Guest skeptical reply by David Middleton
Dr. Steven Novella‘s NEUROLOGICA blog posts are often featured on Real Clear Science. They are always well-written, I probably agree with him most of the time and when I disagree, I can at least see the logic in his position. I particularly like his series of posts debunking faked Moon landing conspiracy theories, like this one.
Where I usually disagree with Dr. Novella, Dr. Alex Berezow and the other regular authors at Real Clear Science, is on the subject of climate change. Dr. Novella’s latest post is a generally thoughtful effort to distinguish a “skeptic” from a “denier.” I find myself agreeing with much of what he wrote… However, he made one YUGE mistake in his post: He cited Skeptical Science as an authoritative source for the 97% consensus.
Skeptic vs Denier
Published by Steven NovellaThe skeptic vs denier debate won’t go away. I fear the issue is far too nuanced for a broad popular consensus. But that should not prevent a consensus among science communicators, who should have a technical understanding of terminology.
[…]
It is not a logical fallacy (argument from authority) to defer to a strong consensus of legitimate expert opinion if you yourself lack appropriate expertise. Deference should be the default position, and your best bet is to understand what that consensus is, how strong is it, and what evidence supports it. Further, if there appears to be any controversy then – who is it, exactly, who does not accept the mainstream consensus, what is their expertise, what are their criticisms, and what is the mainstream response? More importantly – how big is the minority opinion within the expert community.
This is where a bit of judgment comes in, and there is simply no way of avoiding it. There is no simple algorithm to tell you what to believe, but there are some useful rules. Obviously, the stronger the consensus, the more it is reasonable to defer to it. There is always going to be a 1-2% minority opinion on almost any scientific conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to doubt the consensus. But you also need to find out what, exactly the consensus is, and what is just a working hypothesis. Any complex theory will have multiple parts, and it’s not all a package deal.
[…]
That the Earth is warming at a faster rate than has historically been seen is fairly solid, with about 97% of climate scientists (yes, that is the real number) agreeing that this is almost certainly true. That this forcing of the climate is largely anthropogenic is also fairly certain. But the more detailed we get, the less certain we get also. Exactly how much warming will happen in the future, with what climate sensitivity, and with what effects becomes increasingly murky as we try to extrapolate further into the future. Also, what will be the effect of specific policies to mitigate warming is also open for debate.
With this as background, let me propose an alternate definition of skeptic vs denier. Actually, I already did:
– Deniers do not fairly assess the scientific evidence, but will cherry pick the evidence that seems to support their position.
– They will make unreasonable or impossible demands for evidence, move the goalpost when evidence is presented, and refuse entire categories of legitimate scientific evidence.
– They will attempt to magnify scientific disagreements over lower level details as if they call into question higher level conclusions. (For example, biologists might disagree over the details of evolutionary history, without calling into question evolution itself.)
– They primarily focus on sowing doubt and confusion over the science they deny, rather than offering a coherent alternate theory or explanation.
– They will exploit ambiguity (and even create ambiguity) in terminology or employ shifting definitions in order to create confusion or apparent contradiction.
– They will attack scientists personally, and engage in a witch hunt in order to impugn their reputations and apparent motives.
– They will cast doubt on whether or not a scientific consensus exists, attempt to claim that the tide is turning in their favor, or claim that a secret consensus of denial exists but is suppressed. They may also cite outlier opinions as if they were mainstream.
– When all else fails they will invoke a conspiracy theory to explain why mainstream views differ from their own.
In short – being a denier is about your behavior, not your position or even necessarily your credentials. A climate scientist with impressive degrees can be a denier if they act like one, and a lay person can be a skeptic if they act like one. By contrast, how does a legitimate skeptic behave:
– A skeptic will try to understand the scientific consensus and defer, as a default, to superior expertise.
– A skeptic will deviate from the mainstream view only cautiously, reluctantly, and with very good specific reasons grounded in logic and evidence. In short, a good skeptic is humble.
– A skeptic is open to any conclusion, going wherever the evidence and logic leads. Specifically, they will follow the evidence, and not start with a conclusion and then backfill the evidence.
– A good skeptic will not rationalize away contradicting evidence or problems with internal logical consistency, but will modify their opinions accordingly.
– Above all a good skeptic is intellectually honest.
So you are a denier if you behave like a denier, and a skeptic only if you behave like a real skeptic. This is all about process, not any particular position.
This also means that if you call someone a denier you should be prepared to back up that designation with specific examples of how they are behaving like a denier. It is also fair to refer to a position or even movement with the term denier or denial. It’s fair to refer to “global warming denial” as a phenomenon, especially since there is a solid-enough consensus on the basic conclusion that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it that it does create a reasonable starting position that anyone who disagrees is engaging in denial until proven otherwise.
And a lot of this does have to do with the burden of proof. Anyone making a scientific claim carries the burden of proving that claim. However, once a claim has met that burden, to the satisfaction of a vast majority of experts, the burden of proof then shifts to those who would refute the consensus.
[…]
NEUROLOGICA
There may be a 97 or even 99.9% consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the cause of anywhere from 50 to 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s and that humans are responsible for at least some of the observed warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic era of the Holocene.
However, there is no consensus “that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than has historically been seen.” There is quite a large disagreement on this among the climate reconstruction community.
Esper et al., 2005
So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberge t al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.
For that matter, a skeptical analysis of the Fourth National Climate Assessment would conclude the same thing.
6. Temperature Changes in the United States
KEY FINDINGS
1. Average annual temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence). Surface and satellite data are consistent in their depiction of rapid warming since 1979 (high confidence). Paleo-temperature evidence shows that recent decades are the warmest of the past 1,500 years (medium confidence).Page 267
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Fifth-Order Draft (5OD)
“Medium confidence” is equivalent to a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (SWAG). Which the mainstream media turned into…
USA Today
Just as troubling were draft findings destined for the quadrennial National Climate Assessment. Scientists from 13 federal agencies found that a rapid rise in temperatures since the 1980s in the United States represents the warmest period in 1,500 years.
A “medium confidence” Mannian Hockey Stick became: “Scientists from 13 federal agencies found that a rapid rise in temperatures since the 1980s in the United States represents the warmest period in 1,500 years.”
They based this assertion on one hockey-stick climate reconstruction, Mann et al., 2008.
NCA4 Figure 1.8 Mann et al., 2008. Even with this Hockey Stick, the modern warming only exceeded pre-industrial natural variability by 0.5° F (0.3° C). At least they had the decency to clearly identify where they spliced in the instrumental data.
When the uncertainty range of the proxy data is honored, it cannot be stated that the rate of recent warming is unprecedented.
When the uncertainty range of the proxy data is honored, it cannot be stated that the rate of recent warming is unprecedented.
Regarding Dr. Novella’s criteria for differentiating a skeptic from a denier, I only take serious issue with one criterion in each category
I disagree that this makes one a denier:
[Deniers] will attack scientists personally, and engage in a witch hunt in order to impugn their reputations and apparent motives.
When the scientists in question are attacking other scientists personally, engaging in witch hunts and impugning the reputations of other scientists, as the Climategate CRU did, it’s entirely reasonable to fight back.
NOAA OIG Report
CRU email #1140039406. This email, dated February 15,2006, documented exchanges between several climate scientists, including the Deputy Director of CRU, related to their contributions to chapter six ofthe IPCC AR4. In one such exchange, the Deputy Director of CRU warned his colleagues not to “let [the Co-Chair of AR4 WGl] (or [a researcher at Pennsylvania State University]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right” in terms of stating in the AR4 “conclusions beyond what we can securely justify.”
The CRU’s Keith Briffa was warning his colleagues to not allow NOAA’s Susan Solomon or Penn State’s Michael Mann to coerce them into going along with unsupportable conclusions. This particular e-mail exchange dealt extensively with paleoclimate reconstructions. Briffa also urged his colleagues not to “attack” Anders Moberg, who had recently published a climate reconstruction which actually honored the data and used proper signal processing methods.
Susan Solomon is the NOAA official who claimed that NOAA work related to the IPCC was not subject to FOIA.
Michael Mann was the lead author of the thoroughly debunked original Hockey Stick.
Keith Briffa was the lead author of one of the problematic reconstructions in which “Mike’s Nature Trick” was employed to “hide the decline.”
If personal attacks, witch hunts and efforts to impugn the reputations of scientists makes one a denier… What does that make Michael Mann and Susan Solomon?
I also disagree that a skeptic should “defer, as a default, to superior expertise.”
A skeptic will try to understand the scientific consensus and defer, as a default, to superior expertise.
No self-respecting scientist would ever “defer, as a default, to superior expertise.”
I also strongly disagree with his assertion that the burden of proof (null hypothesis) has been reversed:
It’s fair to refer to “global warming denial” as a phenomenon, especially since there is a solid-enough consensus on the basic conclusion that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it that it does create a reasonable starting position that anyone who disagrees is engaging in denial until proven otherwise.And a lot of this does have to do with the burden of proof. Anyone making a scientific claim carries the burden of proving that claim. However, once a claim has met that burden, to the satisfaction of a vast majority of experts, the burden of proof then shifts to those who would refute the consensus.
However, this entirely relies on what the so-called consensus is. If the consensus is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the cause of anywhere from 50 to 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s and that humans are responsible for at least some of the observed warming… Then the burden of proof has generally been met.
If the consensus is this, then the burden of proof has not been met.
And if the consensus is this…
On the whole, Dr. Novella’s essay is a good effort to take on a tough subject.
References
Esper, J., Wilson, R.J.S., Frank, D.C., Moberg, A., Wanner, H. and Luterbacher, J. 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews24: 2164-2166.
Wuebbles, Donald, et al. U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT (CSSR) Fifth-Order Draft (5OD) . U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, 28 June 2017, assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf.
97% of climate scientists agree that if they came to any other conclusion funding would cease.
“More importantly – how big is the minority opinion within the expert community.” — John Ioannidis more correctly describes the “consensus position” as “the prevailing bias in a field.” Further, he would maintain that minority positions may as a result simply be less- or un-biased positions.
Attempting to define derogatory words for “people who don’t think as I do” is a silly exercise — non-productive and misguided.
The idea that the public needs to be told “who” or “what” to “believe” makes a very sad comment on the state of scientific education — even among so-called experts.
It is nice that he’s making an effort to distinguish between a skeptic and a denier. And if we ignore the fact that the word “denier” is a smear, then he even did a plausible job of it.
BUT…
“They primarily focus on sowing doubt and confusion over the science they deny, rather than offering a coherent alternate theory or explanation.”
Alternate theory for what? He treats this like a university debate instead of a quest for truth. Either humans are causing dangerous warming or we aren’t and how the discussion unfolds is irrelevant.
“Deference should be the default position, and your best bet is to understand what that consensus is, how strong is it, and what evidence supports it.”
He also ignores one basic truth that any honest scientist must admit when discussing CAGW–climate science is a science in its infancy. No one in the field has any right to claim anything with certainty.
Since the good Doctor comes from a neurologic pain background, he is likely onto something. Neurochemically speaking the odd behavior of some of the hysterics or worse, can be attributed to mild psychosis. Neurosis, being pandemic anyway, can be traced with such well known brain chemistry as oxytocin, and others. That warm fuzzy group consensus feeling for example…. The famous “triggered” behavior should be well known to such MD’s.
The question is has any of his colleagues actually measured some of these indicators in so called deniers or believers?
This question becomes urgent as now kids are being used, who are likely on standard neurologic drug therapy.
So the guy is another charlatan that is proving he either isn’t bright enough or hasn’t actually bothered to scrutinize climate science.
The latter, more likely.
The Evolution of my climate skepticism/denialism:
• First exposure to CC/CAGW that I took notice of was Al Gore…so 80% skeptical from the start. Gore = liar until proven otherwise. I’d heard about global warming theory before Al Gore of course but had no position on it…didn’t care enough.
• NOAA and NASA scientist’s articles in reputable journals indicated a probable AGW problem. So now barely skeptical at all… Only 5-10% skeptical but miserable …The theory they described sounded perfectly plausible which sent me into a state of deep cognitive dissonance (and depression) due to my visceral hate of Al Gore and the Media who were absolutely enraptured by the prospects of AGW.
(I was already mindful that university scientists were “for sale”…based on many years of exposure to slanted nutrition studies and slanted drug efficacy studies and the like…so I tend to be suspicious there…But I still trusted NOAA and NASA scientists.)
• The Press and the Democrats carry on their obvious CAGW propaganda onslaught for a few years. Now my low skepticism grew into 75% denialism because of my political bias. I’m looking for anti-AGW stuff now.
• Michael Mann was caught “cooking” the books with his hockey stick. Why lie/exaggerate if AGW was true?? 90% skeptical.
• Climategate revealed unscientific behavior and climate Activism among scientists. AND the NOAA and NASA scientists that I implicitly trusted at the start were not only silent about Mann’s propaganda…THEY SUPPORTED IT. 90% skeptical.
• The CC/CAGW proponents made lots of predictions that sounded absurd and none have come true. Now 95% skeptical
• The warming from 1910-1940 was identical to the 1970-2000 warming, but the first period was declared ALL natural of unknown cause and the second “duplucate” period was declared ALL unnatural with known attribution (AGW). That was an absurd and stupid claim and just did not work for me at all. 99% skeptical
• The pause. 99% Skeptical
• Now, after 18 years, the pause is “ERASED” by adjusting the data (suspicious enough), but then reporting the upper limit of the error bars as the actual data. That just isn’t done. 100% skeptical
• The UN programs won’t fix the problem using their own data…only transfer wealth. 100% skeptical
• CC/CAGW advocates are fighting the only technical means of fixing the problem (Nuclear Enetgy) Solidly 100% skeptical
• GND and renewed vigor in MSM propaganda 100% skeptical and really dug in now.
• None of the predicted worsening weather patterns are actually getting worse (except that heat waves are getting longer…but it is warmer so no surprise)…but the propaganda says weather events are nearing crisis proportions…100% propaganda…. so100% skeptical.
Recently…2-3 years:
• I’ve expected a cooling trend to start by now after the 30 year runup ending in 2000 — from looking at past climate cycles. The pause might be a “warming-nullified” cooling trend…and if warming resumes in another ~10 years without any cooling I’ll reconsider my position. If it cools, AGW is done.
After earnestly studying the science for 20 years, I’ve concluded that the answer is in the behavior of clouds and ocean circulation patterns (warming/cooling is mostly from ENSO “bumps”) and we don’t understand the clouds and ocean circulation well enough yet and that’s going to take a lot of time to study and unravel…so I’m back to 80% skeptical where I started.
I’d dearly love to know the absolute truth, but that isn’t possible with the current state of science (lack of basic knowledge and misallocation of funding). Most of the research money goes to CAGW confirmation studies in allied fields like the infertility of toads from warming study, and not into basic climate research where it’s needed.
In the 1990’s I was extremely skeptical… Largely based on my education in Earth Science in the late 1970’s…
Historical geology…
Meteorology…
Physical geography…
Funny thing, my Geomorphology textbook was written by Don Easterbrook… and it’s about the only Earth Science textbook I have that didn’t feature such “Big Tobacco-style misinformation.”
Even funnier thing, my college textbooks were turning a blind eye to the Climate Crisis du jour:
Then in the late 1990’s, CO2 records from Antarctic ice cores appeared to demonstrate a strong correlation to temperature, Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and it was really hot in Dallas for a couple of years. My skepticism waned a bit. Then it turned out that the ice core CO2 lagged behind the temperature changes, Mann’s Hockey Stick turned out to be a blunder (if not fraud), and the “pause” began. My skepticism verged on denial.
Over the past 20 years, paleoclimatology has become my main hobby. Much of the data, data processing and interpretation methods were similar to those of the oil & gas exploration. Ice & sediment cores, climate reconstructions, etc. are all subject to the same signal processing principles as seismic surveys and employ many of the same procedures. I’ve made it a point to try to understand the science from this perspective and it has led me to becoming a skeptical lukewarmer.
Discussion about the meaning of skeptic and denier or the percentage of scientist that support a vague comment with no data, is an attempt to stop real criticize and thoughtful discussion concerning CAGW and AGW.
I am not skeptical about CAGW.
Skeptical is the state of mind of a person which might motivate them to investigate CAGW or AGW.
It is a fact, that there are piles and piles of observations and analysis results that show there is no CAGW and there is almost no AGW.
1) CAGW Paradox 1:
Almost no warming in the tropics and thee is no tropical troposphere hot spot.
It is an observational fact that there has been, almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet.
The warming that has occurred is high latitude warming with more warming in the Northern hemisphere which is the same regions that have warmed in the past when there was cyclical none CO2 caused warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
The almost no tropical region warming and the fact that there is no warming in the tropical troposphere at 5 km which is a key amplification mechanism to cause CAGW in addition, supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 50 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.
As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.
The amount of warming is also proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
“On the whole, Dr. Novella’s essay is a good effort to take on a tough subject.”
Other than “that” Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
His agreeing with ever reversing a null hypothesis on changing climate is his fatal downfall here. When all change for 4 Gy has been unarguably natural until the last 70 years when it suddenly becomes mostly or entirely manmade according to people with vested interests is a reason science demands it not be reversed… ever.
You cannot make such a fundamental error in the application of the scientific method, and still call it a “good effort to take on a difficult subject”
“Blah, blah, blah, Denier, blah, blah, blah, 97%, blah, blah, blah, Climate Change, blah, blah, blah.”
Well, Dr. Novella got his talking points in. The rest is just a bunch of words. The assumption that I haven’t studied the math and science and just decided to be a “denier” is ludicrous.
Jim
“that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than has historically been seen.”
Lost me right about there.
“emissions from fossil fuel combustion are the cause of anywhere from 50 to 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s”
I thought human activity accounted for anywhere between 3-4.3% of atmospheric CO2. How can this claim be made? By simple math, 4.3% of 400 PPM equates to 17.2 PPM. How do we get to 50 percent of the rise? Are they suggesting that the base CO2 for earth is 365 PPM?
Fossil fuel emissions are about 3% of the total *annual* source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Our annual contribution is actually large enough to account for twice the annual rise in atmospheric CO2.
The difference between CO2 from fossil fuel emissions and those of the biopshere, soil and ocean respiration, is that we are taking carbon out of geologic sequestration and moving it into the active carbon cycle. It has a cumulative effect. We are increasing the total pool of CO2 in the cycle. While individual CO2 molecules have a relatively short atmospheric residence time (5-7 years), it will take much longer for the total pool to shrink back to where is was in 1850 after the net emissions stop, probably 50 to 500 years. No one really knows.
We have a pretty good handle on how much CO2 we are adding to the cycle. Even though we don’t have a really good handle on the total inventory of natural sources and sinks, the math is the same. It’s a relatively simple mass balance calculation. We know that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 tracks our cumulative emissions. We don’t know how much of this rise is due to warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age and how much is due to fossil fuel combustion. If the natural sources and sinks are highly variable, our cumulative contribution is probably about 50%. If they’re very stable, our contribution could be 100%.
From 1780-1960, atmospheric CO2 was rising faster than our emissions…
After 1960, both our emissions and the atmospheric CO2 accelerated. The Law Dome DE08 ice core has adequate resolution to tell us that this did not happen during the Medieval Warm Period. To some extent the rise in atmospheric CO2, coincident with our accelerated fossil fuel emissions is unprecedented. Greenland ice cores and plant stomata indicate that 300-350 ppm was common during the Early to Mid-Holocene and that 400 ppm spikes were even possible. Most Antarctic ice cores can’t resolve CO2 shifts with durations less than 100 years. So we can’t say that the modern level is unprecedented over the past 10,000 years, much less 800,000 years. However, we can clearly conclude that human activities are at least partially the cause of the rise since 1850 and most, if not all, of the rise since 1960.
That’s a good summary of why it’s a reasonable inference to attribute most of the recent rise in CO2 to humans. Also reasonable to say that CO2 has more IR absorption/emission, as compared to most other molecules. It is when we start to hypothesize about how the IR balance works in a complex atmosphere heavy with many things besides CO2, *there* is where we see a ridiculous lack of humility, lack of any ability to take skeptical critique into account.
David,
But, if the oceans stayed a constant temperature, the dissolved carbon compounds would stay sequestered. Warming, whatever the cause, releases CO2 into the atmosphere, analogously to burning fossil fuels, only on a much larger scale! Upwelling is bringing ancient carbon dioxide-rich waters to the surface and introducing it to the atmosphere. The difference is that we can’t attribute the outgassing to humans unless we blame humans for increasing temperatures through other activities such as changes in land use. If CO2 has a significant impact on warming, then the sequestered carbon in the oceans is part of a positive feedback loop. The correlation with the rise in atmospheric CO2 and and anthropogenic CO2 may be a spurious correlation. That is, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, we might still see an increase in atmospheric CO2.
We would still have seen an increase. The degree to which the anthropogenic CO2 matters is mostly dependent on how sensitive the oceans are to temperature changes.
The Antarctic ice cores, apart from Law Dome DE08, clearly underestimate the oceanic sensitivity to temperature changes.
This is one of many “details” that the climate science community glosses over and/or ignores.
David
I think that you are agreeing with me, but I’m not sure. Can you point me to a study that addresses the volume of ocean CO2 outgassing versus temperature increase?
Tom
There is good science that challenges this generally accepted assumption in the consensus explanation of the CO2 in the Atmosphere so you are right to question it . Unfortunately it has really been censored. Murray Salby has recorded a valid series of analyses of the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere in his textbook and several video productions of his lectures. He lost his data, computer programs, and his job.
( https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f )
Herman Harde worked with Salby and got Harde 2017 published but was denied the ability to defend his work in the journal when it was weekly challenged (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored)
Ed Berry produced another review and analysis that showed errors in the IPCC assumptions and methods and concluded Harde and Salby were right. The journal refused to publish with no explanation and two positive reviews that recommended publishing (https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/)
Munshi has done analysis of the responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to human emissions that concludes that it is not discernible yet. (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ )
At the risk of being deemed a denier, I find this body of work credible and convincing that our emissions only caused about 15% or less of the rise in atmospheric CO2 sense the industrial revolution.
“That the Earth is warming at a faster rate than has historically been seen is fairly solid, …”
No it’s not.
“…with about 97% of climate scientists (yes, that is the real number)…”
No, it’s not a real number.
“…agreeing that this is almost certainly true. ”
Those that agree do so mostly because they are incompetent by reason of training or incompetent by reason of politics.
“That this forcing of the climate is largely anthropogenic is also fairly certain.”
No, it’s not.
David, “On the whole, Dr. Novella’s essay is a good effort to take on a tough subject.”
Not it’s not, David. Dr. Novella started off wrong. He’s merely an asserter; the antipodal analogy of the denier he laments.
I’m neither a skeptic nor a denier when it comes to AGW.
AGW is a RELIGIOUS belief. I don’t accept it, so I’m an AGW HERETIC.
So, let’s see what’s what in this (yet another) meaningless attempt to divide those who don’t “agree” with the poorly supported “consensus”…
“– Deniers do not fairly assess the scientific evidence, but will cherry pick the evidence that seems to support their position.”
This would define the Climate Fascists perfectly, no question; you could argue that, at times, skeptics cherry pick, but often only to sarcastically illustrate the cherry picked garbage produced by the Climate Fascists.
“– They will make unreasonable or impossible demands for evidence, move the goalpost when evidence is presented, and refuse entire categories of legitimate scientific evidence.”
Climate Fascists again! Consistently arguing that somebody has to “prove” them WRONG, when they have never provided any evidence of their imaginary catastrophe to begin with! And goalpost moving?! How many time have we heard we “Only have XX number of [years, months, days, etc.] to ACT” in order to “save the planet” from climate Armageddon?!
“– They will attempt to magnify scientific disagreements over lower level details as if they call into question higher level conclusions. (For example, biologists might disagree over the details of evolutionary history, without calling into question evolution itself.)”
Not really seeing much of this in the “climate debate” at all…
“– They primarily focus on sowing doubt and confusion over the science they deny, rather than offering a coherent alternate theory or explanation.”
Ah this old canard. The “consensus” view is that they can’t “account for” the warming of the climate without including their hypothetical CO2-induced warming, so it must be CO2-induced. In other words, “It’s not a dog, so it must be a cat.” And if you deny it’s a cat, you’re a “science denier.” Sorry, but there’s no logic here absent the GIGANTIC assumption that the supposed “consensus” is well supported science, which it isn’t.
“– They will exploit ambiguity (and even create ambiguity) in terminology or employ shifting definitions in order to create confusion or apparent contradiction.”
You mean like “global warming” nee “climate change” or occasionally “weather weirding” or perhaps “climate disruption?!” Misuse of terms such that “climate change” draws association with “caused by humans” through repetition? Climate Fascists again!
“– They will attack scientists personally, and engage in a witch hunt in order to impugn their reputations and apparent motives.”
How many skeptics have been fired from positions at universities, from employment at scientific journals, etc. because they didn’t cheer-lead for climate propaganda?! How many times have Wiki pages of skeptical scientists been altered to advertise their alleged belief in Martians in order to discredit them?! How many times have those skeptical of Climate Fascism been accused of being in the pay of “Big Oil” or of denying that smoking is bad for you?! Climate Fascists again!
“– They will cast doubt on whether or not a scientific consensus exists, attempt to claim that the tide is turning in their favor, or claim that a secret consensus of denial exists but is suppressed. They may also cite outlier opinions as if they were mainstream.”
Casting doubt on what is (1) Irrelevant; and (2) Untrue, at least to the extent asserted, is “casting doubt” for good reasons, not an attempt to undermine anything meaningful, so what’s the point?
“– When all else fails they will invoke a conspiracy theory to explain why mainstream views differ from their own.”
You mean like “Being in the pay of “Big Oil,”” or being “science deniers” or “being funded by the Koch brothers?” Climate Fascists again!
NOW for some commentary about his overall “classification” ideology…
“In short – being a denier is about your behavior, not your position or even necessarily your credentials.”
In other words, he feels that even credentialed scientists can be “rightfully” smeared as “deniers.”
“A climate scientist with impressive degrees can be a denier if they act like one, and a lay person can be a skeptic if they act like one.”
And HE (apparently) thinks he is the “judge” of who “acts like” a “true” skeptic. LMFAO
“By contrast, how does a legitimate skeptic behave:”
Ah, the artificial air of “legitimacy” – according to the “climate crisis” cheerleaders, in yet another attempt to undermine the opinions of those who disagree with them.
Now we can examine the “skeptic” “definitions”…
“– A skeptic will try to understand the scientific consensus and defer, as a default, to superior expertise.”
What’s so hard to understand? The “consensus” view is that atmospheric CO2 is a powerful climate driver based on some smidgen of optical physics, when all the application of that smidgen of optical physics tells you is what the effect WOULD be IF “all OTHER things” were “HELD EQUAL.” In the real world, that critical caveat does not apply, the feedbacks (from a planet exhibiting long periods of stable climate) are clearly negative, offsetting feedbacks, and no ACTUAL effect of CO2 on temperature has ever been empirically demonstrated. There IS no “superior expertise,” since “climate science” is in its infancy and we have yet to assemble complete plausible explanations for known, past climate changes, much less for what the future holds. As I like to put it, “We have too little information, of too poor a quality, over too short a period of time, to say anything reasonably “scientific” about what changes to the climate are occurring, what the causes are, and what we can expect going forward.”
“– A skeptic will deviate from the mainstream view only cautiously, reluctantly, and with very good specific reasons grounded in logic and evidence. In short, a good skeptic is humble.”
If the “mainstream view” wasn’t such a house of cards of garbage data, assumptions, preconceived conclusions, confirmation bias, group-think, statistical manipulation and circular logic, there might be a good deal more who would see it as something worthy of deference. Junk science doesn’t deserve any deference.
“– A skeptic is open to any conclusion, going wherever the evidence and logic leads. Specifically, they will follow the evidence, and not start with a conclusion and then backfill the evidence.”
Sounds like the perfect description of the antithesis of the Climate Fascists to me! They DID start with their conclusion and look for nothing other than support for “The CAUSE.”
“– A good skeptic will not rationalize away contradicting evidence or problems with internal logical consistency, but will modify their opinions accordingly.”
So this would also be the antithesis of the Climate Fascists, who consistently rationalize contradicting evidence, often denying it is valid or attempting to erase it from history, fail to recognize how consistently they contradict themselves as they twist in the wind trying to blame everything “bad” on human fossil fuel use, and NEVER modify their secular religion to accommodate actual reality.
“– Above all a good skeptic is intellectually honest.”
Again, the antithesis of the Climate Fascists, who contradict themselves, attack the character and careers of those who disagree, duck open discussion and debate, and so on.
“So you are a denier if you behave like a denier, and a skeptic only if you behave like a real skeptic. This is all about process, not any particular position.”
And from this we can conclude that the Climate Fascists are “Natural Climate Change Deniers.”
“This also means that if you call someone a denier you should be prepared to back up that designation with specific examples of how they are behaving like a denier. It is also fair to refer to a position or even movement with the term denier or denial. It’s fair to refer to “global warming denial” as a phenomenon, especially since there is a solid-enough consensus on the basic conclusion that the Earth is warming and humans are causing it that it does create a reasonable starting position that anyone who disagrees is engaging in denial until proven otherwise.”
– Horseshit. The “solid enough consensus” consists of “hypothetical bullshit” coupled with the endless insistence that the hypothetical bullshit is not only factual, but that imaginary and completely unsupported “amplifying feedbacks” will turn the hypothetical effect into a runaway global warming that has never been seen at CO2 levels 17.5 times as high as today’s.
“And a lot of this does have to do with the burden of proof. Anyone making a scientific claim carries the burden of proving that claim.”
YES – And WE’RE STILL WAITING FOR THAT PROOF.
” However, once a claim has met that burden, to the satisfaction of a vast majority of experts, the burden of proof then shifts to those who would refute the consensus.”
If the “claim” was “proven” then the “proof” would satisfy ANYONE, not just those whose paychecks are based on it being right. There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF on skeptics, because the “consensus” claims remain UNproven. And not ONLY UNproven, but POORLY SUPPORTED.
I’m still trying to figure out what I’m denying. And I’m a firm supporter of global warming. I don’t care how it gets done, just so long as it get done.
Steve Novella’s website tells us that he is a medical doctor, an MD, a physician. He is not a Ph.D. degreed scientist.
It also tells us that Novella is available for public lectures, radio, podcast, or other media appearances.
Interestingly his two lecture series (both available for sale!): a) “Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us” and b) “Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills”
Snake oil salesman.
One of these days, someone is going to find my lifeless body lying on the bed, smiling from ear to ear. I’m going out happy that I left behind a f**k-ton of fools. Fools who are incapable of seeing how they have been had over and over and over again by government deceptions. Fools who have no idea that all of these distractions are created just to keep the populace busy and not rebelling against the crime(s) being perpetrated against them. Fools who cannot see the evidence right in front of their eyes. Via con Dios!
Viva la Idiocracy!
Dr Richard Alley of PSU was part of the team that analyzed 100’s of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to compare CO2 concentration levels vs Earth’s temperature proxies!
That group found: Earth’s temperature ALWAYS leads CO2 concentration changes, both on the way up and the way down! Lag can be from 200-800 years on the way up, 400-2,000 years on the way down! Temperature changes DRIVE CO2 concentration changes! Probably ocean outgassing as they warm!
Any process control engineer can confirm that lagging parameters (CO2 concentration) are NEVER!!!! the driver of the process, it is the resultant! QED – CO2 is not the cause of Earth’s temperature change, it is the resultant! And all the climate scientists (Dr Alley, Dr Mann, et al.) and Climate Change promoters KNOW THIS AS WELL!
CO2 was picked as the culprit when Margaret Thatcher wanted to break the coal miners strike! Politics trumps science every time!
Not being a scientist, but coming from a science and data background I see the problem being related to communication. The 97% scientific consensus is quite broad because it has no questionable components. However, when journalists and activists invoke the phrase consensus they add in the “it is dangerous” to the scientific definition. Just look at Obama’s quote. I call this the political consensus.
So I believe in the scientific consensus, but not political consensus. Date I ask if a denier a person that uses the political consensus as their definition in a scientific context?
And that’s the biggest problem with the notion of a scientific consensus.
David,
I really like the Sheep as the image of blissful consensus. Quite appropriate.
After reading through Dr Novella’s essay, I can only conclude he has never bothered to read (or has avoided) Dr Michael Crichton’s essay “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous” that he attached as Appendix I to his novel State of Fear.
The late-Dr Crichton wrote as the second to last final paragraph of that essay, ‘But as Alton Chase, put it,”when the search for the truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”‘
Dr Novella cannot seem to separate what is science from powerful, politically-motivated advocacy and Group-think in regards to climate science. Advocacy and Group-Think each serve their own purpose today in climate science. The political advocacy seeks one thing, raw power. The Group-think seeks to ensure institutional funding is not threatened by a rise of dissenting conclusions via counter-evidence and it uses suppression tactics as a sword to cut down any who threatens the government-sponsored science narrative.
What climate science has done is create climate porn by simply taking several verifiable “natural truths” (about GHG gases in the atmosphere and CO2 emissions) and wrapped around those an entirely alarmist and highly doubtful alarmist narrative to advance a political, financial, and environmental purpose. It then force feeds this un-scientific propaganda as non-stop, titillating climate porn to a gullible public. It only depends on which group of actors in this purpose it serves as alarmist Climate Change porn is now driven by some 3-way mix of noble cause corruption, rent-seeking, and the quest for political power.
The time for People of good character to stand-up against this pursuit of power, a pursuit that seeks to destroy the Western democracy and the economic system of free market capitalism, is now.
I think he’s genuinely trying to distinguish those who question certain aspects of the science and/or policy responses to the science, from those who simply reject the science entirely. If you read the full essay on his blog, he at least somewhat disagreed with the notion that those who lack PhD’s in climate science and dare question the science are, by default, deniers.
I give him credit for making the effort… But he clearly is enamored with the notion of “superior expertise”… I think that might be a common trait among academics and some medical specialists. The notion that the null hypothesis has been reversed is also troubling, because it’s so ill-defined in climate science. If I propose an alternative hypothesis to plate tectonics, the burden of proof is on me, because plate tectonics is a well-established theory. If I propose that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist or somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics, the burden of proof is on me. If someone proposes to put my industry out of business and bankrupt our nation because there is an alleged scientific consensus about AGW, the burden of proof is on them the demonstrate why they shouldn’t be put in straight-jackets and locked up in padded rooms.
Debunking claims that past events like Moon Landing, the Holocaust, or 9-11 conspiracies is a different realm altogether versus attempts to debunk skeptical views of future prognostications, that is — physical things that only have claimed future probabilities that arise from human-built, “convenient result” models.
That is the difference between knowing that when I flip an honest coin, there is 50% chance of heads when we remove the hand covering the result and observe its actual state. If I claim to know with high certainty beforehand it is going to heads, then you’ll know it’s either a rigged coin, or my claims make me a charlatan.
Dr Novella’s inability therefore to rationally layout the distinction between
1) a skeptic’s view of future climate scenarios like the 3+deg C catastrophe claims from climate computer models, models that can be made to “sing and dance a jig” however the programmer-bias needs, from
2) real deniers of fixed, past events (ex: moon landings) that have mountains of physical evidence of their occurrence highlights a serious inability to apply reason on his part.
We have seen #1) played out so often with “future” claims of pending climate catastrophes that were presented at the time as coming validations of the strong GHE of CC. Prognostications such as imminent Arctic summer sea ice disappearance, end of snow predictions, end of cold winters, collapsing ecosystems. Things that are now in the past and didn’t happen, but yet we never hear guys like Dr Novella call these failed prophesiers out. But now the prophecies simply have learned their lesson and make their prognostications far enough out no one in the present will be around when that expectation date arrives and passes through the uncaring filter of present observation.
It begs the question, “How many times does someone Al Gore and other climate doomsters, who claim to be using what scientists have told them, have to be wrong to be publicly and finally labeled as charlatans selling snake-oil by the mainstream press?”
Or in the UK, “How many times does Professor Peter Wadhams on have to be wrong on sea ice for the British press and the BBC to finally tell their readers and viewers what he is, that is: a crank?”
If Dr Novella really were interested in debunking junk climate conspiracy theories he would have taken on Dr Wadham’s claims of scientists being assassinated by Big Oil.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174599/Have-three-climate-change-scientists-ASSASSINATED-astonishing-claim-Cambridge-professor.html
But it is only in the skeptic community who they go after for being skeptical of future claims. Even luke-warmers like Dr Pielke, Jr, who try to call them out for failed prognostications on sever weather claims, they then label him a denier, and the Dr Novella’s of science stay silent. If Dr Novella were actually trying to apply a rational voice to the issues, he would be writing essays about this behavior in the media and by certain “climate scientists” giving the denier label to good scientists like Dr’s Pielke Jr, Curry, Christy, Spencer , etc.
So unlike your high regard for Dr Novella, I find his sort of subjective application of reason applied to contrived future probabilities of climate rather offensive.
Verb conjugation does seem to be particularly difficult for Warmunists to comprehend.
Is there any tactic in that list that doesn’t apply to the activities of the Climate Alarmists?
“– They will exploit ambiguity (and even create ambiguity) in terminology or employ shifting definitions in order to create confusion or apparent contradiction.”
Yet, it is the alarmists who have re-defined acidity and bring us statements such as “And the oceans will become even MORE acidic.”
Yep. My 1978 stratigraphy and sedimentation textbook explained the process without acidifying anything. 1942’s SJ&F even featured a map of the “dissolving” seafloor long before the climate science community declared it to be dissolving.
The phrase “ocean acidification” didn’t exist before the mid-2000’s.
I believe when I did an online search, the first occurrence of the term OA I found was in 2004.
I define climate luke-warmer more broadly than Real Clear Science.
In addition to any negative effects from warming being further into the future, I include an overall lesser rate of warming from human activities. This implies that warming includes cycles caused by natural factors, beyond human effects. Although future effects from such natural warming may still need to be anticipated, the implications of what ought to be done currently can be very different.
Strange thing they want everyone to cut there carbon dioxide output, what about each and any other species that exits?
If they say human caused, then surely them breathing is not helping as that is human caused as you being human?
Thanks
Leon
Steve Novella’s website tells us that he is a medical doctor, an MD, a physician. He is not a Ph.D. degreed scientist.
It also tells us that Novella is available for public lectures, radio, podcast, or other media appearances.
Interestingly his two lecture series (both available for sale!): a) “Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us” and b) “Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills”
Physician heal thyself.