Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A lecturer in critical thinking has demonstrated his technique for defeating climate skepticism.
How to use critical thinking to spot false climate claims
February 7, 2018 3.46pm AEDT
Peter Ellerton
Lecturer in Critical Thinking, Director of the UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland
Much of the public discussion about climate science consists of a stream of assertions. The climate is changing or it isn’t; carbon dioxide causes global warming or it doesn’t; humans are partly responsible or they are not; scientists have a rigorous process of peer review or they don’t, and so on.
Despite scientists’ best efforts at communicating with the public, not everyone knows enough about the underlying science to make a call one way or the other. Not only is climate science very complex, but it has also been targeted by deliberate obfuscation campaigns.
If we lack the expertise to evaluate the detail behind a claim, we typically substitute judgment about something complex (like climate science) with judgment about something simple (the character of people who speak about climate science).
But there are ways to analyse the strength of an argument without needing specialist knowledge. My colleagues, Dave Kinkead from the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project and John Cook from George Mason University in the US, and I published a paper yesterday in Environmental Research Letters on a critical thinking approach to climate change denial.
…
Six steps to evaluate contrarian climate claims
Identify the claim: First, identify as simply as possible what the actual claim is. In this case, the argument is:
The climate is currently changing as a result of natural processes.
Construct the supporting argument: An argument requires premises (those things we take to be true for the purposes of the argument) and a conclusion (effectively the claim being made). The premises together give us reason to accept the conclusion. The argument structure is something like this:
- Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
- Premise two: The climate is currently changing
- Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.
…
Check for ambiguity: The argument mentions climate change in its premises and conclusion. But the climate can change in many ways, and the phrase itself can have a variety of meanings. The problem with this argument is that the phrase is used to describe two different kinds of change.
Current climate change is much more rapid than previous climate change – they are not the same phenomenon. The syntax conveys the impression that the argument is valid, but it is not. To clear up the ambiguity, the argument can be presented more accurately by changing the second premise:
- Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
- Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes
- Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.
This correction for ambiguity has resulted in a conclusion that clearly does not follow from the premises. The argument has become invalid once again.
We can restore validity by considering what conclusion would follow from the premises. This leads us to the conclusion:
- Conclusion: Human (non-natural) activity is necessary to explain current climate change.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/how-to-use-critical-thinking-to-spot-false-climate-claims-91314
By adding unequivocal acceptance of the alarmist claim that recent global temperature changes are occurring more rapidly than can be explained by natural processes, you can overturn skeptic claims that recent temperature variations were mostly natural.
If you want to examine this technique in detail, Professor Ellerton’s study is available here.
What can I say – if your child attends University of Queensland, make sure they sign up to a class in critical thinking delivered by Professor Peter Ellerton.
Yes the climate science has been subject to obfuscation. The warmists changed the problem from global warming to climate change, from a fact that could be proven ( it either warms or not) to one that can’t be proven ( the climate changes and always has). Whilst it is theoretically clear ( although less clear in reality) how man may increase temperature the climate change theory has no practical science to support it.
Here is the short version. The way to defeat the arguments of climate skeptics is to attribute to them straw men arguments and then expose the logical fallacies within the straw men arguments you made up. I personally don’t think this strategy is effective in convincing the unconvinced, but what do I know. I don’t have a PhD in psychology.
Wow. Apparently you can flunk Logic 101, and yet be an “expert” in critical thinking.
Who knew?
I’m starting to seriously consider the possibility that logic swirls in the opposite direction in Australia just like water in their drains does. This is IDIOCY in full parade regalia marching confidently towards a cliff. John Cook is one of climate skeptics greatest weapons! Long may he publish.
If this had been about critical thinking regarding anything else than climate *science’, it would’ve made a text book example of how NOT to. But with Cooks name involved as well, there is no doubt they actually mean it . (Monty Pythons Argument clinic was hilarious, this is scaring).
There’s a lot of climate change on my front steps, about six inches of it and more expected. While I’m shoveling all that climate change and clearing out the feeding station so that the birds can stuff themselves at my expense, I will consider just how long it will (theoretically) take before real Lysenkoism starts popping up in some science classes.
It seems to me that anyone with a modest grasp of reality could easily refute this Ellison person’s conclusion. Critical thinking, my Fat Aunt Harriet! His argument that non-science people aren’t smart enough to figure things out for themselves isn’t just an attempt at a face slap. It’s also a clear indicator that he’s supporting fabrication of evidence to get what he wants. Sounds an awful lot like a disgraced Chicago cop named Burge, whose “convictions” are now being hammered flat by real evidence, costing the city of Chicago LOTS of money in lawsuits, which makes me happy. Glad I don’t live there any more.
It’s becoming clear that Aussies didn’t just drink the kool aid on global warming alarmism and activist messaging, they built the kool aid factory and have gained from major exports of kool aid to other markets.
Humans, he is one of you and a Professor of Logic – a particularly illogical construct. He emotionally left out the word “IF”. He should be informed as such as well as told that logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
Mr. Spock
“Much of the public discussion about climate science consists of a stream of assertions. The climate is changing or it isn’t; carbon dioxide causes global warming or it doesn’t; humans are partly responsible or they are not; ”
The unbelievably stupid major blunder committed by this committed warmist is his idiotic notion that “climate skeptics” believe that humans are having no effect on climate. I don’t know of a single scientist who has been labelled a skeptic who believes what Ellerton claims they believe. Ellerton has created an imaginary straw man to knock down. Unfortunately, the straw man doesn’t exist.
Ellerton – a major moron from down under.
I knew I could stop reading and save me some time when I read the words
I never seen anyone who uses the term “climate change denial” pejoratively actually go on to carefully define what it is they think is being denied. Never. Not once. Nor have I ever seen a person who explicitly claims that climate doesn’t change. Not one.
And what is it with Australia that they have such a rich supply of these people who seem unable to use simple logic and the English language at the same time, yet are employed by universities. Or have they been out in the hot Australian sun too long, and turned troppo?
PAIL- political activists in labcoats.
A labcoat is the emperor’s new clothes.
Government bureaucrats
with science degrees
supported by outside political activists..
Quite a potent combination.
Critical thinking. What an optimist.
Bunk from the first question.
Seeks to simplify arguments made, cutting away all of the “humans have some effect, we don’t know how much” nuance.
How is this crap not exactly the same as strawman arguing?
How does this shite get published
”
Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes
Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.
”
This is unbelievable!
Premise two is patently false, it is not even remotely established whatsoever that change is “more rapid” compared to other warming periods.
Conclusion is patently false
The nuance of debate is erased intentionally to end up at one absolute scenario that makes little sense to anyone who has debated on this topic. There is 0 accuracy in these scenarios.
The author or authors of this paper perfectly demonstrate the difference between highly educated and highly intelligent.
Clearly he\she or they are the former and not the latter
“But there are ways to analyse the strength of an argument without needing specialist knowledge.” Yes there are! They are called PREDICTIONS and are the heart and soul of the scientific method. Of the 2 camps (CO2 and Cyclical) the cyclical folks have been much more accurate.
For anyone who still touts the 97% etc please point out to me where the phrase “and then consensus was reached” is in the scientific method. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. To prove that claim I leave you with a 1 minute explanation by one of the 20th century greats.
As soon as I saw John Cook’s name I knew exactly where it was heading. Both he and Lewandowsky are certifiable and have no business diagnosing or looking critically at anyone’s cognitive ability.
“….Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes…..”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/
“…….Isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core suggests that Greenland was more than~10°C colder during the Younger Dryas and that the sudden warming of 10° ±4°C that ended the Younger Dryas occurred in only about 40 to 50. years……”.
If it sounds like a duck, and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck…..
Identify the claim:
The IPCC over-estimates the climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 3 such that the maximum possible is less than the lower limit claimed.
Supporting argument:
The scientific method based on applying COE and the SB Law results in a predicted sensitivity of 1/(4eoT^3), where o is the SB constant, T is the surface temperature, and e is the effective emissivity given as the ratio between the emissions of the planet and the BB emissions of a surface emissions at T.
Check for ambiguity:
The laws of physics are definitely not ambiguous and the data relating the surface temperature to the planets emissions concurs within a few percent of the prediction.
Conclusion:
To the extent that the laws of physics are correct, the claim is correct.
Going the other way:
Identify the claim:
CO2 emissions drive the surface temperature.
Supporting argument:
The consensus says so.
Check for ambiguity:
CO2 was less than 300 ppm during the last interglacial when the temperatures were 2-3C warmer.
There are no supporting laws of physics for this claim and the known physics can only contradict it.
The IPCC metric of forcing is ambiguous by considering an instantaneous increase in atmospheric absorption of surface emissions to be the same as an instantaneous increase in solar input.
The ice cores are contraindicative where changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature bu centuries.
Science is determined by the scientific method and not by ‘consensus’.
The IPCC is the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science yet requires a significant contribution by man to justify its existence (conflict of interest).
For 1 W/m^2 of forcing to increase the surface temperature by 0.8C and its corresponding emissions by 4.3 W/m^2 (as claimed by the IPCC), there must be 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ in addition to the forcing and which has no identifiable origin.
The rate of measured climate change in short term averages is well within the rates of change in longer term averages as reconstructed from the ice cores.
Conclusion:
The claim and the self serving consensus fabricated by the IPCC could not be more wrong.
In plain English:
The climate is wonderful, and has been getting better
for hundreds of years. The planet is greening too.
Who would want those trends to end?
Hypocritical thinking. It is a demonstration of the utter shallowness of these ‘thinkers’ and the state of “higher edu”. Critical thinking would not accept out of hand the pronouncement by the promoters re the rate of change relative to historical and the conclusion to be drawn, even if the thinker had no expertise in climate science (an expertise mostly in smoke and mirrors ). The intention of these devious characters is clear. The very example they give about natural change is indeed the the big bugbear that they have to deal with and the layman correctly would zero in on this confounding factor.
Let’s see what we can do with it. First how much do the experts say the warming has progressed? What? 0.6C from 1850 to 1950 and it actually changed significantly more between 1850 and 1935 (0.9 C or >1C/degrees/century)- mostly natural climbing out of the LIA. So natural variation can certainly be at least as much as 1C/ century. Moreover, The warming over which so much fuss and expenditure was incurred only took place between 1980 and 2000 and this began after a 40 year cooling which sparked fears of slipping into a long frigid earth period. So this warming itself has a large component of natural variation without any doubt whatsoever. It is a trivial observation to make.
After 2000 the Dreaded Pause ensued, relieved by a super el nino in 2015-2016, which is now decaying and showing high potential to revert back to The Pause and we are over 1/6th into the 21st century with no warming and only halfway through the cooling part of a natural cycle that is certainly having its way with global warming!
Their is one more thing wrong with their post normal critical thinking. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. If, after accounting for estimates of natural variation, there is excess warming, it must be AGW because of human activity emissions of CO2 (the ‘what else could it be’ argument).
Kudos, though for highlighting two truths: 1 Sceptics did indeed alert the science to natural variation, and 2. The ‘Critical Thinkers’ recognized NV as the number one confounding factor for their CO2 warming theory, relegating it to at most a minor effect.
What complete trash! The headline tells you it is highly biased, but this argument is so poor and so flawed as to be laughable. And yes I studied logic at university- this guy gets an F.
Yes, the easiest way to prove a skeptic wrong is to debunk a poorly constructed straw man argument.
That has always been the case.
There are numerous papers like this one that show natural rapid climate changes are evident and well represented in ice core samples.
That people would try to pretend otherwise is evidence of malfeasance at best.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/
The Conversation is supported by the same green US charities that undermine Canadian oil industry… What do you expect to read in that rag?
I think the biggest problem with the statement that the climate is changing much faster than it has in the past would be better worded as – we are able to measure and record changes much faster than proxy records are able to record or identify changes in the past. Therefore, our problem isn’t that climate is changing faster then we can remember, our data is changing faster prior records could record it.
One of my favorite demonstrations of this was the the 3 millimeter sediment sample which showed over 300,000 years of “climate stability”.
Slight change – Changing faster than prior recording systems (proxis) could record it
I find it hilarious that a university would feel the need to create a “Critical Thinking Project” in the first place. What’s next – a “Correct Spelling Project” at the National Library? A “Multiplication Table Project” at the Mathematical Sciences Institute?