Debunking Denialism

Fighting pseudoscience and quackery with reason and evidence.

Tag Archives: global warming

Six Hilarious Pseudoscience Contradictions

Sheep

Pseudosciences are the imposters of real science. They attempt to mimic the activities and language used by scientists, but have no intellectual substance beneath their shallow surface. This is likely because science has such a strong cultural authority and has been responsible for many beneficial and exciting discoveries during the past few centuries. Anything that attempts to parasitize on science can potentially steal some of this authority from science.

Yet, because pseudosciences are not based on credible arguments or evidence, they contain a combination of wishful thinking and stuff that is plainly made up. Because critical thinking and scientific evidence plays very little role (in any), it is not surprising that inconsistencies and contradictions have crept into many forms of pseudoscience. These contradictions do not just occur between different kinds of pseudosciences, such as chiropractors claiming that giving birth is a massive trauma and that newborns must get spinal adjustments while natural birth activists think that giving birth in the wilderness is completely safe. They can also be found within a specific pseudoscience and that produces many great ironies that many quacks and cranks seem completely oblivious to. Let us look at six such hilarious pseudoscience contradictions. Read more of this post

Harbingers of Doom – Part I: Ancient Maps and Biological Weapons

Häggström and Here Be Dragons

Are we rapidly approaching a technological singularity where intelligent computers and robots recursively self-improve into a superintelligent paperclip maker who annihilate the planet and all life on it in order to fill the universe with more paperclips? Is the apparent cosmic silence strong evidence that the origin of life was nearly impossible? Can the human mind survive destructive teleportation or uploading to computer servers and will self-replicating nanobots consume all life on earth? Or is this just the last in a long list of flawed doomsday prophecies that are based on false empirical premises, faulty logic, technobabble and pseudoscience? Or perhaps somewhere in between?

A recently published book by Olle Häggström, Professor of mathematical statistics at Chalmers University of Technology, called Here Be Dragons attempts to address some of these issues. The different writings by Häggström have been critically examined on this website before, particularly his uncompromising defense of statistical significance, p values and the NHST procedure. In his defense, Häggström has written decisive refutations of the creationist abuse of mathematics, climate change denialists and anti-science postmodernists.

In this first installment, we take a closer critical look at if ancients maps really had dragons designating dangerous places, threat of biological weapons of mass destruction, the case of Stanislav Petrov and faulty warning systems for nuclear attacks, dual use of concern research and the Soviet offensive bio-weapons program, and his objections to the way science funding is done by the Swedish Research Council. Although credit is given where credit is due for his defense of mainstream climate science and his criticisms of geoengineering projects, his uncritical discussion of induced meat intolerance is taken to task.

Read more of this post

A Torrent of Errors in David Evans Case Against Global Warming

earth

Also see An Open Letter to Libertarian Climate Change Denialists.

The well-known Internet philosopher, atheist and market anarchist Stefan Molyneux (whose stance of psychiatry was previously discussed here and here) recently subbed for Peter Schiff on the Peter Schiff radio show. The show features discussions about global warming, gold companies, the value of philosophers over politicians and the important similarities between republicans and democrats. The section on global warming contained an interview with the mathematician and engineer David Evans. Evans has some issues with mainstream climate science that I think is worth critically examining.

To be honest, I am by no means an expert on climate science, climate modeling, ice cores, tree rings or anything like that. Therefore, I completely accept that I can be in error here. After all, when it comes to climate science, I am just a guy on the Internet. With that said, I do think I can present some thoughtful comments on the statements made by Evans and Molyneux during the interview. The entire interview can be found here, starting at about 16:12. I will quote directly from the video and leave timestamps so you can check it out for yourself. I also accept that I may have made some mistakes in this rush transcript as they talk fairly fast and sometimes it is hard to hear when the direction of a sentence is changed in the middle of words.

The introduction to the interview given by Stefan Molyneux suggests that he accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide increases global temperature (16:42). So far, so good. This is an important conclusion that some groups that reject the mainstream position on climate change does not even accept. So from that standpoint, it is refreshing to hear.

Climate scientists have taken into account both natural and anthropogenic forcings

The first argument put forward by Evans is this (17:54):

Molyneux: Let’s talk a little bit about this amplification thing. I’ve read quite a bit about global warming. I’ve never come across this idea before. It seems pretty important and I wonder if you can illuminate us, please?

Evans: It is the whole ballgame Stefan. The other side do not like to talk about it because the evidence runs the wrong way for them. I’ll give you the big picture. Here is how it works: when the global warming…CO2 theory was being developed in the 1970s, they looked back and said “look, from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 17-1850 to modern times, the CO2 level has risen by this much and the temperature has risen by that much. OK we know, from theoretical calculations that pretty much everyone agrees on, how much warming CO2 causes directly just as a result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and that direct effect only accounted for a third of the temperature rise. OK, so we know the CO2 level warming since 17-1850 but it only accounted for a third of the observed temperature rise. Now, here is the big jump in logic: the theorists said “Alright. Well, we cannot think of any other cause of global warming. We know it is not solar, the sun being brighter or warmer, because although the sun fluctuates a tiny bit, but not nearly enough to account for the extra warming. So therefore, there must be some amplification and this amplification due to water vapor feedbacks because the earth reacts to that extra CO2 warming in the atmosphere by evaporating water from the oceans, creating more clouds etc. and that must amplify that warming to account for the extra warming we saw. Right, so the direct effect only gives you a third of the observed warming, so there must be amplification by three to account for the rest, because we assume that CO2 is the only thing driving the Earth’s temperature. Are you with me so far, Stefan?

Molyneux: Absolutely.

As far as I can understand the argument, Evans is saying that everyone agrees that CO2 causes a certain level of warming. This warming is, however, just a certain percentage of the observed warming. So therefore, climate scientists invented the idea that there must be amplification effects from the increase in CO2 to account for the totality of observed warming.

This is an erroneous argument for several reasons. First, scientists have long since accepted that there are many different forcings besides just human emission of carbon dioxide and that there also exists radiative forcings from natural sources. For instance, figure 2.4 in the Synthesis Report from 2007 shows that human forcings include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, stratospheric water vapor from methane, surface albedo from black carbon on snow, surface albedo land use, direct effect from aerosols and cloud albedo effect. Not all of these are positive. Natural forcings, as detailed in the Working Group I part of the Fourth Assessment Report, includes solar variability and explosive volcanic activity.

Second, natural forcings alone cannot account for the observed warming. Yet, when scientists take into account both anthropogenic and natural forcings, these can account for the observed warming very well (figure 2.5 in the synthesis report linked above).

Third, we know that feedback processes occurs. When it gets warmer, there are more water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases temperatures, which in turn release more carbon dioxide from the oceans. This is basic chemistry, not some ad hoc maneuver. While it is true that the precise effects of these may be less certain than other aspects of climate change, well-defined error bars is not the same as the notion that no conclusion can be drawn. Read more of this post

An Open Letter to Libertarian Climate Change Denialists

Hello,

I am writing this plea in order to counter the growing tendency for some libertarian groups to reject the science behind global warming and climate change. This is an unfortunate tendency because if libertarianism can be associated with fringe antiscience groups, then this makes libertarianism as a whole an easy target for naive critics. They can ignore the problems with large bureaucratic governments and the reduction in civil liberties and just focus on the fact that certain libertarians reject mainstream climate science and thereby portray libertarianism as an irrational form of antiscience denialism, in the same way many liberals view creationist republicans as intellectually left behind.

Many people would probably object to being labeled as denialists. This is understandable, but it is important to realize that this is not meant as a guilt by association tactic to, for instance, Holocaust deniers. Rather, the term denialism usually refers to the deployment of a dishonest rhetorical debating tactic which makes it appear as if there is a legitimate scientific debate about the topic when the evidence for the mainstream scientific position is overwhelming. This is usually done by quoting scientists out of context, portraying a discussion about how something is happening as if it was a debate on whether it was occurring or not, misunderstanding basic science, peddling conspiracy theories, cherry picking research results while asserting that themselves are being censored when scientists are criticizing them and so on. These tactic are frequently used by opponents of the mainstream scientific position on climate change. To be sure, big government liberals are also guilty of quite a bit of pseudoscience as well, such as postmodernism, opposition to genetically modified foods, animal rights extremists and so on.

One useful realization is that it is important to separate the science behind climate change and global warming from the big government suggestions for mitigating the issues. It is entirely consistent to accept mainstream climate science, yet reject the proposed “solutions” provided by liberal politicians and other organizations. There should be opportunity for investigating free markets solutions and investing in new technology for mitigating climate change. Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: