The DIY Nonsense Detector Kit: How to differentiate science from psychobabble.

Guest humor by David Middleton

I ran across this interesting article on Real Clear Science today:

Is That Science?

The Wide World of Science

Jamie Hale
October 24, 2018

Science is persuasive, and it should be; science is the great reality detector. What appears to be a scientific claim often isn’t. Promoters of pseudoscience (claims disguised as science that have little scientific value) are aware of the strong value placed on science. Attach the term science, or make it sound like science, and the value of a claim, product, or service is instantly enhanced. This can also be problematic because attaching the word science to a claim doesn’t make it science.

Pseudoscience is a major roadblock to rationality. Pseudoscientific beliefs are more costly than people think. Time and money spent on pseudoscience is time and money that could have been spent on beneficial activities. We live in an interconnected society, so the pseudoscientific beliefs of a few people may influence outcomes for many people. As an example, the false belief that autism is caused or associated with early vaccination has led to decreased immunization rates, more children being hospitalized, and in some cases death (Stanovich et al. 2016). As another example, consider the strange activity of Steve Jobs, who “ignored his doctors after being told of his pancreatic cancer and delayed surgery for nine months while he pursued unproven fruit diets, consulted a psychic, and received bogus hydrotherapy” (Stanovich et al. 2016,192).

The Nonsense Detection Kit

The impetus for writing the Nonsense Detection Kit was previous suggestions made by Sagan (1996), Lilienfeld et al. (2012) and Shermer (2001). The Nonsense Detection Kit is referring to nonsense in terms of “scientific nonsense.” Nonsense as it is used here is synonymous with pseudoscience. There is no single criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, but it is possible to identify indicators, or warning signs. The more warnings signs that appear, the more likely the claim is nonsense.

[…]

Jamie Hale is a college instructor, and he is associated with Eastern Kentucky University’s Cognitive Neuroscience Lab and Perception & Cognition Lab. He has published articles and books on a wide range of topics. Jamie is the director of www.knowledgesummit.net and author of In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics. His future articles will address models for improved scientific thinking, popular myths, and rationality in terms of cognitive science.

Skeptical Inquirer

Mr. Hale provided six nonsense indicators… Which apply amazingly well to Gorebal Warming!

Number 1:

Nonsense Indicator: Claims Haven’t Been Verified by an Independent Source

From Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre):

Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:

15. It’s on a diskette somewhere, but I don’t know where.
14. If we get a good climatic story from a chronology, we write a paper using it. That is our funded mission! The rejected data are set aside and not archived.
13. A source code request by a reviewer is unprecedented in the 28 years since I founded the journal.
12. It’s on our FTP site, but I’ve forgotten the location.
11. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his.
10. With regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors.
9. It’s password protected.
8. It’s the property of the originating author.
7. It will be available after we publish an article.
6. We’re planning to publish another article.
5. As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men. A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in.
4. I’ve misplaced it.
3. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
2. Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.
1. No reply

Number 2.

Nonsense Indicator: Claimant Has Only Searched for Confirmatory Evidence

From Climate Etc. (Dr. Judith Curry):

Number 3.

Nonsense Indicator: Personal Beliefs and Biases Drive the Conclusions

From The Houston Chronicle:

 

We’re scientists. We know the climate’s changing. And we know why.

Andrew Dessler, Daniel Cohan Oct. 22, 2018

[…]

Climate does not change by itself…

[…]

Number 4.

Nonsense Indicator: Excessive Reliance on Authorities

From the Soviet Union of Concerned Socialists Scientists:

Consensus worldwide

Many scientific societies and academies have released statements and studies that highlight the overwhelming consensus on climate change science.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Reaffirms the Reality of Human-Caused Climate Change

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.” (June 2016)

American Chemical SocietyStatement on Global Climate Change

“The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. … Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.” (2016)

American Geophysical UnionHuman-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action.

“Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.”(December 2003, revised and reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (August 2012)

American Physical SocietyStatement on Earth’s Changing Climate

“While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing.” (November 2015)

Geological Society of AmericaPosition Statement on Climate Change

“Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals.” (October 2006; revised April 2010, March 2013, April 2015).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” (2014)

International academies joint statement: Global response to climate change

“The world’s climate is changing, and the impacts are already being observed. Changing agricultural conditions, ocean warming and acidification, rising sea levels, and increased frequency and intensity of many extreme weather events are impacting infrastructure, environmental assets and human health.” (2018, African Academy of Sciences and the national academies of science of the United Kingdom, Australia, Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, India, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, New Zealand, Cyprus, Singapore, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Scotland, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Zambia, Malaysia, Cameroon).

U.S. Global Change Research Program: Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report

“Based on extensive evidence, … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

“In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.” (November 2017)

U.S. National Academy of SciencesUnderstanding and Responding to Climate Change

“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it.” (2008)

Number 5.

Nonsense Indicator: Overreliance on Anecdotes

Hot off the presses…

Climate communication for biologists: When a picture can tell a thousand words

Stephan Lewandowsky , Lorraine Whitmarsh
Published: October 9, 2018

Abstract
Pictures often tell a story better than the proverbial 1,000 words. However, in connection with climate change, many pictures can be highly misleading, for example, when a snowball is used to ridicule the notion of global warming or when a picture of a dead crop is supposed to alert people to climate change. We differentiate between such inappropriate pictures and those that can be used legitimately because they capture long-term trends. For example, photos of a glacier’s retreat are legitimate indicators of the long-term mass balance loss that is observed for the vast majority of glaciers around the world.

[…]

Triggering positive affect
Images or stories that demonstrate the significance of climate change for valued objects, places, or people—without evoking demotivating fear—can be effective triggers for public engagement. The need for affective engagement must, however, be balanced with informational content that accurately conveys the causes or impacts of climate change. If neither a snowball nor pictures of polar bears or parched landscapes are legitimate images, what are?

[…]

Number 6.

Nonsense Indicator: Use of Excessive ‘Science Sounding’ Words or Concepts

  1. Anthropocene
  2. Ocean Acidification
  3. Global Warming
  4. Climate Change
  5. Climate Weirding
  6. Atmospheric Radicalization
  7. Carbon Pollution
  8. Atmosphere Cancer
Advertisements

125 thoughts on “The DIY Nonsense Detector Kit: How to differentiate science from psychobabble.

  1. why not fake some data, submit a report. wait till it is published and heralded.., then reveal the fakery .. then have a laugh..

    • That’s been done already. Ever heard of the paper: ‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’ ? That just one of many purposely fake papers that have gotten published over the years that show how bad “peer review” really is.

      • A few years ago, after such a published paper (that passed peer-review) was exposed, someone had a link to a “research paper generator” that he put together. He was asking for “sciency sounding” phrases that would be entered into the database to generate the random sentences that made up these “papers”.
        I didn’t save the link. 8-(
        (My contribution was “the systematizing of error”.)

    • it’s been done. “Rape Culture in Dog parks” was one of many articles written in jest then published by major scientific journals who accepted them as real.

      • Indeed, I’d tried posting the same point using “the conceptual [male body part the naming of which I assume caused my prior attempt to disappear into the ether] as a social construct” paper.

  2. I thought with Paul Ehrlich the human race was a cancer. Now the cancer of climate change is bad because it’s going to hurt the other cancer–us? Maybe we need “neutron bomb” climate change that will kill us, but leave trees and Bambi standing. Oops, Bambi died as a prey animal at a young age. He’ll have to be brought back to life by cutting edge technology, devised by … humans. So confusing.

    • Well, I’m no fan of Erlich, and don’t have misanthropic distopian views, but I think Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis of the biosphere as a super organism is pretty neat. Humanity is one cell type of that organism that is growing rapidly and absorbing a lot of resources. So the cancer analogy is not totally without merit either.

      The obvious difference is tha humans are intelligent, are aware of the growth and actively attempt to develop new resources.

      It remains to be seen whether intelligence manages to control the Darwinian urge to consume and grow.

      • Or maybe Gaia, in her infinite wisdom, created a new type of immune “cell” to fight against the selfish and short sighted plants which locked away all of her life giving carbon. We, Mr. Anderson, are the cure.

        • Strange when one realises that about the time the planet entered a period when both temperature and atmospheric CO2 are at their lowest ever in the planet’s history (together) humans pitched up out of nowhere and discovered how to burn rocks buried in the ground.

          I’m not a religious man but that gives me the creeps.

      • Gaia has suffered natural events far worse than humanity.
        Like George Carlin said, “Maybe She’s just been waiting for 4.5 Gy or humans to provide her plastics? Earth + plastic.”

      • Lovelock has become pro-nuclear, maybe because Gaia has a uranium womb.

        And notice Vernadsky showing the difference between the biosphere and our Noosphere. The difference is first the use of fire of increasing energy density, and the ancient apparent paradox – an idea can alter the landscape faster than any biospheric process – a relative speed-up. Add to that the extra-terestrial imperative.

      • Alternate response*:

        Gaia, having been repeatedly kicked hard by external events, finally developed an immune response capable of preserving it from large rocks and other threats. That would be us, and it is our duty to preserve Gaia from comets, gamma ray bursts, expanding stars, and all other threats to the existence of Gaia.

        * Not necessarily my view, but I do endorse it as an effective means of communicating a point.

  3. May. Might. Could. Should. The inference is.. Interpolated as… Deemed to… Considered to… Robust. Re-interpretation. New statistical technique.

    We need a dictionary of pseudo-science terms. There must be hundreds more.

    • Interpolation is not generally a problem. It is the tune to 50y of data and extrapolate two centuries hence which totally unscientific..

      If fact , when dealing with a non-linear chaotic system even very short term extapolation is of questionable validity.

      • “Consistent with” is a good one no doubt, but falls a distant second to the more convoluted double negative of “Is not inconsistent with”.

      • “We need a dictionary of pseudo-science terms. There must be hundreds more.”

        Homgenize/Homogenized
        Outlier
        May
        Should
        Indicative
        Illustrative
        Smoothed
        Filtered
        Corrected

      • Can’t make a dictionary of terms that have no meaning. The whole point of the pseudo-scientific terms is to confuse. They either have no meaning or a meaning which is changed to suit the need.

    • George Orwell said (in “Politics and the English Language,” I think) this:

      It is easier to say “In my opinion it is a not unjustifiable assumption that” than to say “I think.”

      • Actually, Kristi, hypotheses are usually strong statements – propositions as to a cause/effect relationship, for example, even when just a working hypothesis. Weasel words as those Ivor noted aren’t generally used in formulating a hypothesis – by their very nature they would weaken the proposition. Just think about it, e.g. ‘Carbon dioxide is the control knob of climate’ is a strong (if falsified) hypothesis. ‘Carbon dioxide may be the control knob of climate’ is a wank as is pretty much any article you might read that ledes with maybe modifiers or ‘scientists say’ or the other hogwash with which we are inundated daily.

        • Dave W

          hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

          The investigation doesn’t have to be made for hypotheses to be formulated. Papers often discuss further avenues of investigation.

          However, I was wrong in saying what I did. The better explanation is that science is full of wishy-washy words because science never claims to prove anything – there is always the possibility of error, partly because data are only a sample of the real world. For this reason, all statistical analyses are technically models. Even a graph is a model. There is always room for new information and ideas to come along and supplant/improve the old. This is fundamental to the philosophy and methodology of science. So phrases like “these results suggest…” comes naturally to science writing. And hypotheses are also common, though not stated as such. “If this is true, there may also be an association between…” That further investigation would be necessary to establish the association is implicit.

  4. And why is the Source Data never provided, much less the calculation methods?

    How can anything be peer reviewed unless the source data and methods are provided>?

      • For me, this was the drop the mic and walk away moment in listening to or discussing anything with these jackasses.

        • This is what is truly laughable – the Climate Nazis spit in the face of the scientific method, while simultaneously claiming those who disagree are “denying science.”

          • AGW is not Science

            My beef is that as a layman, even I know twice as much as the alarmist climate scientists because I have taken the time to look at the alternative, which is far more than they have done.

          • And claim to be using “evidence-based” methods and policy making, and those who disagree with them are refusing to use evidence-based methods.

          • HotScot,

            “My beef is that as a layman, even I know twice as much as the alarmist climate scientists because I have taken the time to look at the alternative, which is far more than they have done.”

            How do you know?

            Geez, it’s hard to decide whether your disdain for scientists or your own self-regard is more baffling.

      • “Why should I make the data available… when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

        I think this is legitimate. Having a goal to find something wrong in order to refute a claim is a sign of bias. Bias has no place in science, and can lead to flawed work (as M&M’s was). It is entirely different to reproduce a study simply to see whether the results hold up, or to dispassionately audit data for signs of errors.

        If based on methods in the original publication it’s suspected that there are errors, this is good reason to try to replicate the study. This may have been the case, but without that context, the question is a reasonable one.

        (Although Mann et al. did have an error in their methods, it didn’t significantly change the results.)

        As for not supplying information…ever heard of the Wegman Report? After 4 years he still hadn’t done what he’d promised or supplied information requested. See https://deepclimate.org/2010/10/24/david-ritson-speaks-out/ (A detailed analysis of Wegman’s “replication” of M&M’s study https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/)

        • So in your world Kristi proving yourself right is all that matters. That is so systematically bias in itself as to show your own bias.

          Science is always started with an hypothesis (or conjecture the 2 are virtually indistinguishable) and science being basically sceptical is all about proof of viability. This is best shown by repeatability of experiment or research or by being unable to disprove it. Even then most investigative science is still conjecture after careful examination.

          To withold information on the basis of being found wrong or the basis of your research in error, is an unforgivable error for any scientific process and displays an incredible arrogance, and displays a real cognitive disability

          • Mark Hansford,

            “So in your world Kristi proving yourself right is all that matters. ”

            Where did you get that idea?

            “Prove” is not a scientific word. I goes against the fundamental tenets of science.

            It seems you don’t understand my point. “To withold information on the basis of being found wrong …” This isn’t what I’m talking about. My point is that someone who demands someone else’s data, code, etc. with the express intention of trying to find errors in their research because they don’t like the results (or the researcher) is not professional. This is not just a matter of replication, it is the product of an agenda. “I don’t like you/your results, so I’m going to try to discredit them, whatever it takes” is not the same as, “Interesting results – could you please provide me with the data you used, so I can replicate the experiment?” What M&M did was try to show that Mann’s work was bad. And part of that was based on an economic idea: “It still amazes me that for all the billions of dollars being spent on the climate change industry … it was nobody’s job to check if the IPCC’s main piece of evidence was right.” Main piece of evidence is debatable, but regardless, this simply isn’t how science works. In his article (https://climateaudit.org/2005/02/14/some-thoughts-on-disclosure-and-due-diligence-in-climate-science/), McIntyre’s argument is that the same kind of “auditing” used in the business sphere should be applied to science. But science is not the same as business; there aren’t “auditors.” In science the standard is replication, ideally using more data as it becomes available, and often using different methods. This serves not only to check the original results, but often to improve upon them – or to contradict them. A contradiction can also be informative – where does the difference come from? In this way, science moves forward. It is self-correcting. It takes time, but it works. New GCMs, for example, aren’t simply audits of the old ones, but include more data and better understanding at a higher resolution, with more refined output in their simulations. Very few here believe it, but they are improving.

            Replication (vs. auditing) also minimizes animosity among scientists. Science is different from business in that it relies on cooperation and communication across labs, and it is essential for healthy professional relationships to be maintained, even when scientists disagree. Debate is a good thing in science. What is not good is when scientists go outside the community and cast aspersions on each other through the media, talks, congressional testimony, etc. This has taken place in the climate change debate, particularly through the association of scientists with think tanks and blogs. I believe it is one reason some contrarian scientists have experienced negative impacts (and why some mainstream ones are so hated by skeptics). Dr. Ridd, for example, said on TV news that particular scientific institutions should not be trusted. This was a very serious claim, and it is not at all surprising he was censured. …But that’s getting off-topic. Sort of. The point is that there are ways of doing things in the scientific community that may not seem “right” to outsiders, but there are reasons they are done this way.

            The other point is that scientific procedures do change, but slowly. The sharing of data became an important issue through all this (and Climategate), and the result was greater availability, which is a good thing. It was made possible entirely through the internet. Things were different 20 years ago, not so well-organized.

            Long post. That’s enough. Probably won’t make a difference, anyway.

          • So it seems we are at an impasse, you dont think I understand what you are saying and you certainly are missing the point at what I am saying. I will keep it simple and answer the firts part of your first replying paragraph. I would expect any true scientist to welcome criticism of the data as this helps prove or disprove the hypothesis. To hide it or not release it is a bias and has no place in scientific study.

            Manns work was bad – his hockey stick was based on splicing 2 different data sets from entirely different resources together, plus using far too small a sample size.

            The IPCC is not a scientific body it uses scientific research and reporting selectively to produce a purely political agenda.

            You are quite obviously a highly intelligent and capable debater, so I think it sad that you lose credibility by defending the indefensible and wasting time here on semantics.

            Although I disagree with your stance I do read your posts I just wish they were more about the science than the politics

          • Mark Hansford,

            ” I would expect any true scientist to welcome criticism of the data as this helps prove or disprove the hypothesis.”

            In theory this would be true, but the theory doesn’t hold when someone has a goal of discrediting the research. McIntyre is STILL writing about papers from 1998 and 2008, going over the same old ground in his blogs. This is part of an agenda, not science.

            “To hide it or not release it is a bias and has no place in scientific study.”

            I agree. But neither is it professional to badger someone with requests when the data isn’t immediately available. There were legitimate problems with supplying the data, at least to begin with. You’re right, the data should be supplied to colleagues who genuinely want to replicate a study. This is science. Wanting to trash someone’s research because it doesn’t suit someone’s world view is not science. Think about it: here’s an economist and a mining executive who suddenly want to get involved in paleoclimatology. Do you think they’re doing it out of genuine desire to make sure the science is done well? Why not “audit” a study on penguins?

            “Manns work was bad – his hockey stick was based on splicing 2 different data sets from entirely different resources together, plus using far too small a sample size.”

            If it was so bad, why has it been reproduced again and again? The dataset used 112 indicators. The earlier centuries had larger error. MBH weren’t hiding uncertainty. The instrumental record was integrated with the proxy record because the recent tree ring data weren’t reliable, and they knew that from previous research. This is perfectly legitimate.

            I would much rather talk about science. But the political aspect is unavoidable around here because so many people see the science through its impact on policy. And I think it’s important to point out that many of the same people who whine about propaganda elsewhere are not seeing the propaganda here. It does no good, I suppose, but I have to try.

            I talk about the practice of science. I’m not a climatologist. I’m more vocal about the areas of science I know more about. And it often seems like providing evidence in the form of links to research is wasted effort – people believe what they want to believe.

        • “Why should I make the data available… when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

          I think this is legitimate. Having a goal to find something wrong in order to refute a claim is a sign of bias.”

          wait.. what?? That’s the basic premise of science, to fault mythology, to actively seek to disprove theory , to test a hypothesis to destruction to see if it can withstand all that’s hurled at it. To do this you have to attack it in as many ways as possible. First of course it has to be falisifiable, so vague theories, faiths and other wishy washy stuff cannot be examined by science for faults if it won’t pin it’s flag to the pole and be specific.. but anything specific can and should be attacked and tested – THAT is science.

          preservation and protection of faith is not science.

          • Karlos51,

            Science is not about “attacking” someone’s results. Science is about replication research.

            What happened when M&M attacked MBH is that they attempted to find flaws, whatever it took. They thought the did find serious flaws, and skeptics latched onto that. When others pointed out the flaws in M&M’s work, skeptics ignored them. The result was skeptics believing that MBH was all wrong, when in fact there was a single statistical error that didn’t really affect the results. The hockey stick shape is legit. This is the conclusion the NAS report came to – the same one quoted by McIntyre – and reached by other researchers since, but skeptics still won’t accept it. This is not the result of good science. It’s the result of M&M bent on tearing science down. And McIntyre is still doing it through blog posts, decades later.

        • had to leave my computer for a bit but to tackle the rest of your post – I cant disagree much – I think that the biggest part of the problem here is a media who seem to be hell bound on misrepresentation in order to produce sensational reports to attract viewers and ,of course, anger – which will have the viewer/listener/reader returning for the latest update of misrepresentation.

          We are told over and over again that a large percentage (the % argued elsewhere) have joined the consensus – but thats just it, and the argument that most on here identify with, it is still consensus based on hypothesis and is by no means proven either by experimentation data or the weather/climate itself. The climate continues to defy all those that try to define its future and probably will continue to do so.

          Therefore carry on with consensus/ conjecture/ hypothesis – but until the global climate properly aligns itself with the hypothesis anybody with an interest should feel free to examine in minute detail where the departure from actuality is. Thats what I read into – most definitely not ‘the science is settled’ or ‘I wont release the data just for you to find fault. Both in themselves inherently unscientific

          • Mark Hansford,

            “I think that the biggest part of the problem here is a media who seem to be hell bound on misrepresentation in order to produce sensational reports to attract viewers and ,of course, anger – which will have the viewer/listener/reader returning for the latest update of misrepresentation.”

            AGREED!

            “We are told over and over again that a large percentage (the % argued elsewhere) have joined the consensus – but thats just it, and the argument that most on here identify with, it is still consensus based on hypothesis and is by no means proven either by experimentation data or the weather/climate itself.”

            What kind of evidence will ever be good enough to convince skeptics?

            “The science is settled” is itself not scientific if “settled” is synonymous with “proof.” Some aspects of the science are much better supported than others. There is still much more to learn, and I think very few climate scientists would disagree. But the vast majority of active, publishing climate scientists believe anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of global warming – i.e., it’s responsible for more than 50%. The theory is solid. There is good observable evidence from a wide array of sources (satellite measurements of the TOA energy balance, glacier retreat, warming oceans, surface temps, changes in the “behavior” of organisms, GCMs etc.) that the climate is changing rapidly, and no other mechanism accounts for more of the change. That doesn’t mean CO2 is driving all variation – some can be attributed to insolation, volcanoes, pollution, ocean cycles, etc.

            What evidence would satisfy skeptics? It has to be realistic – something that can actually be measured or observed. It can’t rely on the models being perfect or accurate in every measure of climate projection – the models aren’t that good, though they are getting better.

            This is a fundamental question: what would convince skeptics?

    • “And why is the Source Data never provided, much less the calculation methods?”

      Stock – umm, “never provided”? These days the data source is usually provided. The data are, in turn, usually provided at the source – but they are not often used in the peer review process. Why would they be?

      The calculation methods are in the paper or the supplementary materials, or in another publication that is cited.

  5. I would have all these referenced Scientific Organizations watch a Science Education video I use to use with my 8th grade Science students called, Pseudoscience. Over and over again though out the video these claims made and debunked the presenter would use the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Oh yes the presenter and author of the video was none other than Bill Nye the Science (?) Guy.

  6. Are they talking the same language? (i.e., “climate change” vs … climate change)

    Are they comparing the same metrics? (i.e., average of gas temperatures vs integral over a black body)

    Are they using the correct fundamental geometry? (i.e., static flat Earth vs a rotating sphere)

    Are they performing a meaningful calculation? (i.e., average global temperature vs average energy content)

    Do they erroneously equate fundamental thermodynamic concepts? (i.e., heat vs energy vs light)

    Do they elevate unconfirmed theory and modeling above actual observations? (i.e., reliance on badly tuned climate models with biased assumptions vs testing models with real data long enough to truly believe in their correctness)

    Do they rely on higher statistical manipulations to kid themselves into believing that they eliminate uncertainties in raw data? (i.e., emphasizing anomalies to the exclusion of all else)

    Do they exaggerate one axis of a graph to make the progression of the other axis look extreme? (i.e., temperature scaled in tenths of degrees vs time scaled in years)

    • Robert Kernodle

      “Do they exaggerate one axis of a graph to make the progression of the other axis look extreme? (i.e., temperature scaled in tenths of degrees vs time scaled in years)”

      That used to impress me no end (I’m not educated) until it was pointed out to me what they were doing. Even then I wasn’t completely convinced until I saw this:

      https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png

      Sharp intake of breath then, “man, am I ever a sucker!”.

      • “Sharp intake of breath then, “man, am I ever a sucker!”.”

        Obviously you are if the “graph” means anything to you other than it being stupid.
        (Actually it was first put up by Brandon Gates here as a pisstake on denizens – and it worked)…….
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/#comment-1688159
        I would suggest you then do the same thing to the proxy record and that would wipe out the significance of the MWP and the LIA.
        And we would all nothing about historical climate, eh?

        What you allude to is the denial of knowledge …. because it is a small change?
        Like CO2 being 0.04% of the atmosphere yet it has a warming effect due it being a non-condensing GHG.
        A miracle molecule denizens say.
        Yet it is lauded for greening the Earth.
        That you dont get the irony is a given.
        Small changes can and are percievable in many things.
        That they are small does not mean they are unimportant.
        And just because we cannot know everything, does not mean we know nothing.
        Even you, that you think so from seeing that stupid (piss-taking) graph and dismissing 120 years of empirical science.
        I’d suggest that ideological bias and confirmation of same by only frequenting dog-whistling Blogs whose raison d’etre is to claim that all climate science is wrong or a scam.

        • “I would suggest you then do the same thing to the proxy record and that would wipe out the significance of the MWP and the LIA. And we would all nothing about historical climate, eh?”

          I would suggest that the only reason that we even speak of a MWP and LIA is to contest the fact that people like you believe that those small changes mean anything, … that we can deduce equally “alarming” SMALL changes in the fairly recent past BEFORE now, in other words, we can play your same game in the past, where human influences were NOT what they are now. Frankly, the best idea might be to wipe out those periods AND the current period, for the sake of a reality check, which would reveal that Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable for a remarkably long time. ALL those little changes don’t mean crap. I would be okay with that.

          “What you [HotScott] allude to is the denial of knowledge …. because it is a small change?”

          No, Anthony B, I don’t think that’s what HotScott alludes to at all. Rather, he alludes to warped contextual comparison and faulty analogy.

          “Like CO2 being 0.04% of the atmosphere yet it has a warming effect due it being a non-condensing GHG. A miracle molecule denizens say. Yet it is lauded for greening the Earth. That you don’t get the irony is a given.”

          The irony is that you do not understand proper context. For example vitamin C is not like cyanide. A warming effect from a small quantity is NOT like a greening effect from a small quantity. A vitamin is not like a poison. The context and physical principles operating in said context determine the effect of the small quantity. The context of thermodynamics is a faulty context to asses the smallness of CO2’s warming effect. The context of plant fertilization is a more rational context to assess the smallness of CO2’s greening effect. Thermodynamics is NOT like fertilization. Again, you are trying to conflate contexts and force bad analogies.

    • Robert K

      Let us not forget false precision. That is a very sciencey thing to provide when claiming “influence”. When the influence is so small as to be indistinguishable from one time to another, it has become de rigeur to subtract two calculated values from each other to yield a difference expressed to two or three additional significant digits. When I was in Grade 9 that would earn you a Zero mark.

      This week a friend was reviewing a doctoral thesis which he showed a couple of us for advice and a hoot.

      The candidate had provided numbers on a chart with 5 significant digits, for example 456.78. After a preliminary review pointed out that he could not express that level of precision for that value (based on the measurements taken) the candidate was advised to reduce the number of significant digits to an appropriate level.

      No kidding, he returned the manuscript with the value changed to 457.00 indicating he did not have a clue as to the meaning of the concept of “significant digits”.

      Such is the state of education: middle school science is not understood by some PhD candidates getting doctorates in the sciences.

      When the above-cited Dr Gavin Schmidt at GISS proclaimed that the global temperature one year was 0.001 C warmer than the previous year, you can understand the depth of the problem and the heights of misunderstanding we face in the fight against pseudoscience.

  7. I was working for an auto manufacturer
    in 1997 when I began reading about
    “global warming”.

    Little did I know that in 1998
    there would be a large El Nino
    heat peak, reaching an average temperature
    not much different than the claimed
    average temperature today.

    It took me one day of reading in 1997
    to stop believing 100 year predictions
    of the global climate.

    As Michigan resident I knew my property
    had been under at least a mile of ice
    about 20,000 years ago.

    The ice melted … and at least
    99.8% to 99.9% of the melting
    could not have been caused
    by man made CO2.

    So it seems that we were being told
    that natural climate change,
    after 4.5 billion years,
    had “died”, and man made CO2
    took over as the “climate controller”.

    That’s not real science — it’s just
    wild speculation.

    The surprisingly tiny amount
    of real science (lab experiments)
    behind the climate change predictions
    was shocking in 1997, and is even more
    shocking today.

    After 30 years of very wrong
    confuser model predictions,
    we know the ‘CO2 controls the climate’
    hypothesis has been falsified.

    Unfortunately, modern climate “science”
    is junk science, where nothing can be falsified,
    and debate is halted by character attacks !

    There are a lot of scientists and scientific
    organizations spouting opinions on
    climate change — they get attention and
    money from their self-serving
    scaremongering.

    But there is very little real science.

    Wild guesses of the future climate,
    very wrong for the past 30 years,
    are not real science — they are climate
    astrology.

    My climate science blog:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  8. Andrew Dessler, Daniel Cohan Oct. 22, 2018
    […]
    Climate does not change by itself…
    […]

    That one caught my eye other day. What a completely stupid thing for scientist to say. Talk about climate change denial.

    • As I like to put it, “The only people in denial about “climate change” are those who deny that nature, not man, controls the climate.”

    • Yup. It is the most openly dishonest statement made by a ‘senior’ climatist in recent years. It is a barefaced denial of what he really knows to be the case.

  9. I equate the old theory of “the earth is flat because people who sail out too far never return” to “CO2 causes CAGW because our models are correct and show that this is the case”.

    It always amazes me that the old sailors didn’t have a second or even third ship following the first one to see where it dropped off the edge.

    It always amazes me that the current CAGW proponents don’t have empirical measurements of global heat energy in the atmosphere to validate their models against.

    • the old theory of “the earth is flat because people who sail out too far never return”

      I think you got that backwards. The expectation was that ships would fall off the edge because the Earth was flat. That was a reasonable hypothesis at the time. Just as in 1998, the idea that we were witnessing a rapidly accelerating rise in temps was a credible interpretation of the data.

      Once you sail to where the edge of the world seemed to be and you do not fall off, you need to reject the failed hypothesis. Climatologists steadfastly refuse to do this and instead keep adjusting the data to maintain the failed hypothesis.

      In typically “liberal” style they then go full projection and accuse others of being flatearthers.

    • The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere, and had accurately determined the diameter of the globe.
      The Flat Earth idea was not one that was widely held, or at least not to the degree that it is often portrayed today.
      It was well known in 1492 that the Earth was a sphere, but the diameter had been badly miscalculated to a value that was far too small.
      And that is why we still call the islands he “discovered” in the Caribbean the West Indies…to this day.

    • Jim Gorman

      Nor do the have empirically derived evidence that CO2 causes the planet to warm.

      How can a hypothesis survive 40 years of failed attempts to demonstrate it’s practical application?

      I’m not a scientist so barely grasp the rudiments of climate change, but I’m damn sure I wouldn’t have bought a motor car over 100 years ago, based on theory alone. I would want to see a working prototype at least and to my mind, climate alarmists don’t even have that.

      • HotScot,

        What exactly would it take to show you empirical evidence that the planet is warming in response to increased CO2? Serious question.

  10. I saw this article 1st thing this morning and gave it a thorough reading. It is a great synopsis of the reasons to reject MMGW. I will ask any warmist I know to read it and comment. If they reject it I will get after them for rejecting the scientific method. Which, of course, thjey already do, but are unaware of that fact.

  11. They missed an important indicator of Pseudo-Science babble.
    #7: Every possible observation/outcome is explained by the hypothesis.

    IOW, It can’t be falsified. When a cherished “theory” predicts every event ex post facto, it is scientific nonsense.
    #7 permeates all of Climate Change today.

    • Yes, in particular when it supposedly “explains” things diametrically opposed to one another. My favorite being “The children won’t know what snow is” (when we were experiencing winters with little snow) to “Higher snow fall is “consistent with” global warming” (when we started experiencing winters where we were getting BURIED with snow).

  12. Time to bring out this gem again: “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” – Carl Sagan.

    • Paul Penrose

      And therein lies the rub.

      Sceptics believe that the truth can be exposed by revealing the science of the climate debate. But when 90% (at least) of the global population are not scientists, how on earth can that possibly be effective?

      The green blob, then the alarmists got this many years ago and turned the debate political because, of course, everyone has a political opinion and, as uneducated as they are, they are entitled to it as politics does not discriminate on the grounds of education.

      Consequently, the blob seized the political high ground by appealing to the 90% great unwashed with images and stories which resonate today. They appealed to 90% of the democratic world where everyone has a single vote in the full knowledge that appealing to the 10% of educated voters (scientists, engineers etc.) would only at best secure them 10% of the popular vote.

      And frankly, we sceptics are still labouring down the path of science to defeat politics, and because of the 90/10 imbalance, it is a very slow, uphill slog.

  13. All vehicles and most other forms of transportation and even freight transportation could be electrified with the electricity provided by Nuclear Power. Small nuclear power plants could provide the energy of many major manufacturing facilities either as heat for steam or electricity and the result would be a drastic reduction in the emission of CO2, far greater of a reduction than that achievable from Wind/Solar. Yet the Enviro Whacos are against it – thus proving the agenda is NOT CO2 reduction, but a global agenda.

  14. If a subject has the word science attached to it, then you know it isn’t science, e.g.
    social science
    political science
    climate science

  15. I don’t know if it was Mr. Hale’s intent, but he appears to have described the AGW pseudo-science chapter and verse!

    • Well, that’s the thing. Any decent attempt to describe what constitute pseudo-science is going to end up being a good description of things that are pseudo-science. So no surprises that his list fits CAGW to a “T” whether he had the climate scam in mind or not.

  16. Nonsense Indicator: Personal Beliefs and Biases Drive the Conclusions

    Can this indicator survive a world in which feminist glaciology exists and is accepted?

  17. FEAR runs science.
    That’s write, FEAR of getting the sack if you don’t toe the line, or even worse, like what happened to this poor women.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZETbXCqCM
    When you get thrown in jail for telling the TRUTH, then it goes to show how many LAIRS there are promoting science. Climate Science IS dragging down all other scientific disciplines. Politicians don’t wont scientists telling them what’s write and wrong, their EGO will take us in the write direction and were all along for the ride, best hang on, things are going to get worse before they get better, WHY you ask. because were controlled by Lies told by omnipotent people. The average joe doesn’t trust the backbone of a true Democracy, the MEDIA. The media has become the Propaganda tool used by governments to stooge us all.

    • “When you get thrown in jail for telling the TRUTH, then it goes to show how many LAIRS there are promoting science.”

      They have science lairs now?

      • Lex Luthor and Doctor Doom always had their science lairs. Heck, if Lex grew some facial hair he’d be the spitting image of several of the climate doomsayers. 😉

  18. But but…
    “This outlook from our dynamical (physics based) climate model run on the BoM supercomputer is consistent with the patterns we might expect from the two current drivers of our climate – the developing El Nino situation in the Pacific Ocean, and its equivalent in the Indian Ocean; the positive Indian Ocean Dipole,”

    Once it’s physics based it must be true-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/this-terrifying-map-shows-its-going-to-be-a-hot-summer-right-across-australia/ar-BBOUkFG

  19. “In electromagnetism, there are two kinds of dipoles:

    An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charges. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some (usually small) distance. A permanent electric dipole is called an electret.
    A magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current through it.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole

    Just thought you mite be interested in this paper .
    “Solar wind-atmospheric electricity-cloud
    microphysics connections to weather and climate
    Mai Mai Lam1*
    , Brian A. Tinsley2
    1. British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
    2. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
    ABSTRACT: We review recent research articles that present observations of the large-scale day-to-day
    dynamic tropospheric response to changes in the downward current density Jz
    of the global atmospheric
    electric circuit (GEC). The evidence for the global circuit downward current density, Jz
    , causing
    changes in atmospheric dynamics is now even stronger than as reviewed by Tinsley (Reports on Progress in
    Physics volume 71, 2008). We consider proposed mechanisms for these responses, and suggest future
    directions for research.”
    And what do you think would happen if you pointed this parabolic antenna sky-woods??
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeo1UXXPcxY

    Isn’t this the same process used in radar?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_antenna
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

  20. “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

    Not good enough. We need evidence, not unsubstantiated claims.

    Climate change is occurring and has occurred since the beginning of time on the Earth. There is no evidence that humans are causing any changes in the way the climate behaves. You say there is, well, show me.

    All these science associations claim there is evidence of CAGW, but they never actually supply the facts that would confirm their claims. They are so sure they have the evidence, yet they can’t produce it.

    For those new to this debate, don’t expect anyone to produce any evidence because they don’t have any. They just claim they do, like the generalizations they make above.

    If you had evidence, how hard would it be to make it public? Apparently, it is impossible for climate alarmists because they can’t produce something they don’t have.

    Yeah, I know we are taking on the premier scientific organizations in the world, and disagreeing with them, but when they are wrong, they are wrong, no matter how prestigious they may be.

    They cannot prove their case. If they could, there wouldn’t be very many skeptics left.

    Claims are not proof or evidence. The Hockey Stick chart is not proof of anything. Even prestigious scientific organizations have to produce proof to backup their claims. They don’t do it because they can’t do it.

    Prove me wrong. Show us confirmation that humans are causing the climate to change in unnatural ways.

      • “What evidence do you want?”

        Well, we should start off with the basic claim that CO2 is adding any net heat to the atmosphere (after feedbacks). Everything else (the scary part) follows from that, according to the theory.

        Please provide evidence there has been a net increase in heat in the Earth’s atmosphere due to adding CO2.

        The bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts should not be used as evidence of increased heat. They should only be considered evidence of fraud.

        Instead, use the US surface temperature chart which shows the 1930’s as being hotter than all subsequent years including 2016. If it was hotter in the past, then the Earth already had enough input to warm the planet without the addition of CO2.

        The US surface temperature chart is the real global temperature profile, not the bogus Hockey Stick global surface temperature charts. People should get the Hockey Stick charts out of their heads. They present a false picture of reality.

        Kristi, I feel confident that you will not be able to provide any evidence, just as I feel confident that all those scientific associations can’t provide any either. I’ve been watching this scene for a long time and I haven’t seen any evidence yet. I’ve seen lots and lots of speculation and claims, but no evidence.

        The temperatures are declining in this era of increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere. I don’t think that is how the hypothesis is supposed to work. It’s supposed to get hotter with more CO2. Right?

        The Keepers of the Climate Data can only fiddle with the surface temperature record so much. Then they’ll have to do like Hansen and claim we should expect a decade of so of lower temperatures, but don’t worry, that doesn’t invalidate the CAGW speculation, he says. They are covering all their bases.

        But they still have no eivdence and I’ll be happy to point that out at every opportunity.

        One piece of evidence would shut me up.

        • “The US surface temperature chart is the real global temperature profile”

          Really?
          You are serious?
          4% of the Earth, that is the USA is the Globe is it?
          Now I know many Americans think that the case but really?

          “The Keepers of the Climate Data can only fiddle with the surface temperature record so much”

          And so do your preferred keepers.
          Christy and Spencer at UAH.
          Only to a greater degree…..

          https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2015/12/uahadj1.png

          “One piece of evidence would shut me up.”

          I seriously doubt that – else you would not be coming here for it.
          As it wont be found here.

          However, something for you to deny….

          https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

          Good luck with conquering your confirmation bias.

          • Tom Abbott: “The US surface temperature chart is the real global temperature profile”

            Anthony: “Really?
            You are serious?
            4% of the Earth, that is the USA is the Globe is it?
            Now I know many Americans think that the case but really?”

            Yes, I am perfectly serious. The US surface temperature chart profile resembles unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world and in both hemispheres. What they have in common is the 1930’s shows to be as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

            So it’s not just the US surface temperature chart, but rather it is all the unmodified surface temperature charts that show this trend.

            The bogus, bastardized global surface temperature charts don’t resemble any unmodified chart from anywhere in the world and they don’t show the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years. The Climategate conspirators created a fantasy temperature chart which does not coincide with history.

            If you are interested I can provide a variety of unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world that resemble the US. surface temperature chart.

            It’s funny: Whenever I make this offer I never get taken up on it. It seems the alarmists don’t want to see the real world and don’t want to see that their bugus Hockey Stick charts don’t resemble anything in the real world.

            As for your link: I don’t deny there is a greenhouse effect. There is just no evidence of its magnitude and as time goes along the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere look to be less and less, not more and more as the alarmists claim. They don’t even know the ECS value.

            According to Möller (1963):

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/11/the-new-york-city-climate-museum-really/

            “The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable. . .”

            “It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.”

            end excerpts

            The science isn’t settled.

          • Tom Abbott.

            ” a variety of unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world that resemble the US. ”

            What good is “a variety”? You mean you can pick and choose temperature charts that “resemble” the US?
            And unmodified isn’t a good thing if that includes raw data, which is bound to contain errors and biases. Adjustment is not the same as making up a bogus chart.

            “The Climategate conspirators created a fantasy temperature chart which does not coincide with history.”

            I see. A global conspiracy. If you say so.

          • Kristi: “What good is “a variety”? You mean you can pick and choose temperature charts that “resemble” the US?”

            No, not really. Practically all the unmodified charts I have seen closely resemble the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart, i.e., the 1930’s show to be as warm or warmer than subsequent years. I would have to look long and hard to find one that doesn’t. Not because of any bias on my part.

            Kristi: “And unmodified isn’t a good thing if that includes raw data, which is bound to contain errors and biases. Adjustment is not the same as making up a bogus chart.”

            In the case of the Climategate fraud, it is.

            Kristi: “I see. A global conspiracy. If you say so.”

            A global conspiracy in the sense that those in charge of the climate data were all on the same page adjusting the past temperatures downward while adjusting later temperatures upwards. It’s not a conspiacy theory if the conspiracy actually takes place. Then it becomes a conspiracy.

            I notice noone has provided that bit of evidence I requested showing CAGW is real.

            Don’t worry, I didn’t expect to get any because there is no such thing despite what all those scientific associations quoted above claim, going so far as to claim CAGW has been observed and is here and now and acting on the Earth. They couldn’t prove these assertions if their lives depended on it. They couldn’t give me my little bit of evidence of CAGW if they wanted to. Yet here they are proclaiming certainty. They are sure going to look stupid one of these days, I predict.

        • Tom Abbott,
          Well, we should start off with the basic claim that CO2 is adding any net heat to the atmosphere

          Here’s a start:
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208782_An_update_on_Earth's_energy_balance_in_light_of_the_latest_global_observations

          But this still may not qualify as the evidence you want. What is it exactly you are looking for? It has to be specific and realistic – something that you can measure. You could always say, “Well, it could be something else that’s causing the world to warm” even if it’s totally implausible, like water vapor. Water vapor isn’t going to increase in the atmosphere without something causing it to increase.

          • “But this still may not qualify as the evidence you want. What is it exactly you are looking for? It has to be specific and realistic – something that you can measure.”

            Kristi, I would like to know for instance what observations made the AAAS so certain of their conclusions about human-caused global warming/climate change. Here’s the AAAS quote:

            “American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Reaffirms the Reality of Human-Caused Climate Change

            “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

            end except

            The AAAS claims there are “observations” that confirm CAGW. I want to know all about these observations.

          • “But this still may not qualify as the evidence you want. What is it exactly you are looking for? It has to be specific and realistic – something that you can measure.”

            Kristi, I would like to know for instance what observations made the AAAS so certain of their conclusions about human-caused global warming/climate change. Here’s the AAAS quote:

            “American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Reaffirms the Reality of Human-Caused Climate Change

            “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”

            end except

            The AAAS claims there are “observations” that confirm CAGW. I want to know all about these observations.

            I don’t really believe the AAAS can cite any actual observations of what they claim. I think all they have is speculation, but they claim they have observations, so someone please show me these observations the AAAS knows about that confirm CAGW so I can get my head right.

          • The first post in this series got posted prematurely and was not complete.

            The second post is complete. Read the second one. Ignore the first. Thank you.

          • Tom Abbott,

            NO! That’s not good enough. You are asking for the evidence that someone else uses to confirm their beliefs. I could list the kinds of evidence, but you could just turn around and dismiss them as not confirming what you are asking for, or as “bogus.” The reality is that it’s all the evidence combined that make people believe what the AAAS asserts – and that evidence is largely indirect. There is no way to directly measure the relationship between the quantity of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of warming it causes – otherwise it would be possible to determine the ECS with precision.

            The evidence is partly through observations, and partly model-based. But you won’t even accept the fact that global average temperature is being estimated honestly, so why would you accept any other evidence? You have made it impossible to change your mind – it is closed. To have an open mind, you have to believe that the climate science community is not out to commit fraud.

          • “There is no way to directly measure the relationship between the quantity of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of warming it causes – otherwise it would be possible to determine the ECS with precision.”

            I rest my case.

            When we figure out what the ECS is, we’ll have a better handle on things. The latest estmates don’t look dangerous, and those estimates could go lower in the future to the point that the Alarmists lose the argument.

            There are no “observations” of CAGW. The AAAS is putting out false information.

  21. “Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:

    15.”

    This is missing the famous,
    “We signed a confidentiality agreement. You need to get permission for the data from all of the signatories”
    “We can’t tell you who the participants are, that’s confidential”
    “We don’t have a copy of the agreement. I’ll get back to you on whether we can share that”

    A ruse pulled by MetO, NOAA and others.

  22. I have never seen the term ‘Atmospheric Radicalization’ before. But I have come across ‘climate breakdown’, which I think may be increasing in popularity over the last 2 or 3 years.

  23. You don’t even need a scientist to work it out nowadays-

    “We literally said, ‘Let’s build the pool because the cyclone season is over,’ and then we got hit,” Luke Kercheval, one of the owners of Matava, told me, adding that the storms had scared off visitors. “We got more rain in a week than some countries get in a year. That’s not normal.”
    “Donald Trump might not agree, but it’s 100 percent about climate change,” he added. “I don’t need to be a scientist to figure this out.”
    The topic of climate change was everywhere in Fiji, even at the airport in Nadi, where a billboard read, “Airports Addressing Climate Change.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/travel/news/paradise-threatened-fiji’s-war-against-climate-change/ar-BBOUfqL

    Just the billboard at the airport eh? Still I suppose when you write this drivel you get to jet away to Fiji feeling good about doing your bit to save the planet, etc-
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-man-s-burden

  24. “As an example, the false belief that autism is caused or associated with early vaccination”

    When does the fact that one author of a study establishing the absence of link between Autism and vaccination is a Crook and is on the run begins to bother “pro-science” people? An issue this so called skeptic website isn’t willing to discuss.

    For normal DECENT people, the BS detector is already saturated. Can’t go further. Bad!

    • simple-touriste
      “As an example, the false belief that autism is caused or associated with early vaccination”
      They jailed this women for speaking up about vaccinations. This 11 minutes may change your life and many around you. One thing the medical system needs for bright economic future is sick people.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZETbXCqCM
      What do people think would happen, if we keep locking money up through over insuring ? Insurance Industries promote FEAR, and governments come up with ways to unlock all that cash back into the system. IMO that Insurance and planned disasters go hand in hand.
      “There are several live presentations on the subject of climate engineering available on the windows below. If you are new to this subject, the red window, “Climate Engineering, A Clear And Present Danger” is a recommended starting point for an overall summary presentation.”
      https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

      • How many babies are harmed by a “shaken baby syndrome” that nobody has ever verified is caused by shaking, and not by vaccines?

        How many children now have:
        – asthma
        – food allergies
        – diabetes
        – “autism” – whatever that is (probably many different things)

        How many adults will get dangerous childhood diseases, because they were vaccinated?

        Why do vaxxers use their abject failures to justify their policies?

        Why are you pretend skeptics are allowing vaxxers to use the fact that these diseases are more often severe, do to occurring much later in life in average, being use to push a vaccine? If you let them to that, you are shills, period.

        • Simple,

          As always, you have it backwards, and all screwed up.

          Adults who weren’t vaccinated or didn’t have childhood diseases from lack of exposure suffer worse when they do finally contract infections.

          You still haven’t provided a shred of evidence that vaccines cause any of the ailments and disorders which you falsely imagine and have convinced yourself that they do, such as MS, asthma, allergies, diabetes and autism.

          You haven’t done so because you can’t. No such evidence exists.

          • Simple,

            You have failed to answer any questions at all about your counterfactual fantasy. There is no evidence whatsoever than any vaccine causes MS, which is all I need point out to show your imaginary concerns false.

            How can you live with yourself, knowing that your delusions have caused the preventable deaths of children? How do you suppose that the scourge of smallpox was eradicated?

            You persist in violating blog policy by spewing such errant, antiscientific nonsense.

            So it will be you who goes away, as soon the mods notice this prohibited behavior on your part.

          • John Tillman, You didn’t bother to watch the vid I posted above did you. If you did you wouldn’t be going off like a pork chop in the sun. My first born back in 1980 had one of the first 3 in 1 vacc’s in Australia, the next day he was in hospital with temp of 102 C We thought he might not make it. He must of been so close to frying his tiny brain. That’s what happens when you put mercury (Thimerosal) into developing brains.
            Thiomersal controversy. The thiomersal controversy describes claims that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal contribute to the development of autism and other brain development disorders. Thimerosal is no longer used in children’s vaccines in the United States, except some types of flu shots. If Thimerosal safe then why did they take it out???? When I was young we all got chicken pox, mumps, and measles.

          • John Tillman, as usual you refuse to answer any question, spam this blog with personal attacks, and call for censorship.

            You are a bot. I’m done with you.

  25. Thanks to Kristi Silber for weighing in. Let’s stipulate that the 20th century was warmer than the 19th century. So what? The 19th century probably saw the end of the Little Ice Age. It still might be interesting that there were warmer decades and cooler decades in the 20th century, presumably unrelated to the steady increase in CO2. Bigger picture: has any bad thing been reliably shown to have happened as a result of this small temperature increase, or more generally as a result of the undeniable increase in man-made CO2, which may have something to do with the temperature increase? Isn’t it true that the greening of the earth in the 20th century, presumably as a result of increasing CO2, can be documented much more clearly than any bad result? See Judith Curry, what are the true or most likely “worst outcomes,” and which outcomes, of those we hear about, are actually impossible?

    • Lloyd,

      Sorry, I didn’t see your comment until just now. Are you still around? I don’t want to waste time if you aren’t, since you posted 3 days ago. That’s happened to me before.

  26. Four or five years ago, after subscribing for more than 20 years, I cancelled my subscription to Skeptical Enquirer. It was clear they had guzzled all the Kool-Aid. I wrote to the editor explaining that a publication called Skeptical Enquirer should not be repeatedly insisting that I accept that climate change is man-made. It should be scrutinising the claims and actively seeking out the cracks and voids and weaknesses. Not necessarily to debunk climate science, but to strengthen it, if possible. I didn’t expect an answer and I didn’t get one.

    Even back then they still published articles like the one quoted here. The editor(s) just seemed incapable of understanding them or determined to ignore them.

    I won’t be resubscribing on the strength of this article but is good to know there is still a glowing ember of skepticism there.

    • Quelgeek
      Science takes a knee to whoever pay’s their way . Funding means advertising , Advertising means more funds.
      “Since when did the act of kneeling come to be viewed as an act of disrespect? Throughout history, the bending of the knee has always been an act of great respect and humility. People have been kneeling and genuflecting before kings, queens, and popes for centuries as a sign of homage and respect. Every avid follower of the TV series “Game of Thrones” knows that the “bending of the knee” is a symbolic gesture of fealty and allegiance.”
      http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/knee-means-article-1.3543740

  27. In science, use of uncertain conclusions described as may, potentially, etc. are nonsense indicators.

  28. Here is an example of pseudoscience published in Science on the subject of glyphosate detected by someone at the American Council on Science and Health.

    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/03/glyphosate-and-pesticides-et-tu-live-science-13148

    “Two weeks ago, we reported on a bizarre decision by the online news arm of the journal Science: The outlet had reprinted an article from a politically slanted environmentalist website that hyped concern over a particular chemical. The article fell quite short of the high standards we associate with the journal.”

  29. Had the astronomical Dr. Sagan followed the scientific method, he wouldn’t have promoted the Nuclear Winter hoax.

  30. Problem with

    8. Atmosphere Cancer:

    – Atmosphere Cancer exists. We call it “Anthrax”.

  31. Before we started hearing about global warming, I don’t remember learned societies making pronouncements like those cited under point 4.

Comments are closed.