Guest opinion by Drieu Godefridi
In a new paper just published with two other authors “The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism“, Stephan Lewandowsky states — for the umpteenth time — that climate skeptics are deniers, that
“there is strong evidence that the rejection of climate science is primarily driven by ideological factors”
(page 2), even psychological factors since their identity (page 3), or worldview, is threatened by climate science, that
“there is growing evidence for an involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of climate science”
(page 4) and that the whole body of skeptical pseudo-science (pp. 4, 15, 16) is incoherent, thus implying a form of “Mad Hatter” nonsense, since he claims that coherence is at the very essence of science.
Mr. Lewandowsky commits errors in reasoning that should have him immediately stripped of his university affiliation.
First of all, the idea that the critics of a dominant paradigm should be coherent among themselves, is not only false or ludicrous, but comical. At every step of the formidable development of science in the history of the West, we find a myriad of parallel and concomitant challenges to the dominant paradigm. That is, before one of them finally takes over. Were all the critiques of Newton, Kepler, Einstein or Heisenberg coherent between themselves? See the present state of physics, with several theories in the quest of the last particle, theories that are perfectly coherent as such, but mutually incoherent.
Lewandowsky is conscious of this slight monstrosity of his (only) argument since he writes (in the end): “Our analysis was performed at the aggregate level; that is, we considered the incoherence of collective argumentation among a “community” of like-minded individuals as if it were a single intellectual entity. It is possible, therefore, that individuals within this community would only hold one or the other of two incoherent views, and that each person considered in isolation would not be incoherent. In that case, one could argue that there is merely a heterogeneity of views in the “community” of denialists, which might in turn be interpreted as being an indication of “healthy debate” or “scientific diversity” rather than incoherence.” (page 16), only to reject it: ” the argumentative incoherence that we analyzed in this article also arises within arguments offered by the same individual.” Lewandowsky then gives a few samples of such individual incoherences, then concludes:
“This sample is far from exhaustive but is sufficient to establish the existence of argumentative incoherence at the level of the individual in addition to the denial movement in the aggregate.”
Having thus conceded the falsity of his argument, Lewandowsky tries to save it by explaining that somehow the incoherence of some scientists reverberates on the whole body of skeptical climate science. May we remind the 15 years old who may read this text that there is not one scientist who has ever been perfectly coherent, and that it takes some magical thinking to sustain that such an incoherence is contagious, not only between individuals, but between individuals and theories.
The main sample of incoherent thinking (at the “aggregate level”) given by Lewandowsky is this: ” Another long-standing contrarian claim has been that global warming “stopped” in 1998. Although this claim is based on a questionable interpretation of statistical data, it has been a focal point of media debate for the last decade or more and it has ultimately found entry into the scientific literature under the label of a “pause” or “hiatus” in warming. Either the temperature record is sufficiently accurate to examine its evolution, including the possibility that warming may have “paused”, or the record is so unreliable that no determination about global temperatures can be made.” (page 4). Did it occur to our expert in coherence that you can show the incoherence of a theory without accepting this theory?
Having thus showed that the argument of the hiatus since 1998 — which is indeed one of the favorite themes of scientists skeptical of the dominant paradigm in climate science — belongs to the realm of ideological, conspiracist and psychiatric pseudo-science, Lewandowsky explains that “the theoretical coherence of consensual climate science does not prevent robust debate.” (page 16). Of this robust, sane debate — opposite to the his alleged conspiracist pseudo-science of the denialists with a problem of identity — he gives an example: the hiatus. “One striking example <of robust debate inside the scientific community> involves the recent controversy about the so-called “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming in the early 2000’s. Some scientists have argued against the existence or special status of this “pause” (here the psychologist Lewandowsky quotes himself) whereas others have taken a contrary position. We therefore argue that science achieves its coherence through a constant self-correction process” (page 16).
In a very recently published paper Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines the “intellectual yet idiot” as a bureaucrat paid by the taxpayer who “pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.” However, in the case of Lewandowsky, an acknowledged expert in the psychological sciences, one can appreciate that this pathologizing of diverse experts in climate science who do not conform to his consensus ideation, appears to be intentional and is a career theme for him. If this speculation of intent is true, such activity is clearly in breach of medical and psychological codes of ethics, beginning with the acknowledged fundamental of “Do no harm.”
Enormous harm is done to science and to dissenting scientists by Lewandowsky’s portrayal of them as being pathologically unstable for voicing dissent – especially as well-known scientific codes of conduct like that of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine state that “Science has progressed through a uniquely productive marriage of human creativity and hard-nosed skepticism….”
Having fallen down his own rabbit hole into a magical, fantasy world of scientific conformity, the appreciation of the crucial value of critical thinking and skeptical review to science is something that Lewandowsky continues to deny.
National Academies:
The ideological motivation decryed by Lewandiwski is logic. They haven’t proved that we are in such mortal danger that totalitarian controls presented as emergency martial law necessary for the survival of us and the planet is indicated. There is some warming. That’s definite.
What Lewandowski reveals is a rigid consensus and populist mentality.
This connects to the ethical hysteria that his elite academically based cohort is so enjoying dumping on others in various arenas. Here, they have associated any serious questioning of their climate consensus as the equivalent of racism and Nazi genocide. Now that’s rigid and that’s hysterical.
I really like the picture of our dear Lew. It even looks like he is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
The playwright Terence knew better than to expect “coherence” more than 2000 years ago:
Why should it be any different on either side of the global warming controversy.
Lewey-lewey declares “There is growing evidence…” for this and that, yet he never presents any of the ‘evidence.’
Evidence is so tiny that no one can see it, except the great Lewey. And you must *believe*, of course.
this is Mr. Lewandowsky in his own mind as forecasted by Frank Zappa in the early 1970S:
I wrapped a newspaper ’round my head
So I looked like I was deep
I said some mumbo-jumbo, then
I told him he was going to sleep
I robbed his rings and pocketwatch
And everything else I found
I had that sucker hypnotized
He couldn’t even make a sound
I proceeded to tell him his future…..”
So who is rejecting climate science?
I find it interesting that the skeptic community is very able to identify and marginalize wingnuts on the skeptical side of the discussion while the warmist community appears to embrace and celebrate wingnuts on the warmist side of the discussion.
More the case that warmists never criticise wingnuts on their side. Because warmists are a political movement and they know it. So they keep a “united front”.
The kingdoms of experience
In the precious wind they rot
While paupers change possessions
Each one wishing for what the other has got
And the princess and the prince
Discuss what’s real and what is not
It doesn’t matter inside the Gates of Eden
Let’s see, there is the lack of any clue from climate science as to how pre-human influenced climate shifts occurred, which means there is no way to know that current changes are “unnatural”. There is the pause, which does actually exist in the most reliable, thorough, and unmeshed with climate data from UAH. There is the net GAIN in land surface area over the last several years as reported in a recent mainstream paper, in spite of the constant (not increasing) sea level rise over the last several hundred years. There is the lack of net change in global sea ice (decrease in arctic which is all that is ever reported and increase in antarctic, which is not reported). For a scientist with no dog in this fight (e.g., no grant money or position to be gained or lost), this seems to be plenty of evidence to indicate that the case for CAGW is weak.
Brilliant article. Thank you for this.
First point. I may hold a view for emotional or ideological reasons. I may, for those reasons, interpret the evidence as support for that view. But that does not automatically mean that I am wrong. (My distaste for the Church may have, in the past, inspired me to hold the heliocentric view, but I may well be right about it, nonetheless.) The truth or falsity of my views depends on their relationship with reality, not on my reasons for holding them. That is why argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.
Lewandowski is clearly a disgrace to psychology and to science in general. But there is a bigger disgrace on the peer-reviewed journals that publish his vindictive, tendentious codswallop in the name of science. They are a disgrace to all civilization and their corruption stinks.
If Cook and Lewandowsky genuinely believed their own climate hysteria they would seek to engage in civil discourse with skeptics and listen to the diversity of opinion that exists. But instead of an inclusive, consultative and constructive approach they choose to denigrate, stereotype, and construct walls of exclusion.
It could be easy to pass off as stereotypical activism, but both are students of human psychology with university qualifications and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
By actively undermining action on climate change, they both out themselves as fakes, and at the same time they also undermine the discipline of psychology and bring academic institutions into disrepute.
Second point. Let us suppose that I say that malaria is NOT caused by a surfeit of persimmons. And I offer solid evidence for that.
Let us further suppose that I believe it is caused by (a) bad air and (b) the curses of witchdoctors.
A and b seem to be incoherent. If I believe that the bad air is caused by the curses, they are not incoherent. But If I believe they are unrelated, and yet that both are the sole cause, then my position is, indeed, incoherent.
And yet, whether my position is incoherent or not, it does not affect the truth of the claim about malaria and persimmons.
Nor is that affected by the fact that modern medical science says I am wrong about the bad air, and, perhaps, even about the curses.
Third point. “The cat sat on the mat”, not “The cat, sat on the mat.”
“The cat” is the subject, so we do not put a comma between the subject and the verb.
“The cat with green whiskers sat on the mat”, not “The cat with green whiskers, sat on the mat.”
“The cat with green whiskers” is the subject clause, so we do not put a comma between the subject and the verb.
A comma before a verb indicates that the clause immediately preceding the verb is a subordinate clause.
In “this pathologizing of diverse experts in climate science who do not conform to his consensus ideation, appears to be intentional and is a career theme for him.”, is the clause immediately preceding “appears” subordinate or not? If it is a defining relative clause, it isn’t subordinate, but part of the subject clause. In that case, there should be no comma. The comma is misleading.
If it is a non-defining relative clause, then it is subordinate, and so there should be two commas.
Thus: “this pathologizing of diverse experts in climate science, who do not conform to his consensus ideation, appears to be intentional and is a career theme for him.”
They used to teach this stuff in schools. But they used to teach a lot of worthwhile stuff in schools.
I Loooove this paper
It’s about simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs being a “Signature” of conspiracy theorists.
In this latest Lew paper, Lew makes much of the fact that the Oregon Petition is populated by Non-Climate scientists despite the fact that it is well populated by “Domain Experts” relevant to the material, EG Engineers commenting on Feedback, Renewable Energy or Thermodynamics, Physicists on physics of gasses, Geologists on paleo climatology and Mathematicians and Computer Scientists on Modelling and Statistics. In this he implies/says that the Oregon Petition is invalid because the cohort of signatories are not climate scientists (broadly), Only Climate Scientists can comment on climate science, yet Lew Simultaneously holds the belief that a Psychologist (himself) has sufficient grasp of the science (despite having less domain expertise that most of the Oregon Petition signatories) that he is entitled to publish papers on the psychology of a particular set of protagonists in the debate and whether they are right or not. How dissonant is that. A mere psychologist – non climate scientist, should become the arbiter of truth within the climate debate!
Lew of course is guilty of holding simultaneously two contradictory beliefs, which by his own reasoning marks him as a conspiracy theorist …. Of course though, tell me something I didn’t know.
Climate “science” is not one science but is rather composed of many parts of which many are empirical (ie, not “physics”). There are also historical data used for testing (and tuning) and statistical tests of outputs. Many sceptics argue that various pieces of the climate puzzle model are flawed, and that therefore uncertainty is underestimated. With uncertainty underestimated, it is not logical to rush into extreme policy decisions like shutting down power plants. This is in fact a coherent argument. It is not necessary for all critics to agree because they are often commenting based on their own expertise and the piece of the puzzle that they have had time to look at. Lew himself is making up the “coherence” of the climate model field. The different models use different assumptions, different approximations (parameterizations), different driving data, different spatial scales, different numerical algorithms, and all generate different outputs. It is only possible to view all of this as coherent by being very forgiving or very ignorant. To view the climate models as inadequate for purpose is not a conspiracy but a logical deduction.