Deniers and the Scientific Method

When I made my Global Warming Skeptic Challenge I had the requirement any 'proof' had to be done via the scientific method. I stated the reason for this was to prevent 'Because God said so' arguments (I still received those kinds of arguments but was free to refuse them). Most of the submissions I accepted did not follow the scientific method, but if they were anywhere near the realm of a logical universe I went ahead and accepted them (and some were pushing the limits).

Several people tried to claim global warming isn't real because it violates the scientific method. Their logic was the scientific method requires 100% accuracy. One test failure means the theory is invalid. Therefore, if you can find even one test failure of a global warming theory, the whole thing is invalid. Very bad logic and I showed how the submissions were invalid. Take a look here and here.

Let's refresh our memory of what the scientific method is. There are many ways to say it, but they all state basically the same thing: 1) Observe something; 2) Form a best guess hypothesis to explain the observation; 3) Test the hypothesis; 4) Observe the results; and 5) Repeat as long as necessary until it always passes the test.

It is very simple, but wildly misinterpreted and misused.

A common failure of understanding was stated above, i.e., one test failure completely invalidates the theory. This is not only false, it's total nonsense and even a moments thought will tell you that. If we threw out everything after one failure, nothing would ever be accomplished. A test failure simply means more work needs to be done. It is entirely possible the hypothesis being tested is completely wrong, but it is also entirely possible there is merely one small omission or error that can be easily corrected. Claiming otherwise is a false argument.

Another failure of understanding is the oft-quoted statement 'you cannot prove a negative,' sometimes even quoted as 'you cannot prove or disprove' anything via the scientific method. Both statements are not only false, but very false. The fact is, every experiment proves, or disproves, something. Every valid experiment is designed to do just that. It's called the null hypothesis and is the thing the experiment has to disprove or reject. I usually give the following example: Suppose I tell you the door is locked, but when you try it, you find it is unlocked. You just proved a negative. A little thought will give you any number of similar examples.

Another of my favorites goes to the test. Any scientific test must have what is known as an option to fail. Many people interpret this to mean the theory has an option to fail and this invalidates the scientific validity. No. The option to fail only applies to the test. Suppose I give you a multiple choice question: How much is 2 + 2? You look and see all of the answers are '4'. There is no way you can get it wrong. There is no option to fail. This test says nothing about your understanding of the question. It is the option to fail that makes the test valid. It is never taking that option that makes the theory valid.

And, there is one more failure of understanding that prevents people from accepting science - we may learn new science that invalidates what we think we understand today. This is one of the most common quotes I hear from people who reject the science of manmade global warming. The most common form of this false argument concerns the Newsweek article of the 1970s.

This is one of the worst of the false arguments. Here is an article on this subject that explains it very well. The author, Ethan Siegel, gives a very nice description of science and the process of scientific discovery. Part of this, as he explains, is that we occasionally find something that uproots what we previously thought to be accurate. But, that is only part of the story. We cannot simply throw away everything we previously understood. As Siegel explains, there are three requirements for a revolutionary scientific advancement:

1.) It has to reproduce all the successes of the previously existing theory.

2.) It has to explain the new results that contradicted the old theory.

3.) It needs to make new, testable predictions that have not been tested before, and that can either be confirmed and validated or refuted.

That first part is really important to our discussion here. Is it possible we will learn something new about climate change that we don't know about today? Absolutely. But, and this is the important part, any new understanding has to be able to explain everything we understand today. In other words, all of the science we know today will have to become part of the new understanding. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, Newtonian mechanics were not discarded. It is part of relativity and, if you do relativity correctly, you get Newtonian mechanics at low velocities (less than about 90% the speed of light), which is why our world is dominated by Newtonian mechanics.

As a result, any advances in science will increase our understanding of climate change, but never invalidate it. This is true because any advancement must be able to explain all we observe today as part of the advancement. It is building process, not a tearing-down one.

Another Example of JoNova's Silliness

There is this climate change denier, Joanne Nova, that goes by the name 'JoNova.' I have read a number of her postings and I sometimes suspect she is actually a climate change supporter. Her postings are so ridiculous and lacking in valid science that it is easy to think she is actually spoofing denialism in an attempt to show how silly deniers really are. Unfortunately, that is not the case. She is sincere in her silliness. Someone submitted one of postings for the Skeptic Challenge. One of her 'proofs' that manmade climate change isn't real is because it's happening. No, that was not a typo. She actually said the fact that manmade climate change is occurring, but not as fast as some scientists predicted, is proof that it isn't real. Seriously, who needs comics when you have people like JoNova around?

A reader pointed me to another one of her postings and asked me to review it. You can see her posting here. You can save yourself a lot of trouble and simply go to her list of references at the end. The list includes John Christy, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick. All of these individuals have two things in common - they are all climate science deniers and they have all been shown to be frauds. Oh, they have one other thing in common - they all accept money from the fossil fuel industry (Lindzen even lied about it for years). One thing they don't have in common is a science background. McKitrick is an economist with no science credentials. If you are not familiar with these individuals, I would suggest you do a little checking. They all have a sordid record. So, that is JoNova's source of information to refute climate science? No wonder her postings aren't scientifically valid. She is using scientifically invalid sources.

I am not going to refute her point-by-point simply because it isn't worth my time. It would be like refuting the 'Moon landings were faked' claims point-by-point. Since everything she (and the landing-hoaxers) say is false, it would take me all day to go through it all and I have other things going on. I'll limit myself to some highlights and invite you to see how many other failures you can find in her logic. It is kind of like a scientific scavenger hunt.

JoNova's ire in this posting is directed at a guide that is available online - A Scientific Guide to the "Skeptics Handbook". The title will show you right away why JoNova spent so much time on this posting. The Skeptics Handbook is her own little baby and she had to come to its defense. If she is going to do this for everyone that debunks her claims, she's going to be busy. One of her statements is (emphasis in original):

But they hide the minor amount of warming this evidence relates to. They don’t admit that there is no evidence for catastrophic warming.

Really? No evidence for catastrophic warming? Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'catastrophic,' something she never does. I will agree with her the planet is not going to erupt in a fireball, if that is what she means. But, if you are one of the thousands of people that loses your life due to climate change, or one of the millions of people suffering from a decreased standard of living, you might have a different definition. Why doesn't she address that?

Now, I want to take some time here and point out the bait and switch tactic deniers like JoNova are using nowadays. They are saying there is no climate change because there is no 'catastrophic' climate change. In fact, any time you see someone referring to 'CAGW', be assured they are trying to pull a bait and switch on you. Make them define 'catastrophic' when they do this. I promise you, if they can respond at all, they will only be able to make extreme statements they can't back up.

JoNova, the argument is manmade emissions are causing climate change and you refute that by saying there 'is no evidence for catastrophic warming.' This is a false argument and you are making it because you can't support your claims with science. You can only do it with lies and deception. Don't feel lonely, though. That is the only way ANY denier can support their claim (refer to Christy, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer and McKitrick, among many others). I put my money where my mouth is in regards to this statement when I made the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. No one even came close. You can see all of the submissions here.

Later, she states there are no positive feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere. Take a look here or here for an explanation of feedback mechanisms (positive and negative) and decide for yourself if there is no positive feedback. Then, she does another bait and switch by changing the topic to 'total feedback', saying the total feedback is negative. Again, she's wrong. Here is just one scientific paper discussing how the total feedback is positive and states,

A fully coupled carbon-climate simulation and several sensitivity runs were conducted for the period of 1860–2100 with prescribed IPCC-SRES-A1B emission scenario. Results indicate a positive feedback to global warming from the interactive carbon cycle, with an additional increase of 90 ppmv in the atmospheric CO₂, and 0.6 degree additional warming, thus confirming recent results from the Hadley Centre and IPSL.

I picked this one because it came out BEFORE she wrote her guide or the posting I am referencing. In other words, this information was available to her that the total feedback is positive, and she just kept going on as if it didn't exist. A true denier.

Her next claim is one of the most fraudulent, and frequently repeated, claims by the denier community on the topic of increasing temperatures around the globe (emphasis in original).

Warm nights are more likely due to the urban heat island effect, which is compounded by putting thermometers next to exhaust vents — that was my point. We can’t trust these thermometers.

Here is an excellent video on that topic showing JoNova's hero, Anthony Watts, is completely wrong on this topic, which means she is too. Too bad she didn't bother doing any homework before making her claim. The topic of urban heat island effect was submitted to the Skeptic Challenge and you can see my response here. Once again, JoNova's claims are based on nonscience.

Amazingly, she repeats the same claim I discussed in the first paragraph above:

I didn’t say the effect was saturated, I said “almost” and that there would be warming from CO2, but it was minor. The Wang paper merely tells us what we already knew, that the atmosphere has got a bit warmer, and surprise, it’s giving off more infra red. We’d be shocked if it wasn’t.

Once again, she is claiming AGW isn't real because it's real. I'd be shocked if she would make sense.

She then continues in the same spirit, making claims that not only ignore the science, but have been debunked many times. I don't understand why someone will merely lay down and accept what people like this tell them without doing even the most modest amount of homework, but they do. That is how people like JoNova make a living. So did P. T. Barnum (although he did not actually make the statement famously attributed to him about suckers being born every minute).

In conclusion, JoNova didn't do anything that shows manmade climate change is not real. She didn't even produce anything scientifically valid and all her statements have been repeatedly debunked. If there is some specific line you would like me to address, let me know in the comment section and I will.

I find JoNova to be like all of the other professional deniers. She is a fraud.