Bishop Hill Official sc(k)eptics on AGW
Feb 14, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other Donald Prothero has an article on AGW in the organ of the official sceptics movement, eSkeptic. The official sceptics are, I understand, an organisation that promotes reason and logical thought. That being the case I was surprised to see just how many logical fallacies were packed into the first few sentences:
On January 27, 2012, the Wall Street Journal ran an Opinion Editorial written by 16 people who deny the evidence of human-induced climate change. Most of the authors of the editorial were not climate scientists; one of two actual climate scientists of the group, Richard Lindzen, is a notorious global warming denier who also denies that smoking causes cancer. Predictably, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Journal refused to run a statement by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, although a “Letter to the Editor” by 38 of the world’s leading climate scientists1 did manage to get published there.
It doesn't improve further on.
H/T to reader Randy for this (I was actually sent this a week or so ago, but have been overwhelmed by things to write about - so sorry to Randy for the delay).
Reader Comments (81)
Jason, like you my personal preference is for smoke-free pubs, but when I stumble across an old-fashioned bar in France where the ban on smoking is not observed, the stench of stale tobacco seems like the smell of freedom to me.
Jason:
"As for the article under discussion, it is surely a spoof, nobody could be that pig ignorant, even with a geology degree."
I think you are right, there are some very odd things there.
@jason
"... it is surely a spoof, nobody could be that pig ignorant, even with a geology degree."
Now, now. We're not all fools.
Apology accepted in advance.
Howard, P.Geol.
Hengist, let me count the ways,
1) "On January 27, 2012, the Wall Street Journal ran an Opinion Editorial written by 16 people who deny the evidence of human-induced climate change."
The article is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
I can't see any denying of the evidence of AGW in this letter.
2) "Most of the authors of the editorial were not climate scientists; one of two actual climate scientists of the group, Richard Lindzen, is a notorious"
Notorious - prejudicial term.
3) "global warming denier"
I don't believe this is the case, I understand he accepts that the globe is warming.
4) "who also denies that smoking causes cancer."
Not seen any evidence of this malicious and prejudicial statement.
5) "Predictably, the Rupert Murdoch-owned"
Ad-hominem. Pulling in the name of a hated-industrialist.
6) "Journal refused to run a statement by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, although a “Letter to the Editor” by 38 of the world’s leading climate scientists did manage to get published there."
Looking at a few of these "world's leading climate scientists":
Terry L. Root - Biologist who looks at the impacts of global warming.
Camille Parmesan - Biologist who looks at the impacts of global warming.
Simon Donner - Geographer who looks at the impacts of global warming.
Barrett N. Rock - Botanist who looks at the impacts of global warming.
Roger Jones - Physical scientist who now develops methods for managing climate change risks through both adaptation and mitigation.
Gary Yohe - Economist.
Possibly the rest are indeed all world leading climate scientists but these guys aren't.
7) Notice also in comparison that the authors of the original article were 16 "people", not even dignifying them as scientists.
Seven prejudicial or incorrect statements in 99 words is quite an impressive ratio.
@Mike Jackson I reckon the author is using the term "notorious global warming denier" in a slightly wider sense than you credit him for. Lindzen's views on cancer are well recorded. The following excerpt is from the highly reccomended book Storms of my Grandchildren by Dr James Hansen:
" I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data"
I don't know for sure whether smoking causes cancer, but I understand there is a wide ranging consensus in the medical profession so I choose not to smoke . The consensus could be wrong I guess, but even if so there are other benefits of quitting smoking.
"I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data"
OK, and? Did he move on to answer the question? The data may well have problems, it doesn't tell us Lindzen denies smoking causes cancer.
Hengist
I don't care what "wider sense" you might like to think this character is attributing to Lindzen. The fact of the matter is Lindzen does not deny that the earth is warmer than it was. End of.
He may well disagree with what precisely is causing that warming which is always enough to piss off those who would like it to be something they can control, being as how people who write warmist blogs are by and large control freaks.
And your "evidence" that he does not believe that smoking causes cancer is so threadbare I could watch television through it. Hansen as a reliable witness? Do me a favour.
Now why not crawl back into you green echo chamber and leave us grown-ups to serious discussion?
Bishop -- what is the matter with this site today? Every posting this afternoon has gone through at least one reset which has meant starting again from scratch.
Surely the key point is not the merits (or demerits) of smoking, nor even Lindzen's views thereof, but what the ad hominem tells us about the objectivity of the article. Just as "notorious" and "denier" are meant to denigrate, so too is the aside about smoking. A deliberate distraction from the facts.
dang html...meant to end italics after ad hominem.
Note to self: remember to preview.
Interesting Hengist finds the only quote I could find too that came close to the smoking/cause allegation. So basically Hansen's third hand account with its lovely leading technique "I was going to ask him about his beating his wife but I thought better of it" style is gobbled up with simple acceptance by our ever so pseudo-forensic Hengist;)
Yeah, let Lindzen categorically saying there is "no connection" be entered into the record if its good enough for Hansen, etc, etc.
It's a cultural thing, the acolytes, like Hengist, really only believe a scientist is someone who makes ex cathedra pronouncements on subjects and they can't understand the basic - yet essential- subtley of the fact that you cannot do this even with well publicised bad things like smoking. This really confuses them - bless.
Nicholas Hallam,
I see you've also done a bit of research, it's very refreshing as I see often even on "sceptic" blogs an uncritical acceptance of consensus propaganda. In fact, it's that subject that first acquainted me with numberwatch. And I agree - fascinating how lovely the smell of freedom is. BTWr ", many now complain that they can smell "other" unpleasant scents, which I will leave unmentioned.
To those who object to the smell - that is not the justification behind the bans. And a simple sign on the door should suffice. And, unfortunately, all those non/anti-smokers who were expected to start pub-crawling in droves did not materializ.
To return to the topic, not only do I find it reprehensible to use such a tactic for smearing - I believe Watts was once smeared similarly and I gather he's rather an anti-smoker - but also reprehensible that that dogma is also taken for granted by those who use it - a further demonization of a widespread, though minority, subculture.
I was a heavy smoker who smoked over thirty unfiltered cigarettes per day for over fifty years. I gave up more than six years ago due to the realisation that buying cigarettes in the UK was a luxury I could not justify on an age benefit.
The anti-smoking lobby has managed to manipulate prejudice into 'fact' - as an example, one of my relatives was the first medical doctor to use X-rays in medical diagnoses in New Zealand and worked for many years without the benefit of what is now regarded as an adequate provision of radiation shielding. He died of 'radiation sickness' in his late eighties, but because he was also a heavy pipe smoker, his death was listed as tobacco-related!
Kendra
I'm a sceptic about pretty well everything from passive smoking, cholesterol, salt, dietary fat, the 5 pieces of fruit, the 21 units of alchohol and the life everlasting. I'm also a great fan of John Brignell, the number watcher.
One thing that I do believe is that smoking causes lung cancer: that research was done by the father of epidemiology, Austin Bradford Hill, who set out rules for this kind of thing that others that followed found too onerous and likely to lead to disappointing results.
Hengist
Lindzen replies to Hansen's smear on smoking and cancer here:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/05/lindzen-dismisses-hansens-defamations/
Nicholas Hallam
I know I'm being a pedant (famous for it across three counties!) but this glib "smoking causes cancer" statement is simply a sloppy shorthand that avoids the necessity to think clearly.
Smoking "causes" cancer in the same way that high cholesterol "causes" heart disease. There is a link which has been (pretty much) scientifically proved but there are a very large number of people who smoke and do not get cancer or who get cancer and do not smoke (ditto for my other example).
Let's not ignore the dangers but let's not be overly simplistic either.
Sorry; it's the sort of lazy thinking that irks me. I should get a life!
Hengist
Try reading something about Lindzen from the man himself. Not the rubbish you have probably read at a smear site such as the desmog blog:
http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/the-debate-is-never-over-2/
Quote:
I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order. I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma. Similarly, in the case of alleged dangerous anthropogenic warming, the status of dogma is being sought without any verifiable evidence.
Hengist:
Sure thing, matey. I'll get the door.Lindzen's position on smoking is more accurately relayed by Lindzen than by Hansen.
Lindzen:
This is a reasonable, rational, scientific position to take. If you don't like this, you're not liking an open-minded, scientific approach. Which, incidentally, wouldn't surprise me. That you don't object to Hansen's perversion of Lindzen's viewpoint also doesn't surprise me.
Having been involved in a popular sceptical community electronically for many years, my gut impressed was that about 20-30% of the community was highly vocal in terms of supporting the idea of CAGW. Interestingly, such individuals tended to identify with a particular flavour of politics as well. As for the rest, about 5% of the community were 'publically' sceptical and the rest would be described as either silent or indifferent on the topic.
Truth be known, most individuals who identify as 'sceptics' are 'science fan boy' enthusiasts with limited (or virtually no) familiarity with scepticism as a philosophical position. They like to chat about the latest stem cell research and complain about the media publicity given to the latest TV clairvoyant. In very few cases do rational thought processes trump political convictions. Such is human nature, though.
'Smoking causes cancer' is the kind of sloppy science that has also pervaded climatology.
Depending on your source, 92 or 93% of smokers do not get lung cancer. So, it is like saying that CO2 causes warming - probably true, but proportionality is absent.
As for the second hand smoke thing, it hit its zenith when some 'studies' came out with results along the lines that second hand smoke was deadlier than actually being a smoker. You would think that this was where the inconvenient facts finally hit the fan. But no, like CAGW, it is heresy to dispute the gospel.
I don't think that anyone claims that smoking is good for physical health (although it seems to comfort many people with mental health problems). However, saying that the scare has been overstated is like being a climate skeptic in 1994.
"As for the second hand smoke thing, it hit its zenith when some 'studies' came out with results along the lines that second hand smoke was deadlier than actually being a smoker."
I'm glad you mentioned that one, johanna. I used to start gagging every time that piece of logic was wheeled out. The question that you never heard asked was:
-"Gee, I guess third-hand smoke must be even worse then?"
And fourth-hand smoke? That should be banned under the Geneva Convention.
Don't talk to me about fifth-hand smoke.
After that I start to run out of hands......
Alexander K
Who cares what he died of -- I know where I can buy a smoking pipe but where do I get the the x-rays? Hell, he lived a lot longer than most men.
Hengist
My urologist tells me that having sex causes prostate cancer. And since priests get it, you best be careful.
I tried to comment on it but it blocked me. Don't quote The Hockey Stick Illusion, it looks like their spam filters do not like it, lol.
Mike Jackson
I can't let you get away with that unchallenged!
It seems plausible to me that there is a serviceable sense of "cause" which is weaker than the strict deterministic sense you think is required to avoid being "overly simplistic". Otherwise we could not say, for instance, that drunken driving causes accidents. It is in this non-determinstic sense of "cause" that it is correct to say that smoking causes lung cancer.
The case of high cholesterol and heart attacks is different. Leaving aside the very small percentage of people who suffer from the genetic condition, familial hypercholesterolemia, there is very little correlation between serum cholesterol levels and the incidence of heart attacks. For this reason, cholesterol sceptics do not accept that high cholesterol causes heart attacks. Uffe Ravnskov's brilliant book "The Cholesterol Myths" explodes this and other dogmas of the "Diet/Heart Disease" orthodoxy. There is also a web-site for Cholesterol Sceptics.
Will Nitschke's breakdown on movement skeptics is about right. 30% as AGW Believers, 5% skeptics (or climate realists), the rest indifferent. But, between 2007 and '09, it may have crested at 40%.
Truth be known, most individuals who identify as 'sceptics' are 'science fan boy' enthusiasts with limited (or virtually no) familiarity with scepticism as a philosophical position. They like to chat about the latest stem cell research and complain about the media publicity given to the latest TV clairvoyant. In very few cases do rational thought processes trump political convictions. Such is human nature, though.
AGW-skepticism requires a real familiarity with a lot of science. Much of which eludes even eminent scientists like Prothero.
Link missing from previous post:
Website for cholesterol sceptics
Mike Jackson,
Its about a statistical relationship. We do not need tons of junk science to establish that there is a relationship between mountain climbing and certain injuries or that mountain climbers have a shorter life expectancy. There is another story behind, saying that mountain climbing is noble and smoking a dirty habit. Who has decided that? I have decided that smoking is good for me, even if it cost me five euro's per day. My only problem with smoking is that I have to paint the walls of my room more often.
A popular sceptic by the name of Brian Dunning who has published hundreds of sceptical podcasts under the Skeptoid label once did a podcast on the DDT 'scare'. The point being that sometimes environmental policies have unintended consequences. Not a particularly controversial position to take one would think, as mistakes happen in every field. Yet this particular podcast was met with an almost hysterical reaction by a segment of the 'sceptics' community. Several sceptical bloggers posted rebuttals to the podcast and I decided to read those as well to get a feel for the different arguments and information in play. To my surprise the rebuttals turned out to be ugly ad hominem attacks. In the single 'rebuttal' blog article I could find that contained any kind of factual content, the only counter argument presented in that, was that Dunning had made an error in claiming that major green groups were 'against' the use of DDT. Now, Dunning's arguments did not rest on this particular claim only, although it was of some modest importance. Yet the rest of the content of the podcast was dismissed on that basis alone.
Now, this is where it got interesting. I googled and found within minutes the website of a major green group that was in fact campaigning against the use of DDT, even to this day. (I recall it may have been Greenpeace.) So it turned out that the only factual claim I could establish in the supposed rebuttal, was itself in error and Dunning was in fact correct on that point.
Now I am not drawing conclusions about the use or possible misuse of DDT. I don't know enough about the information contained in the original sources to draw a conclusion on that matter. What I am drawing attention to is how the 'sceptic' community failed in conducting themselves in a responsible manner when ideology made contact with scepticism. I asked the various sceptics attacking Dunning to clarify what information they were using to justify their attack. I never received a coherent response - nor did I make myself particularly popular with that segment of the community.
Nicholas Hallam / Mindert Eiting
I refer my honourable friends to the reply given at 11.28 p.m. yesterday by johanna.
There certainly is a (near-) proven connection between cigarette smoking and susceptibility to lung cancer but as johanna points out, 90% of smokers do not contract that disease.
I am not a defender of smoking — I succeeded in giving up 10 years ago and I am glad I did — but I am not sure that any activity that has a one in ten chance of giving you cancer can be fairly said per se to "cause" cancer.
As usual, the anti-[in this case smoking] lobby have seized on a cause that suits them and milked it for all it was worth.
For the record denier is no longer a pejorative term. Dick Lindzen prefers the term (09:33)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009yfwl/One_Planet_Climate_change_pot_plants_and_small_frogs/
Hengist
If Lindzen wants to claim the name for himself that's his choice.You use the term at your unloved blog as a tired, unoriginal ad-hom because you can't make a point any other way - you lack vocabulary and manners.
I'm no expert on climate change or anything, but I recently worked very hard to write a quite detailed critique of Prothero's article. Most of the readers of this blog probably already know the stuff I covered, I figured I invite you to check it out and perhaps improve upon my argument with your comments:
http://ianweiss.blogspot.com/2012/06/did-skeptic-magazine-demolish.html
Thanks,
Ian