BPSDB Not even wrong … refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable.
2 + 2 = 4 … is correct
2 + 2 = 5 … is wrong
2 + 2 = ‘§’ … did not understand the question
(2 + 2)/ zebra * Fugue = “global cooling” … is not even wrong
Climate change Deniers are often (usually?) “not even wrong”
I want to use one of the perennial Denier fables to illustrate not merely that the Deniers are wrong &/or willfully lying, but that they are not even wrong, ie so totally clueless that it’s a wonder anyone trusts them for the time of day, much less for science.
For this little demonstration I’d like to use that standard “It was cold today/this week/this month/this year in my region/town/yard/basement therefore global warming theory is wrong.”
The Poptart is Cold
For a specific “typical” example I will use PopTech’s (aka PopTart) 1,000 References of Global Cooling. This is a collection of 1000 media stories from the past decade about everything from cold snaps to people dying from cold.
Naturally this Denier fable has been debunked over and over (see at bottom), but rather than jump to what is the right answer let’s take a tour of just how absurdly “not even wrong” the fable is.
“not even wrong” about … what?
These stories are offered as some sort refutation of the scientific fact of anthropogenic climate change, which could be expressed as “humans are causing the current long term progressive rise in the average global temperature by releasing C02 into the atmosphere.”
One of the things that makes this a typical Denier meme is that the Deniers themselves don’t seem to have a clear idea of why it’s supposed to mean something.
Is the idea that in a warming world there is supposed to be no cold at all? or no new record cold? or that there are more cold records than before? or what? Just what is the point of the whole exercise? They don’t seem to know.
Of course I refer to the typical gullible Denier consumer of these memes. The professional Deniers know perfectly well that it means absolutely nothing, but they also know that all they need to do is post some “it was cold today” story and their confused, gullible congregation will believe that something meaningful has been demonstrated.
PopTech seems to have largely sidestepped the issue by simply posting his list without comment. As such it is not even clear is whether he thinks it is cooling, and/or was cooling, and/or will be cooling, or what? or maybe he posts the list to show how shockingly silly Deniers are?
I would venture that he has no idea what this list is really supposed to show, but that he is absolutely certain that it proves global cooling somehow.
“not even wrong” hypothesis
With climate change it is not only is it possible to have record cold in some places at times, it is explicitly predicted by climate science as a consequence of the disruption of weather systems. As the IPCC report clearly stated the prediction was that frequency of cold spells and record cold would decline over time, but would not mystically cease immediately. Further, an increase in “extreme weather” includes extreme cold at times.
Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the basic science is aware of this. By suggesting otherwise all the Deniers are doing is parading how little they understand the science they pretend to refute.
“not even wrong” comparison
Comparison to what? So is PopTech’s premise that lots of cold records proves “global cooling”? what do lots of heat records prove then? Well I can use a search engine too … here, click on this. When I limited the search to “heat wave” OR “record heat” for this decade I got “About 2,390,000 results.”
Now if even 90% of those aren’t relevant, and 90% of what remains are duplicates (ie I throw out 99% of those hits), I am still left with 2,390 stories to his 1000 … which proves what?
This is no surprise since with climate change we have seen that “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across US.” In fact any time you see one of those Denier “record cold” stories, just do an internet search for “record heat” for the same period & almost every time you will get a lot more examples of record heat than of cold.
It is only “almost every time” because these stories appear most often when it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere. There is a lot more land mass and populated areas in the Northern Hemisphere, so a cold snap covering a 1000 sq km of the NE US will almost certainly get reported over and over. By contrast, record heat covering 10,000,000 sq km of the Indian Ocean, the South Atlantic or Antarctica will go unmentioned in the English language popular press.
“not even wrong” source
As with the 1970s Ice Age 9 Myth, the Deniers mistake popular media stories as being credible sources for scientific information. Presumably they also believe in the Goat Woman, that Elvis is alive, and that aliens regularly abduct people. Actually they consider the media reliable only when the media confirm the Denier myths. When they don’t, the media is dismissed as being a liberal pawn.
The numerous problems with the popular media as a source might be summed up as “inconsistency”(ie uneven coverage, not representative) across many dimensions. Some examples:
As noted above, media coverage is related to geography. The media will report one traffic death in their own town, but it takes 3 or 4 dead to get coverage 100 km away, and at least a bus load of dead if it is 1o00 km away or more.
The popular media do not cover the Earth evenly. Again as per above, there are a lot of media in North America and Europe, not so many in Africa, none in Antarctica.
Whether a “weather” story gets covered or not depends on the news cycle. If it is a slow day they will report an unusual frost in someone’s backyard. If something significant has happened in the world of politics or entertainment, then the weather may not get mentioned at all.
There is also the political bias of media outlets. Some media chains have a deliberate policy of distorting facts and lying to the public as part of their anti-science agenda. Fox News would be one glaring example, but others would include the Telegraph, the National Post, The Australian, The Washington Post, etc.
Nor is the popular media very reliable with respect to accuracy. As per the 1970s Ice Age Myth and “Imminent Ice Age” myth, the media themselves inflate or even create a story because it is more sensational.
While the media can be accurate and factual, it is not necessarily so. Many of the stories about climate that appear in the biased media are exaggerations, or even complete fabrications.
Which is not to say that the media is not a reliable source some of the time. Just that when what the media claims contradict the scientific realities, then it is reality that is correct, not the media fiction (another concept that seems to baffle Deniers like PopTech and Omnilogos).
“not even wrong” data
As discussed above the media stories are not global, they aren’t about average temperature, they aren’t reliable, and they aren’t comparable either to one another or to reports of heat waves and record heat.
By counting media stories all you are doing is counting media stories. The whole approach might make a tiny bit of sense (not much, but a little at least) if the Deniers used the freely available temperature records to count how many cold records there actually were rather than simply those that got some media coverage. Then at least they could claim consistent, global coverage that was meaningful.
Naturally it would still demonstrate nothing, but it might give the appearance that the Deniers in question have some grasp of the concept of “science. ”
“not even wrong” concept
As noted above, climate change is about change over time. Simply reporting about one day/month/decade tells us nothing about whether things are changing, and if so, how. Is 1000 stories about cold in this decade significant? How many were there in the decade before? 10? or 10,000? How many examples of record heat this decade? last?
Here again, the Deniers do not seem to have grasped that reporting the temperature today does not tell you anything about whether it is changing. Do they understand that reporting where you are does not tell you whether you are moving or stationary? going north or south?
“not even wrong” geography
“Global” means “global”; can’t put it much more simply than that. I realize that it is a shock to some people that the planet is larger than what they can see from their window, but there it is.
Even considering the entire planet over a decade we can see there are a few places that were, on avg, colder than normal (blue). Notice how these tiny smudges of blue have not made all of the hotter than normal (red) disappear? Deniers can’t seem to grasp that. They seem to think that if it is cold in one place for one day, it is cold everywhere all of the time.
“not even wrong” time frame
Another piece of the basic science is that it takes a minimum 30 year data sequence to determine what is a climate trend vs what is merely weather.
“Not even wrong” assertion
Since a one time snapshot tells you nothing about the past or future it seems the Deniers don’t even know if they are trying to say that the Earth has not been warming, or that it will not be warming in the future, or that it’s warm now compared to both the past and future, or that it’s stable. or what?
As with the rest, they seem to have no idea what they are trying to suggest, but they seem damn sure it disproves whatever the science says … now if they only knew what that was.
The criminally bewildered
The only thing a Denier proves when they use this meme is that they have no idea what they are talking about, have never looked at the science, and certainly do not understand the science at even a grade school level. It is an embarrassing display of ignorance.
Nor is this level of “not even wrong” utter cluelessness restricted to the “it’s cold” meme. We have seen in the past how PopTech has no idea what refutes science and what doesn’t, or indeed what is and isn’t science. Tamino recently posted an example of Anthony Watts having no clue at all (and here), and on and on it goes.
Indeed, being “not even wrong” is such a hallmark of the Deniers that it should probably be included as yet another of the things that distinguishes them from skeptics.
Cool springs on warm days
References that explain how it is we can have cold, even record cold, and more snow even though we are actually warming:
- Global Warming? why is it so freaking cold? (see many links there), and:
- Once Again, Cold Weather Doesn’t Disprove Global Warming
- Cold snaps plus global warming do add up
- NASA explains how Europe can be so cold amidst the hottest November and hottest year on record
- An amazing, though clearly little-known, scientific fact: We get more snow storms in warm years!
UPDATE: See comment here for how PopTart has cherry picked his graph.
NB the expression “not even wrong” is rather more storied and nuanced than I suggest at top. Please see “Not even wrong” for the full story.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Swag Bag Ad By tmc – design haus
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
You might want to change the 2,900 vs 1,000 to 2,390 vs 1,000…don’t want no math errors in a piece starting with faulty math…
—-
[…] the Deniers are doing is parading how little they understand the science they pretend to refute. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/climate-change-deniers-are-not-even-wrong/ Indeed it is interesting to examine the record temperatures by country, the record highs far […]
I am well aware “climate science” predicts whatever the current weather and climate is. This is hardly an argument [1] for such an absurd theory.
Your use of quoted phrases with a search engine and then counting the results shows the same type of computer illiteracy as Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider. Sorry but you cannot just subjectively count what you feel like from any such search. Your number of 2,900 is meaningless nonsense. [2]
BTW, I have barely scratched the surface with these references and simply posted it when it reached a significant level, it is not remotely all in inclusive. [3]
The list includes many references from the southern hemisphere, such as South America and Australia. Translation issues is the only thing limiting the number of references from certain parts of the world. The references do however, span the globe extensively.[4]
As with all your posts about me your post on the peer-reviewed paper list has been completely refuted,
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3650 [5]
The fear alarmists have to the public learning of these inconvenient truths inspires me to carry on, thank you for the inspiration! [6]
—-
[1] There is no such observation and I have “paraded” no such thing.
The data is not consistent with the hypothesis unless of course you manipulate the data which alarmists are good at.
[2] Wrong, I physically counted my list, you just arbitrarily fabricated numbers but that is what you always do.
[3] It is relevant which is why you are wasting time desperately trying to refute it and failing. You don’t understand basic climate science, so why would I take advice from someone scientifically illiterate?
[4] I read it and what I stated stands.
No I don’t get my data sets from an eco-activist shill site,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
[5] I didn’t just state your were wrong, I absolutely destroyed your nonsense post. It is obliterated in the the ether of the Internet. An epic embarrassment for you of biblical proportions.
[6] This is an illogical statement for you to make because you don’t understand the meaning of those words.
Poptech is great for standing up against Denierism in this way. His spoof posts excellently show up just how crazy Deniers really are.
—-
[…] […]
Sometimes I wonder if a post like this one by Greenfyre is exaggerating the cluelessness of members of the denialist community.
Come on! Are they really that scientifically illiterate???
Then I read PopTart’s reply. Yeah, I guess so.
For me, this is saddening more than infruriating.
—-
Poptech is not scientifically illiterate all the way, he’s intentionally intellectually dishonest, knowingly lying, and inconsistent with his arguments.
He never wants a serious dialogue, accuses people of what he does himself, and never quotes people within context.
Poptechs featured graph for an post from 13.12.2010 is labeled :
RSS Lower Troposphere Global Mean Temperature (1998-2010)
BUT it shows only data from 1998 until December 2009!
The actual graph is here:
http://tinyurl.com/2wk54bt
and guess what it shows… cooling or warming? 😉
—-
Yes notice the graph says 1998-2010. This is not complicated for the average person who graduated elementary school. My graph clearly shows cooling.
Yes, notice that the graph ends at the very beginning of 2010.
No, it doesn’t.
If Poptechs used woodfortrees (his graph has no source named, though font and style fit to woodfortrees; but bad referencing is an hallmark of pseudo-skeptics) the data goes until and with december 2009. No data from 2010 included.
Yes, so the data ends were 2009 ends and 2010 begins.
And we have Poptechs own words below that he did it intentionally, because the 2010 data contradicted what he wanted to show.
How to spot a denier, conspiracy theorist, they continuously use the phrase “even a young kid can know that”, showing their dependence on naive and ignorant (which they call unbrainwashed) kids to buy their arguments.
More HYPOCRISY by Andrew :
Sorry but you cannot just subjectively count what you feel like from any such search. Your number of 2,900 is meaningless nonsense. [2]
So are you admitting you didn’t subjectively count what you can find? That means YOU can ONLY find 1000 articles.
Unless, as you admitted, you ONLY counted and listed what YOU found significant. See? Subjective selection is just dandy when Andrew does it.
Guess what! Andrew took the bait of copying the wrong number down, proving how little he cares about the point
it is not remotely all in inclusive.
Who are you Andrew, to decide what’s inclusive? Or significant? A media analyst? Investigative reporter? Propaganda expert?
The references do however, span the globe extensively.[4]
Except you’re too lazy to count yourself what percentage of each. Making your list of crap meaningless. This is the same trash on your anti-marijuana list. No context.
If somebody EVER quoted you in such a way, you’d threaten to “knock them the fuck out” for “lying” and say they won’t “get away with it”, but you enjoy doing the same yourself.
your post on the peer-reviewed paper list has been completely refuted,
No Andrew, it doesn’t work that way.
To quote you :
Note to [deniers, idiots, conspiracy theorists]: Your cannot “debunk” reputable sources with crappy blog posts.
The fear alarmists have to the public learning of these inconvenient truths inspires me to carry on, thank you for the inspiration!
No silly. The you prey on scientifically ignorant, religiously denial people to buy your “truths”. Alex Jones says the same thing about “fear the public learning”. Feel free to inspire yourself though, you’ve been warned, the more you talk the more you’ll expose yourself.
No I physically counted the references, he arbitrarily just made up numbers based on a silly Google phrase search.
Yes I only listed references relating to cooling, this is correct as that is the purpose of the list.
Your confusion is not understanding what I was referring to when I said subjective.
Took what bait? Greenfrye’s original nonsense number was 2,900 until Marco corrected his math. I am just copying his mathematical illiteracy. The “corrected” number is still arbitrary and worthless.
I am just stating that my list is not all the references available (they are simply a small sample) thus not all inclusive.
The list is not meaningless, the fact that we are discussing it here demonstrates it is of concern to the alarmist community.
My anti-marijuana list is almost entirely pure science references. I realize this is upsetting to brain damaged drug addicts but reality hurts.
No one lies about me to my face and gets away with it, that is correct. Online punks are just that and are too scared to face anyone in the real world.
Yes his laughable post on the peer-reviewed paper lies has been utterly destroyed.
Oh and BTW there is NOTHING you can do about it.
—-
I didn’t deny you PHYSICALLY (rather than emotionally and figuratively) counted them. I was pointing out the fact you’re no better at being inclusive, and you too subjectively, arbitrarily, count & include what you want to.
“Yes I only listed references relating to cooling, this is correct as that is the purpose of the list.”
Did you list ALL you can find? Or did you leave some behind? It’s pretty hard to have a round number without artificially adding and subtracting a few. (A computer analyst would know that)
Your confusion is not understanding what I was referring to when I said subjective.
I don’t need to. I have my definition of subjective, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
The “corrected” number is still arbitrary and worthless.
As worthless as your 1000 number, which you had to arbitrarily add some, subtract some to keep. Yeah, you counted it, but you selected what counts.
I’ll ask you again Andrew
Who are you Andrew, to decide what’s inclusive? Or significant? A media analyst? Investigative reporter? Propaganda expert?
(they are simply a small sample)
Cite what OBJECTIVE, ABSOLUTE & SCIENTIFIC criteria you used to select and include them, failure to do so is an admission you subjectively and arbitrarily cherry picked what you could find. So don’t accuse others of what you do first.
The list is not meaningless, the fact that we are discussing it here demonstrates it is of concern to the alarmist community.
Yeah, it IS meaningless, because you provided no context, criteria, and even cite Prison Planet, Fox News, Huffington Post, places you’d normally laugh off.
My anti-marijuana list is almost entirely pure science references.
At least on that page, you admitted it’s not meant for comparison to alcohol and tobacco. So under that logic, driving and flying are also dangerous and one can make a page for it.
I realize this is upsetting to brain damaged drug addicts but reality hurts.
There is no reality without context. You can’t possibly not know this, you’re showing your bias, denial and dishonesty.
No one lies about me to my face and gets away with it, that is correct. Online punks are just that and are too scared to face anyone in the real world.
There’s nothing you can do about, get used to it.
Yes his laughable post on the peer-reviewed paper lies has been utterly destroyed.
Only in your head. Keep telling yourself that.
You are correct that there’s nothing we can do to help your sorry ass.
Andrew, just for the record, do you never lie? Is it right for people to “not let you get away with it” if you do? Do you ONLY “knock them the fuck out” if they lie? Or do you just when you can?
[…] why are deniers so obvious? […]
Your update is nonsense as I am not cherry picking I am simply using a 12-year sample that does not include the recent anomalous El-Nino as cooling is clearly resuming since. 🙂
—-
Pardon me, but the recent El Nino was not anomalous. However, the 1998 El Nino, which you selected as your starting point, was anomalous.
Incorrect for the current cooling trend the recent El Nino was anomalous :).
—-
So by “anomalous” you simply mean “doesn’t fit the trend that I want to show”. That’s certainly a creative form of trend analysis.
No I mean anomalous in the recent cooling trend as cooling is now resuming.
I learned my trend analysis from Mr. Mann and Mr. Jones, your idols. 🙂
—-
Why would I comply with your subjective demands?
I have made no errors.
—-
you made no errors you’re willing to admit, wow what a surprise!
“Why would I comply with your subjective demands”
Because until you do, we’re going to call you a denier, [Deleted – no personal abuse pls], conspiracy theorist, and get away with it. There’s nothing you can do about it.
Yes, you are throwing away data that does not fit your preconceived trend. I’m glad that we can agree about that.
Don’t confuse me with Mr. Mann and Mr. Jones.
—-
Poptech,
“No one lies about me to my face and gets away with it…Online punks are just that and are too scared to face anyone in the real world… Yes his laughable post on the peer-reviewed paper lies has been utterly destroyed…Oh and BTW there is NOTHING you can do about it.”
Has anyone suggested to you that you have a problem and that it interferes with your thinking?
I don’t smoke pot so my thinking is fine.
—-
I completely agree. When there is a problem with thinking, the cause is not usually pot. Most people don’t smoke it.
Let’s look at the problem again and see if we can figure it out, together.
“No one lies about me to my face and gets away with it…Online punks are just that and are too scared to face anyone in the real world… Yes his laughable post on the peer-reviewed paper lies has been utterly destroyed…Oh and BTW there is NOTHING you can do about it.”
Do you see, now? Your extremely exaggerated expressions of masculinity distract you from seeking and having actual knowledge of the science. 😦
—-
That’s exactly your problem Andrew, you think only smoking pot damages your brain. Perhaps it’s more damaging to YOUR brain than many others.
(I don’t smoke anything, but Andrew’s obsession with pot is hilarious)
No obsession, you are the one who brought it up,
“This is the same trash on your anti-marijuana list.”
I am simply using it for humor.
—-
If you don’t like having your comments held back & reposted in the proper forum [Dunce’s Corner], try abiding by the site comment policy. Until then they will be held back until I have time to deal with them.
I did bring up his anti-marijuana list in this thread first, but that has nothing to do with whether either of us smoke pot (neither of us do).
When you replied to Martha, you brought it up, she was unaware of any mention of pot, so you brought it up then.
None of this proves you have an obsession, I only said so for humor.
—–
Moved to “Dunce’s Corner“
LOL poptart is back! As if getting obliterated at Pharyngula earlier this year wasn’t enough.
Money quotes about poptech from PZ:
Your credibility is in tatters. All I see here is evidence that you’re a histrionic idiot…Mr PopTech is a victim of obsessed asshole syndrome…
For those that haven’t read that thread – please do. I love how Poptech makes the Black Knight look like, well, sane.
—-
Poptech is exaggerating his qualifications when he claims to be a computer scientist. Those of us who know him of old know he’s a computer technician- Dell A+, not university.
—-
In fact he’s “stretched” his qualifications again since I last noticed, from “computer analyst” to “computer scientist”.
(In his original CV, he was a computer technician. His CV mysteriously upgraded itself when he turned his attention to global warming and climate models.)
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TAU0T0630CLLOSLK4#c3
I’m a PhD in computer science myself, but I wouldn’t claim that makes me qualified to dismiss computerized climate models.
Just like being a specialist on printing wouldn’t make me qualified to dismiss climate models because they are printed on paper.
Good luck getting Andrew to understand your analogy.
Look how he’s dodged my question when I asked him who he is to decide what articles to include in his 1000 references to cooling.
Andrew doesn’t have a PhD in computer science. He doesn’t even have a BS in it. He can’t prove where he works or what he does, he’s all talk.
Just a note, all my recent replies have been censored and it only appears I have not replied but that is how Greenfyre wants it.
—-
On review, I think the best part of this post may be your discussion of news media. 🙂
Deniers demonstrate zero knowledge of its functioning, or interests.
Contrary to deniers’ distorted assumptions, the popular media has not been on the side of the science and the scientists, or representative of the public interest, in much of the discussion of climate change.
Deniers are not the only people who don’t have an analysis of popular media, but the situation is made worse because deniers typically believe they are superior analysts of information. Ironically, as a group, they constantly show they are in fact far very easily influenced by propaganda.
How can deniers, as a group, be assisted? I have no idea.
But I think they need a more intensive learning experience, including limit-setting for the most compulsive spammer-deniers who simply refuse to do their work, enjoy wasting everybody’s time, and show no accountability.
Oh. Wait. Someone does seem to have been sent to the detention room to think about it. 😉
Great stuff. Very entertaining. Your physical science is impeccable. But think social science as well — these people are delayers…. denier is a temporary role. They still must be fought, though, and you are one of the best at it.
[…] I like the idea that Climate Change Deniers are “Not Even Wrong”. […]
A trick in the “No Tricks Zone”,
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/20/hartmut-grassl-debate-over-lindzens-objections-is-over/
again cherry-picking data for “global cooling”.
This time the cooling-graph beginns 2001 , giving a slight cooling for HADCRUT.
From 2000, ALL series show a positive trend…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend