By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Professor Shaun Lovejoy, as he continues the active marketing of his latest paper purporting to prove that “the world desperately needs to drop the skepticism and change course – humanity’s future depends on it”, writes in a hilarious op-ed at livescience.com:
“The majordomo of this deniers’ hub [Watts Up With That] is the notorious Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, who – within hours [fast on his feet, that Viscount is: strong in him the Force must be] – had declared to the faithful that the paper was no less than a ‘mephitically ectoplasmic emanation from the Forces of Darkness’ and that ‘it is time to be angry at the gruesome failure of peer review’.”
The Professor describes this as “venom”. No, sir, it is eloquence in the service of truth. Perhaps he would prefer a scatological rather than an eschatological metaphor. Happy to oblige. The scientific merit of his paper is aptly described by the third, eighteenth, first, and sixteenth letters of the alphabet, taken sequentially. Or, if he prefers it up him palindromically, the sixteenth, fifteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth.
Let me put on my major-domo’s tails, white starched wing-collar, maniple, and white gloves, polish up the nearest silver salver, and, Jeeves-like, shimmer in to address some the fashionable pseudo-physics in Professor Lovejoy’s latest Technicolor yawn.
After deploying the hate-screech word “deniers”, he wheels out Svante Arrhenius, who, “toiling for a year, predicted that doubling CO2 levels would increase global temperatures by 5-6 Cº, which turns out to be close to modern estimates”.
The Professor is perhaps unaware (for he does not seem to be aware of all that much in the realm of physics) that Arrhenius is known to have made errors in his line-by-line calculation of the warming effect of CO2 (actually performed at intervals over the long Arctic winter, not over a whole year). He had, for instance, relied on defective lunar spectral data.
Furthermore, Arrhenius – a chemist and not a physicist – had not at that time come across the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, which would greatly have simplified his calculations and made them more accurate.
However, in 1906, in Vol. 1, No. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, he recanted and divided his earlier climate-sensitivity estimate by three:
“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”
So few of the F. of D. are aware of Arrhenius’ recantation that I am happy to provide a facsimile (Fig. 1) of the quotation from his 1906 paper, published in German (which perhaps explains why the largely English-speaking F. of D. are unaware of it).
Figure 1. Detail in facsimile from Arrhenius, S., 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen (“The possible cause for climate variability”). Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut 1: 2, 1ff.
It is also important to note that Arrhenius confined his analysis to radiative transports only. He did not take account of all the numerous non-radiative transports – afternoon convection in the tropics, baroclinic eddies in the extratropics, evaporation everywhere, etc. – that militate homeostatically against any sufficiently small perturbation of the natural climate (such as doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the air).
Nor did Arrhenius take account of the biggest unknown in the climate – the behavior of clouds. All other things being equal, returning plant food to the atmosphere from which it came will cause some warming. But we do not know that all other things are equal.
Professor Lovejoy is also incorrect to say that Arrhenius’ original estimate of climate sensitivity was “close to modern estimates”. IPeCaC clings to a sensitivity interval of 1.5-4.5 Cº, entirely below Arrhenius’ original estimate and almost entirely above his revised estimate.
Many “modern estimates” point to a climate sensitivity well below IPeCaC’s interval. We may even see less than 1 Cº of global warming per CO2 doubling (Monckton of Brenchley, 2008, 2010; Douglass & Christy, 2009; Paltridge, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011; Loehle & Scafetta, 2011, etc.).
Next, the Professor says that in the scientific method “no theory ever can be proven beyond ‘reasonable doubt’”. It would be more correct to say that some hypotheses (though few in physics and very few in climate physics) can be demonstrated definitively.
For instance, it is possible to demonstrate the Theorem of Pythagoras. My own simple proof by inclusion is at Fig. 2.
Figure 2. Demonstration of Pythagoras’ Theorem by inclusion. The boundary contains either the square on the hypotenuse (red) and two congruent right triangles or the squares on the other two sides (blue, green) and two more congruent right triangles. Subtract on each view the two right triangles. Then the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Q.E.D.
Professor Lovejoy sets out his stall thus:
“Climate skeptics have ruthlessly exploited this alleged weakness, stating that the models are wrong, and that the warming is natural. Fortunately, scientists have a fundamental methodological asymmetry to use against these skeptics: a single decisive experiment effectively can disprove a scientific hypothesis. That’s what I claim to have done. Examining the theory that global warming is only natural, I showed — without any use of GCMs — that the probability that warming is simply a giant natural fluctuation is so small as to be negligible. He compounds this point later by saying “skeptics dismiss the models”.
Well, are the models right? A single experiment demonstrates that, on the central question how much global warming should have occurred since 1990, the modelers’ hypothesis that the trend in global temperature would fall on their predicted interval (the orange region in Fig. 3) has been demonstrated to be false. Skeptics doubt the models not least because the modelers’ confidently-made predictions have been demonstrated, time and again, to be wild exaggerations.
Figure 3. Near-term projections of global warming (IPCC, 1990: orange region), compared with observed outturn taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1990-2014.
Professor Lovejoy says that his “CO2 proxy … predicts with 95 percent certainty that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to a warming of 1.9 to 4.2 Cº”. He prays in aid Fig. 4.
Figure 4. “This figure visually shows the strong linear relation between the radiative forcing and the global temperature response since 1880 … showing the 5-year running average of global temperature (red) as a function of the CO2 forcing surrogate from 1880 to 2004. The linearity is impressive; the deviations from linearity are due to natural variability. The slope of the regression line is 2.33±0.22 degrees Celsius per CO2 doubling (it is for the unlagged forcing/response relation).”
I do not pretend to understand this graph. For a start, it seems to show (albeit in exasperatingly non-standard units) that just about half the CO2 forcing since 1750 occurred before 1960, when CO2 concentration last stood at 316 ppmv. However, the official story-line (in standard units) is that the CO2 forcing from 1750 to 1958 was 0.7 W m–2, whereas that from 1958 to 2014 was greater by four-fifths, at 1.2 W m–2. Makes a bit of a mess of the claimed “linearity”, that.
Secondly, the linear trend on the global temperature anomalies since 1880 is 0.87 Cº, (Fig. 5), in response to 1.9 W m–2 of CO2 forcing. A doubling of CO2 concentration would give 3.7 W m–2 of CO2 forcing, according to the current official method.
Therefore, if there were a linear relation between CO2 forcing and temperature change (which there is not), and if all of the warming since 1750 were anthropogenic (which it was not), and if there were no major natural influences on temperature over the period (which there were) the warming in response to a CO2 doubling would be just 1.7 Cº, not the 2.33 Cº suggested in Professor Lovejoy’s caption.
Figure 5. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the HadCRUT4, GISS, and NCDC monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies from 1880-2014 is 0.87 Cº. The linearity is not particularly remarkable: the correlation coefficient is only 0.69. The oscillations of global temperature following the 60-year period of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can be clearly seen.
There is demonstrably no linear relationship between the CO2 forcing, which increases monotonically, and global temperature change, which is stochastic. Global temperature change is more closely related to changes in the great ocean oscillations in the short term (Fig. 6), in total sunlight hours at the surface in the medium term (Fig. 7), and in total solar irradiance in the long term (Fig. 8).
Figure 6. The remarkable non-linearity of global temperature change since 1890, showing the two periods of global warming that coincided remarkably with the two positive phases of the naturally-occurring Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the period.
Figure 7. The remarkable non-linearity of global temperature change in the South China Sea, 1880 to 2008, tracking a remarkable non-linearity in the number of sunshine hours in Japan. Not all pyrometer records show this correspondence: but the Japanese record is the longest we have, and one of the most meticulously kept.
Figure 8. The remarkable non-linearity of the sunspot record, 1600-2003, from Hathaway et al., (2004). Inset: The remarkable non-linearity of global temperature trend, 1659-2010. The first and most rapid of the three periods (red) of global warming since 1659 (1694-1733) occurred as solar activity began to recover at the end of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). The other two periods (1925-1946 and 1977-2000) occurred at the solar Grand Maximum (1925-1995).
Next, Professor Lovejoy makes the startling assertion that the probability that what he calls “rare, extreme fluctuations” in global temperature such as those of the 20th century were natural is 1:1000 to 1:10,ooo.
This is where his omission of any reference to the Central England Temperature Record, or to the Utrecht or Prague temperature records, or to the historical circumstances (the freezing of the Thames, of the Dutch canals, of the Hudson in New York), is so reprehensible.
The rapid warming at the transition from the Maunder Minimum to a more normal climate occurred well before the industrial revolution began. It was not our fault.
Or Professor Lovejoy could have gone back to 1421, at the time when global temperature began to tip downward into the Little Ice Age. An interesting letter in the Vatican archive from the Papal Legate in Greenland to the Secretariat of State reported that the Legate regretted that he could not take up his appointment because “the ice is come in from the north”. Suddenly, ships could not reach Greenland.
By now, anyone who has studied the climate ought to have realized that what Professor Lovejoy calls “rare, extreme fluctuations” are neither rare nor extreme. They are the norm, not the exception.
Moreover, the entire interval of global temperature change since 1750, from the depth of the Maunder minimum to the acme during the Great El Niño of 1988 represents a movement of just 0.9% in absolute mean global surface temperature. By contrast, the change between midday and midnight at one location can be as much as 20% of absolute mean temperature. And the interval between the hottest and coldest places on Earth represents close to half of absolute mean temperature.
Next, the Professor says: “But what about Medieval warming with vineyards in Britain, or the so-called Little Ice Age with skating on the Thames? In the historical past, the temperature has changed considerably. Surely, the industrial-epoch warming is just another large-amplitude natural event?”
He answers his question in the negative, saying large-scale changes can only occur over periods much longer than a century. He would have gotten a nasty surprise if he had been around at the end of the Younger Dryas cooling event 11,400 years ago. At that time, according to the ice cores, the temperature in Antarctica rose by 5 Cº in just three years. As Professor Ian Plimer puts it, “Now, that’s climate change!”
Next, Professor Lovejoy writes: “My result focuses on the probability of centennial-scale temperature changes. It does not exclude large changes, if they occur slowly enough. So if you must, let the peons roast and the Thames freeze solid, the result stands.” No, it doesn’t. Just look at the warming of 1694-1733: 1.7 Cº in just 40 years, a rate equivalent to 4.33 Cº/century.
The Q&A that Professor Lovejoy has issued to prop up his paper says that he regards any change of more than 0.25 Cº over 125 years as exceptional, and likely to occur only 10% of the time. No, it isn’t. As I pointed out in a previous posting, more than a third of all 125-year periods predating the onset of anthropogenic influence on climate in 1950 show warming or cooling of more than 0.25 Cº.
Figure 9. Left: The misleading propaganda claim made by “Skeptical” “Science” that 97% of scientists agree we are the cause of global warming. Right: The true position exposed by Legates et al. (2013): 99.5% of 11,944 climate-science papers did not say we are the cause. They did not even say we are the primary cause.
Next, Professor Lovejoy says IPeCaC has “strengthened its earlier 2007 qualification of ‘likely’ to ‘extremely likely’ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Yes, it has, but it has done so not only on no evidence but in the teeth of the evidence.
As Legates et al. (2013) demonstrated, 99.5% of 11,944 scientific papers on climate published between 1991 and 2011 did not say that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by us (Figure 9).
Besides, since Professor Lovejoy’s paper plays with statistics a great deal, he should know that no recognizable statistical process performed on any actual dataset (unless science now recognizes a show of hands among scientifically-illiterate, rent-seeking representatives of governments) generated IPeCaC’s “95-99% confidence” value.
Next, the Professor asserts that “skeptics … insist that warming results from natural variability”. No, we don’t. We assert that in the present state of knowledge it is impossible adequately to distinguish between natural variability and anthropogenic influence.
The Professor digs his hole ever deeper: “The new GCM-free approach rejects natural variability, leaving the last vestige of skepticism in tatters.” Here is an honest version of that sentence: “I reject natural variability aprioristically, so I bished and bashed the numbers till they fitted my preconception, leaving the last vestige of my scientific credibility in tatters.”
Yet he rants blithely on to the effect that the Canadian government has “axed climate research” (hurrah!); that it gave him no funding for his research (so he got more than he deserved); that it has “shamelessly promoted the dirtiest fuels” (but CO2 is not dirty, it is the stuff of life); that it has “reneged on its international climate obligations” (no, it took lawful and timeous advantage of the opt-out clause in the Kyoto Protocol and, therefore, has no “international climate obligations”); that “two decades of international discussion have failed to prevent emissions from growing” (along with crop yields and net primary productivity of trees and plants, thanks to CO2 fertilization); and, finally, that “the world needs to drop the skepticism and change course – humanity’s future depends on it” (but, as T.H. Huxley said, to the scientist “skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin”, and whenever someone says humanity’s future depends on something he means his income depends on it).
I am most grateful to Richard Courtney for having so trenchantly endorsed the necessity to consider the misconduct of trolls case by case and answer those whose intent to mislead or disrupt is harmful or persistent. By great determination, several of us have managed to reduce the number of trolls here, and the quality of the comment threads has been greatly improved as a result. The present thread, to which I was able to devote much more time than usual, provides a particularly good example of the intransigence, evasiveness, mendacity, illogicality and offensiveness of trolls even when confronted with multiple lines of detailed evidence that they are wrong.
As this thread draws to its close, I also want to thank the many commenters who have added some genuine illumination, and also to the many who have commented so kindly. Great is truth, and mighty above all things.
So long until next time, Lord Monckton and others. This was mostly enjoyable.
As seems to be a pattern, LM has mis-characterized the Ga Tech “proof” of the four color theorem, an outline of this work may be found at http://people.math.gatech.edu/~thomas/FC/fourcolor.html . A significant part of this work was performed by a computer program and isn’t check-able by hand. At present this type of work isn’t acceptable as mathematically rigorous. The authors note this problem in a paragraph which I give:
” We should mention that both our programs use only integer arithmetic, and so we need not be concerned with round-off errors and similar dangers of floating point arithmetic. However, an argument can be made that our `proof’ is not a proof in the traditional sense, because it contains steps that can never be verified by humans. In particular, we have not proved the correctness of the compiler we compiled our programs on, nor have we proved the infallibility of the hardware we ran our programs on. These have to be taken on faith, and are conceivably a source of error. However, from a practical point of view, the chance of a computer error that appears consistently in exactly the same way on all runs of our programs on all the compilers under all the operating systems that our programs run on is infinitesimally small compared to the chance of a human error during the same amount of case-checking. Apart from this hypothetical possibility of a computer consistently giving an incorrect answer, the rest of our proof can be verified in the same way as traditional mathematical proofs. We concede, however, that verifying a computer program is much more difficult than checking a mathematical proof of the same length.”
This paragraph points to a key difference between math and science which I would love to discuss, but LM would not grasp it and few of you would be willing to read.
But LM has argued against a statement by Stepin, his own reference, which contradicts LM’s position that mathematics is the same as science with regard to verification. Now, I’m not going to defend Stepin, but LM should really understand his cites. LM is simply wrong about math and even his non-mathematician cites disagree with him. It is instructive that LM has given his position with no cites from modern mathematicians. Many things are controversial, as is computer “proof” and many things, in the evolving subject of mathematics. But that LM has cited no quotes from practicers of the art suggests he knows less than he thinks about it. My claims are held by most mathematicians. Albert Einstein wrote, “One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.”
LM has also exposed a insulting manner in response to those who comment on his work. In doing so, his ego has written a check his abilities cannot cover.
Mr Lee continues to be profoundly mendacious and dishonest in argument. He has lied and lied and lied again, and now does so yet again. I have not said that “mathematics is the same as science with regard to verification”: I have said that the scientific method extends to mathematics (where, as Stepin points out, it was first applied) as it does to the sciences.
I have not at any time said that mathematics and the sciences are the same, whether with respect to verification or otherwise. Mathematics has methods of demonstration by deduction and (since Fermat) by induction that are additional to empirical verification, and are its usual methods of determining conjectures. I have given several examples of determination of mathematical conjectures by empirical methods of verification, just one of which one of which is the four-color theorem.
It is irrelevant to the present discussion whether the method of verification chosen was successful in that instance. The point is that it was attempted. Like other empirical attempts, whether in mathematics or the sciences, it may or may not have succeeded, and it may or may not be complete.
And it is of course possible in principle, if time-consuming, to verify that a computer program that carries out an empirical examination of the search space is fit for its purpose, making a demonstration that is at present widely accepted on probabilistic grounds universally accepted.
Be that as it may, the central fact from which Mr Lee cannot escape is that in that and many other instances, some of which I have mentioned, it is possible to hunt for a counter-example, and that hunt is often empirical rather than dictated by any logical process of induction or deduction.
And yes, I have indicated that Stepin was incorrect in his statement to the effect that in modern mathematics there is no place for that part of the scientific method that concerns empirical verification. Nevertheless, Stepin stated, as I said some way upthread, that the scientific method had been applied in mathematics in the first of the three phases he discusses, establishing that the scientific method was first deployed in mathematics, as it still is today in many proofs and disproofs.
I do not need to provide any further citations. It was necessary only to find one counter-example to Mr Lee’s hypothesis that mathematics does not use empirical verification, and his comments about the success or otherwise of the proof of the four-color theorem do not in any way detract from the fact that a proof by empirical methods was attempted and is – whether he likes it or not – widely accepted. Let him google “four-color theorem” and then google “four-color conjecture”, and see how many hits appear for each. He will then have done an empirical verification for himself.
Indeed, the very fact that the demonstration is not as definitive as a formal mathematical proof by the usual methods of deduction from or induction upon the postulates is yet a further illustration of the fact that the scientific method as deployed in mathematics is the same scientific method that applies to the physical sciences – even down to the fact that definitive demonstration of a conjecture is not always possible, though definitive disproof (e.g. by counter-example) is of course possible.
Of course, it is sometimes possible. One may hunt for a counter-example to a conjecture – that of Fermat in relation to a class of Mersenne primes, for instance – and, if one finds one, the conjecture is definitively disproved. The problem with Mr Lee is that he is not merely mendacious and graceless but also narrow-minded, so he has formed no part of the extraordinary unification of scientific and mathematical knowledge that the scientific method facilitates. He thinks in silly little boxes rather than realizing that the search for truth cannot, however hard he tries, be circumscribed any more by his sort of narrow-mindedness than by his serial mendacity.
Mr Lee cites Einstein on the reasons why mathematics enjoys special esteem above “all other sciences”, suggesting that Einstein regards mathematics as one of the sciences, a point to which Mr Lee – if I recollect correctly – earlier objected, though it was not one that I had made.
Finally, since Mr Lee has been consistently rude as well as mendacious and narrow-minded in this discussion, he cannot reasonably complain if he gets a bit of his own rudeness turned back on him. He is way, way out of his depth, for he has no interest in the truth, only in the trolling, and the lying, and lying, and lying again.
Truth be told, I’m not complaining about LM’s methods of argument, since I see them as a sign of weakness in his position. In LM’s view it is rude to check his references to find evidence that he was wrong about Popper and Stepin, wrong about math and the scientific method, wrong about Tech’s four color problem treatment being accepted in mathematics, and generally ignorant about mathematics — not one source of support from a modern mathematician.
As for my quote by Einstein, LM fixates on his use of “other sciences” to presume that he considered math a science, while ignore the rest of the quote that distinguishes math from science — the part about being overthrown by newly discovered facts. A point that Einstein makes was also made by Stepin and even Popper which LM doesn’t seem to grasp. What distinguishes math is that it is possible to be certain, in Science you are never sure that no evidence will arise to falsify your result.
To his critics he responds rudely, not just to me, but many others. In this he is trying to intimidate his critics, perhaps because his argument is weak.
Let us review Mr Lee’s errors in this thread:
Mr Lee said mathematics was not a topic subject to the scientific method. I provided counter-examples demonstrating that mathematics, as well as using logic, also uses empirical methods of verification. Mr Lee nevertheless persisted in reasserting his original error on seven separate occasions.
Mr Lee said: “To be subject to the scientific method, the inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence and theories must be falsified when contradicted by experiment”. Two errors here: first, the falsification of a hypothesis may be based on whatever method of enquiry is available, including logical reasoning. Secondly, several mathematical conjectures have been subjected to empirical determination.
Mr Lee said: “In mathematics there are no experiments.” Yes, there are. I mentioned several, including Fermat’s conjecture about the Mersenne primes, which was falsified by the empirical method of finding a counter-example; Goldbach’s conjecture, where numerous attempts have been made to find a counter-example by empirical methods.
Mr Lee said: “No mathematician looks to the telescope or the microscope to obtain observations to falsify his mathematics.” Einstein, who had arrived at his theory of relativity by mathematics, recommended the use of the telescope to verify it. Yes, the theory is a theory in physics, but it is also a theory in mathematics. And Newton’s laws of celestial motion, arrived at by mathematics, were also subjected to falsification by telescopes.
Mr Lee accused me on five occasions of saying that mathematics was no different from the other sciences, when I had neither said or implied that. He persisted in saying this even after he had been thrice corrected.
Mr Lee complained that I had accused him of knowing nothing about math and science. No, I had said, on sound evidence, that he knew nothing either of the scientific method or of the history of science. Mr Lee then denied he had complained that I had accused him of knowing nothing about math and science.
Mr Lee cited with approval a textbook saying “Math is not a science”. Subsequently he cited Einstein with approval as referring to mathematics “and the other sciences”, implying that mathematics is a science. I had not said anything on this topic except to point out that in the ancient universities mathematics is treated as an art.
Mr Lee said that because mathematics can obtain results by logic, it could not obtain them by any other method. That does not follow.
Mr Lee said I had misquoted his point that the method of testing a hypothesis must be experimental and founded in measurement. He had actually said: “To be subject to the scientific method, the inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence and theories must be falsified when contradicted by experiment.”
Mr Lee, even when faced with this and other direct evidence of his attempts at denying or altering what he had previously said, lied directly to the effect that he had not changed his statements.
Mr Lee said example I had given of refuting hypotheses empirically was in science, not mathematics. The Goldbach conjecture is in mathematics. The two Fermat conjectures I cited are in mathematics. The four-color theorem is in mathematics.
Mr Lee, attempting to say I was wrong to question Professor Lovejoy’s assertion that scientific results could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, cited Popper as saying: “A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified.” Even when I had twice explained the distinction between the definitive proof Popper was talking of and the lesser standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, Mr Lee wilfully persisted, taking no account of this material distinction.
Mr Lee said: “No theorem properly derived in math is overthrown by experiment or observation.” This is a double error. If it is a theorem, it has been proven, so, if it is properly derived, it is not “overthrown” by anything. However, conjectures derived in mathematics, however properly, can be overthrown by empirical methods.
Mr Lee was unaware that the search for counter-examples of a conjecture is by definition an empirical process, and remained unwilling to acknowledge this even after it had been explained to him twice.
Mr Lee said I was wrong to say applied math is a science. However, I had said no such thing. Indeed, I had not referred to applied math at all anywhere in the thread.
Mr Lee said the only difference between pure and applied math is “the source of the problem being attacked”. No: each discipline has numerous techniques peculiar to itself.
Mr Lee, towards the end of the thread, said my assertion that one can prove hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt was “new”. However, I had said it in the head posting, and it was his challenge to it that had started this discussion.
Mr Lee said that Dr Stepin, whom I had cited as saying that the scientific method was first applied in mathematics, had later said that experiment was not available in mathematics. However, experiment is only one element in the scientific method, and it is available in mathematics, as the examples I had already cited demonstrate.
Mr Lee, on learning that the four-color theorem in mathematics had been demonstrated by a manifestly experimental, empirical method, said the authors of the proof I had cited had said the proof was not definitive. I had, however, already fairly pointed out that the proof was controversial, but it was nevertheless a plain exercise of the scientific method in mathematics.
Mr Lee, finally, whined on several occasions that I had been rude to him. Yet it was he who, right from his first intervention, had adopted an offensive, sneering tone, saying I should “know better” than to cite the theorem of Pythagoras, and that I should “understand the difference” between math and science. I nevertheless replied in a polite and straightforward vein, whereupon Mr Lee became openly offensive, saying I should not write what he called “rubbish” about the scientific method, whereupon I decided not to take his nonsense lying down and told him to do less shouting and more reading.
Mr Lee’s errors, wilful refusals to conduct the debate civilly, and outright lies compounded ineptly by further outright lies are a paradigm of the anti-scientific, anti-rational mind-set we are up against. Just look at the dozens of errors he has perpetrated here. He cannot even go back to his paymasters and report that he has tied up my time. For I am in great pain and unable to do anything constructive till it subsides: so he has not succeeded in wasting my time, though he has certainly succeeded in making a complete ass of himself. This discussion will be particularly carefully archived at the Lord Monckton Foundation, so that future generations puzzled at the monumental stupidity of the climate scare will gain some understanding of the moral as well as intellectual inadequacy of its tottering champions.
As typical LM talks about more than he can know, he presumes not opinions but facts 1) that I’m paid for this discussion; I’m not, and 2) that I’m in league with the “climate scare crowd”; I’m not. These defamations and his previous ones I tolerate to show that LM’s ego drives him to claim to know what he doesn’t.
As for his quite wearysome diatribe just completed, I think that LM still hasn’t given any quotes supporting his position from a modern mathematician. That and the refuting quotes by his cited sources represents all I care to do with him at present.
Mr Lee tell us he is not paid to conduct this discussion. Since he has lied about just about everything else during it, the probability remains that he has lied about this too. After all, who would make such an egregious fool of himself unless he were paid to do it? Who would lie and lie and lie again unless he were paid to do it, as so many supporters of the climate scare are paid?
He exhibits another characteristic of the paid true-believer in the climate scam: appeal to authority. He keeps demanding that I should cite a “modern mathematician”. But, given that I have provided clear and numerous counter-examples to his contention that the empirical method has no place in mathematics. Those counter-examples are enough on their own.
Besides, since he has wilfully misinterpreted the sources I did cite, it would matter not how many further sources I cited. He has adopted an aprioristic position that is contrary to the evidence and has then repeatedly lied in support of it. I have long learned that the best way to deal with a proven liar is to list and expose his lies and then give him no more material to form the basis of new lies. Let him now go and tell his lies somewhere else. He is no longer welcome here.
Friends:
At April 26, 2014 at 5:23 pm and in rebuttal of Philip Lee, Monckton of Brenchley states obvious truths when he writes:
In his reply to that, at April 26, 2014 at 10:32 pm Philip Lee says:
A “modern mathematician”?
There is no reason to dispute the competent mathematicians cited by Monckton.
Lee’s statement – here quoted – provides complete confirmation of Monckton’s statements which Lee purports to be refuting. Additionally, Lee’s promise that he will now clear off is surely pleasing to all.
Richard
LM is a quibbler and a [snip – over the top. ~mod].
LM complains about my use of “new” in his comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/the-empire-of-the-viscount-strikes-back/#comment-1622825 (fifth paragraph from bottom). He points out that “new”, meaning “not existing before” was wrong in as much as he had said the same before. “New” also means “Already existing but seen, experienced, or acquired recently” according to the British version of the Oxford Dictionary and that use was appropriate for addressing his then “new” or recent comment containing his recently re-made assertion at issue. So LM avoids the substance of the by quibbling over the meaning of “new.” [snip] LM employs quibbling often.
LM continues his libels, claiming now, for example, that “He [Lee] exhibits another characteristic of the paid true-believer in the climate scam”. Like much of what he writes about me, LM has been lazy and arrogant. Lazy because because he has not checked any of my prior postings to see whether they would confirm his libels. If he had not been a lazy fool, he might have found my prior remarks here at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-1431919
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/28/cmip5-model-data-comparison-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/#comment-1235035
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-plants-blamed-for-us-not-roasting-since-1950/#comment-1450104
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/climate-ugliness-goes-nuclear/#comment-1156206
or at Judith Curry’s blog at:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267779
His arrogance is that he displays no common decency to check whether his statements might be false. Interested parties may decide for themselves whether my prior remarks justify LM’s claims.
In maintaining these falsehoods without evidence or even checking [snip].
Re-posting to correct errors:
LM is a quibbler [snip]. Evidence of both follows.
LM complains about my use of “new” in his comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/the-empire-of-the-viscount-strikes-back/#comment-1622825
(fifth paragraph from bottom). He points out that “new”, meaning “not existing before” was wrong in as much as he had said the same before. “New” also means “Already existing but seen, experienced, or acquired recently” according to the British version of the Oxford Dictionary and that use was appropriate for addressing his then “new” or recent comment (April 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm) containing his recently re-made assertion at issue. So LM avoids the substance of the issue by quibbling over the meaning of “new” instead. Some places, where the honor code has been adopted, rank quibbling [snip]. LM employs quibbling often.
LM continues his libels, claiming now, for example, that “He [Lee] exhibits another characteristic of the paid true-believer in the climate scam”. Like much of what he writes about me, LM has been lazy and arrogant. Lazy because because he has not checked any of my prior postings to see whether they would confirm his libels. If he had not been a lazy fool, he might have found my prior remarks here at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#comment-1431919
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/28/cmip5-model-data-comparison-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/#comment-1235035
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-plants-blamed-for-us-not-roasting-since-1950/#comment-1450104
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/climate-ugliness-goes-nuclear/#comment-1156206
or at Judith Curry’s blog at:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/#comment-267779
His arrogance is that he displays no common decency to check whether his statements might be false. Interested parties may decide for themselves whether my prior remarks justify LM’s claims.
In maintaining these falsehoods without evidence or even checking, [snip].
I will pay $10,000 to the charity of LM’s choosing if any evidence can be found that I’ve been paid for my comments here provided LM will pay the same to a charity of my choosing if, one month from today no evidence shall be presented. Evidence shall be the deposit to one of my bank accounts on or before today but not before Feb. 1, 2014 of a check whose source can be traced to someone advocating man made climate change or money in an amount significant to me, being more than 1% of my net worth. I agree to show all bank information to LM or his representative at my home which he may copy if he finds evidence of payment. LM agrees to a a visit by himself or his representative by May 15, 2014.
BTW, I do insist that statements made about evidence will be sworn so as to support a civil lawsuit should either LM or I lie about the evidence.
To the moderator — so, LM can use the “L” word, but My use is over the top.
[Different moderators. This one has a problem with the L-word. You’re smart enough to say it without using that pejorative. ~mod]
Philip Lee’s bullying tactics are not conducive to rational debate.
His incessant nit-picking on subjects irrelevant to the discussion article, are
worthy perhaps, of a professor of journalism, lecturing to an errant student.
Monckton is a student, yes, as are we all who would wish to learn new facts,
but truly it is Lee who needs to take lessons about the way in which he does
present his arguments, with haphazard attacks, and straw men, and the
very many other peripatetic fallacies exhibited here. In that regard it is he
who is the student and Monckton who is the maestro.
The bluff and bluster now culminating in fatuous wagers and challenges,
which serve only to illustrate the ludicrous state of Mr. Lee’s troubled mind.
Please lets get back to rational debate, and do not rise to the bait so easily,
Lord Monckton. You must not allow people like Mr. Lee to lure you into a
“flame war”, such as he has done. This may be his only pleasure to do so,
but I would urge you to deny him that gratification.
=============================================================
Reminds me of something I heard someone say once, “It’s what you learn after you think you know it all that counts.”
I think Philip Lee is right. The fact that a theory in physics is mathematical in form does not make it a theory in mathematics. The most common usage of “science” in English excludes mathematics, so Lovejoy’s original remark about not being able to prove a theory in science should reasonably have been taken to exclude mathematical theorems, though it was unfortunate Lovejoy brought in the legal metaphor by referring to “reasonable doubt”. No law in natural science can be proved like a mathematical theorem, but whether such a law can be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” is a more murky question, since many scientific laws have been corroborated far better than would be necessary to secure a conviction in a court of law.
I agree with some of what Matthew Marler says. However, 1. surely he will agree that Einstein’s theory of gravitation contradicts Newton’s theory of gravitation, and therefore they cannot both be true, though Newton’s theory survives as a special case, useful in many, perhaps most, applications, within Einstein’s theory. And 2. Yes, empirical observation is theory-laden, as Popper insisted. But this does not remove the distinction between theoretical and empirical in the conception of empirical science, for the ‘theory’ guiding observations is at a different level than the theory embodied in a putative natural law. In brief, the theory governing how to make observations does not determine what the outcome of the observations will be. Indeed, a proper theory of how to make observations must allow for the possibility that the observations could turn out in at least two different ways. Otherwise, we could dispense with the observation completely and then we would not be doing empirical science.
David Ramsey Steele’s comments on Lord Monckton’s use of Pythagoras’s theorem seem correct. However, I, like Steele, are in agreement with his Lordship’s main argument. I’m happy to have found his lordship’s critical arguments against the dominant global warming ideology.
David Ramsay Steele says:
April 28, 2014 at 11:19 pm
The fact that a theory in physics is mathematical in form does not make it a theory in mathematics.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. In the case of the law in question, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation , Newton actually derived his gravitation law from Kepler’s third law. This derivation is not commonly taught in physics, though Kepler’s laws are commonly derived from Newton’s laws in physics lectures. A discussion of this derivation is given in http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~tlakoba/AppliedUGMath/notes/lecture_2.pdf See also http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~tlakoba/AppliedUGMath/planets_HallHigson.pdf
A point frequently not appreciated in discussions with non-mathematicians, that I tried to make, is that Newton’s derivation is mathematically correct. Yet in physics the law is falsified. the basic logic is (if A then B) was proven, but falsified in physics, so logic tells that “A” must not be true in physics. Actually, observations from the orbit of mercury told us that “B” was false in physics, but the proof means that it is still mathematically true.
I am unfortunately no mathematician, but have a long-time interest in philosophy of science, especially Popper. One of the things that has made me a climate skeptic is the failure of the dominant theory to look for observational tests (or when observations seem to refute the theory, often to ignore them).
I am a critical rationalist (Popperian), but the distinction between empirical and non-empirical propositions is of course widely held beyond the ranks of critical rationalists. You might say it’s the consensus view (though that’s no reason for supposing it correct).
Thanks for those links. I will pursue them.
Popper says somewhere (I think it’s in Realism and the Aim of Science, though I wouldn’t swear to it) that it’s a common error to think that Newton could be derived from Kepler. Popper says the two theories actually conflict.