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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CAGW was disproved a decade or so ago.
We are missing the fun. There are real paradoxes concerning CAGW.
This is an all in problem. If there is no CAGW and no AGW, then there is something big (concerning the earth) which we are missing.
The fun is following the observations to a forced solution.
There are observations and analysis results that show the increase in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the majority warming of the recent warming which is a paradox.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?
6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)
9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)
10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)
14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)
All this talk of deniers and skeptics is just an attempt to distract from the real fun which is:
1. What is the missing CO2 sink and source?
The solution to the CO2 observation paradoxes requires a’new’ physical source no carbon, not an equation adjustment or a different model.
If there is a massive source of CO2 or CH4 entering the biosphere there should and is observational evidence of this massive source and its movement through the mantel.
Analysis (six different observations and different analysis techniques) supports the assertion that humans are only responsible for less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is unexpectedly tracking to temperature change not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Analysis shows this is only possible if there is a large source and sink of CO2 and that human CO2 emission is responsible for less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
2. What is the missing H2O source?
We know there must be a massive source of primordial/recycled water, as it has been found that there is three times as much water going into the mantel, dragged into the mantel by the ocean floor as it is pushed under continents, than comes out in volcanic eruptions. This is a material balance paradox.
There needs to be a physical source of new hydrogen entering the biosphere or water. If there is a massive source of new hydrogen entering the biosphere there should and is evidence of this source.
“…. and your best bet is to understand what that consensus is, how strong is it, and what evidence supports it.”
Sadly he did not take any time to understand what that consensus is.
CLIMATEGATE.
Fortunately no one imposes such demanding standards upon “activist” scientists.
The politics has gone from catastrophic global warming to climate change is bad. Am I a skeptic or denier when I challenge catastrophic forecasts of “the end of the world” in 11 years?
In Australia we are going to an election where the common mantra seems to be “take action on climate change”, and the only debate is how much and how quickly.
That means proposals such as 50% renewables, electric cars, no new coal mines, all without any cost/benefit analysis, despite the fact that Australia represents just 0.3% of the world’s population.
I am surprised to read that David Middleton thinks that Dr. Steven Novella writes well or has any admirable ideas. I am yet to see any good writing or run across any admirable ideas in Dr. Stephen Novella’s writings. Whereas when I see an article by David Middleton, I know that it is worth reading on.
Not surprised this guy is an MD. He is essentially espousing what goes on in clinics and hospitals. Doctors will rarely deviate from the procedures set forth by the organization. The reason is clear. They do it to avoid law suits.
It has nothing to do with science. As a result it appears he knows nothing about science. Most of his claims are outright fabrications.
“defer, as a default, to superior expertise.”
No. If you have the expertise to see a flaw in the evidence put before you, it’s not overridden by lack of knowledge in climate science. Judith Curry admitted that she defaulted to superior expertise until the Climategate emails surfaced and there are a lot of other climate scientists with less skill in the physical sciences.
Then there is the honesty. While the Climategate emails piqued my scepticism, it was examples of poor science that made me a sceptic (the original was how most of the 0.6°C of warming since the IR was before 1940 with rate equal to that post 1980 and much greater than post 1998, all adjusted into the forgetatory). I didn’t comb over everything with strong expertise in climate science to find fault with everything. Just enough to doubt that the “scientists” could be trusted to do science ie find evidence that their own assertions might be wrong.
“Chery picking” is a term were you only accept results that fit your hypothesis. Whenever I see it used to harass someone for noticing the outlier, I see a propagandist rather than an intellectual.
I used to listen to “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe” religiously (hah!). I dropped it when Steven Novella endorsed Peter Glieck’s fake document troll. It told me enough to know he doesn’t *really* support the scientific method when he thinks fraud is okay to “protect” science.
What bugs me most about this entire discussion is we are asked a yes/no question about the climate. It is an idiotic assertion. Yes/no will it be warmer next week? Will I have a good day? will the sun shine? Quick, yes or no? Do you believe, or are you a denier?
That in itself is not a rational approach to science, and not HOW science even works. One of the most important elements of science is paring down the question(the hypothesis) to elements that are agreed to by both parties, are as simple as possible, and are accessible to the scientific method (i.e. can be proven or disproven).
With climate change we have an immense number of theories and predictions, many of which are not subject to the scientific method, and then the question is reduced to a simple yes/no response.
I refuse to play, sorry. the game is garbage, and only a non-scientist would agree to the ground rules in the first place.
The denier bogey man.
Novella’s attempt to define the “Climate Science Denier” is his attempt to photograph Bigfoot.
The Cult members are trained to see “Deniers” everywhere,just as our “Progressive Comrades” always blame the “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy” for their own failures.
The good Dr shows his own gullibility in his words.
Perhaps he hopes to become an “Inner circle member” of the Cult of Calamitous Climate?
The only deniers in “Climatology” are those who deny;
1 Our history.
2 Measuring technology and methodology
3 Error bars and the importance of signal to noise ratios.
4 The scientific method.
5 Basic commonsense.
However , if it makes them feel better about themselves and enables them to congregate with others of their same nature, then the C.C.C serves their needs.
But to an outside eye,they are still naked and ugly, I cannot “see their fine cloth”.
Eye bleach will be needed as so many new Emperors strut forth to save us, surreal in their imaginary “intelligence and wisdom”.
Pointing and laughing is still your only civil defence.
– They will attack scientists personally, and engage in a witch hunt in order to impugn their reputations and apparent motives.
So when the so-called consensus attacks petroleum geologists and the AAPG personally, and engage in a witch hunt in order to impugn their reputations and apparent motives… does this make them deniers?
How many of the 97% consensus are bone fide scientists who actually work with the global temperature data and / or climate modelilng.
How many of the 97% consensus have livelihoods that depend on agreeing with the climate conssus storyline.
Climate modeling is fundamentally based on development and use of deterministic models that are based on / built around independent variables that omit / do not account for known natural forcings… aerosols, solar variability, etc.
And how do you explain correcting (lowering) historical data (e.g., Karl et. al. / NOAA) to adjust the temperature records to exaggerate recent warming to fit the storyline of current warming post 2010.
Going back to say, the mid 1980s, I wouild like to see a data set that describes the size of the university and private sector jobs and liberal funding related to climate change. Very large numbers. Some justified but most driven by the projection of doom and gloom based on imperfect modeling / forecast of gloom and doom … rising temperatures and damages.
IPCC scenarios are presented as a range of future rising temperatures … the presentation of the range of the projections are not measures of accuracy and precision of forecasts … that is only given by comparison of how will history / backcasting plus actual future temperature predictions. IPCC and other statements of the range of model predictions is a nonsense statement… what thjis tells you is how well imperfect models agree with one another not some kind of precision. IPCC intentionally mislead in their reports and Summary for Policmakers in suggesting that this is a meaningful conclusion, leading into urgent calls for some global action. It is chock loaded with proppaganda techniques such as seen in e.g., Nazi Germany.
We have been down this road many times over the years: Thomas Malthus’ “An Essay on the Principal of Population (1798)”; Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” (1968); and The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (1972). All had similar failings: faulty models used in making long-term projections of future consumption and production. Malthus might be forgiven for his projection of food vs. population, given the historical context and state of scientific knowledge at the time; I am less sympathetic with Paul and Anne Ehrlich (population) and The Club of Rome (minerals and other resource depletion and the subsequent collapse of the world economy).
David Hume famously said, “What a peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call ‘thought’…. when men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, and given to views of passion without proper deliberation, which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities.”
All of this has resulted in huge built-in bias to support the storyline – engrained in our politics, mainstream media (read any issue of the NYT, WashPo, The Economist, etc.), and academia, from K-12 instruction to universities and private and publicly funded research. It is not just the cool thing to do, it is also very lucrative – in terms of funding grants and profit opportunities. It is also self reinforcing as the feedbacks encourage more and more of the same.
Oxford historian Norman Davis outlined five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,” Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501):
– Simplification – reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good vs. Bad’, ‘Friend vs. Foe’ and so on.
– Disfiguration – discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies
– Transfusion – manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own end
– Unanimity – presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of “star- performers,” by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’
– Orchestration- endlessly repeating the same message in different variations.
Sorry, but my BS Meter went off as soon as I saw he agreed with the 97% consensus of “scientists”. After that I stopped reading his essay. My BS Meter is stronger than his, or even yours I think. I have thought this was all BS from the start…
Sorry, just couldn’t continue reading your article…
Regards, – JPP
I meant Dr. Steven Novella agreed with the 97% consensus, not you David Middleton…
JPP
I’m sorry, but Novella is full of c.r.a.p. There is never a place for consensus in science and no one should ever go along with self appointed experts because they haven’t done their homwework. The last time I checked, bumblebees can fly.
” They will attack scientists personally “
He has defined denier and skeptic. How about zealot ? As in climate believer, climate fanatic or climate zealot ?
That would be a great topic for a rejoinder.
I see a lot of D word behavior here
The guys argument is no about positions, it’s about behavior
Bingo.
We know all about Alarmist behavior. If only the Alarmists had behaved like actual scientists, we wouldn’t be in this mess. It’s a little like the Nazis “complaining” about Allied “behavior”.
“Deniers do not fairly assess the scientific evidence, but will cherry pick the evidence that seems to support their position.
It only takes a single contrary observation to cast doubt on a theory or hypothesis. In other words when refuting a theory, “cherry picking” the negative results is the scientific thing to do.
“They [‘deniers’] primarily focus on sowing doubt and confusion over the science they deny, rather than offering a coherent alternate theory or explanation.
Refuting a theory or hypothesis does not require an alternative theory. It only requires finding the faults in the theory or hypothesis.
“A skeptic will try to understand the scientific consensus and defer, as a default, to superior expertise.”
There is never any requirement to “default” to “superior expertise”, whatever that is.
“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.”
The burden of proof never “shifts to those who would refute the consensus”.
Novella’s comments would be quite appropriate if he had been talking about the anti-vaccination “skeptics, deniers, whatever”
In the vaccination wars, the “skeptics, deniers……..” are fairly small in number, are vocal, indulge in personal attacks on those who disagree with them (see this: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mother-whose-son-died-of-the-flu-says-shes-become-a-target-of-anti/ ) and want the larger society to abandon actions that have seen a major success (smallpox), and almost-success (polio) and a close-to-success (MMR) and their evidence for this position looks somewhere between flimsy and non-existent.
In the climate wars, it is the majority-mainstream-consensus, who are large in number, who are vocal (and get attention that the anti-vaxxers can only dream about), who indulge in personal attacks on those who disagree with them (no need to quote a source for that one) and who want the larger society to abandon actions that have led to very significant benefits for human society, and their evidence for this position looks somewhere between flimsy and non-existent (to me anyway)
In the climate wars, the skeptics/deniers include a lot of scientifically literate people (even some who are climate science ex-insiders). And (I think) a most important point is that many (maybe even most) of us never set out to be skeptics/deniers, but were convinced by looking at the arguments and flimsy evidence presented by the consensus.
Big difference.
The infamous 97% claim greatest success has actual nothing to do with the ‘research’ that went into its creation. But it is found in the BS claim which have come about as result of it .
The 97% claim at no stage said ‘climate scientists’ a terms that actual has no agreed definition, it was sub-section or a subsection of ‘papers’ over a very limited period where there a ‘some’ evidence of concern . And that at its very best was it .
That Novella make the claim he does suggest they have simply never read the dam thing in the first place .
Anybody willing to take on Dr. Novella’s ~98% of neurologic MD’s agree we are basically a bunch of chemicals, with some special ones the mind runs on? i.e. take on the Mainstream Drug Culture?
Somebody ought to remind the good MD that neither chemicals nor neurons can think.
With the chemical axiom, all arguments become a chemical balance, even when paradocically the Dr. pushes “science-based medicine”.
Chemical do not do science.
I think this same basic tenet also drives the hysterical CO2 chemical mania.
And that is why chemicalistas have a great problem with Galactic Cosmic Radiation.
Listen to the experts – believe all they say. If you are smart you will trust them. Because the experts say that listening to them is what all smart people do. And they will tell you so in so many, many, many words.
https://youtu.be/AFngmnJ7rZU
In The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, they stated:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.”
We are constantly innundated to keep us in a state of constant turmoil for their benefit, not ours.
I think Dr. Novella is a good guy, caught up in a movement. I wrote this about him in 2015 while blogging on Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc.
Dr. Steven Novella (Podcaster)
Steven Novella, a neurologist and assistant Yale professor, hosts an excellent, popular and much beloved podcast with his brothers and friends called The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. The podcast began in 2005 and they have almost 500 podcasts under their belt. He and his fellow podcasters have been welcomed at various skeptic conventions and they maintain an active discussion board. Dr. Novella has been a strong opponent against anti-vaccine activists and effective supporter of science based medicine.
The podcast has a mix of skeptical and scientific subjects and an interview with a guest skeptic or scientist. The show criticizes pseudo-science and promotes science. Many of the podcasts have a segment that features James Randi.
The blend in the podcast content includes the more conventional skeptic topics; exposing junk science, critical thinking and also includes “sciencey” news. In their discussions I’d regularly hear panelists who might laugh at someone gushing excitedly over some potential benefit from a new herb, exhibit the same behavior over some preliminary finding that suggested some improvements in wind power, solar power or battery storage. The double standard suggests they probably would not appreciate this skeptic joke presented as applicable to alternative energy resources as well.
What they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to work?
-They call it medicine.
This pattern of increased uncritical adulation for technological “progress” for alternative energy along with growing environmental fears strengthened by climate ”science” appeared to be a common in many skeptical forums. Over time the feedback between skeptical media and the skeptical population has served to strengthen “climate alarmism” and calls for climate activism while pushing for any dissent from the orthodoxy to be labeled as part of climate denialism. I think Dr. Novella is a bright, honest, capable person who has been shaped by group pressures to be supportive of the “climate consensus”. Michael Mann was a guest on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe in 2013 and Dr. Steven Novella is also a signer of the CSI petition. https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/03/why-skeptics-hate-climate-skeptics/
“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.”
There is a consensus among logicians that an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. 🙂
“They will exploit ambiguity (and even create ambiguity) in terminology or employ shifting definitions in order to create confusion or apparent contradiction.”
Exposing abmbiguity in terminology is essential for anyone trying to understand any idea. If this is a trait unique to deniers then all real scientists are deniers.
Hi,
Here are my comments, over at the Neurologica blog, to Dana Nuccitelli about the Cook et al., 2013 paper “Quantifying the Consensus…” that he co-authored with John Cook and others. It starts out by quoting Nuccitelli:
No, Dana, it’s John Cook and you who have been misrepresenting your research from day one.
As you know (but Steven Novella and his readers probably don’t) Cook et al., 2013 grouped abstracts into 7 bins, with the following number of abstracts in the various bins. (Note that the number of abstracts in each of the bins isn’t even stated in the paper. Unbelievable!):
Bin 1 = 64 abstracts
Bin 2 = 922 abstracts
Bin 3 = 2910 abstracts
Bin 5 = 64 abstracts
Bin 6 = 15 abstracts
Bin 7 = 9 abstracts
Bin 4 isn’t presented above, because only bins 1-3 and 5-7 are important to the paper. There are 3896 abstracts in bins 1-3 and 78 abstracts in bins 5-7, adding up to a total of 3974 abstracts. Then there were 40 abstracts rated as “uncertain” with respect to anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”)…3974 + 40 = 4014 abstracts.
Here’s how you and John Cook in Cook et al. 2013 describe the results of the analysis:
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
The only way to arrive at the “97.1%” value is to include all 2910 abstracts in bin 3.
But here are just two abstracts that are in bin 3, and which John Cook and you claimed (and continue to claim), “…endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.
“Is the extent of glaciation limited by marine gas-hydrates?”
On the nature of methane gas-hydrate dissociation during the Toarcian and Aptian oceanic anoxic events
If you could explain how those two abstracts and the other abstracts in bin 3 “…endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” I’d definitely apologize and stop writing that John Cook and you are misrepresenting Cook et al., 2013. But you can’t, because it is unquestionably a blatant misrepresentation that those two abstracts and others in bin 3 “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
–A skeptic will try to understand the scientific consensus and defer, as a default, to superior expertise. —
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
Richard Feynman
Or to put it another way:
“Nullius en verba”
–motto of the Royal Society
“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.”
___________________________________________________
There is an easy decision between
who cares if a rice bag has fallen over in China
who cares if a bicycle has fallen over in China
who cares if china buys kuka
who cares if China buys Putzmeister
___________________________________________________
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=China+buys+Fichtel+%26+Sachs&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKqc-wkojiAhVh-SoKHb67DEUQBSgAegQICRAC&biw=360&bih=560
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=560&ei=xc7QXNLlFPHDrgSnvLDAAQ&q=China+buys+KuKa&oq=China+buys+KuKa&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=560&ei=L8_QXKaKLev2qwGdrIGgCQ&q=China+buys+Putzmeister+&oq=China+buys+Putzmeister+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
___________________________________________________
That’s the decision.
Easy.