The Copenhagen Climate Science "Challenged"

BPSDB The Copenhagen Climate Challenge was signposted by a hand-written piece of paper and a small picture of a happy-looking person in a sun hat declaring: “Global warming: Hurrah!” Copenhagen climate summit: Behind the scenes at the sceptics’ conference

This is of course the CFACT sponsored, ICSC hosted Climate Science Challenge Conference meeting in Copenhagen, aka the “skeptics” conference. The Telegraph article goes on to say “But do not be fooled by the amateurish approach, these are serious people with a very important message: “Global warming is not man made and in fact may not be happening at all.” Really? So let’s have a look at these “serious people” with their amateurish approach and see who they are and what they are doing.

Let’s start with their “Open Letter to UN Secretary-General“:

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. [1] Truly, the science is NOT settled. [2]

[1] Argument from ignorance fallacy; ie the claim that we don’t know everything is not the same as not knowing anything or not knowing enough. Given the scope and scale of the science and the nature of the threat we have every reason to believe that we know more than enough. Certainly this vacuous statement does not refute that.

[2] As discussed in “Have you stopped debating your climate science?“, used in this manner the “science is not settled” argument is a using the Loaded Question fallacy to distort the facts.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. [1] Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past [2] and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles [3], ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena. [4]

[1] Since paragraph one is entirely fallacious (false), the conclusions drawn from it are equally false.

[2] We have it; have these clowns never heard of the scientific literature? Perhaps some child would be kind enough to teach them to use Google Scholar.

[3] Done

[4] Done

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines [1], challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE [2] for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. [3] Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate [4] are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

[1] Specious statement and ‘Argument from Authority‘ (argumentum ad verecundium) fallacy; the scope and scale of the science means just about any scientist is arguably in a “climate-related scientific discipline”, and being so is certainly not synonymous with actually knowing or understanding climate science. They may or may not (evidence so far is that this group most certainly do not), but being in a related field is irrelevant.

[2] Using ALL CAPS? isn’t that one of the signs of an internet Troll?

[3] Back to point [2], 2nd paragraph ie the evidence is there in the scientific literature. Trouble is, you have to actually read it.

[4] Double fallacy.  i) The problem of induction means that nothing in science is proven, so this is an impossible criteria that is utterly meaningless in a scientific context, ii) we are well aware of what the models can and cannot do because they have been and continue to be tested

• This Year’s Model
• Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models
• Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’
• Myth: “Climate models don’t work.  They don’t even ‘predict’ the past.”
• Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
• Myth: Models are unreliable
• The 16 Climate Models
• Climate Models
• The Climate Models Have it Right

iii) The way a real scientist would dispute the models is by citing science that shows them to be false or inadequate. Simply labeling them as “unproven” rather than actually demonstrating it is an ad hominem abusive fallacy 

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that: [1]

[1] Straw Man fallacy; they are implying that the reality of anthropogenic climate change is dependent on the conditions that follow, when in fact it is not

1) Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

Straw Man fallacy. i) As per [1], the science does not say that this has happened, the point is that they will happen, ii) No one is claiming that the temperatures that we have have already experienced are catastrophic, iii) the fact that the temperatures that we have experienced have occurred in the past does not mean they have the same cause are the current ones (hence also a Questionable Cause fallacy).

2) Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

Straw Man fallacy. “Are having” is not the same as “will have.” As with smoking, impossible to prove this storm or that drought is due to climate change just as it was and is impossible to prove that this or that cancer was due to smoking. Taken together though, the facts are indisputable.

3) Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

Red Herring fallacy. To be useful, accurate and meaningful it is not necessary for models to meet the impossible conditions of “can meaningfully {vague term} replicate the impact of all {unknown as well?} of the natural factors that may {conditional and abstract} significantly {in whose opinion?}  influence {indeterminent, do the butterfly’s wing flaps “influence”?} climate.” All of the known factors have been ruled out, so this point is utterly irrelevant.

4) Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

5) The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

Straw Man fallacy. i) The consensus is not that it is rising significantly as of yet, but rather that it will rise, ii) the reality of disease spread is not dependent on malaria.

6) Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

Misleading in the extreme. i) In the past the first response to rapid climate change was massive die off (to the point of extinction in many cases) followed by adaptation. ii) “foreseeable” means what? we can adapt to the next 3 or 4 decades (with a few hundred million dead), the next 50 years afer that will be much harder, and after that it will get difficult.

7) Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

Straw Man fallacy. As before, the fact that it has happened in prehistory has nothing to do with a) what is causing it now, and b) the fact that it is going to catastrophic regardless of the cause. As for related to human GHG emissions, as above, they should try looking at the science (and refuting it if they can, which they clearly cannnot).

9) Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

i) Red Herring fallacy since of course far more systems are at risk than just the polar regions. ii) Just ignorant since the historical record is that most species do not adapt to sudden change, they die out and other species evolve to fill the niches created by the new conditions. iii) Impossible criteria since a) you would have to know the biology and genetics of each species in far more detail than we can even imagine at this point, and b) it would require a precision of knowledge (different from accuracy) about the expected changes that we equally cannot even imagine at this point.

10) Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

Straw Man fallacy, “are” and “will” are two different concepts. Red Herring fallacy; the extreme weather we anticipate goes well beyond that associated with hurricanes and other tropical cyclones.

11) Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

i) Done, ii) Red Herring fallacy, temperature records come from far more sources than ground-based stations

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. [1] Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do. [2]

[1] Since the scientific evidence shows that it is (but again, you’d have to know a little science to realize that), so yes, the ball is in their court.

[2] Again, it’s called “the scientific literature“, these clowns should look at it sometime.

Signed blah blah

Notwithstanding the addressee, this is not meant for Ban Ki Moon. Further, this is not a scientific document. It is not even a political document.

It is a propaganda pamphlet produced by ideological hacks and professional con artists to hoodwink the gullible and the naive.

It has no purpose other than to create doubt about the real science, exactly as laid out by the tobacco lobby playbook which the climate change Deniers follow because some of them helped write it (see here, here, and here). The Telegraph is right, “do not be fooled by the amateurish approach.” These are professional lobbyists engaged in political lobbying.

It is not science, it is anti-science. Anyone with the slightest shred of integrity and/or professional competence would be ashamed to have their name associated with this fraud. Certainly anyone with scientific credential who signed this has declared, in effect, “I am guilty of gross incompetence, scientific malpractice, and/or intellectual fraud.”

So who are these people?

To be continued ….

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Castanhas de caju / Cashew nuts by Márcio Cabral de Moura

NUTS!!?! by A.Ddiction

Nuts by Martin LaBar

Gingko Nut by babe_kl

Nuts 2 by steffenz

Nuts 1 by steffenz

Nuts by Pieter Musterd

Jeweled Peanut Bars (uncut) by mmwm

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.

or anyone but creating doubt

About these ads