbowl, would you bet the ranch on it? 99 statisticians? 99 sportscasters?
Reminds me of the commercials in an Abott and Costello Radio Rerun Tape of “Who’s on FIrst”… one ad goes “More doctors smoke Camel than any other brand”…
eventually they got just as ill (lung disease,etc.) as the non-doctors, and the advert’s hypothesis (if there indeed was one, other than make more money) was falsified….
@Daffy Duck – I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy….good that that procedure is a thing of the past (whether or not “Frances” was true)…
Gareth Phillips:
I write to respectfully request a clarification.
You begin your post at February 2, 2014 at 5:41 am saying you are
Please explain what you mean by “the consensus of climate science”.
Several people have assumed your meaning, but such assumptions are likely wrong because the only “consensus of climate science” of which I am aware is that ‘Regions of the Earth have climates’.
At present your meaning is very unclear and I would appreciate a clarification.
Richard
Speaking as a physician, citing the majority of doctors’ beliefs about much of anything can be an exercise in worthlessness. . .
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hematology-oncology/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved
The great fear of the climate scientists is that they were wrong. They know full well what the implications of observations means and it is causing a blind panic. They are running around like headless chickens to explain the lack of warming and it’s fun to watch.
“when you hear hoof beats, you look for horses, not zebras.”
In this case the alarmists are looking for the zebras. (along with unicorns, garden fairies and leprechauns.)
What if 99 out of 100 doctors told you that you had a fatal disease that would have very mild symptoms for 10 years then suddenly kill you. The treatments they proposed are very painful and expensive. They want to put you on a daily regimen of very expensive drugs (snake oil), which makes you violently sick shortly after you take it, but is habit forming and causes hallucinations. On researching the issue you discover that almost all 99 of those doctors have a financial interest in the makers of the drug they want to prescribe for your treatment and you discover that they spend most of their time on the seminar circuit pitching that drug and the rest of their time defending against numerous malpractice lawsuits most of which are quietly settled out of court by them making large payouts from the drug maker.
Would you still submit to their diagnosis without asking any questions or would you have a long talk with the 1 doctor that says you are just fine and the symptoms you are having are caused by the drugs the 99 doctors have been giving you for your supposed illness.
You missed the two most important points:
— Spectrum of expertise: Both a pilot and a chemist have a high degree of expertise: If they (99%) said “don’t mix those two chemicals” or “don’t move the flight controls like that” then you definetly shouldn’t do it. But, if a PhD stock analyst said “you should buy these investments” or a veteran political analyst said “you should run on these campaign points” you wouldn’t be crazy to go against them. Note: All these professions are impressive people (like doctors) but on this latter end of the spectrum, their expertise is demonstrably no better than a blind ape throwing darts, meaning that are often wrong where a lay-man is correct.
— What factors influence the spectrum of expertise? Independent and (close to) identical sampling. While chemical mixing under controlled conditions always produces the same outcome (making the chemist a strong expert) the investment environment changes from the 70’s to the 80’s and 90’s, and so even the best forecasts are presented with a high degree of uncertainty
I think people understand all this, it’s just a matter of where climate science fits on this spectrum, probably further toward speculative side than medical doctors.
If earth’s temperature increases 1° C based on a few hundred ppm of CO2 increase, then what do the models say earth temperature ought to be if it increases 20 times to the level it was in the geological past? How does it backfit much less how well does it project? What explains the backfit variance? How does that apply to projections? How do you fix the models to reflect reality? Once the variables have been incorporated properly and completely, we can have 97% confidence in the projections.
What if this chap had decided that the consensus was overwhelming and gave up? Science would be worse off. This is where we are with the IPCC and the related Climastrologists and consensus. They want everyone to give up and go with the flow. Not me Sir.
rogerknights says: “IOW, the dog would be 75% blue?”
Brown continents on white will be sufficient.
“All professions are conspiracies against the laity” (George Bernard-Shaw)
Again, speaking as a Physician and their expertise. . .
Surely, the question should be: “Doctor, if I had an unknown disease, what would the prognosis be?”
If 99 doctors told me that my headache will go away if I take an aspirin, I’d probably take an aspirin. But if 99 doctors told me that my headache will go away if they amputate both my arms, both my legs, put out my eyes and cut out my tongue, I’d be unlikely to do anything but seek out additional information and expertise.
However, this analogy is worse than that.
In effect, 99 doctors are telling me to to amputate all my limbs, put out my eyes and cut off my tongue for a headache I don’t even have but might have in the future.
However, this analogy is even worse than that
Not only are 99 doctors telling me to cut off my limbs, blind myself, and cut out my tongue for a problem I don’t even have, they have the exact same symptoms I do (as in none) yet not one of them has, to protect the future of their children (their own children!) acquired land in Alaska, or northern Canada or Siberia which will be the only “safe” places in Canada.
And as bad as that analogy now appears, it is even worse than that. Because it turns out that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of doctors have said the exact opposite, but they aren’t “headache” doctors so the 99 say the thousands don’t count. In fact, the 99 doctors have presented their headache models and quietly added a footnote to the effect that their own expertise says that the headache models are probably wrong (see Monkton’s article on AR5). But they figure we should accept their treatment anyway, while exempting themselves from it.
yes we all know much clooney nos about globle warming