Paper: Circular Reasoning in Climate Change Research

Circular Reasoning in Climate Change Research

Jamal Munshi

Sonoma State University

Abstract

A literature review shows that the circular reasoning fallacy is common in climate change research. It is facilitated by confirmation bias and by activism such that the prior conviction of researchers is subsumed into the methodology. Example research papers on the impact of fossil fuel emissions on tropical cyclones, on sea level rise, and on the carbon cycle demonstrate that the conclusions drawn by researchers about their anthropogenic cause derive from circular reasoning. The validity of the anthropogenic nature of global warming and climate change and that of the effectiveness of proposed measures for climate action may therefore be questioned solely on this basis.

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3130131

PDF of the paper here: SSRN-id3130131

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

318 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew P Partington
February 27, 2018 7:05 am

Thank you! First the paper itself made me laugh (is it just me or do other people find logical fallacies being exposed for what they are quite amusing?) Then Brad Keyes ironic comments (and some of the responses) added to my amusement.

eyesonu
Reply to  Andrew P Partington
February 27, 2018 7:22 am

Well said!
I look forward to a head post and comments on circular reasoning where all comments require extensive use of dictionary and ironical reasoning to interpret. 😉
If and when it occurs it will be a hoot! Probably be on a Friday.

February 27, 2018 7:59 am

This is the circular reasoning:
Weather stats which are constantly changing get recorded
After awhile (not a scientifically determined amount of time) weather stats get repackaged as ‘climate’.
Climate (originally weather) then is blamed for changes in the weather.
So weather changes changed the weather.
Andrew

s-t
Reply to  Bad Andrew
February 27, 2018 4:24 pm

Record cold does not disprove warming. Because climate is not weather.
Also: “I believe climate is changing because I believe in thermometers”

HotScot
Reply to  s-t
February 27, 2018 4:37 pm

s-t
Therefore, record warms do not prove warming, as is consistently claimed.

s-t
February 27, 2018 9:10 am

The whole vaccines cult is based on circular reasoning:

Two: Read the introduction. The authors went into the study assuming vaccines cause grave harm. ” The aims of this study were 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, including acute and chronic conditions, medication and health service utilization, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and NDDs, if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.” That is serious bias

https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/why-this-vaxed-v-unvaxed-study-is-not-valid/
Merely asking the question: can vaccines be linked with “acute and chronic conditions…” is a bias for a vaxxer.
And that charlatanism passes as serious criticism of “anti vaxxers” in some academic circles!!!

kakatoa
February 27, 2018 9:52 am

Brad,
I was informed by Robin(1) of an upcoming seminar that you might find of value as it sounds like you could use some new material and what better way “to become proficient in understanding the neurological underpinnings of reading, math and writing disorders.” than to attend a multi-day event with experts who would love to meet you to evaluate if your prose could be captured to improve the mental health of our youth- re- http://www.happinesscouncil.org/
It would be interesting to learn more about the skills needed to “evaluate the relevance of neuroscience research for intervention in decision making”(2)
1) http://invisibleserfscollar.com/change-your-belief-change-your-behavior-change-your-life-tranzi-obe-again-at-the-forefront/#comment-829803
(2) https://www.learningandthebrain.com/Event-369/The-Neuropsychology-of-Learning-Disabilities/

February 27, 2018 10:16 am

Yet another feedback loop they don’t account for.

ResourceGuy
February 27, 2018 10:42 am

But circular logic makes the academic publishing mill go round. Think of the children. Think of the economic impact.

DWR54
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 27, 2018 12:28 pm

Should molecular biologists question the theory of evolution every time they describe mutations of the flu virus? Should epidemiologists question the germ theory of disease every time there is an outbreak of Cholera? Where does this silliness end?

Phil
February 27, 2018 11:46 pm

Another interesting book on the subject is The Atlantic Celts, by Simon James.

February 28, 2018 7:23 am

While attending the CSASTRO meeting held at the Colorado Springs Space Foundation Discovery Center last night a couple of exhibits caught my eye.
There is a mockup of an MMU, Manned Maneuvering Unit, used on three missions for free floating space walks. The late Bruce McCandless using the MMU was pictured in several news articles. I understand the MMU was abandoned as too risky, a failure and the astronaut is screwed. Too bad they weren’t as cautious about SRM O-rings and loose foam insulation blocks.
A nearby descriptive panel highlights some of the major MMU systems including a cooling system. If outer space is cold, why is a cooling system needed? Why not a heating system?
Close by stands a glass case with a mannequin clothed in long underwear with interwoven coolant tubing. This underwear is the first layer of a lunar excursion outfit. A placard nearby explains this cooling is needed because the airless surface of the moon is 253 F (122.7 C, 395.7 K).
Typical diurnal range of the Moon’s equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric data is 390 K to 93 K with an average of 213 K. (https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723)
The ISS has not one, but a redundant pair of ammonia refrigerant cooling, chilling, air conditioning systems. Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting ISS sun lit side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C). (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/)
According to Radiative Green House Effect theory the surface of the earth at 288 K is 33 C warmer than the earth without atmosphere at 255 K.
The physical evidence presented above suggests that, because of the reflective albedo, the earth is 160 C cooler with an atmosphere, 394 K (w/o) – 288 K (w).
What this discussion presents is actual, real, physical, measured evidence that clearly refutes, falsifies RGHE theory and the man caused climate change, CAGW, Anthropocene house of cards, Jenga blocks, dominoes pseudo-science nonsense stacked upon it.

s-t
Reply to  nickreality65
March 1, 2018 12:36 pm

“If outer space is cold, why is a cooling system needed?”
Because space is spacy, and pretty much empty?

March 4, 2018 1:06 am

I dо know a sport we caan play that is like Ɗaddy is speaking about.?Mommy said making each bo᧐ys need too knoow the spoгt a lot.
?It?s called ?What iѕ the smartest thing about God. And each of us has to
come up with one actually great point we lіke about God.
Who needѕ to go first?? Leeе and Larry jumped and shoᥙted ?ME ME!?
waving their arms within thee air like they
ddo at school. Lastly, Mommy said, ?Nicely Lee, since youre two mіnute older than Larry, youu pоsibly can go first.