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.
John Cook? Isn’t he the brilliant logical thinker who concluded that every paper mentioning the term “climate change” represents a climate scientist endorsing the fact (sic!) of man made climate change?
How Do You Know Climate Alarmists Are Lying? Their Lips Are Moving
Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting. Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/how-do-you-know-a-climate-alarmist-is-lying-their-lips-are-moving/
I said it before – “Critical Thinking” is the new buzz phrase of those who think Skeptics are Deplorables.
Wow. So now we have to CORRECTLY apply critical thinking to the thinking of “experts” on critical thinking? Who’d a thunk?
Once again, Climate Alarmism is a religion, so do not expect any correct logic to be applied by the believers.
Yes, the high priests and court jesters will interpret for everyone else as needed.
I think a warmer greener Earth is a better place than a colder greyer one.
What is all the fuss about?
They substitute a false premise: that the climate is changing faster than it ever has to invoke human causation and reject the skeptic view. They also mischaracterize the skeptic view. It is shady “logic”.
Even if Climate Skeptics/Heretics arguments are wrong does not mean that what the are arguing about is wrong.
Simple example.
Fermat’s Last Theorem.
Before it was finally proved in the 1990’s, there had been hundreds, if not thousands of false proofs submitted for publication. However, the fact that these proofs were all wrong in no way changed the later proved fact that Fermat’s last Theorem was in fact true.
Even a properly constructed formal Aristotelian syllogism is only as valid as its premises. “Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes” must first be validated before his formal logic has any bearing whatsoever. I’ve seen no convincing validation of such – we’ve seen evidence to the contrary in fact.
Peter Ellerton’s article discusses the structure of an argument. A sound argument is based on two important aspects: validity and truth. Ellerton is discussing the argument in question primarily in terms of validity.
Ellerton is critiquing this argument: ‘The climate is currently changing as a result of natural processes.’ He does this by teasing out the premises and conclusion of the argument:
• 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.
For an argument to be valid, one of the conditions is that the terms be consistent. Ellerton points out that the term ‘climate change’ when applied to the past does not have the same meaning as the term ‘climate change’ when applied to the present.
This is surely correct. The commonly understood meaning of the term ‘climate change’ when applied to the present is ‘man-made climate change’ or similar. This is the case regardless of any disputes over the mechanics of climate.
This inconsistency is sufficient to invalidate the original argument that current climate change is the same as in the past.
“For an argument to be valid, one of the conditions is that the terms be consistent. Ellerton points out that the term ‘climate change’ when applied to the past does not have the same meaning as the term ‘climate change’ when applied to the present.”
Right. So the problem is the change of meaning from 1 to 2 without changing any words.
Language is supposed to convey different meaning through the use of different words.
If someone is going to change meanings without changing any words, I submit that person is trying to hide something.
Andrew
Bad Andrew: ‘Language is supposed to convey different meaning through the use of different words.’
Apply that to the word ‘table’ and see how it works.
“So the problem is the change of meaning from 1 to 2 without changing any words.”
The technical word for that is “equivocation.”
How did Ellison “tease out” these premises? Strict Aristotelian (deductive) logic only applies if the premises are established as truths. When there is ambiguity, inductive logic prevails. So here is an example of the inductive argument (not made of strictly A. E, I and O category premises):
1) It is well established that there has been significant continuous climate change since a time well before humans existed. (OK, this could be “some climate change is natural”.
2) Physics would suggest that increases in CO2 concentration should result in an increase in overall temperature of the Earth’s suface and/ or atmosphere. (Not sure how to make this a formal categorical sentence).
3) Humans have not sufficiently developed the calculus (in the general sense) to make accurate predictions of by what extent the climate would change as a result of increased CO2 — the climate dynamic system is just way, way more complex than current methods can handle . This might actually be made into a formal categorical: “All calculated predictions for the effects on climate of increased CO2 concentrations are questionable.”
4) Wow, I’m coming full circle — this actually can be made into a formal syllogism: Next premise: All Predictions of looming CO2 driven catastrophic doom are calculated predictions of the effects on climate of increased CO2 concentrations.
So the formal argument becomes:
1) All calculated predictions for the effects on climate of increased CO2 concentrations are questionable.
2) All Predictions of looming CO2 driven catastrophic doom are calculated predictions of the effects on climate of increased CO2 concentrations
Conclusion: All Predictions of CO2 driven looming catastrophic doom are questionable.
It’s been nearly 40 years since I studied formal logic, but I’m pretty sure this would be considered a valid deductive syllogism. Unless, of course, you do not believe one of these two premises. Which would be fine for you to do that – that’s what science is.
Don S: How did Ellison “tease out” these premises?
The video shows how Ellerton arrives at his premises. The woman mentions a report on climate change and the man counters by saying he’d heard that climate changed naturally in the past and so must be changing naturally now.
Ellerton then lays out the argument in a more ordered form.
‘Strict Aristotelian (deductive) logic only applies if the premises are established as truths.’
I’m talking about the way modern arguments work. The distinction between validity and truth is well established, and for good reason: it helps clarity of thought by distinguishing between matters of fact and the structure of arguments.
As for your own argument, you’re basically saying that predictions are difficult, which is fine, but beside the point. The Ellerton argument is simply that just because something happened in a certain way in the past, the same doesn’t necessarily hold for today. That’s not controversial, but bears repeating.
From the Cook et. al. 2018 paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f
An appeal to authority is considered a fallacy in Aristotelian logic. “97% consensus” — even if we were to pretend it’s true — has no bearing on establishing the validity of the argument. It’s possible to have 100% consensus and for them all to be wrong. This isn’t just a hypothetical — consensus in the scientific community has a very poor track record over the ages. The appeal to authority may have strong appeal in a semantic argument, but has no bearing whatsoever in a logical one.
Brendan H: “the man counters by saying he’d heard that climate changed naturally in the past and so must be changing naturally now” is not an argument typically presented by informed skeptics. It’s easy enough for anyone with any point of view to find a stupid person with a contradictory view, and tear apart that particular person’s logic. This does not demonstrate that this particular stupid person’s reasoning is typical of people of his/her viewpoint. Classic straw man. So it would seem that the title conclusion should be ” One particular Climate Skeptic’s Argument is Demonstrably False.” Or perhaps even as much as “Some Climate Skeptics’ Arguments are Demonstrably False”. The title implies a universal.
Yes, this goes both ways, I know. Passionate people with points of view are eager to point out stupid people who disagree – there are plenty of stupid people to go around. The valid method is to have rational conversations with the intelligent people who disagree.
A variant that is often heard is, ‘the climate is always changing’, plus accusations that there was a name change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ as a way of manipulating the masses.
Both are based on the notion that the same effect must have the same cause. Importantly, the article above is based on an everyman’s understanding of climate, and that is probably most people.
Yes, rational conversations are the way to go. If only people could agree on what constitute rational conversations.
Reworded, but says the same thing.
Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
Premise two: The climate is currently changing … through unnatural processes … people aren’t natural.
Conclusion: Premise #1 is means nothing at this point in history; See Premise #2 and pay your penance.
I still love the description of human activity as ‘non-natural.’
I don’t know. Warmists may be non-natural – planted by aliens, maybe.
But I’M a living miracle of evolution.
“…humans are partly responsible or they are not;” I detect a movement in the goalposts… suddenly humans are partly responsible… sort of what the IPCC and skeptics have been saying all along.
This is unbelievable. I would expect better critical thinking ability from a primary school student. To use the authors format here are some premise 1, premise 2 conclusion triplets
premise 1 every time a new global temperature record is released earlier temperatures are found to be further reduced so as to increase the apparent warming rate
premise 2 when historical data is repeatedly adjusted so as to better support a current hypothesis it virtually always means at a minimum bias and at a maximum fraud
conclusion there are grounds to suspect the historical global temperature is biased or fabricated and if this is necessary to support the hypothesis then the hypothesis is probably wrong.
premise 1 the claim of dangerous anthropogenic global warming relies on a claim of massive positive feedback in the climate system
premise 2 positive feedback let alone massive positive feedback in natural (stable) systems is almost unheard of. Negative feedback vastly outweighs positive feedback
conclusion there are grounds to view the claims of massive positive feedback (and thus CAGW) with scepticism
premise 1 it is claimed warming will lead to more water evaporating (higher absolute humidity plus stronger convection) and that this will lead to less low cloud (cooling) and more high cloud (warming)
premise 2 but more water evaporating must mean more rainfall and rain only comes from low dense clouds (cooling clouds)
conclusion there is a clear contradiction between premise 1 and premise 2 suggesting that the original argument is wrong
I could go on for a long time but I think the above gives the idea.
Agree completely. It’s also pretty clear that Ellison is weak on the concept of the null hypothesis. It should be on the shoulders of those who are postulating that (most of?) the current variation is unnatural to back their position with solid evidence, not for the rest of us to disprove it.
Another very current triplet
premise 1 climate alarmists claim their simulations which show CAGW is happening also clearly predict islands such as Tuvalu will shrink and disappear
premise 2 Antony’s latest post provides evidence that Tuvalu is growing not shrinking
conclusion the alarmist models prediction is falsified by reality and that reduces the confidence in their core claims justifying scepticism
“Conclusion: Human (non-natural) activity is necessary to explain current climate change”
The world is made up of micro climates – has man effected the micro climates from changes of land use- absolutely.
The WMO flag up that micro-climates may have changed but not the climate in general though i would have thought change enough micro-climates and the climate at large would change.
Surely with the planet and deserts greening across the world the climate must have changed to reflect this.
Lets get real. The phrase “climate change” is an illegitimate substitute for “global warming” which was their original phrase. “Climate change” can be applied to warming or cooling alike. and I cannot imagine them clamoring against global cooling to justify more emission controls. Their current argument for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) requires the existence of greenhouse warming caused by by atmospheric carbon dioxide that we, the people, put there. When they speak climate change AGW is really what they mean with that code. Their green cure is to stop using fossil fuels. Hansen in his sinecure at Columbia just keeps demanding it periodically. His track record at GISS includes a woefully inaccurate 31 year global temperature prediction . from year 1988 to 2019, He and his ilk claim that the alleged warming today is caused by increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the air. It can be demonstrated that global temperature has never followed atmospheric carbon dioxide at any time since 1850 when the measurements started, Just take a look at HadCRUT3 showing global temperature and CO2 in parallel. The CO2 curve is smooth with a sliight upward curvature. At the same time, global temperature goes up and down but never parallel to the carbon dioxide curve. It follows that mo observed global temperature changes can be attributed to greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide.
Anyone can make a comment, but when when someone makes a comment on the basis of their relevant qualifications and experience then one has a reasonable expectation that such a comment will be well thought out, of substance (non trivial) and free of obvious flaws (defendable). If the comment then turns out to be none of these, then the implications extend to the “claimed expertise” of the person making the comment. To me, this is one of the tragedies of the CAGW religion, when the dust settles the damage that is being done to individual reputations and science in general will be very hard to undo.
yet another
premise 1 In looking at cause and effect, correlation does not justify claims of causation but causation does need at least some degree of correlation
premise 2 The recent (since the time man could be influencing CO2 levels) temperature and CO2 record shows almost no correlation between the two (temperatures have risen fallen and remained static while CO2 has risen)
conclusion the claim of rising CO2 causing dangerous global warming should be viewed with scepticism
and again another
premise 1 when scientists start to select data that supports their hypothesis while rejecting data that does not is is usually a sign of bias and a poorly (at best) supported hypothesis
premise 2 there are thousands of historical measurements of CO2 from the 19th and early 20th century carried out and reported in detail by extremely reputable scientists of the day. These do not support the claims that CO2 levels were stable before man emissions became significant and that CO2 levels are strongly linked to global temperature. These measurements are dismissed out of hand by CAGW advocates accepting instead a range of proxy measurements.
conclusion the CAGW advocates are selecting data that supports their hypothesis while rejecting data that does not which suggests bias and a poorly supported hypothesis.
Some of you have made some excellent rebuttals with quotes and citations. I’d encourage you to go over to The Conversation and make the same comments. If they go unchallenged, the liberal reading audience will assume the statements are correct.
The term “climate change” is totally ambiguous. It is 2 nouns together which is meaningless or can mean anything you want it to without a qualifying pronoun. You can put anything in to it- warming, cooling, natural, man-made, catastrophic, normal….anything.
“Acting” on “climate change” is insane- just throwing lots of money (a trillion a year) at the scammers. The noose needs to be attached to all those that spruik the line with the hands out or in your pocket. It is clearly an extortion racket based on a semantic manipulation.Then, the spruikers need to believe the noose will save them.
By leaving out the most common hypothesis, i.e. that global warming is caused by both natural and man-made causes, the professor destroys his rather simple shortcut to certainty. Aristotle would have seen through this as sophistry.
I am amazed some of the more intelligent students don’t rip their lecturer to sheds on stuff like this. In my day (At Uni in 70’s) there would always be one or 2 students who were way ahead of the rest of the class and would not infrequently directly challenge our professors (who encouraged it BTW).
Curiously whenever a CAGW proponent debates with a climate sceptic the CAGW person loses.
So much so that CAGW people now flee rather than face the graphs and data that sceptics cite.
Maybe that means the underlying science is not supportive of the CAGW people?
Commenting first; will read other comments later. My apologies for a$$ backwards this time.
Once again, john cook and his ilk twist reality into falsehoods.
What jc and ellerton are doing is called a “straw man” argument, a common logical fallacy; no matter how these fools pretend to frame it.
What is puzzling and quite suspicious is the cooperation of ellerton, Kincaid of Queenstown with a bad import jc, formerly of Australia; across such a wide ocean.
A problem for many visitors and immigrants is how to pay for trips back home. Especially very long expensive trips
By allegedly cooperative research, it appears jc can visit good old Australia regularly; or ellerton and Kincaid to visit USA.
Given George Mason’s previous failure to properly oversee grants and awards, it appears they’ve allowed another boondoggle waste of research funds.
GMU throws worse money after bad money.