All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Thursday, 18 December 2014

Denying the evidence and using ad hominems

Our Friend Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition has written a moderating piece for the Hutchinson Leader (LINK) in which he calls for Taming the climate debate.
Billions raining down on the hoax.
The climate controversy is one of the world’s most important discussions. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs, and, if U.N. representatives now meeting in Peru are right, the fate of the global environment itself. We need leaders in science, engineering, economics and public policy to contribute to the debate without fear of retribution.
Sadly, the opposite is happening. Because the issue is poisoned with personal attacks, censorship, illogic and even death threats, many of the world’s leading experts are too frightened to comment publicly. They don’t want to be falsely accused.
Tom  calls for a "change in tenor of the debate."

For example, when advocates are criticized as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers should explain, “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.” It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests.
And calling someone an eco-nut or a denier is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy, “against the man,” instead of the idea, a tactic that has no place in rational discourse.
Unfortunately, this voice of reason is ignore by the other side of the debate.

Recently the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry posted an open letter declaring that "Deniers are not Skeptics." 

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
OK, as far as it goes. They blow it when they continue:
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. 
Uh-oh. Now these "Skeptical Inquirers" are trying to claim the high ground and intimating that those of us on the realist side of the debate -
  • deny reality
  • do not engage in scientific research
  • do not consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong

Who is denying reality?

They deny reality. They deny that the back-bone of their belief, the  AGW hypothesis has been multi-falsified (once is enough).

Who does not engage in Scientific Research?


Consider the scientists on the realist side of the debate:

Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Jennifer Marohasy,Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.
Consider the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC )


Who does not consider the evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong?


Did they consider the evidence from the above-mentioned NIPCC reports? Obviously not. 

Did they consider that Global temperatures have paused for more than 18 years? Obviously not.

Did they consider that,  this century, atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30% whilst global temperatures have fallen? Obviously not.

All or Any member(s) of the Skeptical Inquirer panel are invited to respond.

This Flawed Post led to ars technica to respond

In a flawed response, the "Friends of ARS" wrote:
The letter called for the news media to stop allowing doubters of climate change to use the label "skeptic" and instead label them deniers, based on the root "denial," which was defined as "the a priorirejection of ideas without objective consideration."
Get up of your ARS, "friends" and do some checking of your own.

Name just ONE from our side of the debate who doubts climate change? 
"Denialist" is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change. And frankly, there are a fair number of people in that camp who don't accept any of the evidence that's been generated. 
We accept the "evidence of climate change." Do the "friends?"


Consider the fraudulent Mann "Hockey Stick Graph." Did you "Friends" accept this attempt to deny that climate had changed from the MWP to the LIA to the 20th Century Warming?
IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David (Deming) was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails. (link)

19 comments:

  1. Denier is a correct term for certain people, such as this post which states global temperatures have paused for the last 18 years even though its common knowledge that natural cooling and warming needs to be considered before the global contribution of CO2 warming can be determined. Denying that simple fact is being a Denier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why use the anonymous tag when you could have used the more obvious tag of "denier."

      Delete
  2. I take it you will not be refuting my point that cooling events like volcanic eruptions do have to be considered when determine the amount of warming generated by CO2? And that you denying that fact makes you a denier?

    How about I point out another denier claim you are making which is that the graph you show pointing out the medieval warm period and little ice age is a global proxy. It is only one proxy record from central England not a global temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There you go, being a denier again. There are peer reviewed papers showing that the MWP was a world wide phenomenon: papers from Africa; Antarctica; Asia; Australia/New Zealand; Europe; North America; Northern Hemisphere; Oceans; South America.

    Source: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again you and your denier websites only focus on single proxy records, like the one you used in this blog post. One proxy temperature record in one key area where their was warming during the time of the medieval period. Real science and non deniers have to consider all the proxy records, not just cherry picked ones that can be used to try and trick people into thinking you are not a denier. As can be seen in the link of all the proxy records, not just the denier ones below.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif

      Delete
    2. I give you links to hundreds of peer reviewed papers - and your denial in the form of One proxy temperature record in one key area where their was warming during the time of the medieval period is risible.

      You then put up a link to a paid disinformation site UNskeptical UNscience run by John Cook who issued a scam a paper with a false claim of consensus.

      Your MWP comment has been shown to be erroneous. Move on!

      Delete
    3. Speaking of the cartoonist Cook, here is the latest rebuttal to his fraudulent paper entitled 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

      Delete
  4. I have so far stated that you deny the fact that natural events like volcanic eruptions which cool the atmosphere have to be considered when determining the amount of warming coursed by anthropogenic CO2. No rebuttal from you?

    I then go on to point out your use of one temperature record from central england and your claim it is a global temperature record as wrong yet you don't refute my statement instead you link me to more single proxy records from around the world, none which are a northern or global temperature reconstruction. I point out your a denier because of this and you simple say thats risible.... Feel free to link at least one paper from the hundreds you claim are on that denier site that even attempts to reconstruct a regional temperature proxy record.

    I go on to link you a well known scientific graph (http://postimg.org/image/g7jhx8wiv/) from the paper titled "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract) and you think changing the subject is going to achieve something?

    I can see now why they had to change the frame work when dealing with people like yourself, a sceptic is clearly a term that is imposable to associate with a denier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "deny the fact that natural events like volcanic eruptions which cool the atmosphere have to be considered"

      No, we don't deny that!

      However the Alarmists do. Although man's contributions to the emission of vital to life CO2 is only about 4% (The rest naturally is er...Natural) the Alarmists try to say it is man's 4% causing the warming (er...or the lack of warming.)

      your use of one temperature record from central england and your claim it is a global temperature record as wrong

      Er......We used one temperature record? WHERE?

      you link me to more single proxy records from around the world, none which are a northern or global temperature reconstruction..

      Er......did you go the the interactive world (=global) map at the link supplied?

      that denier site What was the title and point of this post?

      I go on to link you a well known scientific graph Based on a few papers, the interactive map is based on hundreds.

      Sheeeesh!


      Delete
  5. If you didn't deny the simple fact that natural warming and cooling needs to be accounted for before you can determine how much warming is due to CO2 you would not be naive in claiming that there has been no warming from CO2 for the last 18 years! Here are all the major temperature records which show no cooling! (http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg) here is the paper its from (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/). If you deny this simple fact you are a denier.

    In this blog post you have a graph at the bottom with Michael Mann in it where you claim that global proxy records hide the medieval warm period and little ice age. You did this by showing a graph that shows only one temperature proxy record from central england, but non-deniers understand that if you want to know the global temperature of the Earth you cant have one proxy from one area on the Earth.

    I cant understand how you can think any of us could be as naive as yourself to look at temperature records that show a warming during the medieval warm period and just simply deny all the other temperature records that don't show a warming. Normal people have to consider all the proxy records and add them all up to get a global temperature record. Which is what real science does in this graph (http://postimg.org/image/g7jhx8wiv/) from this paper titled "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract) and you think changing the subject is going to achieve something?

    Again you show your lack of understanding of science, a global proxy temperature reconstruction uses all the proxy records from around the world, this includes all the proxies you have linked that show a warming during the medieval warm period. Basically your hundreds of papers are all proxy papers that are all used in the paper I linked you. But of course you deny that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you keep going off on tangents?

      non-deniers (why do you keep using ad homs?) understand that if you want to know the global temperature of the Earth you cant have one proxy from one area on the Earth

      So I link you to hundreds of peer reviewed papers re proxies from every continent and from the the oceans. But you keep referring to just one proxy.. WHY

      The figure with the IPCC's own graph and the superimposed Michael Mann fraudulently pushing down (eg suppressing) the MWP was explained.

      The Warmists said that to scare the pants off the populace and to install their scare the had to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

      In other words, DENY that the MWP existed, deny it for their political aim.

      If you want to continue with this dialogue, answer some of the items in the original post above.

      1) The AGW hypothesis has been falsified multiple times.
      Do you deny this?

      2) The subjects of the post denied that the realists engaged in scientific research. This was shown to be incorrect.
      Do you deny this?

      3) They did not consider the evidence from the NIPCC reports.
      Do you deny this?

      4) According to ALL the main data sets Global temperatures have paused for more than 18 years and have fallen this century.
      Do you deny this?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, you do realise that the graph in question above is from the IPCC 1990 FAR and was a GLOBAL temperature reconstruction for the past 1,000 years.

      Delete
  6. May I also add 'Anonymous' and if Greg allows, on the same page of that graph in the 1990 IPCC FAR we have the following (my CAPPING);

    "There is growing evidence that WORLDWIDE TEMPERATURES WERE HIGHER THAN AT PRESENT during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP), at least in summer, THOUGH CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN QUITE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL ERA AT THIS TIME (Section 1). Thus parts of western Europe, China, Japan, the eastern USA were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid-Holocene than in recent decades(Yoshmo & Urushibara 1978, Webb et al 1987, Huntley & Prentice 1988, Zhang & Wang 1990). Parts of Australasia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb 1988). This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum (aka, MWP). China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino 1978). THIS PERIOD OF WIDESPREAD WARMTH IS NOTEABLE IN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AN INCREASE OF GREENHOUSE GASES."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry Geoff, I called you Greg in my above comment. My apologises.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a common mistake with Geoff's beginning with "G." If people ask whether I am Geoff with a "G" or Jeff with a "J." I often say take your pick., so that they make their own "mind pictures."

      Delete
  8. Thank you, BruceC.

    Anonymous is a true denier. Although I pointed out the CO2 Science MWP site with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers from every place around the world, he replied (in an unpublished comment -see below) You are simply linking a website that shows a handful of places???
    Hundreds and he says a handful....Does the word denier fit, anonymous? Er YES!

    SO, I challenged anonymous with

    If you want to continue with this dialogue, answer some of the items in the original post above.

    He sent a comment without addressing these points.

    So, anonymouse, DO YOU DENY that

    a) there had been no Global Warming for more than18 years, and
    b) satellite measurements show that there has been Global Cooling this century


    His reply:

    I will gladly answer any questions you have about climate change but my points still need to be answered.

    OK.....Anonymouse. I asked you to answer MY questions. If you answer them, then your questions will be addressed. JUST ANSWER MINE! Do you deny latest science?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also note 'Anonymoose' you cite MBH08 from the PNAS. Are you aware that the PNAS allows members of its exceptionally prestigious academy to choose their own reviewers for up to four papers a year?** It is known as 'contributed submissions'.

    **NOTE: PNAS also accepts many papers through a more traditional 'direct submissions' peer-review system.

    Many of the papers submitted to the PNAS state whether they are 'contributed' or 'direct' submissions, MHB08 states neither!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a joke! Denying me to show how ridicules you are. Sad!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ridicules? Sad that some-one can't spell ridiculous!

      Obey the rules. Answer the questions before you add ridiculous lies like calling hundreds of peer-reviewed papers a handful of papers

      So: I asked you to answer MY questions. If you answer them, then your questions will be addressed. JUST ANSWER MINE FIRST!

      Simples!

      Delete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!