Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The increasingly frantic efforts to “medicalise” criticism of climate orthodoxy has taken a new turn, with a claim that theories cannot be disproven in of themselves. Theories can only be disputed by people who can provide a settled alternative theory.
The abstract of the study;
The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism
Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.
Read more: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims Lewandowsky has ever promoted. “Something is wrong” with the current theory is a perfectly valid scientific position. A demonstration that a theory is useless at prediction does not have to be accompanied by a settled alternative theory – simply demonstrating that the current theory is wrong is enough.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘The real live of the terminator’: (3 Volume Boxed Set) Hardcover Edition.
By Lew Lewandowski. Complete Library.
This is of course utter hogwash. It is perfectly normal in science that current theories are overturned, without any “coherent alternate worldview” popping magically into existence.
Let me take three examples:
During the late nineteenth century geologists showed that the age of the Earth was billions rather than millions of years, and that consequently all then current theories about how the sun’s heat was created were completely irrelevant.
In 1896 Becquerel discovered radioactivity, which showed that the then current theories of matter were quite wrong
In 1911 Onnes discovered superconductivity, which was completely at variance with the expected properties of matter at low temperature.
In the first case Lewandowskys theory would mean that the geologists would have had to work out how nuclear fusion works, before revising the geological time-scale
Becquerel would have had to invent quantum mechanics before reporting his discovery.
Onnes would have had to both invent quantum mechanics and then the rather subtle effects of it that is the basis of the BCS theory.
In each case it took about half a century and the work of hundreds or thousands of scientists to work out that “coherent alternate worldview”.
This is a very concise but really excellent answer to Lew’s and Cook’s infantile pseudo science – Bravo!
The study points out the obvious weakness in Deniers camp. I am with you, but I can see this. You run like chickens with your heads cut off calling the obvious bullshit, one after the other of the warmist’s camp but it is not enough. It’s time that Heartland Institute took out a position that says Svensmark Cloud Theory together with Zharkova Double Dynamo Theory are the most likely mechanisms which run the Climate. That we are going into 30 year cooling and governments should pay attention. It’s a risk worth taking and you give warmers run for their money. If you are wrong you won’t be taken seriously until you find alternative theory but you are not taken seriously as it is, so what is the difference. If you right, on the other hand you gonna look like geniuses of the millennium.
“cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking”
Why does anyone have to provide an alternative view, coherent or not?
This is nothing more than a restatement of the fallacious “Argument from Ignorance”: “if it’s not CAGW, then what else *can* it be?”
“Science strives for coherence. For example…” http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
You had me with conspiracist ideation at hello and the raining polar bears and exploding schoolchildren were overkill.
What absolute nonsense. And note a “coherent” alternative can never be obtained because the adherents must agree.
Lewandowsky is an experimental psychologist. That field has a long history of publications based on very sketchy statistical methods. The result is, of course, that they have a very high rate of papers that can’t be replicated.
This gem outlines some of the issues as well as what happened when the author called out a particularly crappy paper.
Here’s my favorite quote.
That sounds a lot like certain climate scientists we know.
Commie Bob
Lewandowsky’s refusal to correct errors that are pointed out to him is shown by the following in the paper.
Three years ago after Lewandowsky made a similar statement, Steve McIntyre tried to obtain the data behind the Wood et al. paper. It took a FOI request, but it turns out that there were no respondents who supported both the conspiracy theory that Diana faked her own death and the conspiracy theory that she was murdered. McIntyre explained how the statistical correlation came about.
Josh followed up with an excellent cartoon.
Thanks for that. I followed the link to Steve’s blog. OMG … just OMG.
Lewandowsky and Wood claimed that some people believed that Princess Di faked her own death while simultaneously believing that she was murdered. Steve checked the data and found that was not the case. My favorite section:
Wood was stupid enough to try pulling the statistical wool over Steve’s eyes. That made my day.
Excellent … Mr. McIntyres works is always highly relevant and interesting. And what can we say about Josh but ‘you da man!’ … brilliant! 😉
I would have thought “natural variation” is a coherent view and certainly meets all requirements of Occam’s Razor.
*rolleyes* so hard
News flash, Lewny and Crook. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel to prove that your wheels aren’t rolling.
The Guardian’s ever-reliable climate lapdog Graham Readfearn has a breathlessly obliging piece covering this ‘study’. Behold the below the line comments, which are perhaps 95% ad homs against anyone who dares to question climate orthodoxy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/sep/23/how-climate-science-deniers-can-accept-so-many-impossible-things-all-at-once
This drivel is exactly the embodiment of what I wrote about above … this is the exact and sole reason the “Lewney Tunes Crew” publishes these shallow and silly papers. They do not care about the actual science – they only wish to provide inflammatory fodder for the ignorant and biased media jackals.
And medial jackals always go for the low hanging fruit.
I cannot provide a coherent alternate worldview, that’s true. It’s a sanity thing, and sanity is connected to this other thing called reality which…
Ah, never mind. Long story, warmies.
So on a whim we are supposed to just overturn one of the basic tenants of the modern Scientific Method: that hypotheses and theories can’t be proven, but they can be falsified. Instead Lew and Cook would have us reverse that, eh? I suppose this just shows how desperate they are.
Richard Feynman once said: “Extreme claims require extreme proof.” CAGW is about the most extreme claim rattling about these days.
The main reason that I’m a sceptic is *precisely* that warmists present a coherent worldview.
It’s so coherent, it exists independent of any evidence or proof. It leapt into existence fully formed, like Athene from Zeus’ brow, sometime in the sixties, and hasn’t changed ever since.
It’s when you no longer have a coherent worldview that you know you’re discovering new things. Look at nuclear physics. Or cosmology…
“The main reason that I’m a sceptic is *precisely* that warmists present a coherent worldview.”
The coherent worldview I believe many skeptics would embrace is that there are far more serious and real problems to deal with then obsessing about CO2. Especially since this misguided obsession can be the result of only 2 factors. First is faith in bad science arising as the result of incompetence, confirmation bias and group think reinforced by political ideology and second, is the result of trying to defraud the developed world out of trillions of dollars. I prefer to think that the scientists behind the biggest errors are just incompetent and not criminals while those at the IPCC who are not scientists are the fraudsters who took advantage of scientific incompetence and envy by the developing world to satisfy their own greed for power. The successes envied by the developing world are largely the result of free markets, decentralized planning and inexpensive energy so by trying to counteract all drivers of growth, the IPCC clearly wants to bring the developed world down, rather than bring the developing world up.
I think they come in two distinct breeds.
Some of them believe that God made jet planes, television sets and refrigerators, and that those things will continue to exist, powered by unicorn farts, in the new Green, carbon-free future.
Others are less deluded, and believe that the only important thing is maintaining the distinction between the First and Third Worlds. We can (or at least, they can) always get our cheap double-decaff lattes Somehow…
I don’t think they are evil as such, or that either group is solely or predominantly made up of either scientists or bureaucrats.
Gus,
“don’t think they are evil as such, or that either group is solely or predominantly made up of either scientists or bureaucrats.”
Yes, there’s certainly crossover between the bureaucrats and the scientists, especially the so called ‘environmental scientists’ who’s conflict of interest is apparent and where few actually have comprehensive scientific training. While I agree that the individuals involved are not likely to be intrinsically evil, I disagree that there’s no evil present, even if it isn’t criminal. The IPCC agenda of robin hood economics under the guise of climate reparations is evil incarnate that is designed to be regressive to humanity as they claim the opposite and support their claims with scaremongering. This is an emergent evil arising from misinformation, group think and confirmation bias all reinforced and amplified by partisan politics.
This illustrates the most significant positive feedback effect which is acting on the science itself by reinforcing the many errors, mostly by citing the source of the errors as authoritative and denigrating those who dispute them.
Moron Lewandawsky attempts to confine my thinking…
“People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view…”/i>
1) term: “scientific body of knowledge”
Should be: body of scientifically derived knowledge
Really… he wrote that in a paper… I have no idea what he wants me to think by writing that phase.
2) “oppose” I don’t oppose. I am skeptical of the scientific rigor used in deriving the knowledge. Money and the world view of the scientists (socialists) seep into their work, making it invalid and non-objective.
3) The end game is taxing emissions…not cutting… so there is a UN tax on CO2 production based on?? and absence of 1).
4) The only reason I am motivated to act on my skepticism is because the left (Lewandowsky included) is advancing a world view, which I oppose (not as in 1) ). I am skeptical of the so-called science. I don’t believe that the objectivity that science demands even exists in climate politics. The Left has first created a world view and is now fabricating a non-scientific pseudo science argument to animate it. Not the other way round. Cart before the horse – you moron.
Let me rewrite Lewandowski’s phase:
People who are skeptical of the body of information, some of which has been scientifically derived, need not provide an alternate view other than appropriate skepticism because the implications of a UN tax and change in the world economic order based on a fabricated consumption model – coal and oil based wealth – is not a purely scientific model, threatens their worldview or livelihood or freedom of thought and expression, family, etc…
I would agree to that…but that is not what the push-polling socialist wrote.
What a manipulative fraud.
You got that right. Natural climate variation is an alternative explanation to AGW. According to Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the better one. The burden of proof is on those who believe in a more complicated explanation. They still have no proof that the slight warming of the past few decades is going to be catastrophic or is even going to continue. Until they can come up with such proof, the simplest explanation involving natural climate variation should reign supreme.
As a non scientific laymen I couldn’t care less about climate theory or mechanisms. All that I worry about is that trillions of dollars are being spent on this cause based on the theory. If the theory is shown to be wrong I don’t need an alternative to tell me that spending that money is a waste. I know that if those resources were redirected to other endeavours the world is a better place.
I agree with you about spending trillions of dollars on a theory, particularly since some of those dollars are spent on paying scam artist psychologists like Lew and Cook to brainwash you to get your support for the theory. As non scientific laymen they couldn’t care less about climate theory or mechanisms. Their job is perception manipulation.
BZZZZZT!!! Conspiracist ideation alert!
Or so Looney Lew & pals would have us believe …
Requiring a “settled alternative theory” is true, if you are talking about competing religions. I think it’s a very revealing claim. Lewandowsky is regarding AGW as a religion.
No, Lewandowsky (and Cook) is a cognitive psychologist who regards AGW as a paycheck, and is performing his professional duty by publishing papers with the goal of manipulating readers so that they make the decision that AGW is a religion.
In order to refute an explanation of certain observations, there is no need to supply an alternative explanation of those observations.
Suppose detective A says the Butler did it. Detective B points out, “But the Butler was 1,000 miles away in a coma at the time of the murder,” thus refuting A’s theory. A replies, “Okay, smart guy, then who done it?” This is not a rebuttal on A’s part. It is not a defense of A’s theory. It’s only sour grapes.
Apt analogy! bravo!
If I see the mathematical equation “1+1=3” in the context of decimal system arithmetics, am I wrong to confront this “in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection” to the rest of the relevant mathematical theory and findings?
Just curious.
So. Another Lew paper.
Is it printed on 2 or 3 ply for public usage?:
😀 Does it come with a print of Michael Mann?
“The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism” Is this from the paper?
As I have no intention of reading a Lew Paper.
If the quote is from the Alarmed ones, I sense a high probability neither has actually read Alice In Wonderland, their careers to date highlights this.
Strange how most of Lew’s outbursts would fit right in, as the the expert opinions in The Emperors New Clothes.
Human nature seems remarkably consistent through the ages.
That most certainly IS from the paper. It is its title.
Even more fundamental than theories in science are Principles, such as the Principle of Relativity from which the Theories of Special and General Relativity are derived.
The principle on which the entire scientific method is build is the Principle of Empiricism.
Those of us who are skeptical of many of the unsubstantiated claims made by climate modelers (and who are labeled ‘deniers’) have an world-view that the environmentalists and climatologists do not seem to understand, one which includes the Principle of Empiricism.
So who is paying Lew & Coo to produce this cra?
Scott Tissue.
Historically, regardless of how deplorable, the preference of simplicity and coherence over admission of ignorance and an open admission that one doesn’t know, has been integral to human side of science since before it was called science. If you look at Ptolemaic astronomy, the persistence of adding “epicycles” (parameters) to the model, marks the same sad state. One of the great disadvantages of dissenters is that many notice some specific issue, identify the problem and then offer a taylored alternative theory. In cosmology, this has lead to an entrenched “Standard Model” complete with accumulating epicyclical fixes (dark energy, dark matter, inflation) and a weed bed full of competing alternatives, each of which tends to focus on some specific shortcoming of SM. The gotcha is that the SM is so complete. It offers a “closed view” of space and time from a remote big bang to a distant heat death. Many of the alternatives reject beginnings or ends. Climate science is different in one way. Because of the front and center importance of global warming, it cannot reparameterize to properly fit empirical observation with rejecting the “serious problem of warming” upon which careers depend.
Using the “Raven paradox” we still have to wait, or don’t we?