Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

So, you didn't read the actual quotes from the scientists, in the article, who disagreed with Cook categorizing their papers as being in agreement with him?

Yeah, you are through.

Sure. I read the quotes. I also read the underlying context, and know about the particular people the quotes came from, popular with the denier crowd, just as the chemist is with the creationist crowd.

Offers a fig leaf of respectability for people like you to go into forums and jump up and down and point at, because most people are far too lazy to do a bit of digging, especially the kinds of people who are inclined to buy into the conservative war on science. Them Darwinists is out to git us...

[RandomGuy]

Sure, I'll carry on in this thread -- thanks.


The whole consensus nonsense owes its genesis to a paper whose principle author is one John Cook:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Unfortunately for Mr. Cook, people read.

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

One simple question. When do the models say the warming will resume?


Maybe not but, did you overlook this excerpt?


OMG!


Nicely taken out of context. I stand by the statement that we shouldn't pay anyone -- including the wealthy -- for taking a known risk and building on property that is almost surely going to result in a claim.

Of much more close relevance, and to the point of the OP of this long-lived thread is PopTech's beloved list:

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

He keeps adding to it, slowly over time.

Of course, since PopTech very vociferously defends this list, and does so in a very sly intellectually dishonest way, others have actually done the exact same thing to his list, that he did here, i.e. called and contacted the scientists who published the papers in his list.

Most of them were shocked that someone would have put that on such a list, and actively said that his inclusion was a misrepresentation.

Having read close to 50 of the papers on the list during my arguments with PopTech here, I can safely say that his bar for including things on the list is low, to put it mildly.

Someone that dishonest is not inherently wrong in their assertions, but anyone of good conscience should be very skeptical of their conclusions and assertions of fact.


http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

[RandomGuy]

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

UPDATE:
This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877


From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

----------------------------------------------------------------
#Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

Yonivore:
One question asked. Completely ignored.
One logical fallacy.

Obstructed view:
Five questions asked.
Two questions dodged without honest answers.
Two questions answered fairly.
One ignored.

DarrinS:
twelve logical fallacies
One false assertion
One question pending, probable second false assertion
Cherry-picking data

Wild Cobra:
Five logical fallacies
Four unproven assertions
Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
Three instances of confirmation bias
First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

Tyson Chandler:
One logical fallacy

PopTech:
One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
Failure to provide evidence when asked.
Strawman logical fallacy


(edit)
Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...redux-edition/

Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"

Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

ignore the facts and evidence;
do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...ain/#more-2959

[RandomGuy]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=196304&page=2

Some of my better work. PopTech was insane, but fairly intelligent nonetheless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=196304&page=2

Some of my better work. PopTech was insane, but fairly intelligent nonetheless.

Yeah once Yoni's google sophistry, which I would equate to pseudoscience by your last definition above, reached Pop-tart I realized what I was dealing with and just stopped.

NAS, BEST, and the Royal Academy are all ignored and not argued on merit vs Pop-tart being blindly accepted. It is what it is. Apparently after he edited all his posts here and left, he did a series of articles on why marijuana is bad Reefer-Madness style. He sure got me.

Have to love it.

[Yonivore]

Yeah once Yoni's google sophistry, which I would equate to pseudoscience by your last definition above, reached Pop-tart I realized what I was dealing with and just stopped.

NAS, BEST, and the Royal Academy are all ignored and not argued on merit vs Pop-tart being blindly accepted. It is what it is. Apparently after he edited all his posts here and left, he did a series of articles on why marijuana is bad Reefer-Madness style. He sure got me.

Have to love it.

Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

I linked you their stuff. Look for yourself. That you are looking for a specific date speaks to your level of understanding of the subject though.

[Poptech]

Of much more close relevance, and to the point of the OP of this long-lived thread is PopTech's beloved list:

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

He keeps adding to it, slowly over time.

Of course, since PopTech very vociferously defends this list, and does so in a very sly intellectually dishonest way, others have actually done the exact same thing to his list, that he did here, i.e. called and contacted the scientists who published the papers in his list.

Most of them were shocked that someone would have put that on such a list, and actively said that his inclusion was a misrepresentation.

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.

Having read close to 50 of the papers on the list during my arguments with PopTech here, I can safely say that his bar for including things on the list is low, to put it mildly.

The Criteria for inclusion is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."

Someone that dishonest is not inherently wrong in their assertions, but anyone of good conscience should be very skeptical of their conclusions and assertions of fact.

Name one thing I lied about.

[Poptech]

Wow, I had forgotten how truly insane the guy behind PopularTechnology.net is (Narcissistic personality disorder). (say AmateurPsychologistGuy)

I must have been very effective for you to lie and poison the well like this. Unfortunately you never won a single argument with me and had to resort to baseless personal attacks, evasion and psychobabble.

[Poptech]

Now you are linking pop tart. Him accusing others of falsely categorizing scientists is the most hilarious I've seen all day. I'm done contending with google sophistry.

Powerpuff Girl, where did I falsely categorize a scientist? And please avoid your psychobabble when answering.

[Poptech]

Wow, you are putting up a link to PopTech.

Dude posted here for a while, until I caught him in a lie, then he left in fairly short order.

You are seriously delusional and now have to resort to lying about me? No such series of events ever happened. Cite and quote this figment of your imagination.

Having dealt with the guy first hand long enough to know that he is as actively intellectually dishonest as you are, I will simply dismiss the ultimate conclusion.

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest?

PopTech's MO is one of shameless cherry-picking, both of quotes and research papers. [...]

I have little doubt that were I to waste time chasing this rabbit down the hole, I would find the author of that website did the same thing that I caught him in here and in his other links.

Shameless cherry picking to the point of blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Wow, you are one dishonest individual. I don't cherry pick either quotes or research papers. You never "caught" me in any such thing. Your inability to debate me has resorted in you having to now flat out lie about what happened, amazing. You sir are the true intellectually dishonest individual.

[Poptech]

Sure. I read the quotes. I also read the underlying context, and know about the particular people the quotes came from, popular with the denier crowd, just as the chemist is with the creationist crowd.

Why are you dodging the key question,

Did Cook et al. (2013) falsely classify skeptic papers as endorsing AGW?

[Poptech]

http://greenfyre...

The Truth about Greenfyre

"Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage."

[Th'Pusher]

Yay. PT is back. This will be interesting for a couple of minutes.

[Th'Pusher]

Yoni is going to love poptech.

See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election

[Poptech]

Yoni is going to love poptech.

Yoni is well aware of who I am.

See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election

I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.

[Wild Cobra]

I left because I was bored and prefer debating more intelligent people not brain-dead stoners.

No kidding.

This forum has really gone downhill since I joined.

What do you think of my graph in post 1647?

Since energy equalization uses an exponential function, I made a graph accordingly to illiterate that ocean warming can still occur after the sun reduces in TSI.

I have a neat TV episode clip in my signature. Here it is if you don't have signatures on:

[RandomGuy]

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.


The Criteria for inclusion is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."


Name one thing I lied about.

IT LIVES!!!!



I see you have re-animated the corpse of your account after a 2yr+ absence. Either Yoni contacted you, or you stumbled across the discussion because, as a narcissist you likely are a regular self-googler.

I would bet on the latter.

[RandomGuy]

Yoni is going to love poptech.

See what you miss when you leave for 2 years dejected that Mitt Romney lost the election

PT is more of a libertarian than a classic republican. If you want to get a rise out of him, call Ron Paul an idiot.

And Yoni already knows about PT from PT's former run here.

[Yonivore]

IT LIVES!!!!



I see you have re-animated the corpse of your account after a 2yr+ absence. Either Yoni contacted you, or you stumbled across the discussion because, as a narcissist you likely are a regular self-googler.

I would bet on the latter.

While I can't speak to its accuracy, of the two, the latter is the only once to which I cannot speak. As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

[RandomGuy]

Do NAS, BEST, or the Royal Academy say when the warming will resume?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

2014 set to be world's hottest year ever

Not sure if you had noticed that bit.

[RandomGuy]

While I can't speak to its accuracy, of the two, the latter is the only once to which I cannot speak. As for the former, I had forgotten there was even a PopTech that posted in the forum and I certainly had no idea he was related to the blog I quoted the other day. So, there's that.

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose an alternate theory to incessant self-googling would be an email notification. I still think PT is a self-googler, as it would fit with his "avenger" mindset and pattern of behavior. He has a cause, and that requires active searches.

[RandomGuy]

Name one thing I lied about.

I can start with this.

For one thing, your repeated claims that I committed "ad hominem" logical fallacies, and further, resorted to appeal to popularity logical fallacies.

You failed to reasonably demonstrate either assertion, despite being asked repeatedly.

A rather longer, detailed explanation:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5847193

[Yonivore]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

2014 set to be world's hottest year ever

Not sure if you had noticed that bit. Wasn't on Fox "news", so you are still waiting to be told what to think about it, I would guess.

So, I make no claim to having any particular knowledge of climate matters but, when you posted this, my su ion was that this had already been countered, somewhere on the internet. Now, before you blast the blogger (or me for linking to it, for that matter) just look at what he's asserting and tell me if, in fact, he has it wrong or why, for that matter, your source is better than his.

“Hottest Year” Update

He posts some graphs that appear to be from legitimate sources and claims they're more accurate than the method used to proclaim 2014 path to the hottest year ever. (Never mind the hyperbole of using "ever" in the headline.)

Take a look at the graphs and his sources and let me know what you think, Random.

Here's the graph which purports to support your assertion.



And, here are two graph, in the blog post, that say otherwise and that he claims are more accurate than the method used as the basis for your claim.



So, which is it? And, as an amateur, I would point out this highlights another problem we seem to encounter with fair frequency. Cherry-picking data and information to fit a narrative. I would have to go back and find it it but, I swear, I recall some other year(s), within the past decade being declared as the hottest ever -- all while, on the other hand -- consensual climate scientists admitted the warming trend had actually ceased at the end of the last century. So, which is it?

Here is the full text from the blog post...

According to RSS, the YTD anomaly ranks a very ordinary 7th warmest since 1998. UAH make it tie 3rd.

Both are well below the two hottest years in 1998 and 2010.

We have been continually told that the satellite data will catch up with the surface data after a lag, but it has stubbornly refused to do so.

There is absolutely no way this year will get anywhere those record years on the satellite datasets, which is precisely why we will hear nothing about it from NASA, NOAA or the MSM.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you lying that I am intellectually dishonest? Name the scientists that were called, name the papers on the list and then state why they were included. The only intellectually dishonest person is yourself.


The Criteria for inclusion is explicitly stated on the list,

"Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism."


Name one thing I lied about.

I would define lying as including the deliberate withholding of information, generally with an intent to deceive.

Deliberately withholding information that might be considered relevant to an impartial observer is definitely not a hallmark of intellectual honesty.

This post is a VERY typical one of yours. You don't outright state any falsehood, but most definitely leave out some rather important information.

You do not define "support", i.e. what are the criteria?

You do not define who determines if it "supports"?

You do not, in the interest of full, intellectually honest, disclosure, disclose how strongly any of those papers support a "skeptic argument".


My analysis of your list at the time was that the answers to the above questions are:

Anything that could be even minutely contradictory to AGW.
Poptech is the sole arbiter.
Generally weakly, according to my haphazard sample.

Further nowhere do you fully acknowledge the peer reviewed papers that do support AGW. While I can't fault you for making a case, I can fault you for not providing any reasonable commentary on the papers that do, or providing a good-intentioned, impartial reader some links. Of course, that could just as well be laziness, I suppose.

Is deliberately withholding relevant information an intellectually honest thing to do?