How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice

by

Our article on sea ice and polar bears proved to be a hot-button issue in the blogosphere. This was not entirely unexpected, of course. What is striking though, is that amidst all the criticism nobody has challenged our core finding: blogs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.

Even more so, alternative figures that have been prepared by some critics basically underscore this same message (see examples below). That’s not so strange of course, since the signal is so clear: there is hardly any overlap between contrarian blogs and the scientific literature on this topic. Take a look at the pie-charts below for the three statements on sea ice and those on polar bears, for the two different groups of blogs (termed denier and science-based blogs, respectively), and the peer-reviewed scientific articles that investigate both polar bears and Arctic sea ice. This is basically an extension of figure 1 in the paper, in which only the two blog categories were shown. Most scientific articles as well as science-based blogs assess Arctic sea ice extent to be shrinking and polar bears to be threatened as a result, and most denier blogs take a contrary view on both sea ice and polar bears. They are poles apart.

You may argue that it was overkill to use an elaborate statistical analysis such as PCA on this dataset. It was used mainly to visualize our results in one figure. All the criticism on the PCA and the details of how data were analyzed misses the forest for the trees: there is a clear distinction between blogs, where the group that accepts AGW appears to base their claims on peer-reviewed science, and the group that doesn’t accept AGW does not. The latter group appear to base their claims to a large extent on blogs written by one particular biologist, Susan Crockford, whose views run counter to the relevant ecological literature.

Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature. We restricted our literature search to scientific articles that investigate both polar bears and sea ice, and that shed light on polar bear ecology and how it may or may not depend on the presence of sea ice. An article such as “Evolutionary roots of iodine and thyroid hormones in cell signaling” does not fit that bill, to name just one example of Crockford’s scientific articles that has been pointed out as evidence of her having published on polar bear ecology. She has not.

Even though it is not the main scope of our paper, we described the scientific context of polar bear ecology and explained how and why polar bears depend on their sea ice habitat (summarized in my previous blog post). As such, we argued that the scientific understanding of arctic sea ice decline and polar bear ecology is more credible than the viewpoints put forward on contrarian blogs. However, providing new ecological evidence was not the point of this paper. The point was to investigate how our current ecological understanding is conveyed and distorted in the blogosphere.

If some people think that our conclusion is wildly wrong, then they could at least show some evidence to prove their point, right? They probably realize that our conclusion is robust, so instead they try to nitpick on details and make it appear as if that undermines our conclusion. It does not.

 

Appendix: A collection of PCA graphs depicting our results, all basically underscoring the main conclusion that one group of blogs correctly conveys our current scientific understanding, while another group of blogs distort this understanding and promotes a very different viewpoint regarding sea ice and polar bears.

From top to bottom the following PCA figures are shown:

  • As published in the Bioscience paper, in which missing values are replaced by zero after scaling the data
  • List-wise deletion of all records with missing values, considerably reducing overall sample size
  • Using multiple imputation with logistic regression (5 rounds of 40 iterations each)
  • PCA figure of the same data as produced by Richard Tol, where sample size of each location in the graphs is depicted by symbol size
  • PCA figure of the same data as produced by RomanM at ClimateAudit, without information on sample size

As mentioned in the supplemental information with our paper, jittering was applied to our PCA figure to gently offset data with the exact same entries from each other for graphical purposes. Tol uses an alternative method to provide information on sample size for specific data entries, namely via the size of the symbol used in the figure. Whatever your preference, the conclusion drawn from these figures is the same: there is a clear gap between the consensus in the scientific literature and science-based blogs on the one hand, and contrarian blogs on the other hand. We thank Roman Mureika and Richard Tol for underscoring the validity of our conclusion.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

496 Responses to “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice”

  1. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    I do not believe that your analysis or data support your conclusion.

    Key parts of the database have yet to be released. The bits that have been released, show that the quality of the data is low.

    The analysis does not add value, but instead hides key features of the data.

  2. golf charlie Says:

    Bart, thank you for the supplementary analysis. Is this a formal “Correction”, or does Harvey et al 2017 remain unretracted and not amended?

    “…..at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.”

    Consensus Blogs are trying to revive the myth that Polar Bears are facing extinction due to Global Warming. Does this confirm that there is no evidence to support any threat to Polar Bears? (apart from men with rifles)

    If it wasn’t for the underfunded Susan Crockford, how would anybody know any better?

    Why was Harvey et al 2017 rushed through Peer Approval with so many flaws? What are the hidden secrets that remain concealed?

  3. golf charlie Says:

    “Whatever your preference, the conclusion drawn from these figures is the same: there is a clear gap between the consensus in the scientific literature and science-based blogs on the one hand, and contrarian blogs on the other hand. We thank Roman Mureika and Richard Tol for underscoring the validity of our conclusion.”

    Yes, there is a clear gap. Why is the Peer Approved Consensus still pushing an incorrect message about Polar Bears being threatened, if their numbers are rising?

    Should politicians, policymakers, taxpayers, charitable donors, voters, school children etc, trust the Peer Reviewed Consensus, especially if backed up by Peer Reviewed statistics?

    You seem to be missing the unintended consequences.

  4. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Richard,

    You apparently disagree with our conclusion.

    Do you think that contrarian blogs (blogs that don’t agree with the IPCC re human induced global warming) are conveying the peer-reviewed literature correctly when it comes to Arctic sea ice and polar bears?

    If so, can you back that up? If not, what are you going on about?

  5. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    I know little about the literature on polar bears and sea ice.

    I do know that your paper is a shoddy analysis of poor data, and that you show nothing besides your iniquity and incompetence.

  6. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Nice evasion. Not that I expected anything else.

  7. golf charlie Says:

    Bart Verheggen, does Harvey et al 2017 show or prove any correlation between the number of Polar Bears and sea ice extent?

    https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/15/baffin-bay-and-kane-basin-polar-bears-not-declining-concludes-new-report/

    “Until recently, the Baffin Bay (BB) and Kane Basin (KB) polar bear subpopulations, that live between NW Greenland, and Baffin and Ellesmere Islands, were assessed with confidence by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) to be declining due to suspected over-hunting (see 2016 Report, Ch. 1, pg. 4).

    It turns out they were wrong.”

    Harvey et al 2017 has enhanced the credibility of Crockford, unless you can prove she is wrong.

  8. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    I neither agree nor disagree with your “conclusion”, as you do not have one. A conclusion requires data and analysis.

  9. Marco Says:

    “I do know that your paper is a shoddy analysis of poor data”

    It appears Richard Tol is once again talking to a mirror.

    First he claimed “jittering” wasn’t mentioned in the article or SI. Oops, it was.

    Then he did a naïve WoS search, ignoring that Harvey et al talks about “articles”, and thus overinflated the number of different authors. Ah, but he corrected that!

    At the same time he originally made the mistake of misreading a name. Fortunately, he corrected that too (and slowly his supposed “non-representativeness” crept towards “representativeness”).

    But I pointed out MORE errors, and I am certain that if those were to be corrected, Tol’s analysis of representativeness crashes and burns.

    The first error is that Tol specifically mentions two authors to be underrepresented, but failed to note that *at least three* of their papers, and likely four, were published after Harvey et al did their WoS search (published in October 2017 (3) and June 2017 (1)), and thus should not be included in his analysis. There may even be a few more of those non-qualifying articles due to publication date; I didn’t check that, because this should already have been enough for Tol to go an start a-fresh.

    The second error that Harvey et al *does* show, contrary to Tol’s claim, how the further selection of articles was done (“investigated both polar bears and sea ice”). Ilinked Tol to an article that *obviously* does not fit that criteria, and thus should not be counted, just to show that Tol’s naïve analysis of the representativeness is based on bad data. And then he blames Harvey et al of bad data…

  10. Marco Says:

    Golf charlie does not even realize that he is using data from the exact same people he claims are “controlling” the narrative to claim these people are wrong.

  11. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, still wrong, again.
    Just like Harvey et al 2017, which has not been retracted.

    Which goes to prove why the Consensus has lost trust.

  12. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, why don’t you concentrate on putting right Harvey et al 2017? There are even spelling mistakes for you to correct.

  13. Peter Roessingh Says:

    Richard says:
    > I do not believe that your analysis or data support your conclusion

    golf charlie says:
    > What are the hidden secrets that remain concealed?

    Neither of the two provide any arguments. This is the classical technique used to oppose climate change science: Creating confusion, sowing doubts, playing the game of “there is ‘something’ not right here”

    It is also showing a deep contempt for the intelligence of the reader. “I do not believe that your analysis or data support your conclusion” Really? All piecharts and graphs, including those made by the critics of Harvey et all. tell the same story: the positions taken by the contrarian blogs is very different from that taken by the science based blogs and the peer review literature. That is the main conclusion from the paper. It has not been challenged in any meaningful way yet.

    Instead what we get in the blog sphere is ranging from vague conspiracy ideas to very serious accusations of fishing expeditions, deliberate fraud and scientific misconduct.

    Science is in principle reproducible. If the critics do not believe the conclusion, let them re-analyse the data, or gather new data and that shows a *different* conclusion. As yet, all we have seen confirms Harvey et all. and that is to be expected since the peer-reviewed literature simply does not support the position of the contrarians.

  14. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    @peter
    Please release all data.

  15. Willard Says:

    @peter

    Bring me a coffee.

  16. golf charlie Says:

    Peter Roessingh, why did Consensusarians, including Peer Reviewers and BioScience, fail to spot anything wrong with Harvey et al 2017?

    If the Consensus can only find spelling mistakes when it suits the Consensus, why should the “Consensus” be trusted on maths, science and factual accuracy?

  17. Willard Says:

    Peter Roessingh, when did you stop punching hippies?

  18. Jos Says:

    Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PloS one, 6(11), e26828.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

  19. Willis Eschenbach Says:

    Bart, when you start your analysis by dividing blogs into “Denial Blogs” and “Science-based Blogs”, you’ve clearly revealed that you have a climate axe to grind and by God, you are going to grind it regardless of what the data shows or what anyone says … sorry, I’m with Richard Tol on this one.

    w.

  20. Willard Says:

    Perhaps you’re almost with Richie when Richie almost accuses BartV of almost fraud, Willis?

    W

  21. Willis Eschenbach Says:

    Willard Says:
    December 22, 2017 at 20:36

    Perhaps you’re almost with Richie when Richie almost accuses BartV of almost fraud, Willis?

    W

    Say what? I said absolutely nothing of the sort. That’s your fevered imagination working overtime. I have enough sins of my own, I don’t need you manufacturing fake ones for me.

    I said what I said. Don’t try to twist it into something else, it makes you look vindictive and foolish.

    w.

  22. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Bart, your paper does not adequately look at control situations. Consensus blogs exhibit the same behavior, as do weblogs with other specific areas of focus.

    What does your paper show that differentiates blogs that are skeptical of climate change from other blogs that focus on one issue?

    Nothing. Not a thing. Sloppy math, lack of analysis… all hallmarks of the group of faux scientists and real climate religionists that include Lewandowsky, Cook, etc. Bart, have you joined them? I have always thought you were better than that. Is this what you intended?

    It will be difficult to maintain a straight face when next you criticize skeptical scientists for the quality of their work.

    You just signed on to a political hit job orchestrated by some of your co-authors to deligitimise Dr. Crockford. Are you abandoning science to take up the cross?

  23. Willard Says:

    w.,

    You’re right – counterfactuals about BartV’s intentions is enough for you to shoulder.

    You certainly did not deny BartV’s claim:

    [B]logs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.

    Thank you for your answer,

    W

  24. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Folks, why don’t you all take a deep breath and think whether you have something constructive to say before commenting?

    Co-author Peter Roessingh sums it up very well in an earlier comment:

    “All piecharts and graphs, including those made by the critics of Harvey et all. tell the same story: the positions taken by the contrarian blogs is very different from that taken by the science based blogs and the peer review literature. That is the main conclusion from the paper. It has not been challenged in any meaningful way yet.”

    If someone has a good reason, or better yet, evidence, to believe our conclusion to be wrong, I’d be curious to hear it.

    If you just want to voice your contempt, there are other blog venues out there much more suited to that than this one.

    Merry Christmas and happy holidays everyone!

  25. Eli Rabett Says:

    All the paper pointed to is that a set of blogs referred to one specific other blog to back up their arguments about polar bear populations while another set of blogs referred to published and referred articles by a larger number of authors.

    Anybunny care to dispute this?

  26. Eli Rabett Says:

    Oh yes, which of the tens of articles which depended on Richard Tol’s FUND gremlins has Richard Tol retracted? Just asking

  27. ...and Then There's Physics Says:

    The authors should probably be pleased that Richard Tol is the one aiming to critique their paper. He’ll almost certainly simply end up confirming their result.

  28. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    @Bart
    I’m afraid you misread. The redrawn graphs serve to illustrate that your Fig 2 is misleading.

    It’s misleading if your data not sound, but, unfortunately, your data are not sound.

  29. hanserren Says:

    Santa was early this year with his list who is naughty and nice.

    But why call the nice guy Björn Lomborg naughty? And Susan Crockford dies acknowledge the shrinking of the arctic sea ice, moreover, that the unprecented shrinking in 2007 and 2012 had no observable effect on polar bears was her key observation. These inconvenient facts apparenty ignited the Harvey et al “paper”.

  30. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) Says:

    Let me rephrase that.
    Fig 2 of Harvey et al. 2017 is misleading even if the data were sound. Unfortunately, the data are not sound.

  31. ...and Then There's Physics Says:

    Given that Richard Tol has chosen to critique this paper, it is probably worth highighting the Tol controversy and a whole fleet of gremlins.

  32. hanserren Says:

    dies = does

  33. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Bart. You asked Richard. “Do you think that contrarian blogs (blogs that don’t agree with the IPCC re human induced global warming) are conveying the peer-reviewed literature correctly when it comes to Arctic sea ice and polar bears?”
    Firstly, thank you for not persisting in using the term “denier blog”.
    My main point, however, is that, for many of us, the more appropriate question is “Do you think that polar bear specialists who write in what you are calling “scientific” blogs (blogs that agree with the IPCC re human induced global warming) are conveying the truth about Arctic sea ice and polar bears correctly? I ask this because if I go back to recent Polar Bear Science issues I quickly discover a discrepancy between what those experts were saying at the time (bears still waiting for ice) and what Susan Crockford’s blog was repeating from reputable primary sources (bears already left land onto earlier than usual shore ice). Reason for the discrepancy: that week the “experts” (including your co-authors) were pushing a polar bear week (= bears in peril from climate change) and it would have been somewhat embarrassing to admit climate change wasn’t threatening bears this year. Looking further back one can find other instances of Crockford calling to account the experts who are putting their climate change spin onto data, where the experts have misused the data or conveniently “forgotten” previous interpretations they themselves adopted. No wonder Crockford is a thorn in their side. She doesn’t have to be an “expert” to use the raw data – anyone with access to the data can determine what is going on. But she has the interest and the persistence. I don’t know (nor care) what her opinion about AGW is, it’s not important. I know that she (like some of your co–authors used to) believes that it is spring ice conditions, not summer ice that determine polar bear populations, and because this does not support the climate change spin, she has been abused in the paper you co-author and continue to defend.

  34. golf charlie Says:

    Given that “…and Then There’s Physics” has chosen to support this paper, it is probably worth highighting the 
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/gergis/controversy and a whole fleet of gremlins, with Peer Reviewed Climate Science, that have not been retracted.

  35. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Bart, if you have blocked me from commenting here, it would have been gracious to let me know before I spent an hour composing a comment.

  36. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Tom,

    No, you’re not on moderation here. I don’t know why the comment landed in the spam; it’s visible now.

    However, your earlier comment on this post was clearly over the line, with talk of “faux scientists and real climate religionists”, referring to some of my co-authors on this or previous papers. Please refrain from such derogatory language.

  37. Willis Eschenbach Says:

    Bart Verheggen Says:

    However, your earlier comment on this post was clearly over the line, with talk of “faux scientists and real climate religionists”, referring to some of my co-authors on this or previous papers. Please refrain from such derogatory language.

    Pot, meet kettle. Bart, on what planet is it perfectly fine for you to call those who disagree with you “deniers? You have read over and over that it is an objectionable term specifically chosen to evoke echoes of “Holocaust deniers”. Please refrain from such derogatory language.

    w.

  38. Willard Says:

    Given that golf is still using ClimateBall tricks to peddle stuff in this thread, it is probably worth recalling that he failed to acknowledge how Hulme’s Champion Principle applied to the Contrarian Matrix:

    The reason why H17 focused on SusanC is because contrarian blogs adopted her as their Polar Bear and Sea Ice Champion.

  39. dpy6629 Says:

    One thing that is so striking about arguments like this is how small, petty, and largely irrelevant they are. They are part of a far larger consensus enforcement strategy that is deeply rooted in political and policy beliefs that are not really scientific. And that’s why it seems so out of place that seemingly serious scientists should be spending so much time on it. You know its petty when Willard has more comments on a thread than anyone else. Despite denial here about it, I think that’s largely what the criticism of Harvey et al is about too.

    Of vastly more importance (and thus not responded to by Climateballers) is the replication crisis in science and what should be done about it. There is a robust argument going on in the real world of science about peer review and open review journals. Climateballers simply double down on peer review and engage in the very denial they accuse others of. It’s petty and self-serving and mostly a waste of time.

    Of more importance are issues like the new work on aerosol forcing estimates, convection, and GCM’s. There are some relatively new and potentially negative results about the large influence of convection parameterizations and clouds on their projections. Zhou et al 2016 is very worthwhile for light reading. These results are not too shocking to experts on CFD, but definitely contradict the consensus enforcement doctrine about GCM’s. I even found a 2005 Real Climate post about aerosol forcing and its influence on energy balance methods of estimating ECS and essentially debunking a very alarmist Nature paper on the same subject. It foreshadowed some of Nic Lewis’ work which tends (outside the pigpen of Climateball) to lend it credence.

  40. hanserren Says:

    The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks manoeuvring
    The main finding of a comprehensive empirical research project on the intersubjective acceptability of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules (Van Eemeren, Garssen & Meuffels, 2009) is that ordinary language users judge discussion moves that are considered fallacious from an argumentation-theoretical perspective as unreasonable. In light of this finding it is remarkable that in everyday argumentative discourse fallacies occur regularly and seem many times not to be noticed by the participants in the discourse. This also goes for the abusive argumentum ad hominem. While abusive ad hominem attacks are judged to be very unreasonable discussion moves when the unreasonableness of clear cases of this fallacy is rated in experiments, in real life this fallacy remains undetected more often than not. In this paper it is argued that this paradox can be explained by analysing abusive ad hominem attacks as a mode of strategic manoeuvring which takes on a reasonable appearance in real life situations when it mimics, as it often does, legitimate critical reactions to authority argumentation. The hypothesis that abusive fallacies are seen as less unreasonable when they are presented as if they are critical questions pertaining to the argument scheme for authority argumentation than when they are clear cases was tested systematically in two experiments. The results of these experiments confirmed the hypothesis.”
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13546783.2012.678666#.VRwtto6G80Q

    Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels, The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks, Thinking & Reasoning Volume 18, 2012 – Issue 3: Reasoning and Argumentation, Pages 344-364

  41. Willard Says:

    David P. Young from the Boeing Company reintroduces his squirrel with the ad hom mode:

    One thing that is so striking about arguments like this is how small, petty, and largely irrelevant they are […]

    Of vastly more importance […] is the replication crisis in science and what should be done about it.

    Hans Erren quotes a classic in #ClimateBall theory that explains why David P. Young’s squirelling technique starts with the ad hom mode:

    The hypothesis that abusive fallacies are seen as less unreasonable when they are presented as if they are critical questions pertaining to the argument scheme for authority argumentation than when they are clear cases was tested systematically in two experiments.

    Let’s hope that David P. Young from The Boeing Company will see this thread and the previous one as a replication of van Eemeren & al’s results.

    ClimateBall players might take advantage of the oncoming Christmas truce to brush up their pragma-dialectics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics

    While abiding to these rules would make most of the Contrarian Matrix crumble, ClimateBall is quite possible within these bounds.

  42. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    There can be no truce with those like willard. Happily, now that Barack Obama and James Hansen are deniers, according to such luminaries as Naomi Oreskes and Greg Laden, much of the sting is gone from the term.

    Susan Crockford and we bloggers who link to her are ‘deniers’, not because we deny science but because we fail to support policy.

    willard and others are not protecting science. They are defending the faith.

  43. golf charlie Says:

    “willard and others are not protecting science. They are defending the faith.”

    The loss of taxpayer funding in the USA is a consequence of Climateball being played. The electorate thought there was at least some science. Harvey et al 2017 has scheduled where the waste occurs.

  44. RomanM Says:

    The views expressed in my post on ClimateAudit still stand – this supposedly scientific “study” of the differences between Skeptic blogs and papers versus those advocating the Consensus narrative is a sham not worthy of publication in any self-respecting journal. Had it been done properly, the methods for extracting the necessary information would have been sufficiently broad to examine the nuances of the views held within each group.

    Skeptic blogs are not identical in how the individuals from those blog perceive the Consensus doctrine. Many blogs discuss published scientific literature on specific aspects of the climate focusing on the interests and capabilities of their informal membership. The views espoused on a blog may vary on how much warming is taking place, on the amount possibly attributable to human activity or how the this may play out in the future. None of this is reflected in the data set because the way the data was gathered and coded made it impossible to do so. Similar criticism applies to the resultant data for the Consensus group unless the blog denizens and authors of the papers considered actually do form a monolithic collection of identically minded individuals repeating a narrow gospel. Richard’s plot above shows how narrowly both sides were shoehorned into narrowly prescribed positions.

    So why didn’t the authors of the paper actually do a proper job showing this diversity? The answer is that they intentionally did not wish to. First, this would require more work to carry out than was justified in creating a “scientific” veneer for the paper. Secondly, and most importantly, it would destroy the capability for using the phrase “denier blog[s]” 20 times in the short propaganda paper. If one is a “denier” of [fill in the blank], there is no need to pay attention to their argument – a popular debating ploy in climate discourse. Argument over…

  45. RomanM Says:

    There is one more thing I have not mentioned earlier because with inadequate data it would have been a moot point. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a least squares based method which is useful for continuous measurement data and possibly count data, but not generally appropriate for categorical data. All of the data on which that procedure was used is categorical. Recoding it using numbers does not make it numeric so other procedures must be used. Rather than be accused of just being negative, I thought it might be helpful to provide some information to the authors on how a proper analysis might be done should they wish to redo the paper.

    When all of the variables are binary (i.e. two-valued), a suitable analytic methodology is Logistic PCA. It provides PCs, fitted and predicted values of similar sort as the PCA does for numeric data. The method is available in the R package logisticPCA. It is easy to implement and easy to work with the results.

    Unfortunately, the seven variables in the paper are not all binary due to the coding style used. In that case, one can use a more general procedure, Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). This allows for more general categorical variables to be analyzed in a reasonable fashion with results such as those in PCA. The method is implemented in R in at least five different libraries. I ran the function MCA in the FactoMineR package and found it was also fairly easy to use. However, as in PCA, neither of these methods can correct for the lack of discriminatory power of the data from the paper in question.

  46. dpy6629 Says:

    As usual, Willard responds to a careful argument by changing the subject. The point I made is not an ad hominem, its about the argument being made and about vastly more important issues. It’s basically the same point made by RomanM and Richard Tol to which I’ve not seen any real response here or elsewhere.

    Willard is a philosopher and so can (and does not) say nothing about science, peer review, and the replication crisis. Thus he must misdirect to his logic chopping analysis of irrelevant issues of style in the debate. It’s a sad commentary on form over substance and polemics over science.

  47. Eli Rabett Says:

    Once more, does anybunny here dispute that blogs which deny the existence and/or urgency of the prospect of global warming primarily (almost exclusively) rely on Crockford when discussing the issue of whether polar bears are threatened by climate change.

    If so, how about examples (and yes Eli knows about Mitchell Taylor who was the flavor of the week seven or eight years ago and the Soon thing in Ecological Complexity. There was also some fireguy who visited Churchill and found no gambling was going on and wrote a book about it). All of that is spinach.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323452204578288343627282034

  48. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    silly rabbit. that took five minutes.

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/polar-bears-antarctic-ice-and-the-silence-of-the-lambs/

    https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/state-of-the-climate-2014-part-2/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/07/study-polar-bears-may-survive-ice-melt-with-or-without-seals/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/03/claim-polar-bears-cant-subsist-on-anything-but-seals/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/21/another-polar-bears-are-in-trouble-story-yawwwn/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/12/119035/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/how-many-polar-bears-in-nunavat/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/11/why-campaign-against-hunting-polar-bears/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/polar-bears-move-when-climate-changes-a-note-from-nichole-hoskin/

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/05/greenpeace-attempts-polar-bears-listing-to-prevent-alaskan-oil-drilling/

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-polar-bear-problem/

  49. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Tom you wasted 5mins. Eli’s question is not important. Even the most cursory look at Crockford’s blog reveals that, like the scientist that she is, she documents everything she relies upon, and clearly separates her own speculations and inferences. So those that blanket criticize Polar Bear Science criticize those she copiously quotes.

  50. golf charlie Says:

    Polar Bear maths and economics are subjects shrouded in mystery.

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/eli-writes.html
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/

    But the Polar Bears just don’t care. They know how to thrive.

  51. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    It does make one interested in looking at the data when it becomes available…

  52. Thomas Says:

    Bart quotes Peter as saying,

    “All piecharts and graphs, including those made by the critics of Harvey et all. tell the same story: the positions taken by the contrarian blogs is very different from that taken by the science based blogs and the peer review literature. That is the main conclusion from the paper. It has not been challenged in any meaningful way yet.”

    This is like saying people who think premise A is correct take a position that is different than people who think premise A is not correct. It’s a conclusion that tells us nothing of value. It only states that different people, when separated into groups who have different beliefs, have different beliefs. Which is absurdly obvious.

    The conclusion appears to take on value if one commits the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority to conclude that the science-based blogs are correct. But doing so is illogical.

    The conclusion could also appear to have some value if one accepts the implication that the contrarian blogs are wrong. But then we have circular reasoning; “the science-based blogs are correct because they hold an opposite view of the contrarian blogs,” which simplifies to, “the science-based blogs are correct because the science-based blogs are correct,” which is also illogical argument.

    So, if Peter has correctly defined the conclusion of the paper it should be withdrawn because the conclusion is illogical handwaving that has no value but attempts, in an underhanded and illogical way, to discredit people who hold different beliefs.

    If the scientist authors wish to show that the contrarian blogs are incorrect, they have to actually produce scientific evidence that indicates they are incorrect.

    Otherwise they are not doing good science, they are doing bad politics.

  53. golf charlie Says:

    Thomas
    “If the scientist authors wish to show that the contrarian blogs are incorrect, they have to actually produce scientific evidence that indicates they are incorrect.”

    They can’t. Hence Harvey et al 2017, which is a handy reference guide for Politicians wanting to know who to trust.

  54. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Well, here’s how I spent a day with the flu:

    Watts Up With That (WUWT) is one of the blogs cited as a ‘denier’ blog by Harvey et al.

    It bills itself as the most widely seen climate weblog and with roughly 338 million page views to date, I doubt if their claim can be disputed.

    Up to September 15 2017 (the search date of Harvey et al), there were 85 posts with polar bear in the title. Examination shows that 83 of them were actually relevant to the search.

    Of those 83 blog posts, 19 were either guest posts by or interviews of Dr. Susan Crockford, the target of Harvey et al 2017.

    A gross count of citations of Crockford was not attempted–she self-cited repeatedly during her guest posts, much in the way Joe Romm does at Climate Progress, a typical citation being ‘for the rest of my article see here.’

    However, on blog posts not authored by or featuring Dr. Crockford, a wide variety of sources were cited. I will paste them into my next comment.

    Included in those sources are repeated links to scientific papers by co-authors of Harvey et al: Armstrup papers were cited 6 times, for example, while Stirling papers were cited three times.

    In total, I found 93 external citations to non-Crockford sources on WUWT for qualifying blog posts, from journals ranging from Science and Nature to peerJ.com.

    The most frequent non-journal source cited was the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which was linked to 7 times. The second most frequent were the NSIDC and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

    It would have been possible to find many more external sources, but for two factors.

    The first is the large number of dead links, which I chose not to include in my list. The second was the number of posts by Jim Steele, a skeptical scientist. He placed non-linked references to many academic publications at the bottom of his posts, and I chose not to include them as they were not clickable.

    Bart, I submit that if Watts Up With That is representative of the universe of skeptical blogs your study covered that the results you report seem skewed.

    As the next comment will show, a naive reader wishing to explore both sides of the controversy about polar bears could do a lot worse than following the links presented in WUWT. Can you say the same for the non-contrarian blogs you investigated?

  55. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    At UNO, scientist Michael Mann calls for fast action on climate change
    Polar Bears’ Path to Decline Runs Through Alaskan Village
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/08/late-summer-in-the-arctic-sea-ice-melt-continues/
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/09/2015_arctic-minimum/
    http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum/
    Biological response to climate change in the Arctic Ocean: the view from the past, Cronin and Cronin
    IUCN / SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group
    IUCN Red Book Assessment
    Think Progress: The 5 Year Plan to Save the Polar Bears
    US Fish and Wildlife Service, A Conservation Management Plan, Polar Bear Recovery Team
    The Silver Ink, Polar Bears Might Go Extincty by 2025
    US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Service Announce First Conservation Management Plan for Polar Bear
    US Fish and Wildlif Service, Polar Bear Draft Conservation Plan
    USGS Changing Arctic EcoSystems, Reducing CO2 Emissions Required to Improve Polar Bear Outlook
    US Fish and Wildlife Service, Polar Bears: An Improved Framework for Harvest Management
    IUCN SSC PBSG, Global Polar Bear Population Estimates
    Norwegian Polar Institute: Polar Bears in Svalbard in Good Condition–So Far
    IUCN SSC PBSG, Barents Sea
    The Energetic Value of Land-Based Foods in Western Hudson Bay and Their Potential to Alleviate Energy Deficits of Starving Adult Male Polar Bears, PLOS One, Gormezzano and Rockwell
    Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset loar ice-based hunting opportunities? Rode, et al, Frontiers in Ecology
    Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation recommendations for the 21st century, Laidre et al, Conservation Biology
    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/02/oregon_zoo_expert_polar_bears.html
    IUCN SSC PBSG, Population Status Reviews
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141107-will-polar-bears-become-extinct
    Government of Canada, Maps of sub-populations of polar bears and protected areas
    First global review on the status, future of Arctic Marine Mammals, Dickey, Phys.Org
    Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline, Stirling, Armstrup et al, Ecological Applications
    Fifth Annual Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    NBC: Polar Bears Like Passengers on the Titanic Because of Global Warming
    Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics, Cherry et al, Journal of Animal Ecology
    A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records, Lisiecki and Ramo, Paleoceanography
    Polar and brown bear genomes reveal ancient admixture and demographic footprints of past climate change, Miller et al, PNAS
    Injecting Sulfate Particles Into Stratosphere Won’t Full Offset Climate Change, University of Washington, Journal of Climate

    Polar Bears, Martha Stewart and Me, Gavin Schmidt, GISS/NASA
    New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling, Jakobsson et al, Quaternary Science Reviews
    Ice Free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene Analogue, Funder & Kjaer, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 2007
    Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat, Armstrup, Durner et al, Polar Biology
    Polar bear cubs may reduce chilling from icy water by sitting on mother’s back, Aars & Plumb, Polar Biology
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
    Polar bear Ursus maritimus hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials, Nachtigall et al, Journal of Experimental Biology
    Pacific Northwest Research Station, Polar Bears No Longer On Thin Ice
    Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Can Reduce Sea-ice Loss and Increase Polar Bear Persistence, Armstrup et al, Nature
    Polar Bears Survived The Ice Free Arctic, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska
    Beyond Polar Bears? Re-envisioning climate change, Manzo, Meteorological Applications
    Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change, Post et al, Science
    https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html?page=1
    Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts, Science Daily
    Polar bear attacks on humans: Implications of a changing climate, Wilder et al, Wildlife Society Bulletin
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-ship-gives-up-after-6-day-battle-with-ice-passengers-fly-home-1.4077691
    http://www.thewesternstar.com/news/local/ice-conditions-in-strait-of-belle-isle-may-send-icebergs-down-western-newfoundland-coast-67408/
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ice-compensation-fisherman-twillingate-1.4076069
    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/n-l-seeks-ei-extensions-due-to-pack-ice-1.667701
    Demographic, ecological and physiological responses of ringed seals to an abrupt decline in sea ice availability, Ferguson et al, PeerJ.com
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/05/23/love-in-the-time-of-climate-change-grizzlies-and-polar-bears-are-now-mating/?utm_term=.a7bc0520ca3e
    http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674exotic_bear_harvested_in_nunavut_was_a_blonde_grizzly/
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/grizzly-polar-bear-hybrid-arviat-nunavut-1.3586738
    The Hybrid Origin of “Modern” Humans, Ackerman et al, Evolutionary Biology
    IUCN Red List, Supplementary material for ursus maritimus
    https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears
    IIUCN SSC PBSG, Western Hudson Bay
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160223-polar-bears-arctic-cannibals-animals-science/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318173/Lucy-ODonnell-photos-polar-bear-jumping-drifting-Arctic-ice.html
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34123834
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/polar-bears-threatened-species-or-political-pawn-1.2753645
    https://arcticportal.org/library/news/1566-circumpolar-action-plan-now-available
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
    Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf:
    A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades, Sterling, Arctic
    Ringed Seals and Sea Ice in Canada’s Western Arctic: Harvest-Based Monitoring 1992-2011, Harwood et al, Arctic
    Temporal variations in Hudson Bay ringed seal (Phoca hispida) life-history parameters in relation to environment, Stirling, Chambellant et al, Journal of Mammalogy
    Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations, Rode et al, Global Change Biology
    Increased Land Use by Chukchi Sea Polar Bears in Relation to Changing Sea Ice Conditions, Rode et al, PLOS One
    Estimating the Energetic Contribution of Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Summer Diets to the Total Energy Budget,Dyck & Kebreab
    Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea, McKay et al, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
    Natural variability of Arctic sea ice over the Holocene, Fisher et al
    Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climate Change, Sterling et al, Arctic
    Revisiting Western Hudson Bay: Using aerial surveys to update polar bear abundance in a sentinel population, Stapleton et al, Biological Conservation
    IIUCN SSC PBSG, Summary of polar bear status 2017
    Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice, Sterling, Armstrup et al, Journal of Animal Ecology
    Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades, Stirling, Armstrup et al, Arctic
    Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions
    Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea duringa period of sea ice decline, Armstrup et al, Ecological Society of America
    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientist-settles-legal-case-over-study-polar-bear-drownings-2D11691760
    https://www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears?ft=1&f=1025
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/
    https://www.npr.org/2011/08/10/139276565/polar-bear-scientist-faces-new-questions
    Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Monnett et al, 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8700000/8700472.stm
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

  56. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    As I might have expected, the number of links in my follow-up comment caused it to be placed in moderation. I hope Bart will fish it out when he returns from a well-deserved vacation.

  57. Willard Says:

    > I found 93 external citations to non-Crockford sources on WUWT for qualifying blog posts, from journals ranging from Science and Nature to peerJ.com.

    RELEASE ALL THE DATA!

    Note how Groundskeeper fails to distinguish between authoritative and non-authoritative citations.

  58. Willard Says:

    First link in Groundskeeper’s list for Jennifer’s

    cites the Globe and Mail and quotes Willard Tony:

    What I found most interesting is the clear message that polar bears are thriving in an environment where sea ice (NSIDC includes Hudson Bay as sea ice) seasonally disappears entirely.

    There’s also a random citation showing we just don’t know how many polar bears there is.

    Hard not to interpret this link as not reinforcing the authors’ conclusion that the contrarian matrix peddles FUD.

    In contrast to these four entries from Jennifer’s that doesn’t cite SusanC (among which we find two newsies and a citation to BjornL, so we’re not outside FUD), here are the ones that mentions SusanC:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-president-obama-from-climate-sceptics/

    And of course Groundskeeper is trying to force an open door, as Jennifer’s ratings are:

    no; no; yes; yes; no; yes; yes; contra

    Which means the authors did not consider that blog as relying on SusanC.

  59. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    A search of Bishop Hill’s weblog, also cited as a ‘denier’ site by Harvey et al 2017, retrieved 11 posts with Polar Bear(s) in the title.

    In those 11 posts there were 15 external links. 5 of those links were either to Dr. Crockford’s website or to her articles on GWPF.

    Although an Armstrup paper was only cited once, Ian Sterling was both mentioned and quoted 3 times in the text of those posts.

    Again, where is the evidence of predominant linking to Crockford? One-third is predominant?

    As before I will paste the references into my next comment.

  60. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/06/starved-polar-bear-record-sea-ice-melt
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27697-polar-bear-caught-eating-dolphins-and-freezing-the-leftovers/#.VXkgO_mqpBc
    https://polarbearscience.com/
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33551569
    Summer declines in activity and body temperature offer polar bears limited energy savings, Armstrup et al, Science
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Crockford-2015.pdf
    https://polarbearsinternational.org/get-involved/international-polar-bear-day
    https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/polarizing-bears
    http://e360.yale.edu/features/climate_threat_to_polar_bears_despite_facts_doubters_remain
    https://polarbearsinternational.org/news-room/pbi-blog/us-polar-bear-recovery-plan#.Vae9c9AF9Nc.twitter
    https://polarbearscience.com/2015/09/02/tracking-polar-bears-two-s-beaufort-bears-spent-august-2015-on-ice-that-doesnt-exist/#more-68139
    https://www.usgs.gov/news?ID=4263
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/06/Arctic-Fallacy2.pdf
    https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130807_r5
    https://polarbearscience.com/2014/05/30/iucn-polar-bear-specialist-group-says-its-global-population-estimate-was-a-qualified-guess/#more-5280

  61. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    wee willie, it is not my task to evaluate the authoritativeness of individual references. You’re free to do so and people will be able to question your impartiality just as you question mine.

    My task, self-appointed as it is, is to show whether or not the central claim of Harvey 2017 et al–that ‘denier’ blogs overwhelmingly cite Dr. Susan Crockford when they post on polar bears–is in fact an accurate statement.

    So far Harvey et al is 0 for 2.

  62. Willard Says:

    > it is not my task to evaluate the authoritativeness of individual references

    Of course it is, since you’re supposed to contradict H17’s conclusion that the Contrarian Matrix is deferring to SusanC quite a bit, or in BartV’s words, “to base their claims to a large extent on blogs written” by SusanC, which “run counter to the relevant ecological literature.”

    Incidentally, showing that there are other ways the Contrarian Matrix spreads FUD than citing SusanC doesn’t contradict that it does spread FUD using SusanC.

    ***

    As for our Beloved Bishop’s ratings, here they are:

    no; no; yes; yes; no; NA; yes; contra; 22; orange; blog_7

    Yet again, Groundskeeper forces an open door and confirms the authors’ findings.

    Well played!

  63. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Funnily enough, Bjorn Lomborg’s site as cited by Harvey et al 2017 does not have a search function, which is frustrating. I don’t know what articles or publications were used by Harvey et al, but I wasn’t able to locate any with polar bears in the title or first block of text in the first 20 pages of article listings. None of the publications refer to polar bears.

    However, Lomborg famously used polar bears in Chapter 1 of his book ‘Cool It,’ titling in ‘Polar Bears: Canaries in the cage?’ One wonders why he didn’t use the more common phrasing,
    canaries in the coal mine… well, one doesn’t wonder much.

    The 5-page chapterette has 38 footnotes. Among those footnoted are Armstrup, Stirling, the IUCN, Monnett, Berner, the IPCC (repeatedly), Karl and Trenberth and other such luminaries.

    Crockford was not referenced at all.

    Until we have access to the specific articles by Lomborg at http://www.lomborg.com on polar bears that were the subject of scrutiny by Harvey et al, I am unable to attempt a validation exercise.

  64. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    I sadly will have to leave the examination of Breitbart.com to a stronger soul. I will not patronize the venue.

  65. Willard Says:

    > Funnily enough, Bjorn Lomborg’s site as cited by Harvey et al 2017 does not have a search function, which is frustrating.

    It’s funny how frustration can be funny.

    Here’s how to be less frustrated and perhaps more morose:

    – Open your search search engine
    – Type “site:”
    – Enter the full URL of the website you can search (“http://” &c.)
    – Press Enter

    Let’s put Björn’s data right away:

    no; yes; no; yes; no; NA; yes; contra; 22; orange; blog_98

    Funnily enough, Groundskeeper is trying to force another open door!

    You can’t make this up.

  66. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Climate Change Dispatch has a whopping 49 articles with polar bears in the title published prior to Sept. 15th. As an aggregator website of non-consensus views, it should not be surprising to find that 14 of them were in fact written by Dr. Susan Crockford.

    As mentioned in another comment, Crockford is a serial self-citer and an examination of the first 30 articles listed on CCD finds 24 citations by Crockford to Crockford, most of them a link with the comment ‘as discussed here’ or something similar.

    However, a total of 82 external links were found in the 30 posts and will be shown in the next comment.

    Climate Change Dispatch is indeed a skeptical site with little in the way of scientific references. Although Crockford cited herself heavily, she also was the primary source of references to others in the academic literature.

    I would accept the findings from this site as supportive of the claims in Harvey et al, but would also caution that although Crockford is the most heavily cited source there, it is far from a monoculture, as can be seen in the next comment.

  67. Willard Says:

    > I would accept the findings from this site as supportive of the claims in Harvey et al […]

    The ratings for climatechangedispatch.com:

    yes; no; yes; yes; no; yes; yes; contra; 22; orange; blog_17

    Another corroboration!

    \o/

  68. Thomas Says:

    Attempting to verify the validity of the data collected for the paper is a waste of time because the very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd. The paper is not science so there is no need to attack it with “science-based” argument.

    According to the one of the authors, the main conclusion of the paper is that the “positions taken by the contrarian blogs [are] very different from [those] taken by the science based blogs and the peer review literature.”

    So what? If you divide people into groups based on their position on an issue, then over course they are going to have different position on the issue. The above statement, and the paper, tell us nothing about the validity of either position.

    It’s an Appeal to Authority, and an Ad Hominem attack, dresses up with complicated statistical analysis.

    The entire paper is an embarrassment to anyone who values a “science-based” approach to issues. It should be particularly embarrassing for Bart, who claims to be a Science Communicator.

    The authors assume their position is correct, presumably because it has been publish in peer reviewed papers, which is patently absurd to anyone who has spent anytime reading peer reviewed literature. Then they blast people with the opposing position as being non-science-based and wrong. Then they imply that “fact” proves that their position is correct.

    With regard to the climate debate, the paper is intellectual garbage that tells us nothing of value.

    With regard to the social dynamics of groups with opposing intellectual opinions, the paper is interesting only in that it’s a good example of the illogical extremes that some groups will resort to in order to try to make themselves appear to be correct: and it’s intellectual garbage.

  69. Willard Says:

    > the very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd.

    Then it should be easy to state that premise, Thomas. With a quote an all. Unless ranting is enough to rock your boat, in which case more power to you.

  70. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    I stated the premise twice, once in my original comment of December 27 at 19:21 and again in the second paragraph of the post you responded to.

    The quotation is from Peter Roessingh’s comment at December 22 at 19:10 where he gives his opinion about the “main conclusion” of the paper.

    However, the real premise of the paper is probably the relationship shown in figure 2. It can be summarized as: Science based” blogs tend to agree with the “majority view” literature, which tends to support the proposition that polar bears are threatened by climate change. But science “denier” blogs tend to cite to “controversial” papers, which tend to support the proposition that polar bears are not threatened.

    This conclusion is boringly predictable and fails to inform the debate.

    Citing “majority view” papers is not evidence that one is correct, and citing “controversial” paper is not evidence that one is wrong. The authors’ commit the fallacy of appeal to authority and, by using the pejorative “controversial,” the fallacy of ad hominem.

    The paper also makes the claim, “Science-based and -denier blogs take completely different positions on Arctic ice extent and polar-bear status.”

    Well of course they do, they are on different sides of the debate. But, once again, the authors’ commit the fallacy of appeal to authority (science) and ad hominem (science denier).

    More appropriate labels for the two sides of the debate are “advocate” for people who support the theory of dangerous AGW and “skeptic” for those who question it.

    The truth is that many skeptical climate blogs are also science-based. Actual scientists, including climate scientists, and other informed and technically minded individuals discuss many aspects of climate science at great length in the posts and in the comments sections. Sure there are some kneejerk comments, even some kneejerk posts, but the “science-based” blogs also have plenty of those.

    The paper attacks Susan Crockford because she “has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears,” which is more ad hominem and appeal to authority—one does not have to conduct “original research” nor have published on the subject in the peer-review journals, to be well informed on a subject.

    A quick glance at her blog shows that she has in fact conducted much research on the matter. She shows evidence that past predictions of the imminent demise of polar bears, that were published in the peer-reviewed literature, turned out to be wrong. She shows that polar bear populations have been rising in the past decade, despite low sea ice levels.

    The authors engage in some hand waving about population declines not being immediate but offer no evidence to refute her actual claim.

    Why have polar bear populations been rising over the past decade while sea ice extent has fallen to levels that experts predicted would cause near extinction? The paper doesn’t offer any explanation. Just more personal attacks.

    The paper accuses Crockford of using “emotional language” but again, that’s not evidence that she’s wrong. This is still more ad hominem and probably the fallacy of the red herring, evading the real issue by diversion.

    Anyway, people who live in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones. Alarmists regularly use emotional langue, even highly emotional language about polar bears, even while a carton plays showing a drowning family of bears that are unable to get onto fragile sea ice because it keeps breaking, e.g. Al Goer’s movie.

    The paper says, “Crockford downplayed the contribution of sea-ice loss to polar-bear population declines in the Beaufort Sea.” But the authors offer no information to back up that claim. Accusing a person of data manipulation without giving particulars is bad manners at best.

    In the abstract of the paper the authors discusses the wider issue of anthropogenic warming but they use the timeworn, rhetorical trick of framing the debate as all or nothing. The paper says the general public have the incorrect belief that, “scientists continue to debate AGW causes or even process.”

    Most people I talk to about the subject, including both believers and nonbelievers, don’t think there is much debate about the causes of AGW or the processes involved

    The real debate is over what the actual effect of increased CO2 will be. The question of climate sensitivity to CO2 is hotly debated and no one seems to have a definitive answer. If most of the recent warming is natural, climate sensitivity is low, but the question of how much is natural warming is also hotly debated with no clear quantitative answer.

    This paper is a public relations attack job. Not science. It should be withdrawn. It’s suitable for publication in the opinion section of a third-rate newspaper, or on one of those “science based” blogs, but certainly not in a scientific publication.

  71. Willard Says:

    > The quotation is from Peter Roessingh’s comment at December 22 at 19:10 where he gives his opinion about the “main conclusion” of the paper.

    Here’s where Peter says something about the “main conclusion” of H17, Thomas:

    All piecharts and graphs, including those made by the critics of Harvey et all. tell the same story: the positions taken by the contrarian blogs is very different from that taken by the science based blogs and the peer review literature. That is the main conclusion from the paper. It has not been challenged in any meaningful way yet.

    There’s no premise there. A premise is what precedes a conclusion, not a conclusion.

    No wonder you can’t quote anything directly.

    ***

    > However, the real premise of the paper is probably the relationship shown in figure 2.

    The relationship shown in figure 2 represents the paper’s results. Results aren’t premises, So even your True Scotsman doesn’t work.

    Perhaps you should stick to ranting, Thomas. Which is all for the better, for we need another wall of words to cover these two misrepresentations of yours.

  72. Thomas Says:

    Willard (old friend),

    I did quote Peter directly, exactly as you did. Look up stream. It feels like you’re not reading what I write.

    The premise and conclusion will always, or very nearly always, be the same in almost any paper that get’s published. If my premise is “climate deniers are unscientific” but my conclusion, based on my data, shows they are super-scientific, I wouldn’t submit the paper. Even if I did, it probably wouldn’t be published

    I think it’s that “denier” blogs are unscientific. The conclusion is that they are unscientific because they don’t cite the published literature as often as the “science” based blogs, etc. But, as I already said, that conclusion is based on the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority; and the paper is rife with Ad Hominem.

    I don’t see why you think it’s an instance the True Scotsman fallacy for me to call the relationship in figure 2 a premise.

    Wikipedia cites the following as a simplified example of the fallacy.

    Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
    Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
    Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

    Where is the “sugar” in my statement?

    Anyway, whether figure 2 is a conclusion or a premise, or both, makes no difference to my argument. Your focus on the meaning of the word “premise” is misdirection. You ignored the meat of my argument and focus on the minutia of the definition of one word.

    You accuse me of the True Scotsman fallacy, maybe because I used the words “true premise” but the fallacy doesn’t apply because there is no “sugar” in my argument. I only read the paper and tried to divine what the premise might be.

    Speaking of Scotsmen, a quote from The Bard comes to mind.

    “There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.”

    Apropos this debate, perhaps.

  73. Willard Says:

    > I did quote Peter directly, exactly as you did.

    Yet you didn’t identify the premise in H17, ThomasB. You only handwaved to the conclusion, not even from the paper, but from a comment at BartV’s.

    That’s not how we analyze arguments. What you need is to (1) identify the premise in the paper, and (2) show that the paper’s result depends on it. Otherwise you risk pontificating on a version of Richie’s circularity argument.

    I hope you do not have to help people write technical papers.

    ***

    > You accuse me of the True Scotsman fallacy

    Did I? I simply observed that you switched to another talking point “but the true premise,” which is a form of special pleading. It’s hard to tell if you’re suggesting that what you first identified as a premise is a premise anymore. Is a premise that is not the true premise a premise? In any case, your true Scotsman functions as a bait and switch.

    Since you’re struggling in your formulation of H17’s argument, let me help you out:

    To characterize how blogs and related online sources frame the topic of AGW, we identified a total of 90 blogs covering climate-change topics that mentioned both polar bears and sea ice. We found that none of the blogs or online sources expressed views with respect to AGW that were truly in the middle; they fell quite easily into two camps, as was evidenced by the preambles in their descriptors.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

    The author’s method should be enough to guide you in your quest to find any premise in the H17’s argument, whether these premises are true one or not.

    Best of luck!

  74. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Sigh… so sample selection fatally undermines yet another AGW propaganda effort. They chose skeptic blogs and consensus blogs and found therefore that none were in the middle. I could have pointed them to several… It is clear that the universe of publications examined was prejudicial and as the other Thomas indicates, the conclusions of the paper could have been written just based on viewing the identities of the blogs examined.

    From the abstract of Harvey et al 2017: “Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. ”

    I have shown this to be not true at all for two of the skeptic blogs included in the study, and only partially true for a third. Far from disregarding what the paper incorrectly labels ‘the overwhelming evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability,’ opposing weblogs liberally, almost rigorously, cite the science they dispute.

    When the evidence provided by the data does not support the conclusions of the paper, what are we to do?

    Indeed, the central premise is in fact flawed. Skeptic blogs, from my limited examination, do not at all appear to be disputing, denying or downplaying evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss. What they dispute is the ‘evidence’ of polar bear vulnerability. By joining the two statements together, the authors (wittingly or no) engage in a familiar game where disagreement on one aspect of science (e.g., sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2) is forced into a false disagreement with the fundamentals of climate science (e.g., the existence of a greenhouse effect). Thus was the game of Climateball created, (long before you coined the term, willard), and thus was trust in consensus science undermined for transient political advantage.

    The skeptic blog posts I examined do not in fact deny ‘evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss.’ Dr. Crockford’s arguments, cited by skeptic blogs, are rather ‘Okay, the sea-ice loss has occurred. But polar bears seem to be thriving. Will the consensus view of polar bear vulnerability adapt to reality?’

    That question has yet to be answered, and it provides the opportunity for consensus scientists to learn from mistakes of the past. Dr. Crockford is proving you that opportunity.

    Learn.

  75. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    ‘proving’ in the final sentence of the previous comment s/b ‘providing’.

  76. Willard Says:

    > They chose skeptic blogs and consensus blogs and found therefore that none were in the middle

    Not exactly. They selected blogs. They found that some spreaded FUD, and some were science-based. The first type is called “denier blogs,” and the second type “science-based blogs.”

    Either you spread FUD, or you don’t. There’s no middle ground here. Bivalence is the hallmark of realism and all that jazz. It’s not that complex.

    So much the worse for the Lukewarm Illusion and other kinds of Goldilocks narrative.

    That the Contrarian Matrix spreads FUD has yet to be disputed.

  77. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Actually, willard, the F in that acronym comes from the Konsensus alarmists that rob the consensus scientists of legitimacy.

    I’ll proudly self-identify on the other two.

  78. Willard Says:

    > I have shown this to be not true at all for two of the skeptic blogs included in the study, and only partially true for a third.

    Groundskeeper rediscovers a handpicked selection of the study’s findings, minimizes his corroboration, and seems to take back his earlier concession that “I would accept the findings from this site as supportive of the claims in Harvey et al” with his partial truth.

    Let’s recall H17’s finding:

    Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by [SusanC], as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

    Showing that two blogs don’t refer to SusanC may not be the best way to contradict that approximatively 80% of the contrarian blogs are deferring to SusanC, more so that it corroborates H17’s findings.

    Again, not that complex.

    The Contrarian Matrix may require better contrarians.

  79. Willard Says:

    > F in that acronym comes from the Konsensus alarmists that rob the consensus scientists of legitimacy.

    It’s about time you picked that one, Grounskeeper. Alas, this ClimateBall of argument is invalid since at least 2009. All I need to recall why is to quote your own “alarmism.” This loaded and question-begging word refers to the CAGW meme, which implies an F alright. To take a random example from this list:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/alarmism/

    If Silicon Valley green tech giants have their way, real meat will become an unaffordable carbon taxed luxury item eaten by the very rich. The rest of us will have to eat “meatless meat” – meat flavoured mashed vegetables and lab grown tissue cultures.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/20/silicon-valley-frankenmeat-to-save-the-world-from-global-warming/

    Fear is all over the place at Tony’s. Perhaps it doesn’t go to 11. Let’s take my favorite example:

    The parallel between the moral issues involved in Charlie Hebdo and those trying to silence free speech in the West is not perfectly congruent. But it is close enough to be useful.

    Alarmists have called for skeptics to face Nuremburg trials, go to prison, ad absurdium. Alarmists have killed their children and then themselves in a chilling echo of Jonestown. Alarmists have committed suicide by cop at the Discovery Channel headquarters. They trash archaeological treasures, agitate against cheap energy for the poor in South Africa and tell skeptics ‘we know where you live.’ The issue is serious enough to warrant comparison with what happened in Paris, if not exactly the same.

    It is the alarmists who say that climate change is a species survival issue. And they are the ones who want to shut their opponents up. The fact that violence has been mostly absent is luck, nothing else.

    Alarmists do want to shut Judith Curry et al the hell up. And if they can’t do that yet, they will trash her reputation, calling her a delayer, denier, incompetent, or even showing up at her weblog and clogging up the discussions with their trollery.

    The ethical parallel is that neither radical Islamists nor CAGW prophets of doom will engage in honest debate with their opponents. Demonisation is sufficient for their cause. They are not trying to win an argument in either case. They are trying to hammer their opponents into submission.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/#comment-663210

    For more of the same, please reread this thread and the previous one.

    Now might be a good time to own that F too. It’s underneath most if not all your shirt ripping, after all.

  80. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Ah, wee willie, its easy to tell when you realize you’re once again on the losing side of an argument. Not only from linguistic tendencies, but the tendency to really stretch in your frantic search for an argument.

    Harvey et al starts from a flawed premise and goes downhill from there. Nothing you find on other blogs or your attacks on me will change that.

  81. eddy Says:

    No, thank you

  82. Willard Says:

    > its easy to tell when you realize you’re once again on the losing side of an argument

    An argument would indeed be nice. So far we got:

    [T1] H17’s premise is false.
    [T2] But that’s not its true premise.
    [C0] Therefore POLITICAL HIT JOB!

    Armwaving frantically after corroborating H17’s results, ripping off your shirt, or dancing a touchdown dance on your own line of 20 doesn’t count as one, Groundskeeper. Nor does it count as a clarification of ThomasB’s Master Argument.

  83. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Don’t be so upset, willie–its ‘on your own 20 yard line,’ not on your own line of 20.

    T1: The inclusion of Stefan Lewandowsky and John Cook among the authors of this piece guarantee that any real findings will be polluted by incompetence and political malice.

    T2: A paper that starts with ‘we identified a total of 90 blogs covering climate-change topics that mentioned both polar bears and sea ice” is already guilty of sample bias. Why only 90 out of hundreds available for inspection? The fact that the authors arrived at a magically equal number of pro-AGW and con-AGW blogs makes it obvious that the sample is not only opportunistic but biased.

    T3; Although Watts Up With That is (per wee willie) not part of the 80% of con-AGW blogs that predominantly cite Dr. Susan Crockford, the paper says “Prominent among blogs giving Crockford’s blog disproportionate attention are WUWT and CD, suggesting that her blog reaches a large audience.” (Nowhere do they define what they consider to be ‘proportionate’ or ‘disproportionate.)

    T4: Harvey et al state “The GWPF articles by Crockford claim that contrary to available scientific and empirical evidence, polar bears will easily adapt to any changes that Arctic ecosystems may experience in coming decades.” They cite as references for this two articles Crockford wrote for GWPF: Healthy Polar Bears, Less Than Healthy Science, 2014 and The Arctic Fallacy: Sea Ice Stability and the Polar Bear, 2015. She makes no such statement and no such claim. Both articles concentrate on the recent history of scientific discussion on polar bears and she nowhere in either article makes any claims or predictions about the ease of adaptation by polar bears to changes in Arctic ecosystems over any period of time, let alone coming decades. This statement in Harvey et al 2017 is false to fact.

    More later

  84. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Harvey et al 2017 write “Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are common tactics employed by science-denier groups.”

    The term most used to evoke emotion in the climate discussion is ‘denier.’ Harvey et al 2017 use the word ‘denier’ 31 times in the text, and ‘denial’ in a similar context 15 times, including the quoted sentence.

  85. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Harvey et al 2017 write, “Pimm and Harvey (2000) provided three criteria with which to evaluate the credibility of scientific studies. First and most importantly, follow the data. They emphasized that the data trails of skeptics generally go cold very quickly. Second, follow the money. Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from corporate-funded think tanks that downplay AGW (e.g., the Heartland Institute) and/or receive direct funding from fossil-fuel companies (Oreskes and Conway 2011). Third, follow the credentials. As we have illustrated here, scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas. These criteria confirm that many denier blogs are deliberately distorting science to promote predetermined worldviews and political or economic agendas (Oreskes and Conway 2011, Dunlap 2013).”

    Those criteria do not confirm anything. Data, funding or credentials can be used to argue such a point, and many politically oriented hit pieces have done so, including Harvey et al 2017. However, data, funding and credentials confirm nothing. The statement in Harvey et al 2017 is on its face an absurdity.

  86. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Harvey et al 2017 write, “The considerable influence that blogs exert on public opinion and decision-making should not be underestimated. Among users, trust for blogs has been reported to exceed that of other traditional news or information sources (Johnson and Kay 2004).”

    Their citation is to a paper written 14 years ago, when blogs were considerably more influential than they are today. A study by the Pew Research Center as cited by The Guardian showed that blogging declined by 50% between 2006 and 2010.

    This is a blatant attempt to pain opponents as a danger. It is also inaccurate.

  87. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Harvey et al 2017 write, “These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.” Proponents of creationism and intelligent design use the same strategy.”

    No citation or supporting evidence is offered for this claim. Again, Harvey et al attempt deligitimize their opponents by linking what Harvey et al assert (without evidence) is skeptic strategy to ‘creationism and intelligent design’.

    And they have the cheek to accuse Dr, Crockford of using emotional language.

  88. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    The supplementary data is deficient. The data is unavailable. The rhetoric of Harvey et al 2017 is emotionally charged and invective and false accusations are directed at Dr. Susan Crockford, who has engaged with some of Harvey et al’s authors in debate online.

    It’s a political hit job bereft of science, reasoning or even simple logic.

    The authors borrow from Donald J. Trump in ‘flipping the script,’ accusing their opponents without evidence of doing what the authors are in fact doing themselves.

    Just as Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of colluding with the Russians after such charges are laid against him, so Harvey et al berates Crockford and skeptics of using emotional language while libeling them as deniers, of borrowing strategy from creationists and ID advocates when they themselves borrow strategy from Joseph McCarthy.

  89. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    One definition of premise is, “an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory.” In this sense, hypothesis is a synonym of premise. That is the definition I used when I said, “the very premise of the paper is absurd.”

    The authors state their conclusion in the abstract,

    “[W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap.”

    They pretend to prove their hypothesis with facts like deniers don’t quote the literate as often, etc. But these arguments are appeal to authority and prove nothing.

    The authors assume that their view is correct and pretend that proves that people who hold opposing views are wrong. Then they call those people science-deniers and purveyors of evil thoughts.

    The statement quoted above states that skeptics, “downplay AGW [and] disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss.” I don’t know of any skeptic blog that claims Arctic sea-ice has not declined.

    Many skeptics don’t believe that ice loss is due to AGW. This is not an unreasonable believe because there is much evidence that Arctic sea-ice levels were low in the 1920s and 1930s, well before man’s CO2 could have had any effect. Sea-ice levels might rise and fall on decadal time scales for natural reasons.

    You accused me of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, but the fallacy doesn’t fit my statements. Then you accuse me of bait and switch because I changed from author Peter’s comment about the conclusion of the paper, to a statement that is actually in the paper. I changed because YOU urged me to find the premise in the paper and quote it. I accommodate your request to switch, then you accused me of bait and switch.

    The paper is a hatch-job, political screed. It does not belong in a scientific journal. It contains nothing of scientific value and it should be withdrawn.

  90. Willard Says:

    > The inclusion of Stefan Lewandowsky and John Cook among the authors of this piece

    Groundskeeper can’t even read a citation properly.

  91. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Sigh… Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
    Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky Ian Stirling Meena Balgopal Steven C. Amstrup Michael E. Mann

  92. Willard Says:

    > Although Watts Up With That is (per wee willie) not part of the 80% of con-AGW blogs that predominantly cite [SusanC]

    Groundskeeper can’t even keep up with his own research. The two blogs he “has shown to be not true at all” (i.e. that they weren’t deferring to SusanC) were our Beloved Bishop’s and Jennifer’s. This discovery corroborates what the study has already found.

    Groundskeeper also puts words into my mouth. I have yet to say anything about the polar bears coverage at Tony’s. All I said so far about Tony’s what that Fear was all over the place.

    These ClimateBall penalties return Groundskeeper nearer to his own endzone.

  93. Willard Says:

    > Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
    Jeffrey A. Harvey Daphne van den Berg Jacintha Ellers Remko Kampen Thomas W. Crowther Peter Roessingh Bart Verheggen Rascha J. M. Nuijten Eric Post Stephan Lewandowsky Ian Stirling Meena Balgopal Steven C. Amstrup Michael E. Mann

    Groundskeeper can’t even come up with acknowledging his blunder:

    The inclusion of Stefan Lewandowsky and John Cook among the authors of this piece

    Intriguingly, to substantiate his dual claim (“but Lew” and “but C13”), Groundskeeper might need to do some network analysis, something over which he’s ripping off his shirt with H17.

    ClimateBall at its finest.

  94. Willard Says:

    > One definition of premise is, “an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory.” In this sense, hypothesis is a synonym of premise. That is the definition I used when I said, “the very premise of the paper is absurd.”

    What you identify as a premise, i.e.

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    is actually the main claim of the paper, dear Thomas. That’s what H17 tries to support with its social network analysis.

    The main claim can’t be “the basis” of a paper in any logical sense. One does not simply support a claim with the very claim for which one needs support. Your interpretation amounts to say that what forms the basis for H17 is its main claim.

    Talk about absurdity.

    ***

    > I don’t know of any skeptic blog that claims Arctic sea-ice has not declined.

    The topic of the paper is not sea ice, dear ThomasB, but Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability:

    By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap.

    The two topics go hand in hand. Arctic sea-ice loss is an impact of AGW. Arctic sea-ice loss has an impact polar bear vulnerability.

    Furthermore, there’s no need to deny or minimize Arctic sea-ice loss to deny that Arctic sea-ice loss has an adverse impact on polar bears. (Cf. SusanC’s.) That being said, and contrary to your experience of the Contrarian Matrix, downplaying Arctic sea-ice loss is far from being uncommon, e.g.:

    Ice grew at 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month during October

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-expanding-faster-than-normal/

    Click on Tony’s tags for more of the same crap.

    Before indulging in yet another screed, it might be best if you could correct your misinterpretation of the notion of premise and your two logical mistakes based on separating a simple conjunction.

  95. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    “ClimateBall at its finest.” You named it. Then you killed it.

    Thank you for pointing out my error on Cook.

  96. Thomas Says:

    I suspect Thomas Fuller meant to say “Mann” not “Cook.”

    Willard keeps picking nits but ignores the core arguments that show the conclusions of the paper are logically invalid. This makes for a boring discussion.

    Polls show that most people believe in AGW but rank it low on their list of concerns. So the consensus seems to be for luke-warming and the authors, who think we’re heading for a thermo-geddo, are consensus deniers. : )

    This paper and many of the papers it cites are part of a concerted effort to win the AGW argument through propaganda-style PR campaigns and personal attacks on people who don’t agree with their alarmist views.

    The fact that scientists spend their time—and probably the people’s money—on writing propaganda attacks instead of on doing the actual science is disconcerting. They dream up a vast right-wing conspiracy, paying large sums of money (like $750 a month) to what they think are prostitute scientists, but ignore the fact that the governments spend billions of dollars per year to fund the scientists, and the public donates hundreds of million per year to organizations that promise to save the climate.

    The paychecks of most of the surveyed scientists probably depend mostly on government grants. Surveys of scientists are basically surveys of self-interested respondents. If scientists disagree with climate science, climate science funding might get cut. If climate funding gets cut, maybe their funding will be next.

    The only evidence that dangerous warming is coming is the climate models. All other arguments are just unwarranted, linear extrapolations of temperature trends. Models are also the source of the claim that most of the warming was is caused by humans.

    NOAA’s website under the caption of “Human Influences” states;

    “The close match between the [observed warming] and the [model realizations] over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.”

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php

    NASA and other government and activist climate websites make similar arguments, all based on models.

    How can they know the models have captured all the “natural factors?” They can’t know. They just claim they know and hope we believe them. There are many decadal and multi-decadal climate fluctuations that are so far unexplained. You can’t model a system that you can’t explain.

    The NOAA statement is the equivalent of saying, we programed a computer to show that human CO2 emissions caused most of the recent warming, therefore we know that human CO2 emissions caused the warming. This is illegal and unscientific. How did it get on a government science website? Politics.

  97. Thomas Says:

    Bart also says, in his blog post above,

    “our core finding: blogs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.”

    “Far removed” is probably a gross exaggeration and being far removed from the scientific literature is not evidence of being wrong.

    Happy New Year, Willard and Thomas!

  98. golf charlie Says:

    I think everyone agrees that there is no science in Harvey et al 2017, and it meets the approval of the Climate Science Consensus, whilst not saving a single Polar Bear.

    Weaponising Polar Bears has been a mistake from start to finish by the Consensus.

  99. Willard Says:

    > ignores the core arguments that show the conclusions of the paper are logically invalid.

    Having core arguments would indeed be a good idea, ThomasB, and handwaving to them without making any amounts to cheap and lazy ClimateBall. Portraying a conjunction as a disjunction (i.e. to segretate Arctic ice loss and polar bears) is more than a nit. Not only it indicates you appeal to concepts you barely master, but that there’s something quite wrong with your overall logic.

    Minimizing the impact of Arctic of sea ice loss on polar bear vulnerability presupposes that Arctic sea ice loss is a thing, or at least a possibility. Denying Arctic sea ice loss makes the connection between Arctic sea ice loss and polar bears irrelevant. In other words, Arctic sea ice loss is a premise you need to assume if you want to discuss its impact on polar bears. See how “premise” works? That has nothing to do with what precedes your screeds.

    No wonder that your last comment deflects to the final level of the Contrarian Matrix, just like Groundskeeper did before you:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/we-won/

    It’s really hard to win argument without one, ThomasB. Furiously handwaving doesn’t count. OTOH, it’s quite possible to veer into political weaponry. without any rational argument. Appealing to the last level of the Contrarian Matrix means you’re into political weaponry yourself. Own it.

    Happy New Year!

  100. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    The semantic content of every willard comment:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad

  101. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    You’re not making any sense. You just ramble on with disjointed, snarky comments, accusing me of things I am not guilty of.

    But you still refuse to engage on the actual issue!

    You wrote,”Having core arguments would indeed be a good idea, ThomasB, and handwaving to them without making any amounts to cheap and lazy ClimateBall.”

    And, “It’s really hard to win argument without one, ThomasB. Furiously handwaving doesn’t count.”

    I make several long posts that outline my argument in considerable detail. Either you’re not reading what I wrote, or you’re being dishonest by ignoring them.

    My arguments are:

    1. The “core finding” (Barts words) of the paper is that deniers are wrong because they don’t cite the core literature as often as the authors. Or, as Bart put it, they are, “far removed from the science.”

    This “appeal to authority” is bot unscientific and illogical. Not citing published literature as often as your opponent is not evidence one is wrong. I read somewhere that Einstein once published a famous paper that had no citations at all. It stood all on its own. (Note: This is an appealing to authority to show the absurdity of appealing to authority but I’ll leave it here anyway.)

    Therefore, the core finding of the paper is not evidence that skeptics are wrong or that advocates are right. It’s not evidence of anything of value. It’s a fact that makes no difference.

    2. The paper is rife with ad hominem attacks and such attacks have no place in a scientific paper. Even if one’s intellectual opponent eats babies that is not evidence that they are wrong on any given scientific position they take.

    This is a simple principle of logic. Most people are able to grasp it quickly. Personal attacks are often the last refuge of a loser. If you can’t win on the issues, attack the character of your opponent. Most people know this instinctively.

    Address my actual arguments or shut up. I’ve had enough of your childish, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

    If you continue with the snark, and continue to falsely accuse me, I’ll just ignore you as a kook who is incapable of engaging in a civilized, intellectual, discussion.

    You wrote, ” In other words, Arctic sea ice loss is a premise you need to assume if you want to discuss its impact on polar bears.”

    My arguments, as outlines above, have nothing to do with sea-ice loss or polar bears. The polar-bear authors could be correct, polar bears could be threatened by ice-loss. but my arguments still stand. The paper proves nothing of value, offers evidence of nothing of value, and engages in rude an unscientific ad hominem.

    If the advocates want to show the skeptics got the science wrong, they have to produce actual evidence. They did not do that in this paper

    You wrote, “No wonder that your last comment deflects to the final level of the Contrarian Matrix.”

    My last comment was elaboration, not deflection.

    You have offered nothing for me to deflect from. Like the paper, you haven’t given me one single fact that actually addresses my comments. Deflection is changing the subject in order to avoid have to address an argument. You’re the one doing that not me.

    It makes me wonder if you are not actually one of the authors of the paper. You use the same tactics.

    You deflect with what you seem to think is clever, intellectual banter but it’s really just perverse, dismissive, derogatory, ad hominem. None of your accusations are correct but even if they were they make no difference because they deflect, they don’t address my argument.

    You wrote, “Appealing to the last level of the Contrarian Matrix means you’re into political weaponry yourself. Own it.”

    Certainly. Happily. I can argue the science or the politics. I have no problem “owing” the political side of the debate.

    I predict that you will not be able to respond with even one post that actually addresses my arguments, and that does not include snide personal attacks or false accusations.

    If you can’t, I’ll take that as compelling evidence that you are indeed just a pseudo-intellectual kook.

    Happy 2018.

  102. Thomas Says:

    Oops. I missed Willard’s comment at 2:22.

    Maybe he did respond to my argument. I’ll read it and get back.

  103. Thomas Says:

    False alarm. I already read and responded to Willard at 2:22.

  104. golf charlie Says:

    Should Harvey et al 2017 be logged as psychology or philosophy?

    I wonder who had sufficient self confidence to Peer Review it, as “Scence”?

  105. Willard Says:

    ThomasB,

    Thank you for outlining what you call your “arguments.” If that’s all you have, then you have nothing much except pretentious screeds. Let’s see them in turn:

    Your first point is a strawman. The core findings of H17 is not that the Contrarian Matrix is wrong, but that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    It is possible to disregard overwhelming scientific evidence and be right. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, contrarian blogs can certainly be right from time to time. You yourself can be right even if you mostly wave your arms for the sake of more empty screeds.

    Disregarding the evidence is still disregarding the evidence. Bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC is still bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC.

    If that’s the “absurd premise” premise, the absurdity is all yours.

    ***

    Your second point irrelevant to H17’s main findings, which is about contrarian blogs, not SusanC. It is also untrue: not all ad hominem arguments are invalid. For instance, recalling that SusanC hasn’t produced any original research on polar bears is indeed relevant. It indicates that the Contrarian Matrix defers not to interpretations found in primary sources, but to interpretrations in secondary sources.

    If the scientists producing the papers are the interpreters, then SusanC is first and foremost an interpreter of interpretation. James Delingpole was therefore wrong: he’s not an interpreter of interpretations, but an interpreter of interpreter of interpretations. And the contrarian blogrings that would cite and comment on JamesD would be interpreter of interpreter of interpreter of interpretations.

    In our case, H17 found that 80% of the blogring surveyed were interpreters of one single interpreter of interpretations. That doesn’t make them wrong. That does make them interpreters of one single interpreter of interpretations.

    ***

    Whining about appeals to authority in a ClimateBall episode featuring one single interpreter of intertrations used as an authority in the Contrarian Matrix carries a delightful irony. It’s also a variation on your first strawman. So not only are you failing to master basic logical connectives like conjunction and implication, but you fail to master basic pragmatic arguments. Speaking of which, I’ll turn to your True Scotsman tomorrow. Stay tuned.

    Your two arguments are thus invalid.

    Better luck next time.

  106. Thomas Says:

    It wouldn’t pass a proper peer-review even if it were psychology or philosophy. Both disciplines still require basic logic.

    In yet another explanation of the central point of this paper, Bart writes in this blog post,

    “All the criticism on the PCA and the details of how data were analyzed misses the forest for the trees: there is a clear distinction between blogs, where the group that accepts AGW appears to base their claims on peer-reviewed science, and the group that doesn’t accept AGW does not.”

    Missing the forest for the trees is “an expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole.”

    It is the authors who are guilty of failing to look at the big picture. Showing that some bloggers don’t quote literature as often as other bloggers is not evidence of the validity of either position.

    If you want to show the skeptic bloggers are wrong, you have to actually show how and where they got it wrong. You have to show data that contradicts them. Maybe they have don’t that in the polar-bear papers but they certainly have not done that with this paper.

    Can’t wait to see if Willard can actually address my arguments without being rude and disrespectful.

    I’m like a child before Christmas!

  107. Willard Says:

    After whining about “intellectual garbage” and “hatch jobs” in BartV’s house, ThomasB plays the tone police. He also editorialize about “basic logic” when he can’t even get his own logic straight. That’s just great.

    ThomasB’s argument have been addressed. His first one is a strawman. His second is a red herring.

    We can nevertheless generalize his counterfactual strawman. If you want to show that someone’s wrong, you have to show that person is wrong. The inverse also holds: if you don’t want to show that someone’s wrong, you don’t have to show that that person is wrong either.

    Since H17’s wants to show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability, all you need to show is that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    It’s hard to get more “basic logic” than A implies A. Let’s hope Thomas gets that “basic logic” right this time.

  108. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

    How were the 90 candidate blogs selected?

  109. Willard Says:

    Groundskeeper rips off his shirt again.

    When will he acknowledge that he has put words into my mouth about Tony’s?

  110. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad. Kinda of a one-note Johnny, aren’t you?

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

  111. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    Thank you for trying. I do appreciate the effort. You were unable to avoid the inventive but that’s okay, I have thick skin.

    You wrote, “After whining about “intellectual garbage” and “hatch[et] jobs” in BartV’s house.”

    BartV made these claims in “his house.” Should I dispute them on Mars?

    You also wrote, “Your first point is a strawman. The core findings of H17 is not that the Contrarian Matrix [ad hominem] is wrong, but that blogs that deny or downplay AGW, disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    My argument is not a strawman but you have correctly captured the “core finding” of the paper. The problem is that this core finding tells us nothing of value. It does not inform the debate one way or the other. The authors would have to actually show evidence that the skeptics got it wrong; but they don’t.

    You wrote, “It is possible to disregard overwhelming scientific evidence and be right. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, contrarian blogs can certainly be right from time to time.”

    Your clock analogy is clever but it fails. “Overwhelming scientific evidence” is not “overwhelming” just because you, or anyone else, says it is. Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It doesn’t matter how authoritative you think the authority is.

    To disprove an argument, you have to actually give evidence that disproves it. Simply saying “authority says you’re wrong” is not enough.

    You wrote,”Bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC is still bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC.?

    I had to Google “lichurchur” to understand that in German it means “establish church,” i.e. the religion that is the established religion of a state. It is true that I am guilty of bypassing the decrees of your state-sanctioned church. Me and Abraham, and Jesus, and Martin Luther are all guilty of that. (Did I forget anyone? Maybe Nostradamus?)

    But so what? There is no scientific argument there. Religion is religion, received wisdom is received wisdom, and scientific evidence is scientific evidence. I don’t see any scientific evidence.

    You wrote, “Not all ad hominem arguments are invalid. For instance, recalling that SusanC hasn’t produced any original research on polar bears is indeed relevant.”

    Willard. Come on man, I know you are smarter than this.

    That Susan C has published no original research on polar bears is totally irrelevant to whether she is right or wrong. Your point is a point that lacks a point. It’s just another illogical appeal to authority.

    Anyway, Susan Crockford’s research could be a crock of … well, “ford,” but it still wouldn’t make any difference to my argument.

    Also, if one wants to show Crockford got it wrong, one has to offer some actual evidence showing that Crokford got it wrong. This paper does not do that.

    You wrote, “Whining about appeals to authority in a ClimateBall episode [ad hominem] featuring one single interpreter of intertrations [sic] used as an authority in the Contrarian Matrix [ad hominem] carries a delightful irony. It’s also a variation on your first strawman [which was not a strawman]. So not only are you failing to master basic logical connectives like conjunction and implication, but you fail to master basic pragmatic arguments?

    (“ClimateBall” is a clever turn of phrase, even somewhat amusing, but save it for your friends. This in an intellectual discussion. You win or lose based only on valid argument, not name calling.)

    You obfuscate with convoluted language about logic. And your clock analogy fails. Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. Ad hominem is ad hominem. Period.

    If you want to show your opponent is wrong, you have to offer some evidence indicating they are actually wrong, not just twisted language about what is and what is, or is not, logic. We do not need to discuss logical “connectives” and “conjunctions” to recognize appeal to authority and ad hominem.

    I do realize that you may be posting in a language that is not your native language, so I’ll give you another shot at this point if you think it will help.

    This reminds me of an old pilot’s anecdote. A German pilot, flying for Lufthansa, is lading at Hannover and responds to the tower in German. The tower reminds him that english is the appropriate language for air traffic communication. The pilot says, “Ich bin ein deutscher Pilot, deutsche Flugzeuglandung, deutsches Feld, warum sollte ich Englisch sprechen?” (I don’t speak German, I just Google it.)

    A British pilot on the same frequency says, in perfect Queen’s English, “because you lost the war, mate.”

    Of course the English pilot was displaying unwarranted arrogance;. They probably would have lost without us Americans. I don’t mean to imply that Americans are in any way physically or intellectually superior to Germans. Schwarzenegger and Einstein both spoke German, but I would prefer not to spar with either.

    You wrote, “Since H17’s wants to show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability, all you need to show is that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    Here we go again … You can lead a Willard to logic but you can’t make him drink. (It’s an American proverb. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.) Is there a similar proverb in Dutch or German?

    If the entire point of the paper is—as you say, and as I agree—that the skeptics don’t cite to the advocate literature, then it reaches a conclusion that tells us nothing.

    You wrote, “The inverse also holds: if you don’t want to show that someone’s wrong, you don’t have to show that that person is wrong either.?

    I’m not sure I understand the point you are trying to make (maybe due to the German double negative?) but if you mean to ask if I have an obligation to show that the paper in question is wrong, the answer is no.

    First because the paper makes a claim that makes no difference—even if it right, it’s wrong— and second the burden of proof is on the person/group who proposes the theory, not the audience.

    The authors have to prove their point, I have no obligation to show they are wrong. This is due to the fact that it is usually not possible to prove a negative. I can’t prove I didn’t sneak into your house last night and steal your car keys, even though we both know it was the house troll. I could show photographic evidence that I was sleeping in my bed all night, but you can just say it was someone who looked like me, or it was taken the night before … I trust you take my point.

    Advocates often refer to “overwhelming scientific evidence” or even worse, in the words of the great cartoonist John Cook, “a vast body of evidence.”

    This language avoids any specific point of evidence, thus making counter argument impossible. It’s a sweeping generality and it’s not possible to argue against a sweeping generality with anything other than a sweeping generality. But I won’t go there.

    Happy second day of 2018, old friend.

    Sorry for the way-to-long post.

  112. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard

    Came back to this blog to find you still blathering on, still raising the same old questions that have already been addressed. However two oldies but goodies are brought up again.

    1. That the core finding of H17 is that “blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.” Unfortunately I don’t know of any blogs that deny summer Arctic sea-ice loss (they may dispute its cause) and Harvey et al.17 fails to present any scientific evidence at all that polar bears are more vulnerable (if fact scientific evidence of any kind is conspicuously lacking).

    2. “deferring to SusanC is still bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC.” and later “recalling that SusanC hasn’t produced any original research on polar bears is indeed relevant. It indicates that the Contrarian Matrix defers not to interpretations found in primary sources, but to interpretrations in secondary sources.
    This merely propagates the calumny that Dr Crockford’s work has no value, especially when compared with that of published polar bear experts. This ignores worthy material within her blog, and the fact that she writes in a scientific style, documenting any assertions with references, commonly those of her “expert” detractors. This is probably very galling. There has been no reasonable counter to her interpretations in this paper or any other. Furthermore, her interpretations she acknowledges are those formerly held by the “experts, before they took the AGW shilling. Also very galling.

    If the intent of Harvey et al17 was to shut SusanC up, it has failed spectacularly.

    If your intent was to win an argument, you are failing spectacularly.

  113. Willard Says:

    As promised, a note on ThomasB’s true Scotsman:

    [T]he real premise of the paper is probably the relationship shown in figure 2.

    As far as the usage of “premise” goes, it’s less silly than to identify “the main conclusion of the paper” as a premise. It’s still odd, as an argument usually stands on more than “one” premise, and scientific results are usually not premises.

    In any case, the “relationship” showed by figure 2 is between contrarian statements and SusanC citations. As the authors observe:

    Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by [SusanC], as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears.

    This “relationship” is thus not exactly what H17 shows, i.e. that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. While deferring to SusanC is a common ingredient in the Contrarian Matrix’ recipe, it’s not an essential one. At least 20% of the contrarian blogs does not cite SusanC at all. Groundskeeper rediscovered two already: our Beloved Bishop’s and Jennifer’s.

    Deferring to a single source is indeed odd, but that oddity isn’t the main point of H17.

    ***

    ThomasB’s true Scotsman switches from H17’s conclusion to its figure 2. The two are connected, but they’re not the same. H17 is about the fact that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability, while figure 2 shows a correlation between that fact and SusanC’s citations.

    Why the “true Scotsman,” one may ask? Because ThomasB executed a similar ClimateBall move as in the No True Scotsman fallacy:

    No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    Instead of correcting his idiosyncratic “premise,” ThomasB doubled down with an ad hoc bait and switch. Not only ThomasB can’t admit silly mistakes, he can’t shoot straight. In fairness, figure 2 is a better target to introduce his misconceptions about ad hominem and appeals to authority.

    We’ll turn later to these two misconceptions, since his two arguments rest on them.

  114. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

    Which blogs denied the overwhelming evidence of Arctic sea ice loss?

    ‘clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon…’

  115. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    You’re confusing the two definitions of premise. My dictionary defines the word as follows.

    premise | ˈpreməs |
    noun

    1. Logic; a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion: if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true.

    2. An assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory: the fundamental premise of the report.

    I was using the second definition when I wrote, “the very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd.” In fact my sentence is almost identical to the example sentence from the dictionary.

    You’re making a fool of yourself by continuing to argue this point. You assumed the wrong definition, get over it and move on.

    You wrote, “In any case, the “relationship” showed by figure 2 is between contrarian statements and SusanC citations.”

    But the caption says, “Principle component analysis of scores for six statements, three about Arctic ice and three about about polar bears, and citations of Susan Crockford.”

    The diagram shows all of these elements, not just citations to Crockford.

    You wrote, “ThomasB’s true Scotsman switches from H17’s conclusion to its figure 2.”

    Oh knock it off already. I switched because you told me to switch!

    Furthermore, it makes no difference to my argument or to this discussion. All the different versions of the “conclusion” or “premise” or “main point” or whatever you want to call them are illogical. They are appeal to authority and thinly veiled ad hominem.

    You wrote, “Not only ThomasB can’t admit silly mistakes, he can’t shoot straight.” You’re going to have to retract that because you have not shown any instance of a mistake or a failure to shoot straight.

    Actually, I did make a mistake in understanding one statement you made. You wrote,”If you want to show that someone’s wrong, you have to show that person is wrong. The inverse also holds: if you don’t want to show that someone’s wrong, you don’t have to show that that person is wrong either.”

    I misunderstood that as an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Your statement is correct and the grammar is fine. Excuse me for misunderstanding it.

    However, the argument is wrong because the point of the paper was to show that, “Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences.” (Quoted from the abstract.)

    So your contention that the paper does not seek to show that deniers are wrong is wrong.

    You accuse me of error but you are the serial offender who has never once admitted to, much less apologized for, any of your numerous mistakes and misplaced accusations.

    1. You assumed I was using a different definition of premise than I was actually using.

    2. You refused to shut up about it even though I told you the correct definition, days ago, and even though it doesn’t make any difference to my argument or this discussion.

    3. You accused me of not quoting what the premise was, but I had actually quoted it twice.

    4. You accused me of bait and switch but it was you who told me to switch and it makes no difference to the discussion or my arguments. The two points (three actually) all say essentially the same thing.

    5. You have so far been unable to grasp the simple concept of appeal to authority.

    6. You have so far been unable to grasp the simple concept of ad hominem. In fact you deploy it with wild abandon.

    7. You claimed, incorrectly, that the paper does not try to show the denier blogs are wrong.

    Your arguments in defense of the paper are illogical, mostly just unjustified personal attacks on me, and they fail to actually address my arguments.

    By the way, what does the word “lichurchur” mean? If I google it I mostly get a lot of comments from you on other blogs and one page that says it means “the true church.” Google translator thinks it’s Esperanto but can’t translate it. Is it just a misspelling of literature? Is it a clever pun that I’m missing out on?

    Both the paper and your defense of the paper are intellectual garbage.

    You and the authors should stop trying to break science.

  116. Willard Says:

    > You assumed the wrong definition […]

    I already quoted the definition you gave me:

    > One definition of premise is, “an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory.” In this sense, hypothesis is a synonym of premise. That is the definition I used when I said, “the very premise of the paper is absurd.”

    What you identify as a premise, i.e.

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    is actually the main claim of the paper, dear Thomas. That’s what H17 tries to support with its social network analysis.

    The main claim can’t be “the basis” of a paper in any logical sense. One does not simply support a claim with the very claim for which one needs support. Your interpretation amounts to say that what forms the basis for H17 is its main claim.

    Talk about absurdity.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39871

    Your claim that I assume the wrong definition is thus false.

    ***

    The main claim of an academic work is also called a thesis. A thesis is not an assertion that forms the basis for a work or theory. Neither is it a hypothesis. If your claim that “premise” and “hypothesis” are synonym, then either “thesis” is a synonym of “hypothesis” or there’s something wrong with your identification of a thesis as a premise.

    I duly submit that your first reading of the concept of “basis” was incorrect at first. This explains your ad hoc reidentification of what you still call the “premise” of H17.

  117. Willard Says:

    > Which blogs denied the overwhelming evidence of Arctic sea ice loss?

    Groundskeeper is ripping off his shirt for more than a month now and he still hasn’t looked.

    When will he acknowledge that Arctic sea ice loss needs to be at the very least assumed to discuss its impact on polar bears?

  118. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Again Mr. 4-legs-good, 2-legs-bad, you quote the paper as “[W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    Which blogs disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss?

  119. Willard Says:

    Which part of “and” Groundskeeper does not get?

    ***

    As for “lichurchur,” our “old friend” must be new to the auditing sciences.

  120. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Goodness Willi are you an auditor? The combination of being an auditor and a pedant must drive people crazy.
    You could be a secret weapon. I am reminded of the Monty Python (?) skit about the world’s deadliest joke which had to be translated into german word by word, least the translators succumb. A lot of your posts are like that.

    Any chance of a response to my Jan 2: 21.28 post? I’m a glutton for punishment.

  121. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard

    “Which part of “and” Groundskeeper does not get?” And you have pretentious to be logical!

    When Tom asks “Which blogs disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss?” he might as well be asking the full question – which blogs disregard both ice loss as well as bear vulnerability? There must be very few that deny both, which is his point.

    Did you advise Clinton upon the logical havoc he could cause by illogically questioning what “is” is?

  122. Richard S J Tol Says:

    While we’re waiting for Harvey to release all data, Crockford has tried to reconstruct their sample of peer-reviewed papers. The results are over on her blog. She shows what we suspected: Theirs is not an objective or representative sample of the literature. It is a convenience sample.

    If you strip away the statistical nonsense of Harvey, you are left with an argument from authority: Everybody agrees with us.

    Crockford shows that what Harvey really says is: Everybody who agrees with us, agrees with us.

  123. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Which part of ‘the moon is made of green cheese and the world is round’ do thinking people deny?

  124. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas,

    I removed your last comment. Please review the comment policy (https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/comment-policy/) to understand why.
    Specifically, please refrain from derogatory language. and endless repetitions. If you made your point, don’t keep repeating it without bringing extra information or arguments to the table. It’s okay to agree to disagree.

  125. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Bart. I regret your removal of Thomas’s last post. It was powerful, the output of someone frustrated by constant prevarication, obfuscation and failure to discuss the issue. It also issued a challange to those involved in Harvey et al.17 (including you) to debate, and a prediction that no-one would.
    Please also remove my earlier post praising your blogsite. I was mistaken, you don’t deserve it.

  126. Richard S J Tol Says:

    Bart: As you are back and in the removal business now, please retract your statement that I have in any shape or form validated your paper.

  127. golf charlie Says:

    Bart Verheggen, I did not see the post you removed, but presume you did so, correctly, in accordance with the Rules of Your Blog.

    Are you still satisfied with the statistical basis of Harvey et al 2017?

  128. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad, thank you for the link. The site didn’t open when I linked from Harvey et al.

    I note that Bishop Hill is listed as ‘no’ for ice_decline.

    In September of 2014 the site agrees with Gavin Schmidt that Peter Wadham’s prediction of an ice free arctic between 2015 and 2020 is not very serious. Is that the reason for the classification?

    I ask because the site explicitly accepts sea ice decline in a post dated April 2013. “A few months back, cryosphere expert Mark Brandon and I had an exchange on Twitter in which he noted the long – presumably temperature related – decline in Arctic sea ice and how this trend had been exacerbated by sharper falls in 2007 (due to changes in currents) and last year (due to a major storm).”

    I note that in September 2012 they agree with NASA on the effects of a cyclone breaking up Arctic ice.

    In April of 2014 they explicitly acknowledge the decline of Arctic sea ice but post that “a significant chunk of the variability seems to be entirely natural.” Do you or does anybody sane consider that a denial of Arctic sea ice loss?

    The search term I used on the BH site was ‘Arctic.’ It returned 13 posts and numerous comments. I did not see in any of the posts language that indicted that Bishop Hill denied arctic sea ice loss.

    Can someone explain why the site is listed as a ‘no’ for the column ice_decline?

  129. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    I note that Donna Framboise’s blog ‘No Frakking Consensus’ is also listed as a ‘no’ in the column ice_decline.

    In March of 2013 Framboise criticizes Paul Beckwith for a number of reasons, among them his statement “For the record; I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.” Is this the reason the site is listed as a ‘no’ for ice_decline? I note that nowhere in the post does Framboise deny that sea ice is declining.

    In December of 2010 Framboise wrote “News reports from the 1970s said ocean temperatures were dropping, polar ice was growing, and the coldest temperatures in 200 years were being recorded at the Arctic Circle. We were told be worried. Very worried.” Would anybody sane think that constitutes denial that sea ice is declining today?

    Those were the only posts talking primarily of sea ice found on a search for ‘Arctic’ on No Frakking Consensus. On what basis was the website listed as a ‘no’ for ice_decline?

  130. golf charlie Says:

    “Most scientific articles as well as science-based blogs assess Arctic sea ice extent to be shrinking and polar bears to be threatened as a result, …”

    Is the sea ice considered to have shrunk over the last ten years, and has it resulted in a threat to polar bears?

  131. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    I would like to know (if you know, Bart) if a weblog that freely acknowledges that Arctic sea ice has declined but agrees with the International Union for Conservation of Nature that the species in not ‘endangered’ but is ‘vulnerable’ is considered a ‘denier’ blog as a result.

    Bart, I have noted a number of things on this post that I believe need clarification, If I were to drag salient points into one comment as a summary would you be willing to address them?

    Thanks

  132. Thomas Says:

    Hello Bart,

    I admit that some of my language was impolite. Please forgive me for letting my frustration get the better of me.

    However, with regard to your claim of reception, since you allow Willard to repeatedly attack me, on issues that make no difference, and to accuse me of things I didn’t do, you should also allow me to continue to defend myself. Fair is fair.

    You chose to promote and defend your paper on this public blog. You invited criticism when you wrote, “If some people think that our conclusion is wildly wrong, then they could at least show some evidence to prove their point, right?”

    I have produced the evidence that the paper is wrong on it’s face because it’s based on a logical fallacy. Even if the data and the statistical work are correct, the paper is still wrong.

    You and the other authors, at least one of whom also posted here, have ignore this fact. Perhaps hoping it will just go away.

    The abstract of the paper accuses skeptics of spreading false information. To quote “Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences.”

    Your blog post states: “What is striking though, is that amidst all the criticism nobody has challenged our core finding: blogs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.”

    Your “core finding” does’t not support the claim that skeptical blogs are spreading misinformation. The finding is based on a logical fallacy and is therefore wrong and meaningless. The paper gives no evidence that skeptical blogs have spread false information because being “far removed from the literature” is not evidence of being misinformed.

    If you want to show the skeptic blogs are wrong you have to actually introduce evidence that they are wrong. This paper does not do that.

    The paper is also full of ad hominem, which has no place in the scientific literature.

  133. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Tom,

    The SI provides the answer to your question:

    “Blogs were assigned ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ categories on the basis of their positions taken relative to those
    drawn by the IPCC on global warming (e.g. whether it is warming or not and the anthropogenic contribution).”

    I.e. blogs were not assigned to those groups based on their views on Arctic sea ice or polar bears.

    If you want clarification on certain points regarding this post and put that in a concise comment I’ll try to respond.

  134. Richard S J Tol Says:

    Bart: The SI is incomplete. It gives two examples. Matt Ridley and Bjonrn Lomborg agree with the IPCC on these matters, yet are labelled “denier”.

    Please release the full data, so that issues like this can be resolved.

  135. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    I will add that the Harvey study has obvious flaws,

    The sole defense of the quality of the study is that Only the pre-approved list of experts can be correct – (with no support showing that the are actually correct. )

    The secondary point and the broader point is when participate is studies of such low quality (on the easy stuff), How are we to judge the quality of their work on the more complex stuff.

    Why would a scientist of high professional standards want to discredit the quality of work and develop the reputation of shoddy work if his other work is of high quality?

  136. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    In response to the list of non consensus blogs
    Powerline.com was listed as a non consensus blog – yet they are a political blog that rarely comments on Climate science and then only when one of the activists publishes an implausible study deemed by the activists to be high quality.

  137. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    Bart – This study lost considerable credibility when Jeff Harvey, The study’s lead authors cited Paul Ehrlich as a credible scientist with his response at Skeptical science regarding the study – see his comment at # 28

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bear-science-vs-blogosphere.html

  138. Willard Says:

    > Your “core finding” does’t not support the claim that [contrarian] blogs are spreading misinformation.

    H17’s core finding is supposed to support its main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    H17 doesn’t need to show that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation. It’s common knowledge:

    Although science-based and science-denier blogs may draw on similar examples, they frame their claims differently. For example, scientific blogs provide context and associated evidence, whereas denier blogs often remove context or misinterpret examples. Frame analysis reveals how communicators present messages to audiences with the intention of influencing how the content is ultimately interpreted (Nisbet 2014). The same frame can be presented in both negative and positive ways, depending on the types of evidence and claims that a writer or speaker makes (Balgopal et al. 2017). Although frame analysis sometimes focuses on the dynamic process through which ideas are developed (Vliegenthart and van Zoonen 2011), the examination of blogs requires a focus on the written communication strategies used (Druckman 2001). Most importantly, any topic can be framed in exactly the way a communicator desires if it is not presented objectively, honestly, and with context.

    One could say that the fact that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation is a premise of the paper. This premise supports H17’s conclusion, not the other way around. It forms a basis that motivates doing H17 in the first place. (That’s one meaning of premise.)

    Another assumption of H17 is that disregarding overwhelming scientific evidence and downplaying the impact of AGW on Arctic sea-ice and/or polar bear vulnerability amounts to misrepresentation, This assumption rests on basic semantics. Again, it supports H17’s main conclusion, not the other way around.

    Due diligence to ThomasB’s idiosyncractic usage of “premise” finally pays off.

  139. Thomas Says:

    In my last post I wrote “However, with regard to your claim of reception,” I meant to write, “claim of repetition,”

    Auto-type is my worst enema. : )

    Willard continues his repetitive and immaterial argument that I misused the word “premise.” I’ll just say that Willard is wrong for all the reasons I previously gave.

    In the post that Bart deleted, I challenged the authors, by name, to opine as to why they think their paper is not based on a logical fallacy. I also predicted that no one would take that challenge.

    Bart responded by deleting the post.

    If the authors can’t or won’t defend their paper against a claim that it’s conclusions are fundamentally illogical, I think we can assume they agree, but lack the moral fortitude to actually admit it.

  140. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    I posted my last one before reading yours.

    My usage of the word premise agrees with the dictionary definition that I gave you. It’s not an “idiosyncratic” usage. But this is a pointless discussion anyway—it makes no difference to the actual argument. You only brought it up to try to make me look foolish. That didn’t work.

    Move on. We’re supposed to avoid needless repetition.

    You wrote, “H17 doesn’t need to show that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation. It’s common knowledge:”

    So your argument is, “skeptical blogs spread misinformation, and everyone knows it?”

    “Everyone knows” is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. And, if everyone already knows it, why write a paper about it and do a bunch of complex statistics?

    The evidence that supports your argument is appeal to authority and some opinions that they skeptics don’t frame arguments properly. Neither is evidence that the skeptics are wrong. If you can’t show they’re wrong, you can’t show they are spreading misinformation.

    You wrote,

    “H17’s core finding is supposed to support its main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    Nothing more, nothing less.”

    Even it it’s true, the claim tells us nothing of value. It doesn’t offer any evidence about who is right an who is wrong.

    It’s intended to make the reader conclude that skeptics are wrong because they don’t agree with the “overwhelming scientific evidence.” But they offer no such overwhelming evidence and the reader has to commit the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority to have the statement take on any meaning.

    You wrote,

    “One could say that the fact that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation is a premise of the paper. This premise supports H17’s conclusion, not the other way around. It forms a basis that motivates doing H17 in the first place. (That’s one meaning of premise.)

    Oh gosh. Another definition of premise, and this one from Hollywood!

    I don’t know about Hollywood, but in logic we start with a premise, review the available evidence, and form a conclusion. A premise does not support a conclusion. It has to be the other way around.

    Your logic is so illogical that it’s painful to read.

  141. Willard Says:

    > If the authors can’t or won’t defend their paper against a claim that it’s conclusions are fundamentally illogical, I think we can assume they agree, but lack the moral fortitude to actually admit it.

    A sounder assumption is that the authors may not bother to respond to ThomasB’s spitballs.

    The latest iteration of his proof by assertion contains many misrepresentations:

    The paper gives no evidence that [the Contrarian Matrix] spread false information because being “far removed from the literature” is not evidence of being misinformed.

    First, misinforming is not exactly the same thing as being misinformed. That SusanC misinforms doesn’t imply that she’s being misinformed. Quite the opposite, otherwise the Heartland Institute and the GWPF would not pay for her services, and the Contrarian Matrix may not have made her its Arctic Champion.

    Second, to spread misinformation is quite different than to spread false information. As my last quote of my last comment starts,Although science-based and science-denier blogs may draw on similar examples, they frame their claims differently. Misinformation is a matter of framing first and foremost. This is why H17’s main point mentions disregarding the overwhelming scientific evidence.

    Third, H17 does provide a review of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. See the first paragraph of the section entitled Arctic ice extent and polar bears are proxies for AGW denial. The Contrarian Matrix, in large part via its Arctic Champion, is spreading misinformation about that evidence.

    These misrepresentations allow ThomasB to burden the authors of H17 with a proof they don’t need to bear. The main claim of H17 doesn’t rest on establishing the truth of the scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. That would require another kind of paper altogether.

    To expect that kind of proof out a of a mere social network analysis goes beyond the limits of justified disingenuousness.

  142. Willard Says:

    > Even it it’s true, the claim tells us nothing of value. It doesn’t offer any evidence about who is right an who is wrong.

    Even if that was true, it wouldn’t imply that H17’s main point is invalid. ThomasB’s argument therefore switch from a non sequitur to a “who cares?” according to his whim.

    By ThomasB’s creative logic, unless a paper offers any evidence about who is right and who is wrong, it tells us nothing of value. Reading another of the the paper’s premises suffices to disprove that:

    Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are also a prominent focus of blogs in the debate over AGW and its biological effects. Because polar bears depend on a habitat that literally melts as temperatures rise, these animals are iconic symbols of the negative effects of AGW (Manzo 2010). At the same time, many denier blogs pay little or no attention to the volumes of physical evidence for AGW and the empirical biological and ecological evidence of its effects (Nisbet 2014). Because this evidence is so overwhelming, it would be virtually impossible to debunk; the main strategy of denier blogs is therefore to focus on topics that are showy and in which it is therefore easy to generate public interest. These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

    ThomasB’s haslitudes indicate that his empty assertions are offered more as a proxy for some fight for freedom than as constructive criticism.

  143. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad! Judge that validity, Judy!

  144. Steven Mosher Says:

    I read the ‘D’ blogs.
    I read the Science blogs.

    I expect to find an effin difference.
    I’d be shocked not to find an effin difference.
    the D blogs exist for the very purpose of criticizing the “S” blogs and trying to make differences.

    Bart

    ‘Do you think that contrarian blogs (blogs that don’t agree with the IPCC re human induced global warming) are conveying the peer-reviewed literature correctly when it comes to Arctic sea ice and polar bears?”

    in other words are the folks who dont agree with the IPCC disagreeing with the papers IPCC approves of?

    Duh.

    Can I be a co author on the next blockbuster tautology.

  145. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    Oh my. Yet more of the same!

    You wrote, “A sounder assumption is that the authors may not bother to respond to ThomasB’s spitballs.?

    Mine is a valid argument that deserves consideration. I guess they are afraid because they stay silent, except to remove my posts.

    But send keep sending in the their little blog-bot Willard. So I must be making some progress. It’s tragic to have to watch their little drone cut down in a withering fire of logic. Truly tragic. But a logical man’s gotta to what a man’s gotta do.

    But were is the sound argument? Where the actual engagement?

    Hither? Thither? Wither?

    Nither, me thinks.

    Who pays whom is not evidences of right or wrong. Never was. Not even in Narnia.

    Logic dictates; Willard doesn’t even take notes. : )

    You wrote, “These misrepresentations allow ThomasB to burden the authors of H17 with a proof they don’t need to bear. The main claim of H17 doesn’t rest on establishing the truth of the scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. That would require another kind of paper altogether.”

    EXACTLY! You have made my point most eloquently, good sir.

    (But it’s a bit weird that you keep using my language. “Burden of proof.” Really? You adopt it like you’ve been stalking my brain. Same with other phraseology. It’s creepy. Can you not come up with something original?)

    But, yes. If you want to show that the lovely and intelligent Ms. Susan, and the skeptic bloggers, are wrong, you do have to actually offer some convincing evidence they are wrong. Handwaving (you stole that too), illogical argument are not enough.

    (Really, Willard. I don’t borrow your “rips his shirt off” phraseology. Although I admit I have no idea what it actually means.)

    You wrote, “By ThomasB’s creative logic, unless a paper offers any evidence about who is right and who is wrong, it tells us nothing of value. Reading another of the the paper’s premises suffices to disprove that.”

    No, Willard it doesn’t. A premise is not a proof. And “keystone dominos” are a figment of over active imaginations. One has to offer actual evidence. Not rhetorical dominoes, even if they’re “keystones.”

    If you want to show that the lovely and intelligent Ms. Susan, and the sceptic bloggers, are wrong, you do have to actually offer some convincing evidence they are wrong. You have to attack their actual arguments with counter arguments that convince.

    Mere innuendo and unsubstantiated claims are not sufficient. They’re not real science.

    Your argument, and the paper’s conclusions, “literally melt” (so poetic!) in the face of garden variety, every day, common-man, kindergartener, plebeian logic.

    They just melt. Like a snowflake on my not insubstantial nose.

    Poof. Gone!

    You wrote, “ThomasB’s haslitudes indicate that his empty assertions are offered more as a proxy for some fight for freedom than as constructive criticism.”

    What the @#$! are haslittudes? Something that extrudes from David Hasselhoff’s butt? Okay, please don’t elaborate.

    I looked at the link for like two seconds and concluded it was something I really don’t need to know about. Princes, triangles, and some other rubbish.

    And “fight for freedom?” I admit it. I didn’t even go there. Why bother? If you only argue by hyperlink, I think I have not obligation to engage.

    The paper is based on no data and two logical fallacies; therefore it’s thrice wrong. Your arguments are based on two or three additional fallacies; therefore five or six times wrong.

    Willard, you kooky little mann-bot, who programs you? Who gives you your marching orders, your silly little arguments? Prey tell.

    Consider this: No other branch of science publishes papers that depend on authority, ad hominem, or surveys of “experts” to try (but fail) to prove the “consensus.”

    Medical journal don’t publish, “97% of doctors believe x.” Tooth paste commercials do. Medical journals don’t.

    Physics journals don’t publish papers that allege one string theory is right because the other is mentioned only in blog posts and does’t cite the literature of the others.

    What does that tell us about climate science? It tells us the science is sick.

    Please stop trying to break science.

    We might still need it.

    – T

  146. Thomas Says:

    It’s a Christmas miracle!

    Never in a thousand years would I have thought it possible that Steve Mosher and I would agree on something.

    But, Steve, it’s not just a tautology (saying the same thing twice), it’s a logical fallacy. Or two.

    Or five or six, if we count the Willard bot.

    Anyway, nice to see you Steve.

  147. Willard Says:

    > You have made my point most eloquently, good sir.

    And that point is independent from H17’s thesis.

    ThomasB is thus burning a strawman.

    Onto his red herring tomorrow.

    ***

    > it’s not just a tautology (saying the same thing twice), it’s a logical fallacy.

    Contrarians don’t always spot tautologies, but when they do they’re fallacies.

    You. Can’t. Make. This. Up.

  148. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Thomas, I am reminded of Monty Python’s Holy Grail. You appear to be King Alfred and Williard the Black Knight. No matter how much you chop his “logic” apart he keeps coming back for more. The problem is (which you recognize) that you are expending your energies on the wrong person, someone who cannot give you the answers you seek.
    For what it’s worth I would ignore your Black Knight.

  149. Richard S J Tol Says:

    @Steve M
    I think you are too generous. I suspect that when the authors release the data (all, not some), we will find that the high-level tautology is “supported” by database construction that has that very tautology build into it.

  150. Willard Says:

    > No matter how much you chop his “logic” apart

    That’s some good choppin’ we got there:

    You have made my point most eloquently, good sir.

    As far as tautologies go, here’s one that counters Thomas’ main point: there’s no need to prove contrarians wrong to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. Showing that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence suffices.

    ***

    A common (i.e. Wittgensteinian) conception of basic logic is that all theorems are tautologies, i.e. they’re true under any interpretation. Armed with such a powerful tool, contrarians could deploy this ClimateBall double bind:

    [Bind 1 – Tautology!] Your conclusion follows from your results and your assumptions!

    [Bind 2 – Non sequitur!] Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your results and your assumptions!

    The two binds are mutually exclusive. Yet inconsistency is no big problem for contrarians, as they could share roles in setting up the double bing. Such precaution is unnecessary, as some are usually immune to logical consistency. Groundskeeper or Singer could switch from one to the other without batting an eye. Witness Thomas’ stellar performance:

    [T1] [H17’s premise, conclusion, or whatever] simplifies to, “the science-based blogs are correct because the science-based blogs are correct.”

    [T2] Not citing published literature as often as your opponent is not evidence one is wrong.

    (For the slow ones in the back, T1 is the tautology, and T2 is the non sequitur.)

    For his double bind to work, Thomas needs to reject the idea that showing that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence suffices to show it disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence.

    The secret ingredient in Thomas’ double bind is to caricature every appeal to authority as an ad verucundiam. Under that caricature, any appeal to authority is invalid. Since this caricature suffices to undermine the very practice of citing papers, this caricature has been rejected a long time ago by academic and scientific disciplines. Considering that the Contrarian Matrix has chosen SusanC has its Arctic Champion, it would be delightful if we’d take it back.

    The overwhelming scientific evidence is what it is. It can always be wrong or incorrect. When it can’t, it’s not science anymore. The onus is on the ones who dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence to provide evidence against it. There’s no need to add more to it to make use of it.

    Everyone is free to disregard overwhelming scientific evidence. Contraians are even free to disregard that evidence and then pretend not to disregard it. After all, the Contrarian Matrix isn’t constrained by logic.

  151. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hi Bart

    Okay, here’s a summary of points that I think need clarification to help readers understand Harvey et al 2017:

    1. What does your paper show that differentiates blogs that are skeptical of climate change from other blogs that focus on one issue?

    2. How were the initial 90 blogs selected?

    3. Harvey et al write, ” “Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. ” But I didn’t find any blogs that disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss. I also found precious little argumentation that the polar bear is not vulnerable. Indeed, Dr. Crockford accepts the IUCN classification of vulnerable, so I would imagine blogs linking to her would accept that. Can you please explain?

    4; Although Watts Up With That is not part of the 80% of con-AGW blogs that predominantly cite Dr. Susan Crockford, the paper says “Prominent among blogs giving Crockford’s blog disproportionate attention are WUWT and CD, suggesting that her blog reaches a large audience.” (Nowhere do they define what they consider to be ‘proportionate’ or ‘disproportionate.). What is proportionate? Why do you label a ‘non-contra’ weblog as prominent among blogs giving Crockford disproportionate attention?

    5: Harvey et al state “The GWPF articles by Crockford claim that contrary to available scientific and empirical evidence, polar bears will easily adapt to any changes that Arctic ecosystems may experience in coming decades.” They cite as references for this two articles Crockford wrote for GWPF: Healthy Polar Bears, Less Than Healthy Science, 2014 and The Arctic Fallacy: Sea Ice Stability and the Polar Bear, 2015. She makes no such statement and no such claim. Both articles concentrate on the recent history of scientific discussion on polar bears and she nowhere in either article makes any claims or predictions about the ease of adaptation by polar bears to changes in Arctic ecosystems over any period of time, let alone coming decades. This statement in Harvey et al 2017 is false to fact.

    6. Harvey et al 2017 write “Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are common tactics employed by science-denier groups.” The term most used to evoke emotion in the climate discussion is ‘denier.’ Harvey et al 2017 use the word ‘denier’ 31 times in the text, and ‘denial’ in a similar context 15 times, including the quoted sentence. Bart, why would you criticize Dr. Crockford for emotional language while using a term that you know is a loaded and emotional term frequently used to associate opponents with dark chapters of human history? Alternatively, will you withdraw criticism of Dr. Crockford’s use of considerably more benign language?

    7. Harvey et al 2017 write, “The considerable influence that blogs exert on public opinion and decision-making should not be underestimated. Among users, trust for blogs has been reported to exceed that of other traditional news or information sources (Johnson and Kay 2004).” Their citation is to a paper written 14 years ago, when blogs were considerably more influential than they are today. A study by the Pew Research Center as cited by The Guardian showed that blogging declined by 50% between 2006 and 2010. Bart, this statement appears to in inaccurate. Will you investigate and correct if you find it appropriate?

    8. Harvey et al 2017 write, “These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.” Proponents of creationism and intelligent design use the same strategy.”

    No citation or supporting evidence is offered for this claim. Again, Harvey et al attempt to deligitimize their opponents by linking what Harvey et al assert (without evidence) is skeptic strategy to ‘creationism and intelligent design’.

    Bart, I criticize the consensus frequently. Did you mean to associate me with Creationism and/or Intelligent Design? Will you provide citations in support of the claim that ‘these topics are used as proxies for AGW in general… they represent keystone dominoes?

    9. Can you provide a key to the column headings for the data? I iinvestigated a number of skeptic weblogs that were recorded as ‘no’ for column 1, ice_decline. None of the blogs dispute ice decline. Was the ‘no’ meant to indicate that they believe there was no ice decline or that they reject the assumption?

    Thanks Bart!

  152. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    You’re not making any sense and you keep going around in circles.

    I did not say a tautology is a fallacy. I said the paper is a tautology AND based on fallacies. Once again, you accuse of making a mistake that is not a mistake.

    Obviously one Can. Make. This. Up. You just did.

    I guess you are saying (for the fifth time?) that it is a straw-man to say the paper is trying to show that skeptical bloggers are wrong. In other words, you think the paper does not seek to show that skeptics are wrong, only that they hold different views from advocates.

    Mosher called that a tautology. I called it absurdly obvious—yes, people who hold different views can be shown to hold different views.

    But the paper actually attacks skeptics more directly than you or Mosher are willing to admit. The abstract of the paper states, “Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap [a gap the authors think is bad] by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences.”

    It’s not possible for a blog to present the truth and to also foment “misunderstanding.” To instigate incorrect understandings, one has to provide misinformation, which means one has to be wrong.

    The paper commits the fallacy of appeal to authority by offering the fact, if it is a fact, that skeptics are “far removed from the science” (Bart’s words) as evidence that the skeptics are wrong.

    It’s astonishing that you can’t or won’t grasp these simple explanations. It’s bizarre how you keep cycling through the same, factually wrong and logically twisted arguments, over and over again.

    You never admit to having made mistake, even when your errors are obvious You arrogantly assert the truth of things that you have not demonstrated and you repeatedly insult me by saying I said things that I didn’t actually say.

    This is the conduct of a pathological, narcissist.

    You aren’t just kooky. You’re a kooky monster.

  153. Willard Says:

    > I did not say a tautology is a fallacy.

    Neither did I say Thomas did. What I said is that he identified a fallacious tautology. This follows from what he said a few hours ago:

    But, Steve, it’s not just a tautology (saying the same thing twice), it’s a logical fallacy. Or two.

    If H17 is a tautology AND a logical fallacy, then it’s a tautological fallacy, or a fallacious tautology.

    Yet again,Thomas is getting caught into the meaning of the AND connector.

    Quite an expert of “basic logic” we got there.

    ***

    > In other words, you think the paper does not seek to show that contrarian blogs] are wrong, only that they hold different views from [science-based blogs].

    Thomas introduces “seek” to squirrel his secondary argument about the ad hominem. This will have to wait.

    What I’m saying is that H17 only needs to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming evidence on sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. This doesn’t imply that the overwhelming evidence points toward an ultimate truth. Since the empirical sciences only produces defeasible knowledge, it doesn’t work like Thomas may presume.

    Thomas has nothing against that argument except to armwave to a possibilia: It’s not possible for a blog to present the truth and to also foment “misunderstanding. This possibilia is actually false. It is quite possible to present what eventually appears to be a true belief and yet fail to provide good enough justifications for it. For instance, Oracles do that all the time. Their problem is not that they’re false, but that they can always be interpreted as saying truths. It is also possible to present a justified true belief that is not knowledge, but H17 isn’t about Getter cases.

    We could argue that the Contrarian Matrix is never wrong, but that’ll have to wait for a blog post I am planning to do later this month. Turning to SusanC’s Master Argument should be enough to see that Thomas’ possibilia is not only false, but irrelevant. It will help us address his secondary argument about ad hominems.

  154. Willard Says:

    > H17 isn’t about Getter cases.

    Gettier cases, of course:

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

  155. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, is there any science in Harvey et al 2017 that you can defend, as you seem to prefer your own philosophy?

  156. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    Here we go again. Around, and around, and around we go.

    This time your arguments are slightly better framed—better coaching, perhaps. If one of the authors is feeding you this information, they ought to come right out and say it themselves instead of sending anonymous Willard to do their dirty work.

    You wrote,

    “As far as tautologies go, here’s one that counters Thomas’ main point: there’s no need to prove contrarians wrong to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    As I said before, this is true. But it tells us nothing of value. It’s like saying skeptics are in some way flawed because they don’t read the New York Times. If that’s the point of the paper, it’s a pointless paper.

    But it’s actually worse because the real point of the paper is that skeptics are wrong BECAUSE they don’t cite the consensus literature as often as someone thinks they should.

    You (or someone pretending to be you) wrote,

    “The secret ingredient in Thomas’ double bind is to caricature every appeal to authority as an ad verucundiam. Under that caricature, any appeal to authority is invalid.”

    Citing to specific facts in specific papers is not appeal to authority, it’s a reference to some evidence that someone else found. This is valid, so long as the cited literature actually offers support for the argument being made. Citing to specific facts in the literature is just offering facts that support your argument.

    But saying the failure to cite to a large body of literature (a sweeping generality) is evidence that skeptic blogs are wrong, or somehow flawed, is not evidence that they are wrong or flawed. It’s a sweeping generality and an appeal to authority.

    It is possible that a scientist could show compelling evidence that polar bears are not endangered without citing to any of the consensus literature at all.

    The authors assume the consensus literature is correct. They make this explicit by referring to the consensus blogs as “science-based,” because they cite to the literature and the skeptical-blogs as denier-blogs. And, they conclude, the skeptic must be wrong because they are “far removed” from the consensus science.

    You wrote,

    “A common (i.e. Wittgensteinian) conception of basic logic is that all theorems are tautologies, i.e. they’re true under any interpretation.”

    I think this is true only for axiomatic systems. Euclidian geometry, for example. Anyway, it was Mosher who called it a tautology not me. I think it is a grammatical tautology, which is different from a logical tautology, because it’s the equivalent of saying, “we are right because we are right.” You’ll have to ask Mosher what definition of tautology he intended.

    You wrote,

    “The overwhelming scientific evidence is what it is. It can always be wrong or incorrect. When it can’t, it’s not science anymore. The onus is on the ones who dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence to provide evidence against it.”

    The skeptic blogs and Susan Crockford do offer evidence that disputes the consensus view. If they didn’t, this paper never would have been written and we would not be having this argument.

    If the consensus scientists want to dispute that evidence they have to actually dispute it. Simply saying we are right and they are wrong isn’t science.

    But this paper doesn’t do that. It asserts that the skeptics must be wrong ONLY because they don’t agree with the the consensus science, and/or don’t cite it as often as someone thinks they should.

    The consensus scientists assume they are right, so the skeptics’ alternative interpretations must be wrong. Or we are right because we are right. That’s a grammatical tautology, circular reasoning and appeal to the authority.

    Worse still it’s an appeal to one’s own authority. Maybe it would not wrong for me to defend a statement on the bases that Einstein also said it was true. But it’s certainly wrong for me to defend my statement on the basis that I also said it was true.

    That’s narcissism: I’m right because, damn it, I’m right.

    The statement uses the emotive word “overwhelming” to try to drive home their point. But if the evidence is so overwhelming it should be easy to take the normal scientific approach and use the evidence to actually disprove the skeptics.

    That the consensus scientists don’t do that, makes one wonder how overwhelming their science really is.

    I don’t dispute the evidence that sea ice has been retreating, or even the idea that polar bears might be endangered.

    But I absolutely dispute the idea that this paper has offered any evidence that skeptic blogs are spreading misinformation on the subject.

    The paper is not science. It’s an illogical, emotive, screed.

  157. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    “If H17 is a tautology AND a logical fallacy, then it’s a tautological fallacy, or a fallacious tautology.”

    I see your point here. I misunderstood your statement. I though you were accusing more a saying that a tautology is a fallacy.

    “Quite an expert of “basic logic” we got there.”

    I’m not an expert on basic logic but one does not have to be to see the flaws in this paper. But mocking me is just mocking me. It adds nothing to your argument.

    “Since the empirical sciences only produces defeasible knowledge, it doesn’t work like Thomas may presume.”

    Doesn’t help your argument or the paper. See my last post.

    I suppose you are right that a blog could both present some truth and also foment misunderstanding but that doesn’t change the fact that the paper is an attack on denier-blogs.

    In fact, it would not be wrong to say that the over-arching theme of the paper is to attack deniers.

  158. Thomas Says:

    Many scientists who made major discoveries were “far removed” from the accepted science of the day.

    Please stop trying to break science.

  159. golf charlie Says:

    Bart Verheggen, first you posted:

    “There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere November 29, 2017 by Bart Verheggen”

    then you posted:

    “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice December 22, 2017 by Bart Verheggen”

    This is your blog, and your opportunity to clarify whether it is being used to “convey and distort scientific information”.

  160. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    golf charlie, Bart’s really a good guy. He’s conscientious and open minded.

    I’m not thrilled about the company he keeps in Harvey et al. Jeff Harvey is a bit over the top, and I have no truck with Lewandowsky. He’s a bad apple.

    But Bart’s a good guy. And this blog has been one of the best places to both learn and communicate about climate change anywhere.

  161. golf charlie Says:

    thomaswfuller2 , thank you, I appreciate your comments and your original attempts to suggest that Bart reconsiders Harvey et al 2017.

    Willard is not bothered about the lack of science, and BioScience are not interested in retraction despite the flawed methodology, data, accusations etc.

    This is Bart’s blog, yet he has not been able to address concerns on it, about a paper he co-authored, about blogs and the conveyance of misinformation, despite labelling two threads with relevant words.

    I can only presume Bart has been advised to concede nothing by responding, but so far, the Consensus is taking all the damage (apart from false allegations against Dr Susan Crockford)

  162. Willard Says:

    > [T]his [there’s no need to prove contrarians wrong to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability] is true. But it tells us nothing of value.

    I already refuted that claim by quoting H17 about polar bears being proxies or keystone dominoes (an awful metaphor if you ask me) and by reducing it to absurdity. However, there are many other lessons one can learn from its social network analysis. For starters, I suspected but never checked if the Contrarian Matrix elected SusanC as its Arctic Champion. That’s nice to know. It also provides an important lesson: following the data, the money or the credentials are all well and good, but following the citations is simpler, more effective, and more fruitful.

    What Thomas acknowledges as true contradicts the idea that H17 needs to assume the truth of the overwhelming evidence regarding sea-ice loss and polar bears is true. The authors reviewed the lichurchur and found that the overwhelming evidence went against the contrarian framing. That’s all they need to support their claim. That contradiction may explain why Thomas relies once again on an ad hoc escape clause:

    [T]he real point of the paper is that [contrarians] are wrong BECAUSE they don’t cite the consensus literature as often as someone thinks they should.

    When ClimateBall exchanges conspire to reach “real” points that inspire subtextual rants, it’s time to thank contrarians for their concerns. No constructive criticism can be expected from such shirt ripping. This overinterpretation isn’t the point of H17 at all. It’s not its “premise” either, however Thomas may twist that concept. It’s not a basis, a presupposition, an implicit assumption, a motivation, or anything that H1 7may need to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregard the overwhelming evidence about sea ice and polar bear vulnerability in the lichurchur.

    This should be enough to cover items 1-4 and 7 of Thomas’ ealier laundry list. Time to take care of the remaining ones.

  163. Willard Says:

    > What Thomas acknowledges as true contradicts the idea that H17 needs to assume the truth of the overwhelming evidence regarding sea-ice loss and polar bears is true.

    Scratch the “is true” at the end.

    ***

    Since I’m still here, let the ClimateBall players ponder upon what it would mean to show that SusanC’s Master Argument is false or wrong. Furthernorth, bear in mind (puns intended) that it’s about future events.

  164. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    WILLIARD
    “bear in mind (puns intended) that it’s about future events”.
    Do you have any idea what the dispute between Susan Crockford and the polar bear “experts” is about?
    The “experts” believe polar bears require sea ice in the summer, whereas SusanC does not. “Experts” , using models, predict population declines and even extinction from some areas in the future based upon expected future declines in summer sea ice. SusanC draws attention to the fact that sea ice has declined faster than expected and expected future ice conditions are already with us. BUT polar bear populations have INCREASED rather than declined, as the experts predicted.
    So Willard, the dispute is not about the FUTURE but what is happening NOW.

  165. golf charlie Says:

    Singer beneath bridges,
    I think Willard knows that. That is why he is playing Climateball all on his own, to avoid admitting that Dr Susan Crockford is a more reliable source of information about Polar Bears, than anything the Consensus can find or fabricate with Peer Review, just like Harvey et al 2017

  166. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Hi Tom,

    Below my attempts to answer your questions.

    1) Question is not clear to me.

    2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.

    3) Check the three statements on Arctic sea ice that we used for the classification. There are plenty of blogs that argue for statement 2 (sea ice extent is decreasing only marginally, is not decreasing significantly, or is currently recovering in the Arctic) or 3 (changes in sea-ice extent in the Arctic are due to natural variability, and it is impossible to predict future conditions). Even though the main point of the paper is to compare the positions of blogs to the positions in the scientific literature, we did also provide argumentation for polar bears being vulnerable to sea ice loss (e.g. in the section “Arctic ice extent and polar bears are proxies for AGW denial”) and why Crockford’s opinions on the matter are not scientifically credible (“Science-based and -denier blogs take completely different positions on Arctic ice extent and polar bear status”

    4) (dis)proportionate in this context means relative to the prevalence of her opinions in the scientific literature, i.e. her statements are amplified relative to what the scientific underpinning warrants.

    5) In Crockford’s GWPF essay entitled “Healthy Polar Bears, Less Than Healthy Science” I found several references to the future state of polar bears, all basically stating that all will be fine. (e.g. “Without anthropogenic global warming as a future threat”, “computer models used to predict a future decline are simply not valid”). She doesn’t mention adaptation specifically indeed, but the only way how there can be no future threat is if either there are no profound changes in their habitat (i.e. if arctic sea ice extent wouldn’t decline further) or if they can adapt to such changes.

    6) That same essay has several derogatory references to scientists (the title, “overzealous statements of polar bear doom”, “polar bear biologists providing outrageous statements”). As I’ve mentioned before the term denier refers to a certain type of argumentation known as science denialism and was first used in the context of health sciences (e.g. anti-vaxxers, etc). It’s not meant as an association with those dark chapters of human history you allude to, though I realize some people perceive it as such.

    7) Since that time, the importance of “other traditional news or information sources” has further declined relative to e.g. social media (of which blogs are a vital part). Moreover, a strong social media presence (e.g. via blogs) often opens doors to other (more traditional) media. Crockford herself is a good example of this.

    8) You critique the statement “By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”” The archetypical example of this strategy is perhaps the discussion about the MBH ‘98 hockeystick and the many hockeysticks that followed. His book is referred to earlier in the same section where this strategy is discussed, but indeed it would have fitted as a reference for the abovementioned claim as well. What is meant by this is that those who reject (a large chunk of) the scientific conclusions try to undermine trust in those scientific conclusions by critiquing certain parts where they perceive an opening. You see this all the time in on-line discussions, where someone who rejects AGW as a whole would often bring up the hockeystick as proof for such, as if the criticisms on MBH ’98 disprove AGW.

    9) The data file contains all data used in the analysis in a tab delimited machine readable form. The header line contains the working names of the variables and labels. The first seven columns refer to the citation of Crockford and the position of the source regarding the statements mentioned in Harvey al. The other columns are identifiers and labels of the data.
    -crockford: Citation of Crockford in the source (yes/no)
    -ice_decline (yes/no): Sea-ice extent is on average declining rapidly in the Arctic.
    -ice_stable (yes/no): sea- ice extent is decreasing only marginally, is not decreasing significantly, or is currently recovering in the Arctic.
    -ice_natural (yes/no): changes in sea-ice extent in the Arctic are due to natural variability, and it is impossible to predict future conditions.
    -bear_threatened (yes/no): polar bears are threatened with extinction by present and future AGW.
    -bear_adapt (yes/no): polar bears will adapt to any future changes in Arctic ice extent whether because of AGW or natural variability
    -bear_ok (yes/no): polar bears are not threatened with extinction by present and future AGW.
    -position (pro/contra): Postion taken by the blog (pro or contra AGW) See supplementary information for details
    -symbol: The symbol used in the PCA for this source
    -color: The color used in the PCA for this source
    -code: Unique identifier
    -source: website url or article authors, year, title

  167. Bart Verheggen Says:

    To the contrary, golf Charlie, most concerns have already been addressed in the above blogpost. To save you and the other kind people here from having to scroll all the way up, here are the main points again:

    Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature. Amidst all the criticism nobody has challenged our core finding: Blogs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.

    It is not a review of Arctic sea ice dynamics and polar bear ecology, although we described the scientific context of polar bear ecology and explained how and why polar bears depend on their sea ice habitat (summarized in my previous blog post). As such, we argued that the scientific understanding of arctic sea ice decline and polar bear ecology is more credible than the viewpoints put forward on contrarian blogs.

    Most comments so far critiqued our paper for what it’s not. Our core finding has not been challenged. Most of you seem to be very busy setting up strawmen and trying to tear them down with a lot of noise.

  168. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Singer,

    Contrary to your claim, the dispute is *not* about current status of polar bear populations (which have recovered from hunting), but about what could be expected *in the future* as a result of ongoing decline on Arctic sea ice extent. However, this so-called dispute is mainly playing out in the blogosphere; there isn’t much of a dispute about that going on in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    “Look, they’re doing fine!” is mostly a diversion of what the discussion is about. We addressed this point in the paper, which I assume you have read?

  169. Richard S J Tol Says:

    @Bart
    The data file contains all data used in the principal component analysis. It does not contain all data, in contravention of your university’s data policy.

    The data file does not contain:
    – rater ID
    – individual ratings for the seven 0/1 statements
    – individual ratings for pro/contra
    – individual ratings for four-way classification

    Missing, too, are the exact addresses of the blog posts analysed; and the criteria by which the Web of Science query was reduced to 92 papers.

  170. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Bart. Thank you for responding: I was beginning to think I was persona non grata here, perhaps because of my nom-de-blog, which was used in error (I usually reserve it for my poor poetic expressions).

    I don’t understand why there should be such a discrepancy between what Susan Crockford believes and advocates, especially because what she believes and advocates is precisely what some of your co-authors were advocating in the past.
    Her thesis is quite simple and well documented – polar bears fast over summer. Therefore the presence or absence of summer ice (which would affect feeding) does not affect polar bears (also shown by polar bear habitat extending into areas where there is no summer sea ice – like Hudson Bay).
    You write. “Contrary to your claim, the dispute is *not* about current status of polar bear populations (which have recovered from hunting), but about what could be expected *in the future* as a result of ongoing decline on Arctic sea ice extent. ”
    I am not claiming that the dispute is about current polar bear populations (how can it be, SusanC uses other people’s data). What she disputes is the modelled link between future sea-ice conditions and modelled predicted polar bear numbers. The combined model predicted a decline in sea ice which should cause a reduction (in some areas to zero) in polar bear numbers. All SusanC is arguing is that today predicted future ice conditions have arrived much earlier than expected but that polar bear numbers have not crashed as the polar bear model predicted. So SusanC and some blogs that quote her, say that the polar bear predictive model must be faulty. The obvious explanation for the lack of correspondence between summer sea ice and polar bear populations is that the latter is not dependent on the former – a position everyone used to believe. The problem, however, in adopting this explanation is that it means that polar bears are not affected by possible climate change (of the extent being proposed) so supporters of AGW will lose their climate change icon and this cannot be allowed to happen.

  171. Willard Says:

    @Richie

    You or Gremlins can’t even get the proper U straight.

  172. Willard Says:

    > I don’t understand why there should be such a discrepancy between what Susan Crockford believes and advocate […]

    This presumes that SusanC isn’t an advocate. That’s patently false.

    SusanC has a blog to promote her interpretations of interpretations on polar bears. She has been hired by the Heartland Institute and by the GWPF, an energy think tank. She signed a contrarian letter to Obama to say that the science isn’t settled. She has been elected the Arctic Champion by the Contrarian Matrix.

    What more do you want, Singer?

    ***

    > [E]specially because what she believes and advocates is precisely what some of your co-authors were advocating in the past.

    When the facts change, scientists revise their beliefs. What does the Contrarian Matrix do?

  173. golf charlie Says:

    Bart, thank you for responding.

    “Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature. Amidst all the criticism nobody has challenged our core finding: Blogs on which man-made climate change and its impacts are downplayed are far removed from the scientific literature, at least regarding the topic of shrinking Arctic sea ice and the resulting future threat to polar bears.”

    You seem to have confirmed that the Peer Reviewed Science literature about Polar Bears, is wrong. People should read the parts of the blogosphere that do reference Crockford. Was libelling Crockford just gratuitous academic bigotry, if it was only a side issue to the purpose?

    Climate Science keeps making predictions, and then denying they were predictions, when they were wrong. What is the possible “future threat to polar bears”? The current trend is up, though the Peer Reviewed Science literature does not advertise this.

    The maths, statistics, collation flaws errors and omissions I will happily leave to others, but your paper has resulted in more people NOT trusting Peer Reviewed Science literature, whether it is retracted or not.

    As an example of a Public Relations Hatchet Job gone wrong, Harvey et al 2017 will be quoted for years.

  174. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Bart. I carefully read through the entire paper and your reply to golfCharlie here looking for what you described as “the scientific context of polar bear ecology and explained how and why polar bears depend on their sea ice habitat (summarized in my previous blog post)”.

    The only content I could find in the paper was

    “Because they can reliably catch their main prey, seals (Stirling and Derocher 2012, Rode et al. 2015), only from the surface of the sea ice, the ongoing decline in the seasonal extent and thickness of their sea-ice habitat (Amstrup et al. 2010, Snape and Forster 2014, Ding et al. 2017) is the most important threat to polar bears’ long-term survival.”

    That’s it! This is the science that SusanC is supposed to dispute. She doesn’t, she disputes that SUMMER sea ice (that affected by Arctic warming) is not important. What do you think happens in Hudson Bay where there always have been summers lacking sea ice, but many polar bears? If you asked her she would affirm that spring (and to a much lesser extent Autumn) sea ice is vitally important. The dispute is about summer sea ice changes only. I have seen no evidence that timings of spring ice breakup or Autumn ice formation have changed consistantly to extend the period of no sea ice. Nor as far as I know are they predicted by climate change theory at this stage in global warming.

    Have you been sold a bill of goods by your polar bear scientists, who might have their own axes to grind.

  175. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hiya Bart,

    Thanks for taking the time to answer my list of questions–I do appreciate it.

    I’ll try and clarify my first listed question and inevitably will have follow-ups to your responses.

    But I do appreciate you taking the time to respond.

  176. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard
    When the facts change, scientists revise their beliefs. What does the Contrarian Matrix do?

    AFAIK SusanC is not a paidup memberof your “Contrarian Matrix”.

    When interpretations change (not beliefs, tut tut) honest scientists present the evidence that caused the change.

    I have yet to find where this evidence has been presented, nor any reference to where I might find it.

    As I reply to Bart, I can only find a single, deliberately misleading sentence in the Harvey etal 17 paper. Misleading in that it completely obscures the scientific differences between SusanC and the acknowledged “experts”. Categorizing SusanC’s carefully reasoned interpretation as “unscientific” is an absolute travesty.

  177. Willard Says:

    > I have yet to find where this evidence has been presented, nor any reference to where I might find it.

    You’ll never guess where, Singer:

    Denier blogs that downplay the threats of AGW to Arctic ice and polar bears rely heavily on arguments that it has been warmer in the past, that temperature and seasonal ice extent vary naturally over time, and that it is therefore difficult or even impossible to predict what will happen in the future. This framing ignores the fact that scientists agree that natural short-term fluctuations in weather and climate will persist along with secular trends of global warming and declining ice. Also, previous global-warming events were a part of natural cycles of warming and cooling driven by orbital factors. Summer sea ice did not disappear entirely during past interglacial periods (Stein et al. 2017), as it ultimately will with unabated GHG rise. And even if dramatically reduced, ice extent always recovered when warm interglacial periods were followed by waning insolation and cooling temperatures. Current global warming, in contrast, is driven by rising GHG concentrations, is occurring despite reduced insolation, and cannot be reversed without mitigating GHG rise (Brigham-Grette 2009, Tzedakis et al. 2012, Barnhart et al. 2013, Stocker et al. 2013). Moreover, sea-ice habitat reductions during past interglacial periods occurred over millennia (rather than over the decadal scales that accompany AGW), giving the bears more time to adjust their behavior and distribution. Bears today also face multiple additional threats, including chemical bioaccumulation, on-the-ground habitat manipulation, and human harvesting, factors that were absent during past warming episodes (Stirling and Derocher 2012). Because current warming cannot be reversed without human action (Stocker et al. 2013), the prognosis for polar bears and other Arctic biota without GHG mitigation is bleak (Stirling and Derocher 2012, Regehr et al. 2016). These facts are not accurately reflected in the views expressed by denier blogs.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

    Your “that’s it!” might be a bit premature.

    I’ll turn to SusanC’s Master Argument after I’ll deal with Thomas’ “but Ad Hom!” Do you have any citations I should look up first? If you don’t give me your own breadcrumbs, I’ll take mine.

    What you identify as her main thesis (“polar bears fast over summer”) doesn’t look like a thesis at all. It’s just a fact. The “therefore” that follows it may also indicate why it’s not a thesis. This would look like a thesis to me:

    All SusanC is arguing is that today predicted future ice conditions have arrived much earlier than expected but that polar bear numbers have not crashed as the polar bear model predicted. So SusanC and some blogs that quote her, say that the polar bear predictive model must be faulty. The obvious explanation for the lack of correspondence between summer sea ice and polar bear populations is that the latter is not dependent on the former – a position everyone used to believe.

    The emphasized bit satisfies the frames studied by H17.

    If your description of SusanC’s Master Argument is correct (I’d need to check), it could be reduced to a truism: sea-ice changes.

    Sea-ice always changed.

    Climate always changed.

    Notice the similarity.

  178. golf charlie Says:

    Bart, Dr Susan Crockford has issued a response on her Blog

    Failed Amstrup polar bear predictions have climate change community in a panic
    Posted on January 4, 2018

    “Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bears would be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues. This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.”

  179. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas,

    If you want to make a point (succinct, please) without calling me names, go right ahead. Otherwise, go play elsewhere.

    Thanks!

  180. susanjcrockford Says:

    Bart,

    I’m so glad I caught Thomas’ comment and saved it, even before I read to the end.

    Wow! Right on point.

    I can see why you wouldn’t like it but I saw no name-calling.

    Susan

  181. Thomas Says:

    Should have been, “Being “far removed” from the literature is not evidence that informs the polar bear debate one way or the other.

  182. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    You wrote,

    “The authors reviewed the lichurchur and found that the overwhelming evidence went against the contrarian framing. That’s all they need to support their claim.”

    This paper does not show any review of the contrarians frame vs. the literature. It just shows that science-blogs tend to agree with the literature and skeptics don’t. Which totally fails to inform the debated.

    You wrote,

    “That contradiction may explain why Thomas relies once again on an ad hoc escape clause:”

    [T]he real point of the paper is that [contrarians] are wrong BECAUSE they don’t cite the consensus literature as often as someone thinks they should.”

    It’s not an ad hoc escape clause, it’s further explanation of my argument. Mocking me is not valid argument. You have to actually explain why you think I’m wrong.

    You wrote,

    “When ClimateBall exchanges conspire to reach “real” points that inspire subtextual rants, it’s time to thank contrarians for their concerns. No constructive criticism can be expected from such shirt ripping.”

    This is hogwash dressed up in pretty language. There was no “subtextual rant” and no “shirt ripping.”

    You wrote,

    “This overinterpretation isn’t the point of H17 at all. It’s not its “premise” either, however Thomas may twist that concept. It’s not a basis, a presupposition, an implicit assumption, a motivation, or anything that H1 7may need to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregard the overwhelming evidence about sea ice and polar bear vulnerability in the lichurchur.”

    I did not misuse or torture the concept premise. You are violating the terms by continually repeating and argument that has been addressed and settled.

    Get over it and move on. Mocking me for something I didn’t even do is also not valid argument.

    I’ve already explained a dozen times or more why the “core finding” of the paper is invalid.

    Try to focus. Try to forget about the word premise. Try to avoid what you think is clever phraseology and banter but it really mostly just misdirection and failure to engage.

    Try to actually focus, on actually countering, my actual argument.

  183. Willard Says:

    SusanC playing the ref. Can this ClimateBall episode be better?

    Of course it can. Golf presents SusanC’s latest post as a “response.” A response to what exactly, Golf hasn’t clarified. What we know is that her post rehearses most if not all her GWPF talking points, and cites her March 2017 pre-print and her Range Magazine essay which can be dowloaded here:

    https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/crockford-and-geist_range_winter-2018-conservation_fiasco.pdf

    Notice the 2017/11.

    Following the citations is always useful.

  184. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard. In your quotation there is “Moreover, sea-ice habitat reductions during past interglacial periods occurred over millennia (rather than over the decadal scales that accompany AGW), giving the bears more time to adjust their behavior and distribution.”

    You seem not to understand that polar bears do not need to adjust their behavior and distribution. They fast through the period (summer) when sea ice conditions are changing so those changes have not been proven to be important. And polar bears already inhabit regions where already all summer sea ice melts away, showing that bears don’t need summer ice.

    If climate change begins to affect the duration of ice-free Arctic seas that will be a different matter, but that is not currently being predicted. Polar bear populations and survival locations are being predicted upon September sea-ice conditions. This was formerly accepted, promoted even,by polar bear “experts” Nowhere have I found evidence or argument where they explain why they have changed their interpretation. Your suggestion doesn’t cut it.

  185. Thomas Says:

    Oh Bart,

    You deleted my post again. That makes me sad.

    Here a more succinct version.

    Denying the existence of a valid counter argument is not a valid defense of your work.

    I have challenged your “core finding” many times.

    On it’s face, the finding does not inform the debate. It tells us nothing of value. Being “far removed” from the literature is not evidence that informs that polar bear debate on way or the other.

    The only way the core finding can take on meaning is if one commits, in one’s mind, the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and assumes that the deniers are wrong because they don’t cite authority as often as others. The authors seek to trigger this fallacy in the minds of readers by using language like “science-based” and “denier.”

    So either we don’t commit appeal to authority, and the statement is uninformative, pablum. Or we do commit appeal to authority and the statement is a logical fallacy driven home by a logical fallacy.

    Either way the “core finding” of the paper has no intellectual value.

    It’s astonishing that you and the other authors, all of whom are trained scientists, refuse to acknowledge this or to even engage is a discussion about it.

    A strawman is committed when someone attacks an argument that is not actually an argument made by his/her opponent. I have quoted your exact words and show that those exact words are logically absurd. Mine is not a strawman argument.

    The paper does not provide credible evidence that Crockford’s opinions are not scientifically credible. Not once does it actually quote Crockford’s opinions, then cite to specific facts that might show her opinions are not credible.

    Hand waving to a “vast body of overwhelming evidence” is not citing evidence. It’s a vague generalization and an appeal to authority.

    The paper is not science, it’s not even valid journalism. It’s just a pseudo-intellectal hit job against an opponent that you either can’t or won’t engage with in the usual manner—i.e. real scientific debate.

    The paper claims there is a vast reservoir of “overwhelming science” to draw from. Real science would consist of using that vast reservoir of data to show us that Crockford did actually get it wrong.

    This is also not a strawman argument. I’m not saying that your paper did that. I’m saying that it didn’t do that and therefore it isn’t valid science. Science is done by offering specific evidence that is germane to the point being argued, not by making broad generalizations about some vast trove of overwhelming data.

    If MBH ’98 got it wrong and the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today, that would indeed cast considerable doubt on the idea that the current warming is all, or nearly all, caused by CO2. This would then cast doubt on predictions of dangerous future warming.

    The concept of “Keystone Dominos” is as logically ridiculous as the rest of the paper. Scientific debate consists of attacking a theory with countervailing evidence—this paper does do that but that is how science is usually debated. It’s obvious that one should attack the key points.

    Showing that there is a misspelled a world in a statement of a theory won’t get you far. Just as showing that you opponents don’t cite your papers won’t get you far. Neither is evidence that the theory is wrong.

    On the other hand, knocking out a conclusion on which many other conclusions rest would be a very effective way to attack a theory.

    The authors “Keystone Domino” theory in an attempt to shutdown debate. But you can’t win debates by refusing to have them.

    By the way, a “denier” is someone who practices “denialism,” which consists of denying, “reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.” [Wikipedia] This is the meaning that the consensus has in mind when they use the word.

    It’s a pejorative. It is intended as an insult—an attempt to cause the reader to doubt the validity of one so labeled. It’s ad hominem and it has no place in the scientific literature.

    Skeptics don’t call advocates “hallucinators.” You should stop calling us deniers.

  186. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, Crockford has responded, explaining some science that is absent from BioScience’s Peer Reviewed Harvey et al 2017.

    An honest approach is valued by some sectors within the Blogosphere, even though the concept is poorly understood by others.

  187. Willard Says:

    > Try to focus.

    An unsollicited advice by a ClimateBall newbie who Gish galops quote fests, continually handwaves back to countered points, and now plays the ref while trying to save himself with a food fight.

    That’s just great.

    First, ThomasB’s “premise” was the main claim. Then it was figure 2. Now it’s H17’s subtext. Premises, premises everywhere, except for the fact that H17’s argument does not contain any such premise.

    He also offered two indirect arguments for that “premise”: “tautology!”, and “so what?” Both arguments have been deal with. There’s no such tautology, and H17’s results are fruitful.

    So much the worse for his main argument: H17’s social network analysis doesn’t amount to an ad vericundiam.

    ***

    Instead of addressing ThomasB’s gaslighting, time to meet his secondary argument. This short quote from HansE’s citation above ought to be enough to prove that argumentation theoricians don’t reject every ad hominem arguments out of hand:

    Making a personal attack in a discussion is not always unreasonable.

    The technical issues surrounding the validity of the ad hominem argument boils down to the idea of playing the ball: as soon and as long as the proponent’s merits become a relevant topic for an exchange, discussing these merits becomes “fair ball”, so to speak.

    (That notion of ball is one reason why I like the “ClimateBall” metaphor.)

    Pragma-Dialectics may very well be the strictest argumentation theory on the market these days. If even this one makes provision for physical play, whining against it as ThomasB does may very well be unwinnable. The way he rips off his shirt should be invalid according to pragma-dialectics, but let’s focus.

    Social network analysis deals with social networks. Deal with it.

    ***

    To see if SusanC’s merits are a valid topic of H17, let’s see how it’s being introduced:

    Approximately 80% of the [contrarian] blogs cited here referred to one particular [contrarian] blog, Polar Bear Science, by [SusanC], as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix133/4644513

    The Contrarian Matrix made SusanC its Arctic Champion. It’s their single source. It’s the only authority they promote and trust. It is the contrarians’ appeal to SusanC as an authority that makes her creds topical.

    (Since you’re eavesdropping, SusanC, let’s parry this defensive move of yours – no, it’s not your own authority claims that matters here, but the ascriptions by the Contrarian Matrix. While the Hearland Institute demoted you to a mere polar bear scholar, the GWPF still dubs you a <a href="https://www.thegwpf.com/canadian-inuits-there-may-be-too-many-polar-bears-now/"polar bear expert.)

    That’s SusanC’s a lone gunwoman facing the establishment militia only adds to the metaphorical showdown. She’s selling the very kind of FUD that the Contrarian Matrix buys in bulk. That very FUD makes H17’s social network analysis more than relevant. Not that the argument of H17 rests on such ad hominem mode, mind you.

    Any contrarian who partook in the Serengeti strategy around JimH, AlG or MikeM over the years should know how this works.

  188. Willard Says:

    > explaining some science that is absent from BioScience’s Peer Reviewed Harvey et al 2017.

    I do hope that one day you’ll read that paper, Golf. Everything that SusanC rehearses in that recent blog post can be traced back there.

    Your misrepresentation indicates it’s time to revisit SusanC’s Master Argument.

    Stay tuned.

  189. golf charlie Says:

    Thomas, Harvey et al 2017 has become a Keystone Domino, or self-fulfilling fallacy, or whatever the psychologists call it.

  190. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, thank you for confirming the lack of science in BioScience’s Peer Reviewed Harvey et al 2017. I found Crockford’s post very helpful for current and future reference purposes, should a decline in Polar Bear research funding occur as Polar Bear numbers continue to increase.

  191. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    You just can’t let the “premise” thing go, can you. You thought you caught me making a mistake that anyway didn’t matter, now you pretend to continue to believe that. This is very strange conduct for a grown man.

    You give me more vague generalization, more condescension, more making up stuff, more mocking tone, but not one actual argument that actually counters my actual argument.

    > “Social network analysis deals with social networks. Deal with it.”

    It’s endearing how you suffix every argument you believe is a “real good one” with, “deal with it.” Childish but endearing.

    It makes no difference to my argument if the paper is a social network analysis or not. It’s till appeal to authority, unjustified ad hominem, and garbage.

    > “[Susan Crockford is] selling the very kind of FUD that the Contrarian Matrix buys in bulk. That very FUD makes H17’s social network analysis more than relevant.”

    First uncertainty and doubt are valid scientific points of view. In fact science without doubt and uncertainty would no even be science.

    Secondly whether Dr. Crockford is right or wrong doesn’t matter to my argument. The paper didn’t offer any evidence on whether she was right or wrong so it’s a social network analysis that is totally irrelevant.

    According to the article on Pragma-Dialectics that you liked too there is a thing called the Standpoint rule: A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

    You don’t do that. Sometimes you pretend to do it but mostly you just misdirect. You don’t debate in good faith. You just ridicule, mock and talk in circles.

    I’m not going to respond to you anymore unless you can write something that actually relates to my argument.

    Or may if you say something so absurd that I can’t stop myself from poking fun at you.

  192. Willard Says:

    > should a decline in Polar Bear research funding

    Counterfactual thinking is better than underhanded legal threats or putting words into my mouth, golf. As for your prognostication, it’s been more than 20 years now since MBH has been published. C13 is five years old already. The Contrarian Matrix raises concerns, the scientific caravan moves on.

    Also, following your own breadcrumbs:

    [L]ow summer sea ice extent has been good news for polar bears in three out of four high-risk areas studied (and effectively neutral in the other), which is likely to continue as long as spring ice and snow conditions do not interfere with the intense feeding that polar bears require from March/April to May/June.

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/09/13/recent-studies-show-sept-ice-of-3-5-mkm2-did-not-kill-polar-bears-off-as-predicted/

    Speaking of which:

    But sea-ice always changed, I know, I know.

  193. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, is Derocher a reliable source, because you and the Consensus quote him, and he has a vested interest.

    How did the paper get through Peer Review with so many basic errors?

  194. Willard Says:

    > How did the paper get through Peer Review

    The same way you never stopped punching hippies, golf. You should try repeating the same begging questions over and over again. See how that works for you in evading AndrewD’s graph showing that spring ice’s starting to become blue.

    Speaking of interests, SusanC’s are fascinating:

    Last retweets feature

    – Steve Milloy

    – Tom Nelson a few times (!!!)

    – hockey schtick and Jo’s

    – teh Goddard himself

    – Ryan Maue

    – Joe Bastardi

    – our very own Richie

    – Ross McKitrick

    Small world, isn’t it?

    Even then, have a fig leaf:

    Doug’s wrong about scientism elsewhere, but yeah, constructive criticism and genuine questions (unlike yours) are always welcome.

  195. Willard Says:

    > The paper didn’t offer any evidence on whether she was right or wrong so it’s a social network analysis that is totally irrelevant.

    It’s not even clear how the FUD SusanC peddles can be right or wrong. Being wrong in raising concerns is far from obvious. Being right about future events is a hard problem in a world where time is not symmetric.

    H17’s main claim doesn’t rest on establishing SusanC right or wrong. It’s not even about SusanC. It’s about the Contrarian Matrix. ThomasB attacks a standpoint that hasn’t been advanced by H17. The Standpoint Rule suffices to reject his main argument against H17.

    H17 doesn’t even attack a specific claim. Pragma-dialectics wasn’t meant to model empirical research.

  196. Marco Says:

    “Missing, too, are […] the criteria by which the Web of Science query was reduced to 92 papers.”

    From Harvey et al:
    “We also collected every peer-reviewed scientific paper that we could find that investigated both polar bears and sea ice”

    I told you this before, Richard. What’s your excuse this time? Still the lack of glasses?

  197. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas, thank you for illustrating my point about “keystone dominoes” when you state “If MBH ’98 got it wrong and the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today, that would indeed cast considerable doubt on the idea that the current warming is all, or nearly all, caused by CO2. This would then cast doubt on predictions of dangerous future warming.”

    You blow up the significance of milennial temperature reconstructions as if it would falsify a whole theory.

    This is not unlike claiming that gravity doesn’t exist because that bird in the sky disproves it (argumentum ad absurdum; I’m aware that gravity is a better established (though also still not 100% known) topic than climate change).

    These kinds of arguments are very common, whereby the conclusion (AGW is wrong) is miles and miles apart from the reasoning that supposedly led the writer to that conclusion. Which leads me to think that maybe, just maybe, they may have been really arguing in the other direction: from their desired conclusion to a narrative that fits with it. Because in the direction as the argument is stated, it doesn’t make sense.

  198. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    WIlliard. Let me try to understand the high-impact coloured diagram from Julliene Stroeve about ice coverage that you flashed about earlier this morning.
    Oh horrors look at that, losing all that precious ice. The poor polar bears, we are to blame, we are enhancing the greenhouse effect with all our nasty CO2 pollutants, we should be so ashamed. What a wonderful diagram and we should be doubly grateful to Andrew Desrocher for bringing it to our attention. And to you.
    But wait a moment, all this ice loss in recent years covers the entire year. How can global warming affect winter months when there is no sun. Surely the Arctic can only radiate heat away and there can be no greenhouse effect. Ah! Got it, it must be something happening outside the Arctic and not anything to do with CO2.
    Then, what’s this: these declines only really affect the Arctic in more recent years. Look the declines start rather abruptly in 1976. 1976 that’s interesting, that’s the year there was a climate step change in the Pacific. Very interesting. Step changes don’t seem to work for AGW.
    Oh but look the data goes back to the 1850s – the 1850s, how can that be. We have only had Cryosat satellites since 2005, any earth satellites since the 1970s, we only flew over the pole since the 1920s and possibly stood on it in the 1910s. How on earth could there be Arctic-wide and year long ice data going back to the 1850s? How can you believe any of the diagram’s data.
    Williard, you don’t do science do you? You believe anything the Konsensus throws at you. Go play with your equals.

  199. golf charlie Says:

    https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/44/2/163/674253

    Polar Bears in a Warming Climate 

    Andrew E. Derocher Nicholas J. Lunn Ian Stirling

    Polar Bears seem to be surviving just fine, thriving actually. What did they get so wrong, or has it not warmed as they were told it would?

  200. golf charlie Says:

    Bart,

    “Which leads me to think that maybe, just maybe, they may have been really arguing in the other direction: from their desired conclusion to a narrative that fits with it. Because in the direction as the argument is stated, it doesn’t make sense.”

    The desired conclusion from Climate Science has been that reduced ice will lead to reduced numbers of Polar Bears. Crockford has explained that this has turned out to be false.

  201. Richard S J Tol Says:

    @marco
    If you repeat the steps described in the paper, you find many more than 92 papers. So, additional criteria must have been used to exclude papers.

    In other words, Harvey is, in a strictly logical sense, irreproducible.

  202. Thomas Says:

    Bart,

    You misunderstood my point and (still) ignore my main argument.

    If the medieval warm period was actually as warm as today, it would do serious damage to the “dangerous” AWG theory. That’s all. If that old warming was natural, the recent warming could be mostly natural to.

    I did not conclude that AGW is wrong, only that if MHB 98 missed the Medieval Warm Period, that would cast doubt on the theory of “dangerous” future warming. Ljunqvist’s more recent non-hockey stick makes one wonder.

    Birds fly because air is dense, birds aren’t heavy, and wings are airfoils. As a pilot I can attest to the truth of these simple phenomena. As long as you move fast enough, the plane stays in the air.

    It’s true we have no universally agreed upon theory of gravity but if you jump off a tall building, gravity will do it’s job. But please don’t, I like you.

    AGW is real. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, will the waring be mild, like it has been so far, or will it harm the ecosystem that we are (so far) inextricably linked to?

    My view is that the experiment is complete. 100 years of rising CO2 caused mild warming, but we, and the polar bears, did just fine. Even if the current rate of warming keeps up there is no reason to think we won’t be fine. CO2 and sunlight are the food that fuels almost all life. As CO2 increases, the world warms slightly, but also greens significantly.

    The whole keystone-domino idea is bull. An argument that knocks out a key domino and causes other dominos to fall, is just an argument that knocks out a key domino and causes others to fall. Nothing immoral or unethical about that.

    I was young once too, so I get where you’re coming from. But rising CO2 is not the end of the world. Just like every end-of-the-world theory that came before was not the end of the world.

    As the great Roman philosopher , Paulus McCartney, said; it’s getting better all the time. There is no compelling reason to dive down Willard’s rabbit hole.

  203. Marco Says:

    No, Richard, you do not find many more than 92 papers if you repeat the steps.

    You only find many more than 92 if you solely look for the keywords “polar bear” and “arctic sea ice”. However, many of those papers do not “investigate[d] both polar bears and sea ice”.

    I was even so kind to point you to one example which clearly did not fit the latter criteria.

  204. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, are you now satisfied that the Consensus Peer Reviewers and Authors did not make any mistakes, and the paper should not be retracted?

  205. Marco Says:

    Golf Charlie, I am now satisfied that no one here has provided any evidence of significant mistakes in the paper that would require a retraction or even a correction.

  206. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Well now Marco, nailed your flag to the post, hey what, rather a flimsy and terido-ridden edifice to risk your reputation upon. Major concerns about appropriateness of the methodology employed (the sort of error undergraduate dissertations were criticized for), data collection problems (and, so far, lack of full disclosure), inappropriate language and ad homs, insignificant and totally predicable results given the bias and prejudice of the inputs, and so on. A paper to be applauded and defended, come what may: a hatchet job. Something to be proud of. Give me strength!

  207. Richard S J Tol Says:

    Marco does not have a reputation. She is an anonymouse.

  208. Willard Says:

    > She is an anonymouse.

    Richie conflates pseudonymity with anonymity and misunderstimates the reputation of his Gremlins with anonymouses, e.g.:

    An anonymous individual has also published an elegant analysis showing that [Richie]’s method will decrease the consensus no matter what data are put into it. In other words, his 91% consensus result is an artifact of his flawed methodology.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus

  209. Thomas Says:

    Marco wrote,

    “I am now satisfied that no one here has provided any evidence of significant mistakes in the paper that would require a retraction or even a correction.”

    Marco joins Bart in the ranks of the evidence deniers!

    The idea of the paper was wrong from the start. It was a mistake before it was even written. It’s based on an unjustified appeal to authority and it reads like a political-propaganda screed.

    None of the authors will defend against this simple argument. They just keep their heads down and hope for it to blow over.

    Bart, you wrote,

    “These kinds of arguments are very common, whereby the conclusion (AGW is wrong) is miles and miles apart from the reasoning that supposedly led the writer to that conclusion.”

    You were referring to my argument that, if the hockey-stick of MBH ’98 is wrong, and the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as today, that would cast doubt on the claim that most of the warming is caused by CO2.

    Your counter argument, quoted above, misunderstands my argument. I did not say the entire idea AGW would be disproved, only that it would cast doubt on CO2 being the dominant cause of the recent warming, and on predictions of future warming.

    This is clearly a true statement. It’s borne out by the fact that one of the Climategate conspirators wrote, “we need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” or words to that effect. It’s existence was calling into question the idea that all or most of the recent warming was caused by CO2.

    Worse still, your statement that the conclusions is miles and miles apart from the reasoning is simply incorrect. If a temperature reconstruction shows it was just as warm in the past as it is today, that directly leads to the conclusion that doubt is cast on the claim that all or most of the current warming is due to CO2.

    You also wrote,

    “Which leads me to think that maybe, just maybe, they may have been really arguing in the other direction: from their desired conclusion to a narrative that fits with it.”

    There is nothing wrong with starting with a conclusion (a hypothesis) and looking for data that fits it. This is valid investigation technique, so long as one does not ignore data that cast doubt on your hypothesis—like ignoring (or disappearing) the Medieval Warm Period.

    In fact the theory that AGW will be sever and dangerous does exactly this. The hypothesis, that CO2 will cause sever warming is supported by retreating ice, rising sea levels, thermometers, etc. It’s not proven by those things, they just add some support.

    Your augments are a good example of the sort of muddled and illogical thinking that led to this absurd paper. You and the other authors seem to have developed a habit for sloppy thinking when attacking skeptics.

    This does not help your cause.

  210. Willard Says:

    > As the great Roman philosopher , Paulus McCartney, said; it’s getting better all the time.

    ThomasB rediscovers Level 4 of the Contrarian Matrix:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/future-is-bright/

  211. Willard Says:

    > AGW is real. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is […]

    ThomasB omits Level 0 of the Contrarian Matrix:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/

    Teh Goddard and Tom Nelson, whom we can find among SusanC’s retweets, are quite active there.

  212. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hi Bart

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  213. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, nobody cares. You are only drawing attention to the failure of Harvey et al 2017, as you did to Gergis 2016, which was also Peer Reviewed Climate Science and also remains unretracted.

    Thank you for your help.

    How did you get on with Karl 2015?

  214. Willard Says:

    > nobody cares

    About what, golf, and how do you know? Either H17 is a keystone domino, as you said earlier, or it’s not. Neither ThomasB nor Singer suggested it was. Which is it?

    ***

    From the abstract of a rare citation (D05) you provided in this thread:

    Spatial and temporal sea ice changes will lead to shifts in trophic interactions involving polar bears through reduced availability and abundance of their main prey: seals. In the short term, climatic warming may improve bear and seal habitats in higher latitudes over continental shelves if currently thick multiyear ice is replaced by annual ice with more leads, making it more suitable for seals. A cascade of impacts beginning with reduced sea ice will be manifested in reduced adipose stores leading to lowered reproductive rates because females will have less fat to invest in cubs during the winter fast. Non-pregnant bears may have to fast on land or offshore on the remaining multiyear ice through progressively longer periods of open water while they await freeze-up and a return to hunting seals. As sea ice thins, and becomes more fractured and labile, it is likely to move more in response to winds and currents so that polar bears will need to walk or swim more and thus use greater amounts of energy to maintain contact with the remaining preferred habitats.

    https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/44/2/163/674253

    Vintage 2005.

    Now, compare and contrast with this undergraduate-like formulated “assumption” in C17:

    Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis.

    https://peerj.com/preprints/2737v3/

    That “rapid sea ice decline = population decline” deserves further due diligence. For now, please observe that C17 doesn’t cite D05. Fancy that.

    Don’t you love the irony of a pre-print journal called “peerJ” and yet writes “NOT PEER-REVIEWED” in big red letters on the top of its pages?

  215. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Plus they all have two legs.

  216. Willard Says:

    > CO2 and sunlight are the food that fuels almost all life. As CO2 increases, the world warms slightly, but also greens significantly.

    ThomasB rediscovers Level 2 of the Contrarian Matrix:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/do-not-panic/

  217. Thomas Says:

    Refusal to engage is stonewalling.

    I’m also going to call it arguing with ignore-ance.

    Willard continues his strategy of spewing nonsense.

    > “It’s not even clear how the FUD SusanC peddles can be right or wrong.”

    Susan Crockford makes specific claims that are falsifiable. The paper claims that she is wrong but offers no evidence that she is.

    Anyway, if she can’t be right or wrong then the paper is wrong to say she’s wrong. Such is the effect of your kooky illogic.

    > Willard: “H17’s main claim doesn’t rest on establishing SusanC right or wrong. It’s not even about SusanC. It’s about the Contrarian Matrix.

    Hogwash. The paper never uses the words, “contrarian matrix,” The paper is about “science deniers” who spread “misinformation” and Susan is held up as the Queen Bee of the misinformation-peddling “science deniers.” If she’s not wrong, the paper fails completely and utterly.

    > Willard: “ThomasB attacks a standpoint that hasn’t been advanced by H17. The Standpoint Rule suffices to reject his main argument against H17.

    I didn’t “attack a standpoint,” I took a standpoint. Specifically, that the paper is illogical garbage because it’s based on the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and ad hominem.

    You and the authors stonewall, violate the standpoint rule and engage in ignore-ance by refusing to address that argument.

    You never actually address my clear argument. You just babble on about stuff that doesn’t matter, make clearly absurd claims, accuse people of things they didn’t do, and generally act like a kooky monster.

    > Willard: “H17 doesn’t even attack a specific claim.”

    H17 attacks denier-blogs that spread miss-information and Susan Crockford. It attacks people.

    > Willard: “Pragma-dialectics wasn’t meant to model empirical research.”

    Nobody said that pragma-dialectics was meant to model empirical research. It’s a model for logical argumentation. It “stipulates ten rules that apply to an argumentative discussion. Violations of the discussion rules are said to frustrate the reasonable resolution of the difference of opinion and they are therefore considered as fallacies”

    So Kooky Monster frustrates the reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion by breaking the very rules that he proposed.

    Willard, and Bart et al, are not interested in discovering truth or resolving misunderstandings. They only want to appear to be right so they can avoid the embarrassing fact that H17 is an illogical rant that should be retracted.

    Willard has an aloof, dismissive, and pseudo-sophisticated writing style. He uses words and phraseology that make it sound like he’s making some important points. But it’s all a ruse. As I have demonstrated over and over again He says very little that isn’t pure nonsense.

  218. Thomas Says:

    Your Contrarian Matrix and its levels are figments of your imagination. If you have a problem with my statement about CO2, have the balls to actually state what your disagreement is, and keep your childish comments and imaginary friends to yourself. It stopped being cute a long time ago.

  219. Willard Says:

    > Nobody said that pragma-dialectics was meant to model empirical research.

    Nobody said that somebody said it either. That claim has been made to justify why H17 doesn’t counter any specific claim made by SusanC. It doesn’t have to.

    Another way to confirm my main point against ThomasB, i.e. his main argument rests on a strawman. Interestingly, the Standpoint Rule is the rule that prevents strawmen in the first place.

    That ThomasB invokes that rule while strawmanning H17 is a rare thing of beauty.

    ***

    After a logical double bind, ThomasB now goes for a more pragmatic one:

    (1) Gish Galloping with quote fests and a racehorse of contrarian memes;

    (2) Whining that he’s being ignored when his main points have all been sufficiently met.

    There’s no need to relitigate his rehearsal of the lukewarm playbook. This is a thread about H17, and my own objective is to pay due diligence to SusanC’s Master Argument.

    A food fight won’t save ThomasB.

  220. Willard Says:

    > [SusanC] makes specific claims that are falsifiable.

    Did she? A few examples might be nice. Showing that they’re relevant to the topic of H17 would even be better, because:

    It’s not even clear how the FUD SusanC peddles can be right or wrong. Being wrong in raising concerns is far from obvious. Being right about future events is a hard problem in a world where time is not symmetric.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39996

    As far as concerns go, how does expressing concerns and “just asking questions” can be shown wrong?

    As far as future events go, how do you falsify today that polar bears will adapt to sea-ice loss by 2050 – you kill ’em all?

    More importantly, which claims does SusanC herself contradict exactly?

    All I have so far is ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’. It’s not even a claim. The misapplication of the equality sign indicates a lack of clarity. The only citation we had so far on this thread on polar bears and sea ice, courtesy of golf, shows that SusanC may not be far from breaking the Standpoint Rule already.

    Searching SusanC’s merry-go-round of self-citations looks like a fool’s errand. So be it. We need a Master Argument.

  221. Thomas Says:

    This is so tiresome.

    > Willard: “Nobody said that somebody said [that pragma-dialectics was meant to model empirical research] either.”

    You said, “pragma-dialectics was NOT meant to model empirical research.” I only pointed out that I didn’t say that.

    You keep putting words into my mouth then shooting down what I didn’t say.

    > Willard: “Another way to confirm my main point against ThomasB, i.e. his main argument rests on a strawman.”

    It is not a strawman. Reread what I said and try again.

    Or better yet, you tell me what you think the central point of H17 is and I’ll show you why it’s intellectual garbage.

    But don’t just say again, “it’s just a social network analysis.” That’s not a main point. What does the social network analysis claim to show? What is the main point?

    I know you won’t do it. Just like none of the authors will do it, not again any. Not after I showed their initial comments were bogus and absurd.

    You’ll just misdirect and stonewall. Because you know if you get anywhere close to stating a main conclusion of the paper that is actually a main conclusion of the paper, it’ll be easy for me to show that it is illogical crap.

    You know it, the authors know it, anyone reading these comments knows it. You have failed to argue in good faith. You have totally failed to address the key issues. Because you know if you do, you will fail.

    What does “Gish Galloping” even mean? Please use common english words (or any other language that I can translate). I should be able to address your argument without doing endless Google searches for silly, arcane language.

    I never was able to find any reference to “lichrchur” other than a bunch of blog comments where YOU used the word. So I guess you made it up. Stop being to willardly. (I made it up.)

    You accuse me of a “quote fest” but it is considered good manners to quote what someone said when you are ripping it apart. That way people can see that you’re not just erecting a strawman, rather you’re actually responding to an actual statement.

    Of course that only works when quotes are in good faith. For a counter example see the first and second paragraphs above.

    > Willard: “This is a thread about H17, and my own objective is to pay due diligence to SusanC’s Master Argument.”

    I thought you said H17 was not about Susan Crockford’s arguments? Now it is?

    You question whether Crockford makes falsifiable claims.

    Quoting from the paper,

    1. “The GWPF articles by Crockford claim that contrary to available scientific and empirical evidence, polar bears will easily adapt to any changes that Arctic ecosystems may experience in coming decades (Crockford 2014, 2015).”

    2. “Crockford downplayed the contribution of sea-ice loss to polar-bear population declines in the Beaufort Sea.:

    3. “Similarly, in GWPF reports and on her blog, Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”

    4. etc.

    With regard to 1. above, you’ll say one cannot falsify a conjecture, but the same applies to the researchers who predict population collapse. Except that Crockford did find a way to do that. They predicted collapse when sea ice reached a level that it has already reached, with no collapse. Falsified.

    Willard: “As far as concerns go, how does expressing concerns and “just asking questions” can [sic] be shown wrong?”

    Because she makes falsifiable claims. And if she can’t be shown to be wrong, then the paper is wrong because it claims she is wrong.

    > Willard: “As far as future events go, how do you falsify today that polar bears will adapt to sea-ice loss by 2050 ?

    By showing that they really do depend on summer sea ice. But according to Crockford, sea ice has reached levels that were predicted to be reached in 2050, at which levels most polar bears were predicted to be dead. But the ice reached those levels and bears abound.

    > Willard (sigh, this is really very tiresome), “More importantly, which claims does SusanC herself contradict exactly?”

    That polar bears depend on summer sea ice for their very survival.

    BUT, all these arguments are stonewalling and misdirection because they don’t address my argument. It does not matter if Susan Crockford is right or wrong, H17 is still unjustified appeal to authority, which authority is a vast generalization, and ad hominem, hence it’s intellectual garbage.

    Endless repetition of misdirection is not valid argument.

    Stonewalling is not valid argument.

    Appeal to generalized authority is logical fallacy.

    The time has come to take a deep breath and admit you can’t win this one.

  222. Marco Says:

    “This is clearly a true statement. It’s borne out by the fact that one of the Climategate conspirators wrote, “we need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” or words to that effect. ”

    No, he didn’t write “words to that effect”.

    Not the first time you make blanket claims on this thread that simply are a distortion of reality. For example, your ramblings about “appeal to authority” included the claim that medical sciences don’t appeal to a consensus. And yet, “consensus statements” and other similar wordings are *very common* in the medical literature. They are used not only in policy making (look up “Delphi process”), but also by most doctors to decide which disease you have and which treatment is most appropriate.

  223. Marco Says:

    “With regard to 1. above, you’ll say one cannot falsify a conjecture, but the same applies to the researchers who predict population collapse. Except that Crockford did find a way to do that. They predicted collapse when sea ice reached a level that it has already reached, with no collapse. Falsified. ”

    Crockford makes that *claim* in her non-published manuscript, but I cannot see that claim reflected in the papers she cite as evidence of that claim. She has created a dichotomy(*) that the scientific literature does not support.

    (*) Below x million km^2 = immediate collapse, above is fine

  224. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Marco. There’s none so blind that….

  225. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, Crockford’s “non-published manuscript” seems far more reliable and scientific than the Peer Reviewed Harvey et al 2017.

    This is a simple reason why some Blogs prefer Crockford, and others don’t, that was overlooked by the authors of Harvey et al as they pretended to do some science, with the approval of their Peers.

  226. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, what does support the science literature in Polar Bear science, other than other people’s money, which may be shrinking as some donors realise the science literature is not that reliable?

  227. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard. I was so looking forward to you explaining the ice-coverage diagram which you submitted for our edification. I did so want to know how one of the foremost experts on sea ice, and someone who proclaimed we were all ice creatures now, gained access to 1850 data before humans got there. I would also be interested to learn if this scientific (as opposed to denier rubbish) data was used in the polar bear projections. Wouldn’t be surprised.

  228. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    Here’s the exact quote regarding the Medieval Warm Period.

    “From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: the new “warm period myths” box
    Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700
    Cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte

    Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    Which are words to the effect of, “lets get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

  229. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    Hand-waving to a large body of literature as a way of disproving specific arguments is appeal to authority. Real science, and valid argumentation, consists of offering actual evidence that actually refutes the point one disagrees with. H17 does the former, not the latter.

    When a doctor diagnoses a particular disease, she remembers, or looks up in a medial text book, specific symptoms of a condition and compares them to the symptoms that her patient presents with. This is not appeal to authority. It’s looking at reports of specific evidence to see if they fit specific observations.

    This is not what H17 does. H17 pretends to falsify a large groups of blogs by making the blanket statement that they don’t cite often enough to a large body of literature. This is appeal to authority and a broad generalization.

    If you want to show that Crockford or the bloggers are wrong, you have to offer actual evidence to counter each claim they make. This is how science is done and it is what the literature is supposed to report—actual evidence of actual findings or experimental results.

    H17 does not do that and it’s laced with blatant ad hominem.

    It does not matter whether Crockford is right or wrong. All that matters is that H17 viciously attacks her without producing any actual evidence that refutes her. She is deemed guilty solely by virtue of the fact that she offers arguments that are counter to the arguments of the authors

    This is not science. Saying “she’s wrong because we’re right” is childish, intellectually vacuous, pablum.

    “Consensus” is an other myth that is perpetuated by H17. What exactly is the consensus? That climate sensitivity will be in the range predicted by the IPCC? It’s been awhile since I read them but I don’t think any of the cited surveys phrase the questions exactly like that. They ask questions like, “has the world warmed,” and, “are humans partly to blame.” I would answer yes to both those questions but you probably think of me as “far removed” from the consensus.

    You wrote,

    And yet, “consensus statements” and other similar wordings are *very common* in the medical literature. They are used not only in policy making (look up “Delphi process”)

    It would be interesting to apply the Delphi Process to the question of climate change. I don’t think it has ever been done before. The process does not, of course, offer proof of a position but it would at least give us a concise statement of what the consensus actually is.

    Maybe it would produce something like “expect mild warming, mostly on the coldest nights, no increase in bad weather, and increased photosynthetic primary production.” You probably scoffed at that but it’s quite possible that the real consensus would be closer to luke-warming than alarmists views.

    Statements like “97% of climate scientists believe” (in some vague and poorly defined position) are not common in the non-climate science literature.

    Condemning someone as wrong simply because they don’t cite to your literature is not common in non-climate scientific literature.

    Ad hominem is not common in non-climate scientific literature.

    If you think these things are common, please show us some examples.

  230. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas,

    You stated/asked: “Consensus” is an other myth that is perpetuated by H17. What exactly is the consensus?”

    – A high level of agreement among experts that the globe is warming due to human activity has been shown in many different, independent survey’s, using different methods. Some are surveys of the literature, others survey’s of scientists.

    – One of the largest and most detailed survey of climate scientists is one that I undertook in 2012 and that I described here.

    On another note, you might want to consider backing up your statements with evidence and reasoning. It’s getting tedious this way. Repeating hollow accusations a gazillion times doesn’t make them true.

  231. Richard S J Tol Says:

    @bart
    Please release all data.

  232. golf charlie Says:

    Bart Verheggen, “Repeating hollow accusations a gazillion times doesn’t make them true.”

    Putting them in a Peer Reviewed BioScience paper doesn’t make them true either.

    How does anyone get funding to research belief in Climate Science, and call it independent? How many have been carried out before, and since yours?

    How many of the co-authors of Harvey et al 2017, still believe in Mann’s Hockey Stick? Or did nobody dare to question him and work out a Consensus?

  233. Willard Says:

    > I was so looking forward to you explaining the ice-coverage diagram which you submitted for our edification.

    I was looking forward to your acknowledgment that my quote in H17 undermined your “that’s it!,” Singer. All I got is a lousy “doesn’t cut it” t-shirt. Sad.

    I’m also looking forward your review of some of the 92 papers referenced in H17 to provide a standpoint for the claim SusanC is supposed to contradict (H/T ThomasB):

    That polar bears depend on summer sea ice for their very survival.

    That would insure SusanC’s not burning down a strawman, like ThomasB’s magnificiently doing right now with H17 so far in the thread.

    I’m looking forward your opinion on if H17 is a keystone to anything, like golf’s peddling.

    I’m looking forward a quote from SusanC herself, where she makes her claim explicit. That’d be important to make sure you and ThomasB aren’t strawwomanning her.

    While you do that, I’ll try to follow another of golf’s citations. He already provided D05, which doesn’t hold the claim SusanC is allegedly attacking.

    I look forward for your help in getting SusanC’s Master Argument.

    Many thanks!

  234. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hey, I get to defend Bart twice! Who knew…

    Golf, (Charlie?), two surveys of climate scientists done by climate scientists (Verheggen et al and Bray, von Storch et al) showed that 66% of practicing climate scientists believe half or more of the current (since mid-70s) warming is caused by human contributions of greenhouse gases.

    There is a consensus. Now, some people have rather foolishly tried to paint that consensus as near unanimity, and that’s not only foolish but a mistake.

    But there is a solid consensus on that one element of the climate discussion.

  235. Willard Says:

    > some people have rather foolishly tried to paint that consensus as near unanimity

    Groundskeeper shouldn’t be so hard on Gremlins:

    The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not.

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/#comment-822

  236. Willard Says:

    > Willard keep making it about climate but my argument is about logic

    ThomasB tells another porky:

    Your first point is a strawman. The core findings of H17 is not that the Contrarian Matrix is wrong, but that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    Incidentally, ThomasB’s main argument implies that H17 needs to be about climate. Since ThomasB’s arguments have been dealt with, I see no reason not to pay due diligence to SusanC’s Master Argument. No amount of whiteknighting will prevent this from happening.

    When will ThomasB own his sock puppet, BTW?

  237. Willard Says:

    Moar Gremlins:

    The literature has been overwhelming pro-AGW for 20 years or more. The people who I know that disagree with the consensus are well aware that they are a tiny minority.

    Would it be foolish for contrarians themselves to paint that consensus as near unanimity?

  238. Thomas Says:

    Willard says,

    “That would insure SusanC’s not burning down a strawman, like ThomasB’s magnificiently doing right now with H17 so far in the thread.”

    Please explain. What do you think my strawman is?

  239. Willard Says:

    > What do you think my strawman is?

    smh

  240. Willard Says:

    > Please

    qltm

  241. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, your Keystone Domino is starting to wobble like the typing and science.

  242. Thomas Says:

    Willard @ January 8, 2018 at 01:15,

    You say I tell a porkey (a lie) but you quote your own comment.

    Willard: “Your first point is a strawman. The core findings of H17 is not that the Contrarian Matrix is wrong, but that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability”

    Your argument is nonsensical on it’s face. Blogs that “deny and disregard” what the authors think is “overwhelming scientific evidence” are clearly meant to be understood as wrong.

    Whether or not it is a core finding that the denier-bloggers are wrong, it is clearly an important claim of the paper.

    If we assume the denier blogs are correct, the paper becomes a clear hatchet job—attacking what is correct.

    If we assume the blogs are neither right nor wrong, the paper looses all meaning.

    There are many other examples that show your claim to be wrong.

    1. You statement says “blogs that deny.” Denying overwhelming science is clearly an instance of be wrong.

    2. Bart, titles this blog page, “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice.” So he, a coauthor, thinks H17 is showing that blogs got it wrong. He does not agree with your claim.

    3. The title of the paper says “climate change denial” which clearly indicates that the authors think the blogs are wrong.

    4. The paper says Watts Up With That (WUWT) “consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it.” Denying what the authors call “overwhelming science” is an instance of being wrong.

    5. The paper says, “deniers often focus their attention on observations that, when taken out of context, they can frame in a way that appears to contradict or downplay the severity of climate impacts” which is clearly wrong conduct.

    6. “Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW” which is clearly wrong conduct.

    7. Even calling skeptic blogs “denier blogs” is evidence the authors think the skeptics are wrong.

    So your conclusion that H17 is not an attack on denier blogs is not supported by the paper.

    All these statements rests on appeal to authority. The science blogs are right, therefore the denier-blogs are wrong. They don’t point to specific claims from the denier-blogs, then refute them with more credible claims from the science-based blogs. They just say, “this big body of evidence,” refutes the deniers.

    This is not science. It’s propaganda.

    Figure 2 makes this fallacy explicit. Deniers don’t quote “science-based” blog so they are wrong.

    So what you call my strawman is actually your strawman.

    You claim the paper does not say what it actually says, then shred that strawman, all the while ignoring my actual argument.

    This is not logic, it’s a kooky, illogical attempt to win an argument you already lost days ago but lack the good faith to admit.

  243. Willard Says:

    We could also borrow from SusanC’s vernacular and say “H17 = final nail in the last strawcoffin,” golf. That way, it could be a testable hypothesis. Speaking of whom:

    I do not recall ever stating or implying that if polar bear predictions of doom were wrong, then general climate change models must also be wrong. But if any other bloggers have done so, they can hardly be blamed.

    https://polarbearscience.com/2018/01/04/failed-amstrup-polar-bear-predictions-have-climate-change-community-in-a-panic/

    Dogwhistling is usually a bit more subtle than that.

    I wouldn’t blame auditors for concluding that SusanC endorses the Keystone theory.

    ***

    Thank you for alerting us of that “response” that starts with some vigorous handwaving:

    Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bears would be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) […]

    I thought it was by 2050, but what’s 30 years between friends? Let’s see where she got that prediction. Under “would be dead,” there’s a link to another post, undoubtedly another “response.” Where’s the prediction? Perhaps another series of links:

    If 10 years of summer sea ice levels expected to kill 2/3 of the world’s polar bears by 2050 hasn’t had an impact, why would anyone expect a bit less summer ice will do the job?

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/12/21/as-polar-bear-populations-fail-to-decline-with-sea-ice-message-of-doom-intensifies/

    Strange counterfactual. SusanC goes a bit fast over the fact that she’s testing a 2050 prediction with data starting in the 2000s. At least this time we got “but summer!”

    Two links, under “hasn’t had an impact”:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/09/13/recent-studies-show-sept-ice-of-3-5-mkm2-did-not-kill-polar-bears-off-as-predicted/

    Under “a bit less summer ice”:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/12/07/polar-bears-that-didnt-die-from-recent-sea-ice-loss-will-die-in-35-yrs-say-sperts/

    Still no quote of prediction.

    As I said earlier, a merry-go-round of self-citations.

  244. Thomas Says:

    There’s nothing wrong with self-citations.

    Your analysis of Crockford’s work seems as kooky as your analysis of my claim. But, anyway, whether Crockford is right or Crockford is wrong H17 is still not an example of a scientific paper. It’s propaganda.

  245. Willard Says:

    > Blogs that “deny and disregard” what the authors think is “overwhelming scientific evidence” are clearly meant to be understood as wrong.

    After more than ten days, ThomasB at last corrects his argument. (Search for “premise” in this thread to get the backwards version.) This new version looks like an indirect acknowledgment that his first accusation of an ad vericundiam was a strawman: the main claim of H17 doesn’t rest on establishing the truth of the scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. No inference from authority to truth, no ad vericundiam fallacy. It’s as simple as that.

    He’s still wrong, however, for reasons we told three days ago. Even BartV took notice:

    ThomasB “true” and “wrong” are untrue and wrong. He needs to look for other epistemic concepts.

    Perhaps in another week, we’ll start to give hints.

    ***

    ThomasB took notice of my comment too, but for the sake of this other strawman I did not say a tautology is a fallacy . After a comment where I corrected his strawman and mentioned Gettier cases, he went for black helicopters:

    This time your arguments are slightly better framed—better coaching, perhaps. If one of the authors is feeding you this information, they ought to come right out and say it themselves instead […]

    Considering that ThomasB is most probably using a sock puppet to comment here, that’s just great.

    When will ThomasB own his sock puppet?

  246. Willard Says:

    > There’s nothing wrong with self-citations.

    Perhaps in a few weeks I’ll take a few hours to count ThomasB’s proofs by assertion.

    There are many problems related to self-citation, although it tends to be a good marketing ploy:

    Self-citations – those where authors cite their own works – account for a significant portion of all citations. These self-references may result from the cumulative nature of individual research, the need for personal gratification, or the value of self-citation as a rhetorical and tactical tool in the struggle for visibility and scientific authority. In this article we examine the incentives that underlie self-citation by studying how authors’ references to their own works affect the citations they receive from others. We report the results of a macro study of more than half a million citations to articles by Norwegian scientists that appeared in the Science Citation Index. We show that the more one cites oneself the more one is cited by other scholars. Controlling for numerous sources of variation in cumulative citations from others, our models suggest that each additional self-citation increases the number of citations from others by about one after one year, and by about three after five years. Moreover, there is no significant penalty for the most frequent selfciters – the effect of self-citation remains positive even for very high rates of self-citation. These results carry important policy implications for the use of citations to evaluate performance and distribute resources in science and they represent new information on the role and impact of selfcitations in scientific communication.

    http://fowler.ucsd.edu/does_self_citation_pay.pdf

    In our case, promising a prediction and only providing self-citations is indeed wrong. It could very well be a series of unfortunate miscitation. It could also indicate that SusanC’s not fortright in identifying the standpoint she’s attacking.

    Considering that C17 tries to falsify a 2050 hypothesis more than four decades earlier, and this obfuscation starts to make lots of sense.

  247. Willard Says:

    In fairness, and looking back at the posts, SusanC did add an update and a clarification:

    UPDATE 2 January 2017: I’ve added some quotes from the original USGS reports that explicitly state their dire predictions for 2050 that differ from the predictions made by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.

    Then there’s this clarification:

    Update 2 Jan. 2017 clarification: […] For those interested, here are the relevant quotes from the USGS report (which I’ve added to the list of references below):

    “Under both modeling approaches, polar bear populations were forecasted to decline throughout all of their range during the 21st century. …Our modeling suggests that realization of the sea ice future which is currently projected, would mean loss of ≈ 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by mid-century.” (Amstrup et al. 2007:1)

    “Dominant outcomes of the BN model were for extinction of polar bear populations in the Seasonal Ice and Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregions by 45 years from present, and in the Polar Basin Convergent Ecoregion by 75 years from present…. Declines in ice habitat were the overriding factors determining all model outcomes.” (Amstrup et al. 2007:1-2)

    For more on the USGS predictions, see here and here. More on the PBSG predictions here.

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/09/13/recent-studies-show-sept-ice-of-3-5-mkm2-did-not-kill-polar-bears-off-as-predicted/

    Anyone should be interested in seeing quotes.

    The “Dominant outcomes” quote is also in the other post. It’s not a convincing quote, as the “by 45 years from present should make clear. The “overriding factors” also deserve due diligence.

    So it’s all about A07.

    SusanC is more than dogwhistling the Keystone theory – she’s exploiting it to the max.

  248. Willard Says:

    A clarification. When SusanC writes:

    For more on the USGS predictions, see here and here. More on the PBSG predictions here.

    there are three citations.

    The first “here”:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/11/01/if-experts-had-been-right-about-sea-ice-there-would-be-no-polar-bears-in-churchill/

    The second “here”:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/11/01/if-experts-had-been-right-about-sea-ice-there-would-be-no-polar-bears-in-churchill/

    The third “here”:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2016/12/07/polar-bears-that-didnt-die-from-recent-sea-ice-loss-will-die-in-35-yrs-say-sperts/

    The first and the second “here” lead to the same citation. (Notice the switch from A17 to “experts”) The third “here” was previously seen. It must have been cited elsewhere.

    An amazing maze.

  249. Marco Says:

    “Crockford’s “non-published manuscript” seems far more reliable and scientific than the Peer Reviewed Harvey et al 2017. ”

    Well, of course it will look like that to someone who has no discernable understanding of science, and manufactures conspiracies whenever information does not suit him:
    “Marco, what does support the science literature in Polar Bear science, other than other people’s money, which may be shrinking as some donors realise the science literature is not that reliable?”

    Weirdly, you completely ignore these supposed monetary incentives when it comes to Crockford, who got (and maybe still gets) money from the Heartland institute ($750 a month).

  250. Marco Says:

    “Which are words to the effect of, “lets get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””

    No they aren’t. Only someone suffering from extreme confirmation bias (or a deliberate obfuscationist, who knows his target is easily fooled) would claim such a thing.

  251. Marco Says:

    “When a doctor diagnoses a particular disease, she remembers, or looks up in a medial text book, specific symptoms of a condition and compares them to the symptoms that her patient presents with. This is not appeal to authority. It’s looking at reports of specific evidence to see if they fit specific observations.
    This is not what H17 does. H17 pretends to falsify a large groups of blogs by making the blanket statement that they don’t cite often enough to a large body of literature. This is appeal to authority and a broad generalization.”

    Weird argumentation, Thomas. Those textbooks are written by experts(!) citing scientific literature(!). It includes selection of sources and expert interpretation. It is not different from citing the scientific literature on polar bears and their required habitat and relying on the experts in that field. If you consider the latter an Appeal to Authority, you *must* also consider the former and Appeal to Authority.

    Do you seriously think doctors (in general, let’s ignore the homeopathic and holistic cranks) would look in a medical textbook on, say, heart disease, written by someone who is a podiatrist, and who makes claim that are at odds with the scientific literature on heart disease?

  252. Marco Says:

    “It would be interesting to apply the Delphi Process to the question of climate change. I don’t think it has ever been done before. The process does not, of course, offer proof of a position but it would at least give us a concise statement of what the consensus actually is. ”

    See the Bray and Von Storch surveys – these get relatively close to a Delphi process. The outcomes of those surveys are, however, not what you expect, so I am sure you will reject those (but not after cherry-picking a few of the questions where you think you can twist the answers to your desired interpretation – see your prior misreading of Overpeck’s e-mail).

  253. Marco Says:

    @Richard Tol:

    Maybe you should start with apologizing for all your mistakes you made so far, like falsely claiming Harvey et al does not provide criteria for a further reduction of papers beyond the keywords “polar bear” and “arctic sea ice”.

  254. Marco Says:

    “Statements like “97% of climate scientists believe” (in some vague and poorly defined position) are not common in the non-climate science literature.”

    Cause and consequence are important factors here: there hardly is any other scientific field where there has been such a widespread attack on that field by various political actors, claiming “there is no consensus”. Naomi Oreskes was the first to do a “consensus” study in the field of climate science, because corporations, media and politicians kept on claiming there was no consensus.

    Tell me any other scientific field with such a discrepancy between the science and the portrayals by corporations, media and politicians of that science, and you’ll likely find consensus studies, or consensus statements by various professional organizations. The closest you’ll likely get is evolutionary biology, where you’ll find strongly worded “appeals to authority” from a range of professional organizations.

  255. Marco Says:

    “two surveys of climate scientists done by climate scientists (Verheggen et al and Bray, von Storch et al) showed that 66% of practicing climate scientists believe half or more of the current (since mid-70s) warming is caused by human contributions of greenhouse gases.”

    Bray and Von Storch 2016 (page 30)

    The question:
    “Figure 21. (v013) Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes?”

    You need to combine 4+5 (51% or more anthropogenic), which makes 84.16%. Note: since 1850, not mid-70s. No specific question was asked about greenhouse gases.

    Verheggen et al 2012

    The question (1):
    “What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century
    can be attributed to human-induced increases in atmospheric GHG
    concentrations?”

    Here we get to your 66%, but again we’re not talking about mid-70s *and* the Verheggen et al survey explicitly included various people who were NOT climate scientists (and did no research in this area), but known to hold contrarian views on the topic.

  256. golf charlie Says:

    Marco, what percentage of the author’s of Harvey et al 2017 believe in Mann’s Hockey Stick, as a record of past temperatures, and a projection of what is to come?

  257. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    From Bart V at jan 7, 2018 20:50

    “– A high level of agreement among experts that the globe is warming due to human activity has been shown in many different, independent survey’s, using different methods. Some are surveys of the literature, others survey’s of scientists.

    – One of the largest and most detailed survey of climate scientists is one that I undertook in 2012 and that I described here.”

    Question Bart – How are we to judge the validity of your two statements and the quality of climate science when the shoddiness of harvey 2017 is indicative of the rest of climate science work?

  258. Willard Says:

    > How are we to judge the validity of your two statements and the quality of climate science when the shoddiness of harvey 2017 is indicative of the rest of climate science work?

    You can’t – it’s the Keystone to the door that kept climate science to dissolve into the Contrarian Matrix.

    Social network analysis of biology papers is that powerful.

    Question, Joe – how can you judge the validity of GWPF’s note reports?

  259. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard do you have some form of aversion to answering simple questions directly? You present us with a shonky Arctic sea-ice coverage diagram going back to 1850 and ask us to consider it as evidence supporting your wider argument. So I did and asked you to explain some aspects of it which were not self evident. Twice now, and no sensible responce. Perhaps now you also now perceive the diagram’s inner shonkiness, but your ego prevents you from admitting it. Perhaps by now you perceive the inner shonkiness of H17 but cannot admit to it’s rightful place – the trash heap. What a lot of inner repression you must have stored up.

  260. Willard Says:

    When you yourself will answer questions directly, dear Singer, I’ll see what I can do. You failed to acknowledge that the paragraph I quote in H17 undermines your “that’s it! If that’s not enough, there are 92 papers to review. You failed to say if H17 was a keystone domino for anything. Dropping the appeals to pride would help too.

    Your “Oh horrors” doesn’t look like a good try. They’re more a variation on the “but CAGW” meme.

    Try again, this time connecting with SusanC’s GWPF technical notes, her PeerJ preprint, or anything that falls outside the hall of mirrors of her website.

  261. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    So now the whole world can observe, blowhard Williard has no answer. His scientific acumen is zero, and he resorts to childish games: “I will, if you do first”.
    Bart: is this creature your first line of defence?

  262. Marco Says:

    “Shonky” are the questions of those who do not even take the effort to read the paper from which the diagram was taken, and which answers those questions.

    Not that reading the paper will change Singer’s mind about the diagram being “shonky”. He’s planted his flag already…

  263. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    I depart.
    I had high hopes that I might get answers to my questions about H17 here. But I have given up. I was given to understand Bart that you were a good guy. But you don’t answer questions, have deleted people’s posts that asked legitimate questions, and allow yourself to be defended by the scientific equivalent of the Chuckles Bros (williard et marcos).
    For a short time I thought I had found what I still seek – a blog giving a balanced viewpoint on climate with reasoned input from both warmist and sceptical contributors. But I haven’t, you allow your site to be a haven of trolls.

  264. Willard Says:

    Farewell, Singer, and thanks for the JAQing off.

  265. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Marco I tried to find the source of that diagram, but failed. You mean there is an explanation for where the nineteenth century ice-cover data comes from. Oh please tell?
    As to “planting my flag” those who know me in other blogs (as supertroll or Alan Kendall) will tell you I do have my mind changed, have apologized (rarely) and conceded. I still have a scientific mind and can be persuaded by evidence. Until I find an explanation of how sea-ice coverage can be measured before humans could even get to most of the Arctic that diagram (put forward by your sidekick Williard as evidence) remains shonky.
    Prove me wrong – please.

  266. Willard Says:

    Do you depart, or do you stay Singer?

    Coming here without identifying you the same way you do at PaulM’s is sock puppetry. Back in my days, that wasn’t a Good Thing. Not that this is unexpected from PaulM’s comic relief.

    The source of the diagram you are JAQing off about is in the tweet.

    Click on links. Follow citations. Win.

  267. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Singer, your departure is what willard is aiming for. Because you have two legs. (all of willard’s commentary = 4 legs good, 2 legs bad). This is a strategy he has deployed for years, with long and irrelevant commentary meant to drive the discussion into the ground.

    It’s an old tactic, but one he labeled Climateball and has been running with for years. He has his own self-referential vocabulary and plays with himself when nobody’s around. Then he snarks about JAQing off.

    We are now 265 posts into this thread and willard is responsible for most. He has contributed nothing to the discussion and is here solely to derail it.

    There’s a name for that.

  268. Willard Says:

    > We are now 265 posts into this thread and willard is responsible for most.

    In Groundskeeper fictional world, 73 / 265 = most.

    Because, legs.

    Our contrarians so far:

    Groundskeeper = 44
    ThomasB = 36
    golf charlie = 34
    Singer = 20
    Richie = 6
    joe = 4
    HansE = 3
    David P. Young from The Boeing Company = 2
    SusanC = 1

    That’s 150, right?

    Now, that’s what you can call most.

    Groundskeeper should stick to rip off his shirt using cheap literary references.

  269. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, and still no questions about the science content of Harvey et al 2017 resolved. Is that a new record for you?

    Is that why people tend to ignore the Consensus Blogs, if they have questions to ask?

    Is that the message of Harvey et al 2017?

  270. Hans Erren Says:

    Willard, the majority of the comments are yours and also off topic.

  271. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as willard has stretched (polluted) the thread:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  272. Willard Says:

    > the majority of the comments are yours and also off topic.

    Both claims are false, HansE.

    The majority of the comments are from the Contrarian Matrix.

    Most of my comments are about H17.

    Thank you for playing the ref.

  273. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Tom I genuinely did come looking for a more balanced blogsite, but certainly I didn’t find it on this thread. Bart virtually ignores my genuine questions and the chuckle bros effectively derail any reasonable discussion. I have read your and Thomas’s contributions with interest and they have firmed up and added to my negative opinion of H17. I have found virtually little (but not zero) that is supportive of that paper.

    I shall probably give this site another viewing, but for now you and Thomas appear to be in a death spiral with two trolls.

    As I suspected, that ice cover diagram does not come from the source listed by Marcos (although the so- called data might). Most of the old data comes from whaler’s ice edge data from relatively small areas and it is assumed that ice covered the rest. The early data is mostly extrapolation and interpolation and is of extremely poor value. I wouldn’t use it in any scientific dispute.

  274. Willard Says:

    > Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice […] You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point

    For the nth time:

    1. The main point is about the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability.

    Not sea-ice loss. Not polar bears vulnerability.

    The relationship between the two.

    2. To be of any relevance, this relationship presupposes sea-ice loss.

    Arguing the alternative is somehow acceptable in a courtroom. (Cf. Racehorse Haynes.) It may be acceptable for scientific enquiry, but only if we accept counterfactual thinking. Which means we go beyond evidence-based reasoning.

    Putting these two together explains why Groundskeeper is fishing in the dark since early December. Even he can’t deny that the Contrarian Matrix disregards or downplays the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. He goes for sea-ice loss alone, which cranks up denial beyond SusanC’s justified disingenuousness.

    So let’s add a third point:

    3. Considering that SusanC’s Master Argument rests on the idea that sea-ice loss is already like the 2050 projections, and that 80% of the blogs defer almost exclusively to their Arctic Champion, it’s perfectly normal that the Contrarian Matrix accepts sea-ice loss as a fact.

    Since Groundskeeper has nothing against that argument, we can expect more shirt ripping from him.

  275. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Translation: …2 legs bad.

  276. Hans Erren Says:

    Willard, now that I have your attention, how many logical fallacies can you spot in H17?

  277. Willard Says:

    HansE,

    Now that I have yours, would you be so kind as to admit that your two previous claims were wrong, and would you bring me a cup of coffee?

    If you could also provide a quote and a citation where we can find SusanC’s Master Argument, that’d be great.

  278. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    My name is Thomas Mee. I’m a small business owner (www.meefog.com) with an deep interest in climate. The opinions I have given in these comments are my own. I have not discussed this issue with anyone except you and the other participants in this blog.

    Who are you? Have you been discussing these issues with the authors? Have they or someone else been coaching you?

    Your logic and arguments are so twisted and change so frequently that it’s difficult to follow you at all.

    In your comment of January 8, 2018 at 04:46 you say that I changed my argument. This is a false claim. There has been no change in my argument since the beginning. From the beginning I have contended that the main claim of the paper—that denier blogs are wrong because they don’t cite the polar bear literature—is illogical and nonscientific.

    You claimed that my argument is a strawman because the point of H17 is not that the denier blogs are wrong but only that they don’t cite the literature. I gave many examples showing that H17 does in face try to show the denier-blogs are wrong, including the one you quoted above.

    The fact that H17 does try to show the denier blogs are wrong is so obvious that it seems impossible for anyone not to see it.

    When I wrote, “Blogs that ‘deny and disregard’ what the authors think is ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’ are clearly meant to be understood as wrong.” I was not changing my argument, I was only giving an example of how H17 tries to show that denier-blogs are wrong.

    My argument has always been:

    1. The paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    2. The evidence offered to support this claim is given at Figure 2, which shows the results of the only original research preformed by the authors. This result is the assertion or proposition which forms the basis of the work (i.e. it’s premise). It shows that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as other blogs.

    3. The evidence that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as someone else cites the literature is not evidence that they are wrong. Such an argument is a fallacious appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and unscientific.

    The paper makes many unsubstantiated claims about deniers; “For example, scientific blogs provide context and associated evidence, whereas denier blogs often remove context or misinterpret examples.” But this is just an unsubstantiated claim. The only evidence the authors offer is the analysis shown in figure 2.

    The only place the authors claim to show actual research evidence that actually indicates the deniers are wrong, is the evidence presented at figure 2. But the applicability of that evidence to the question at hand, is based on faulty reasoning.

    You wrote, “the main claim of H17 doesn’t rest on establishing the truth of the scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.” Yes it does because it claims that denier-blogs foment misunderstanding on the subject of polar bears. The blogs disseminate information on polar bears, if that information in correct it would not foment misunderstanding.

    The skeptics attack the science of the polar bear community with evidence and argument. As a counter attack, the community does not offer any actual evidence that the skeptics are wrong, they only make the crazy claim that the skeptics are wrong because they disagree with the community. This is not science.

    You cite Bart as saying, “The overwhelming scientific evidence is what it is. It can always be wrong. When it can’t, it’s not science anymore. The onus is on the ones who dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence to provide evidence against it.”

    This gets the logic exactly backwards! The denier-blogs DO offer evidence that the “overwhelming scientific evidence” is wrong. If the polar-bear community want to show that the denier blogs are wrong, the onus is on THEM to provide evidence against it. This paper does NOT do that.

    H17 assumes the community evidence is correct, and therefore the deniers are wrong. This is appeal to authority and circular reasoning. “We assume we are right, so the deniers must be wrong, which is proof we are right.” This is nonsense, not science.

    If you don’t address this argument you are not arguing in good faith and I will ignore you, or simply refer you back to this post.

    Your citation about self citation notes that, “self-references may result from the cumulative nature of individual research.” That was the point I was trying to make. I should have said, “self citation is not always wrong.”

    So far I have shown each of your arguments to be wrong. When are you going to do the right thing and admit that I right and this paper is intellectual garbage?

    The answer is you never will because your politics prevents you from telling the truth.

  279. Thomas Says:

    Marco Says,

    “No they aren’t [words to the effect of let’s get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (WMP)]. Only someone suffering from extreme confirmation bias (or a deliberate obfuscationist, who knows his target is easily fooled) would claim such a thing.”

    It was actually David Demming who claimed to have received an email for a major climate change researcher who said, “quote, we have to rid of the of the MWP, unquote.”

    Start at 1:17 minutes here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw

    Some have speculated that Overpeck’s ClimateGate email might have been what he was refereeing do but that email doesn’t say what Demming claimed his email said.

    Overpeck wrote, “I […] would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.”

    Dealing a mortal blow is the same as “get rid of” but I see your point. He does say he wants to get rid of the “misuse” of the warm periods in the literature, not the warm period itself.

    It’s clear that Overpeck felt that saying recent warming could be natural, because the MWP, was rubbish. He wanted to get rid of that argument. How to get rid of the argument without getting rid of the MWP? He does not say.

    Anyway, I’ll concede your point that Overpeck does not say what I said he said.

  280. Willard Says:

    Nothing better than a contrarian peddling CG I-II-III right after a few ones whined about OT posts.

    ***

    Perhaps following through H17’s own citations of SusanC would be more expedient than entering SusanC’s hall of mirrors or waiting for our visiting contrarian scholars to provide breadcrumbs. From C15:

    The models relied upon the opinions of a single expert regarding how polar bears might respond to predicted sea ice changes.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/06/Arctic-Fallacy2.pdf

    SusanC does not exactly say that she’s against the opinions of single experts, but if her readers thought she did, SusanC could hardly blame them.

  281. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    The surveys are more illogical circular reasoning.

    1. How do we know that AGW is a real threat?

    2. Because the experts tell us it is.

    3. How do we know the experts are correct?

    4. Because most of the experts agree they are correct.

    Reminds me of a anecdote. Three brothers are discussing how to divide up two candy bars. The oldest takes one bar, breaks it in half, gives half to each younger bother, and keeps a whole bar for himself. The middle brother asked why the older one got a full bar while they only got half a bar each. The older brother says it because he is the smartest. The youngest asked, “How do we know you’re the smartest?” The eldest responded, “because I have the most candy.”

    I think the experts are wrong and the fact that the majority of them think they are right doesn’t change my view.

    To change my view, climate scientists would have to offer actual evidence. The only evidence they have for their belief that humans have caused most of the warming, and that the warming will be sever, are some model calculations that assume positive feedbacks.

    I don’t believe the models because it would be too easy to inadvertently (or advertantly) tune them so that CO2 causes most of the recent warming.

    We’ve been adding a lot of CO2 for at least 70 years but the world got only slightly warmer and humankind prospered—falling poverty rates, improve living standards, etc.—and the weather didn’t get worse, and polar bears didn’t decline. None of the dire predictions have come to pass.

    I don’t believe the arguments about positive feedbacks because I find them not compelling—e.g. more water vapor means more GH effect but should also mean more clouds. If the climate were sensitive to small changes, i.e. strong feedbacks, the climate would have already tipped over to very warm or very cold and stayed that way.

    I think most of the current warming is probably due to natural fluctuation. We don’t know what caused the MWP or the Little Ice Age so we can’t say that similar fluctuation are not also the cause of the recent warming.

    I think it’s extremely bad manners, and an indication of moral weakness, for alarmist to call me a denier simply because they have failed to offer convincing evidence of their theory.

    Handwaving to multiple lines of evidence, overwhelming evidence, etc. is just an attempt to not have to do what science requires; that one show actual evidence to support one’s claims.

  282. Thomas Says:

    Come on Bart.

    There is no ad hominem or needless repetition in my post that is still pending approval. It not too long. It just makes my argument more clear and shows where Willard’s arguments fail. I promise I won’t repeat it again. I’ll just refer back to that post.

    Be good guy and let it post.

  283. Willard Says:

    > I think most of the current warming is probably due to natural fluctuation.

    ThomasB redicovers Level 0 of the Contrarian Matrix.

    A related line:

    I think that climate change is occurring but I don’t think the majority cause is the rise of carbon dioxide. There are other much more major causes. There is quite a bit of evidence that it is due to changes in the sun’s output.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-alan-kendall-science-never-used-to-have-a-consensus-419742.html

  284. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t think there is any good evidence indicating that the recent warming is due to changes in the solar output.

    Mocking statements about “contrarian matrix levels” are not valid argument, nor even mildly interesting, nor clever—especially when there are misspelled words.

    These comments only make you look insincere, and kooky.

  285. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    At this point we still do not know if the researchers for Harvey et al 2017 picked contrarian blogs precisely because they don’t think polar bears are vulnerable.

    Sample selection is a key pre-requisite for this research. There are more than 45 contrarian blogs out there. How were these chosen? Why were high traffic contrarian climate weblogs (e.g., Judith Curry, Climate Audit) not among them?

  286. Willard Says:

    > Don’t put words in my mouth.

    I did not.

    “I think most of the current warming is probably due to natural fluctuation” is related to “I think that climate change is occurring but I don’t think the majority cause is the rise of carbon dioxide.”

    Anything But Carbon.

    ABC.

    ***

    > there are misspelled words.

    Ermahgerd!

    Any constructive comment on the Contrarian Matrix is welcome. If ThomasB could ever make one (God knows he’s trying hard not to), we’ll thank him in the Colophon. He could choose the sock puppet name of his choice.

  287. golf charlie Says:

    Willard, you are still proving why people don’t go to Consensus Blogs if they seek honest answers to simple questions.

    Is this how the Consensus Matrix works to “prove” Harvey et al 2017?

    People refer to Judith Curry
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/#more-23734

  288. Thomas Says:

    Bart,

    Thanks for letting my comment post. You really are a “good guy” as Thomas Fuller said twice. Two Thomas and three compliments. Not bad!

    Willard,

    I did not say “anything but carbon.” I said I think the warming effect of CO2 is mild. I don’t doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    The rest of your comment is just more mocking silliness that contains no actual argument. So I’ll ignore it.

    Kooky monster refuses to respond to my actual argument, then pretends to respond, then refuse to respond again. All the while keeping up a patter of meaningless m ocking that contains no argument whatsoever That’s kooky conduct.

    I gave concise argument showing that your claims of a strawman and your augments defending the paper are illogical and incorrect.

    See January 8, 2018 at 21:26

    Address my actual arguments. I dare you. : )

  289. Willard Says:

    > I did not say “anything but carbon.”

    The gaslighting continues, second time now with that misattribution trick.

    I didn’t say ThomasB said it either. I said it was related to another common line in the Level 0 of the Contrarian Matrix. The relationship is ABC – Anything But Carbon. Hence the Level’s slogan: Lots of theories, none of which are related to H17.

    A pity what ThomasB allows himself to do on BartV’s rug.

    It ties the room so well together.

    ***

    > Address my actual arguments

    Asserting talking points from the Contrarian Matrix and peddling common ClimateBall memes don’t arguments make.

    None of them are relevant to H17.

    Let us note, however, that ThomasB’s rehearsal of the CGs triggers Level 5:

    https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/we-won/.

    ***

    The other citation in H17 about SusanC’s Master Argument is C14:

    As it stands, I can only conclude that polar bears are not in trouble at present, despite recent variations in sea ice coverage, and that computer models used to predict a future decline are simply not valid.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/08/healthy-polarbears.pdf

    SusanC shouldn’t blame anyone to conclude that she denies the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability.

    At the end of the above quote, there’s the last footnote, inviting readers to her hall of mirrors:

    https://polarbearscience.com/2014/07/05/are-polar-bears-really-endangered/

    In C14, there are 54 footnotes. Almost all citations. Most are from SusanC’s, some cite USGS, her main target.

    Another interesting quote from C14:

    Media attention can be an important career-booster

    Coming from the Arctic Champion of the Contrarian Matrix, these are words of wisdom. Words of wisdom.

  290. Willard Says:

    ThomasM,

    Thank you for your long comment, which I’ve just seen. There are two parts to it – your argument and your ClimateBall self. I’ll post a short post on your ClimateBall self now. You’ll have to wait a bit for your argument.

    Here’s why I suspected you were using a sockpuppet. First, you told me “old friend,” and I don’t recall having exchanged with a “Thomas” before. Second, those who are new to ClimateBall usually need a bit of “grooming” (h/t Moshpit) before learning the lines of the Contrarian Matrix. I don’t think people lie about details like “old friend” and being a pilot, so the most plausible explanation to me is that we met before at a time you wore another handle.

    (I could have forgotten, as in contrast of Moshpit, I don’t have a photographic memory. But I do have breadcrumbs, and ways to find back information when needed. This was the first reason behind my Neverending Audit tumblog.)

    Now, I could not care less about who you really are. What I care is that your handle remains constant across the various ClimateBall fields. As my avatar used to say, there’s no entity without identity. Sockpuppetry is not a good thing, and abusing it revokes any right to be a valid interlocutor to me. (Your abuses too, BTW – this is your very last chance, and your response will decide on how I will respond to your from now on and forever.)

    Which leads me to my last point for now. I don’t need any help from the authors of H17 to make up my mind. Most aren’t very good ClimateBall players. Most are into publishing stuff, and from an editor’s perspective publishing is never really pretty. Had you taken the main lesson of this episode to heart and followed the goddamn citations instead of overclocking the ad nauseam mode, you may have already found out that I can provide constructive criticism when needed. I don’t hold my punches, except toward BartV. We all have soft spots.

    ***

    But perhaps you’re new here. Here’s the problem I’m trying to solve in this thread: are contrarians able to provide constructive criticism? So far, I tend to agree with Marco – the chances are slim. Ranting and abusing a gentle guy like BartV is too irresistible, perhaps.

    In any case, your argument rests on an epistemological mistake, and I like to explore such thing.

    Until later,

    W

  291. Willard Says:

    > When I wrote, “Blogs that ‘deny and disregard’ what the authors think is ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’ are clearly meant to be understood as wrong.” I was not changing my argument, I was only giving an example of how H17 tries to show that denier-blogs are wrong.

    Your argument indeed evolved, ThomasM. Look at the following:

    [Unworthy] This is like saying people who think premise A is correct take a position that is different than people who think premise A is not correct. It’s a conclusion that tells us nothing of value.

    [Absurd] Attempting to verify the validity of the data collected for the paper is a waste of time because the very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd. […] If you divide people into groups based on their position on an issue, then over [sic.] course they are going to have different position on the issue. The above statement, and the paper, tell us nothing about the validity of either position.

    [Meaningless] Blogs that “deny and disregard” what the authors think is “overwhelming scientific evidence” are clearly meant to be understood as wrong. […] If we assume the blogs are neither right nor wrong, the paper looses [sic.] all meaning.

    The first two are very different from the third. Even the first two differ: the first presents H17’s argument as trivial (its conclusion obtains), and the second one as self-defeating (its conclusion never really obtains). Only the third constructs H17 as an empirical argument, i.e. its conclusion can obtain, or not. There’s also a formal difference: the first two attack the form of H17’s argument, while the third attacks the implication of its conclusion.

    The last version is interesting because you argue by cases to ascertain that H17’s argument implies that mainstream science needs to be right: either denying the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bears is right, either it’s wrong, or else. Ingenious, but it fails, because your “else” part is infelicitous for at least two kinds of reasons.

    First, it forgets that SusanC could have an unfalsifiable position. For instance, if all she does is raising concerns, i.e. she claims nothing whatsoever, how can she be wrong? (I already asked you that question.) Another situation is when dealing with cranks such as Ned Nikolov – his dimensionless new physics paradigm can’t even be wrong. There’s nothing to counter. There’s nothing to refute. There’s no there there.

    Second, empirical sciences is not about more about truth, but about the process, i.e. justifications. To say the same thing differently, it’s more about being correct than being right. (That’s why I insisted on oracles earlier.) In contrast to what you claimed many times so far in the thread, justifications include more than evidence, but everything we need to build our theories: arguments, explanations, interpretations, projections, etc.

    The first point refutes the logic of your argument. The second refutes any empirical content it may have. As I see it, your strawman of H17 rests on a misconception of science. The reason why H17’s argument works is because of how science, as an institution, works. That the Contrarian Matrix cannot cite the main polar bear lichurchur indicates that it walks on thin ice. That it elected SusanC as its Arctic Champion doesn’t inspire much confidence in finding anything that can topple the overwhelming evidence on the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    Sure, H17 can only provide circumstancial evidence, but it’s evidence nevertheless. It tells something. It’s not absurd. It doesn’t imply that contrarians like SusanC or anyone else (but who exactly?) are wrong. All it tells us is that the contrarians are far from winning the race to the best explanation. In fact, it’s not even clear that SusanC has an alternative explanation to offer. Paying lips service to Brotkin and waving one’s arms while chanting “it’s all so dynamic!” (not unlike the “but chaos” bunch would do) doesn’t offer any plausible alternative. Hence her perhaps new “but spring ice.”

    Talk about bad undergraduate stuff.

    ***

    > The [contrarians] attack the science of the polar bear community with evidence and argument.

    You wish. If you’d take a look at how the auditing sciences usually unfold, you may have to change your mind.

    Hence why I’m interested in SusanC’s Master Argument.

  292. Marco Says:

    “Marco I tried to find the source of that diagram, but failed.”

    You didn’t try very hard, considering the fact that the comment from Willard had this figure embedded by Andrew Derocher, who put a direct link to the paper in his Tweet (hint: “Walsh et al 2016”)

  293. Marco Says:

    “I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre”

    A search on climateaudit for polar bears returns a single hit (excluding the discussion about the current paper), and one that is clearly irrelevant (a few pictures of someone being chased by a polar bear). Obviously climateaudit does not qualify, because you cannot look at the issue at hand (polar bears vs sea ice).

    On Judith Curry’s site the only really relevant thing I found was a lengthy excerpt from a book.

  294. Marco Says:

    “Handwaving to multiple lines of evidence, overwhelming evidence, etc. is just an attempt to not have to do what science requires; that one show actual evidence to support one’s claims.”

    You claim there is no actual evidence, but I doubt anyone could convince you otherwise, ever. You are a dismissive, as Sou so aptly called people like you.

  295. Thomas Says:

    [snip]

    My argument has always been:

    1. The paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    2. The evidence offered to support this claim is given at Figure 2, which shows the results of the only original research preformed by the authors. This result is the assertion or proposition which forms the basis of the work (i.e. it’s premise). It shows that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as other blogs.

    3. The evidence that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as someone else cites the literature is not evidence that they are wrong. Such an argument is a fallacious appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and unscientific.

    [snip]

  296. Willard Says:

    > Me thinks I did cut deep.

    So be it.

    ***

    > Address my argument,

    Done a while ago, e.g.:

    As far as tautologies go, here’s one that counters Thomas’ main point: there’s no need to prove contrarians wrong to show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. Showing that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence suffices.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39947

    This suffices to show that #2 is a strawman and that #3 doesn’t apply.

    His #1 is simply false.

  297. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas,

    Please stick to the argument you wish to make and leave stuff that’s just meant to taunt others away. I removed those parts from your last comment and left the points for discussion stand.

  298. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Guess what Marco, Fig 9 from Walsh et al. 2016 comes from another source and the origin of the data (if it could be called that) used is not identified. If that figure merely illustrates information from the paper, then its essentially rubbish. The only information of any worth about 19th century ice cover comes from information provided by whalers. Vast areas of the Arctic have no information whatsoever. Possibly as good as can be gained but don’t present it as evidence. Even today predicting ice cover is an art not a science as that recent attempt to sail across the Russian Arctic showed.

  299. Thomas Says:

    > Marco says, “You claim there is no actual evidence, but I doubt anyone could convince you otherwise, ever. You are a dismissive, as Sou so aptly called people like you.

    I didn’t say there is, “no actual evidence.” I said there is no evidence that convinces me that dangerous warming is coming.

    Yet you dismiss as “a dismissive.” That’s ironic.

    I contend the only evidence of dangerous warming is the models.

    Do you have other evidence you think I should consider? Do you believe the models get it right? If so, why?

  300. Thomas Says:

    Replicatable is not a word but it’s what I meant when my computer wrote “replaceable results.” Science is the process of finding results that can be replicated by others.

  301. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Thomas,

    Your comment gets in auto-moderation because you keep using derogatory words.

    Try again after you clean up your comment.

    Agree to disagree is an option as well, by the way. We won’t convince each other by repeating what we’ve already said many times over.

  302. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    You forgot to comment on this:

    The surveys are [just] more illogical circular reasoning.

    1. How do we know that AGW is a real threat?

    2. Because the experts tell us it is.

    3. How do we know the experts are correct?

    4. Because most of the experts agree they are correct.

    How is that a logical argument?

  303. Marco Says:

    Singer, that figure by Julienne Stroeve is from the data from Walsh et al. Dismiss the information all your want, but it goes beyond just data from whalers. But if you so desperately want, you can also cut off the part before 1900 or so, so you don’t need to rely (in part) on information from whalers. Still doesn’t change the picture…

  304. Marco Says:

    Thomas, you are starting to move the goalposts. First you dismissed the evidence that GHGs are the prime cause of the recent warming trend and dismissed any supposed positive feedbacks, now you change your argument to “not dangerous”. Those are two different aspects.

    So, let me come to those positive feedbacks which you doubt. I cannot but translate your comment as: more water vapor = more clouds = less warming. If I got that right, read on, if not, you might want to revise your original argument.

    So, what is wrong with that simplistic “more water vapor = more clouds = less warming”?
    Let’s start with the first step: more water vapor = more clouds. Will there be more clouds? Maybe. Maybe not. After all, cloud formation is primarily governed by relative humidity, not absolute humidity. It’s the latter that increases with increasing temperature, the former may not.
    Then let’s look at the next step: more clouds = less warming. Hmm. Why? Clouds may reduce solar input, but they also reduce IR output. In fact, Richard Lindzen proposed, in his iris hypothesis, that warming would lead to fewer tropical cirrus clouds, which would lead to less warming. Remember also that clouds reduce IR radiation leaving the atmosphere (which is one reason it is warmer at nights with plenty of clouds). So, more clouds = less warming is at the very least oversimplified.

  305. Marco Says:

    “You forgot to comment on this:”

    Want me to comment? I’ll do it with an analogy:

    1. How do we know that non-vaccination is a real threat?

    2. Because the experts tell us it is.

    3. How do we know the experts are correct?

    4. Because most of the experts agree they are correct.

    Still want to use vaccines, Thomas? I very much doubt you have independently looked at the evidence provided by those same experts who say non-vaccination is a threat!

    Important post scriptum to all others: please don’t stop vaccinating yourself and your children!

  306. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Oh I can hardly wait: Marco challenges someone about humidity and clouds who’s job is making fogs. Even I, a mere geologist, see two major errors. Go get’im Thomas.

  307. Willard Says:

    > Marco challenges someone about humidity and clouds who’s job is making fogs. Even I, a mere geologist […]

    I’ve seen that kind of argument somewhere, but where?

  308. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard. Argument, what argument?
    I argued not. I do, whoever, anticipate a good argument but I leave it to my betters to argue with trolls. I lose interest too quickly and have much better things to do with my time. I could be disappointed in that Thomas may recognize the futility of disputing basic atmospheric physics with someone incapable of understanding and may sidestep in favour of his real goal of getting a response from Bart. You and Marco act as an impediment to any real conversation, but that’s the intention, isn’t it? If only it wasn’t so blatant.

    Are the Chuckle Bros a tag team? Seems like it.

  309. Willard Says:

    > Science is the process of finding results that can be replicated by others.

    Just like animal legs, rugs that tie rooms together, and meme bots.

    There are merits in seeing scientists as results processors. This image bypasses the reasons why we produce these results in the first place. A big hint is provided by the journal articles’ structure – the “results” section is seldom the last one.

    However, that model (gasp!) may be good enough for a thread about a paper that finds that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. On the one hand, you have 92 papers. On the other, you have for the most part SusanC’s hall of mirrors. As we already saw, even she frowns upon the use of single experts.

    Singer can hardly wait, no doubt.

    One big problem with the science-as-replication modulz is that it portrays science as a boxing match. For the most part, that’s inexact – science is a race. Research teams compete in producing results that will outmatch one another. Unsustainable research programmes die on their own, alone, without ever really be refuted.

    The only place where science is could be seen as a boxing match is with what I call the auditing sciences. They don’t exist yet. They’re mostly metaphorical, they’re kinda like the institution of the Auditor General. To be able to AUDIT ALL THE SCIENCES is a great ideal. Perhaps it’ll work better with the sciences than with our finances – the US Government can’t account for most of its spendings on Occupy Iraq.

    Looking into SusanC’s hall of mirrors, auditors would try to find her Master Argument. What would ordinary scientists do instead? They’d check the lichurchur. What is best here?

    Perhaps this would help decide:

    Whatever we choose, this ClimateBall episode helps illustrate two prescriptions: follow citations, and take good care of rugs that tie rooms together.

  310. Willard Says:

    > Argument, what argument?

    The argument according to which “I can hardly wait” and “go get him” presumes that ThomasM is right, which means it’s an invalid appeal to an authority because it begs the question it’s supposed to ask, otherwise it tells nothing of value and is a tautology. Et cetera. You may have missed it. ThomasB only repeated it more than 20 times.

    Speaking of whom, Singer, I await in anticipation your discussion of his:

    I don’t think there is any good evidence indicating that the recent warming is due to changes in the solar output.

    I already have popcorn.

    Oh, and do you think that if some Russian scientists are right in believing that we’re heading for a new glacial period we should be pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

    ***

    Since most of your comments aren’t related to H17 and that the others were simply dismissive, I take your concerns regarding trolling with a grain of salt.

  311. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard another distraction to divert attention away from the task at hand, another flash of the mirror. The mirror however is dull in every sense. Willi doesn’t do science, he uses diagrams willi-nilli that he doesn’t understand and which illustrate his scientific ignorance.

  312. Willard Says:

    Task at hand? What task at hand, Singer?

    This ain’t your classroom, and Waldorf’s funnier than you.

  313. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    Are you joining with Willard and Bard as an argument denier? Are you all unable to come up with any reasonable counter argument?

    Why not just admit the paper is not valid science and retract it? Admitting error is the first step on the road to being right.

    I’m happy to discuss the details of global warming but that’s not really what this thread is about.

    > Marco says, “now you change your argument to “not dangerous”. Those are two different aspects.”

    It’s not a change. I just added some specificity. Obviously the warming has to be bad, or dangerous, or have some discernible negative effect. Otherwise there is no need to do anything about it.

    > Marco says, “Will there be more clouds? Maybe. Maybe not. After all, cloud formation is primarily governed by relative humidity, not absolute humidity.”

    The laps rate is enough to ensure that more clouds will form if water vapor is increased.

    > Marco says, “Then let’s look at the next step: more clouds = less warming. Hmm. Why? Clouds may reduce solar input, but they also reduce IR output.”

    I’m familiar with the warming effect of clouds. Our fogging systems are used for agricultural freeze protection (www.meefog.com).

    Why would the effect of reflecting very intense solar radiation not be greater than the effect of reflecting low intensity IR radiation? For your idea to work, clouds would have to form only at night.

    > Marco says, “Still want to use vaccines, Thomas? I very much doubt you have independently looked at the evidence provided by those same experts who say non-vaccination is a threat!”

    You ignored my basic argument, changed the subject to AGW, and now to vaccines, but vaccines have nothing to do with this discussion. For the record, I am not anti vaccines. I am however an an atheist, so don’t bother with any creationist arguments either.

    Anyway, your analogy fails. There are lots of published research that one can read that shows vaccines are safe and effective. There is also plenty of empirical evidence. Most people get vaccinated and don’t have problems. Also, much of the research that claimed they are not safe got retracted because, like this paper, they were junk science.

  314. Willard Says:

    > There are lots of published research that one can read that shows vaccines are safe and effective.

    DANGER! WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! INVALID ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  315. Willard Says:

    > My comments do not presume Thomas is right, they anticipate a possible clash between someone I expect to have a great deal of knowledge about humidity and fog (and clouds) and another who I expect to be a total numbskull.

    Wait, Singer. Are you suggesting that ThomasM’s interpretation of H17’s argument is totally misplaced?

    Perhaps H17 also leaves to its readers the exercise of their superior logic to work out who to believe between the Contrarian Matrix and mainstream science on the question of the relationship of sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability.

  316. Singer beneath bridges Says:

    Williard

    “Task at hand? What task at hand, Singer?”
    Have you so befuddled yourself with distractions that you have forgotten this discussion is about “How blogs [supposedly]convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice” as exemplified by that hit job of a paper Hetal17? But Bart keeps quiet and you and your chuckle brother keep running interference. All the time the reputation of this blog plummets.

  317. Willard Says:

    > I’m happy to discuss the details of global warming but that’s not really what this thread is about.

    After turning this thread into a smörgåsbord of contrarian memes, ThomasM shies away from the only matter over which he claims authority. Meanwhile, ThomasM’s

    Obviously the warming has to be bad, or dangerous, or have some discernible negative effect.

    switches for the first time to Level 3 of the Contrarian Matrix.

    Poor rug.

  318. Willard Says:

    > you have forgotten this discussion is about “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice”

    Not exactly, Singer.

    This thread is about H17.

    To paraphrase your own machismo, H17 only anticipates a possible clash between a whole community we can expect to have a great deal of knowledge about sea-ice loss (and polar bears) and the Contrarian Matrix, whom only seem to have an Arctic Champion on its side.

    Popcorn?

  319. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Singer,

    I removed a derogatory comment of yours. Keep it civil or keep out.

    Thanks!

  320. Marco Says:

    “Are you all unable to come up with any reasonable counter argument?”

    I consider your “argument” a non-argument, which thus, by definition, cannot have a counter-argument.

    “Why not just admit the paper is not valid science and retract it? Admitting error is the first step on the road to being right.”

    I don’t accept your non-arguments that the paper is not valid science.

    “It’s not a change. I just added some specificity. Obviously the warming has to be bad, or dangerous, or have some discernible negative effect. Otherwise there is no need to do anything about it.”

    Oh, but it *is* a change! It is a change from challenging our physical understanding of the climate system, to the impact the change of the climate system will have and possible action to be taken. It is possible to accept all the physics argue that the impact is not going to be large, or argue that even if the impact is large, there is still no compelling reason to take any action.

    “The laps rate is enough to ensure that more clouds will form if water vapor is increased.”

    Please provide a scientific reference!

    “Why would the effect of reflecting very intense solar radiation not be greater than the effect of reflecting low intensity IR radiation? For your idea to work, clouds would have to form only at night.”

    Nope, that would be a major oversimplification. It matters where the clouds are formed, both in terms of latitude and altitude. The structure of the clouds matter, too. See e.g.
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
    Then again, this is scientific data which contradicts your point of view, so you’ll probably reject it.

    “There are lots of published research that one can read that shows vaccines are safe and effective. There is also plenty of empirical evidence. Most people get vaccinated and don’t have problems. Also, much of the research that claimed they are not safe got retracted because, like this paper, they were junk science.”

    There are lots of published research you can read that shows the impact of growing GHG concentrations in our atmosphere on global temperature and other climatic indicators, and that show the recent temperature increase is primarily anthropogenic in nature. The difference between vaccines and climate change is that you trust the experts on the former, and distrust the experts on the latter.

    To extend the comparison a bit further, in order to use vaccination requires a bit more than just considering it to be safe: it must also be effective. Thus, that most people don’t have problems upon vaccination is not an argument to vaccinate. Has it been shown to be effective? In my opinion very much so. However, I have not done any of the research myself, and must therefore trust the expertise of those doing the research. As do you…

  321. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    > Willard says, “Marco challenges someone about humidity and clouds who’s job is making fogs.” Yeah, that didn’t get him far did it.

    If the authors want to scientifically refute the “denier” blogs they have to dig into their “vast body of overwhelming evidence” and come up with facts that actually dispute them.

    Not citing to the literature as often as the authors think they should is not evidence that denier blogs are wrong.

    Your continued denial of these simple facts is absurd. Clearly you are so vested in the issue that you cannot or will not admit simple facts when you see them.

    > “What would ordinary scientists do instead? They’d check the lichurchur. What is best here?”

    Sure, that’s a valid way to get familiarity with a subject.

    But that’s not what these authors did. They make the absurd claim that “deniers” are wrong because they don’t cite the literature as often as the authors think they should.

    Boxing matchs, races, audits, polar bears, replication, the cost of the Iraq war, S. Crockford, even AWG, are all just misdirection. They have nothing to do with my argument.

    Your fingers move, the words get typed, but no valid counter argument gets made.

    > switches for the first time to Level 3 of the Contrarian Matrix.

    The AGW debate fundamentally comes down to will it be bad, and if so how bad. Alarmists like to gloss this fact so they can morph “scientists believe in AGW,” into “certain pending disaster.”

    I believe the science behind AGW, I just think it will be so mild as to be undetectable without sophisticated scientific instruments.

    I base this belief on observations of the real world. Over 100 years of CO2 emissions resulted in warming so mild that, if it happened over a period of a few minute, most humans wouldn’t even be able to detect it. And even the “experts” agree that not all of that warming was caused by CO2.

  322. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Singer, you’re on moderation. I’m sure you understand why, as you were the one complaining that this site was becoming a haven for trolls.

  323. Willard Says:

    While Singer rips off his shirt, it may be a good time to recall BartV’s remark in his post:

    Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature.

    It’s certainly not a re-analysis or a meta-analysis of the Arctic lichurchur.

    Perhaps Singer ought to redirect the questions he’s “just asking” on SusanC’s. He will have to wait until she opens her comment section. This might take a while, for SusanC may not need the showdown Singer may eagerly anticipate. Just Asking Questions seems enough:

    Was an aim of [H17] to also deprive that person of cash revenue from donations and/or book sales?

    https://polarbearscience.com/2018/01/07/did-harvey-et-al-authors-aim-to-help-google-censor-polar-bear-information/

    In the words of a polar bear scholar, Media attention can be an important career-booster.

    If ClimateBall contrarians hear what’s being whistled by that question, they can hardly be blamed.

  324. Willard Says:

    > They make the absurd claim that “deniers” are wrong

    They don’t. How many times will that need to be said?

    ***

    AFAICS, contrarians are not even wrong.

    A Master Argument (like SusanC’s) could change my mind.

    Will any contrarian stand up and establish that Master Argument, with quotes and cites?

  325. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    > Marco says, “I consider your “argument” a non-argument, which thus, by definition, cannot have a counter-argument.”

    Why is my argument a non-argument. Debating consists of offering counter argument, not just assertions.

    > Maroc says, “Oh, but it *is* a change! It is a change from challenging our physical understanding of the climate system, to the impact the change of the climate system will have and possible action to be taken.”

    No. I never challenged you physical understanding of the climate system. I only challenged the predictions of a dangerous further outcome.

    But this is misdirection because it has nothing to do with my argument about why H17 is rubbish.

    > I said, “The laps rate is enough to ensure that more clouds will form if water vapor is increased.” Marco replies, Please provide a scientific reference!

    Please refer to the definition of lapse rate. And consider this. If the average temperature goes from 15 °C at 60% RH (standard atmosphere) to 20 °C, also at 60% RH, the dew point goes to 12 °C.

    Assuming normal adiabatic laps rate at what altitude to clouds from? I can answer that if you prefer but I think it will be more apparent if you work it out yourself.

    On the other hand, it makes no difference to my argument about H17 because my argument is based only on what is and is not valid scientific argument.

    > I oversimplified the effect of clouds.

    Thanks for the link. It’s interesting but, as you predicted, it fails to convince. For example, why doesn’t an El Niño cause runway warming if more heat = more water = less reflective clouds. Also tropical clouds don’t get less bright under warmer conditions and the Tropics is where most sunlight enters the system (per m2 of surface).

    > Marco says, “The difference between vaccines and climate change is that you trust the experts on the former, and distrust the experts on the latter.”

    Yes. Medical research is double-blined, empirical research. The only climate research that supports dangerous future warming are the unverified models.

    Even if they are verified they could still be wrong because they could have been right by luck. We don’t know what causes the AMO, the PDO, ENSO, etc. How can we possibly model what we can’t even define?

    This is why I prefer real world experiments. Like the one we’re doing with CO2. So far the results indicate there isn’t much to worry about.

    > “Has it been shown to be effective? In my opinion very much so. However, I have not done any of the research myself, and must therefore trust the expertise of those doing the research. As do you…”

    I don’t trust the experts I trust the research. I also haven’t investigated vaccine research but I do know, historically speaking, that they have been effective. The world population didn’t boom because we all started making more babies. It boomed because our babies stopped dying young, due to medicine, sanitary engineering, and fossil fuels which made food and shelter cheap and abundant.

  326. Thomas Says:

    My argument rests on what is and what is not valid scientific “argument” (not research).

  327. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  328. Thomas Says:

    > “Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit”

    Understatement of the year!

  329. Willard Says:

    For ClimateBall players who are new here, we’re still far from the 2,190 comments on VS’ thread:

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/

    Once upon a time, contrarians could do some work.

  330. Thomas Says:

    Once upon a time the consensus would defend their work.

    Or would they? I don’t remember.

    Anyway, it’s been 13 days since my first comment. No one seems willing to address my actual argument so I guess I’ll just mosey along and see what else has been going on in the world.

    I’ve really enjoyed the lively debate. No one seems to have changed their point of view or opinions but it was still fun.

    Bart thanks for hosting this blog, and thanks for deleting my inappropriate posts. It made me feel like real badass—a feeling I don’t get to experience all that much anymore, as I wobble towards 60.

    Willard, thanks for never ceasing to be incredibly kooky. I mean that in the nicest possible way. Old friend. : )

    Marco thanks for sticking up for your point of view and trying to shoot me down whenever possible. It was fun sparing with you.

    Thomas W. F. II, thanks for digging into the details and never giving up. It’s been interesting to watch your methodical and reasons approach to the issue.

    Singer Beneath Bridges—you misplaced poet!—thanks for the cogent commentary and for calling people names, even though Bart deleted it before I had the pleasure of seeing it.

    We did manage to crank out a lot of posts for such a small band of miscreants.

    I hope the future turns out to be even better than we all imagined and argued it would be.

    Peace to all.

    Thomas

    P.S. I’ll check back now and then. Just to see if anyone says anything that makes my blood boil. I’ve grown accustom to that feeling.

  331. Marco Says:

    “Why is my argument a non-argument. Debating consists of offering counter argument, not just assertions. ”

    For a debate an argument must be provided. You provided non-arguments, and therefore no counter-arguments can be provided.

    As Willard has already pointed out a few times, you claim H17 does something it doesn’t do.

    “No. I never challenged you physical understanding of the climate system. I only challenged the predictions of a dangerous further outcome.”

    Let’s not make this about me, shall we? You stated, and I quoe, “The only evidence they have for their belief that humans have caused most of the warming, and that the warming will be sever, are some model calculations that assume positive feedbacks.”

    In other words, you challenged the physical understanding of the climate system. That you *also* challenged the impacts does not negate you challenged the physical understanding.

    “Please refer to the definition of lapse rate. And consider this. If the average temperature goes from 15 °C at 60% RH (standard atmosphere) to 20 °C, also at 60% RH, the dew point goes to 12 °C. ”

    The definition of lapse rate does not tell us that more clouds will form. Consider this: what happens if RH doesn’t stay the same upon warming? It is not a conditio sine qua non that RH stays the same upon warming. It may reduce, while AH increases.

    “It’s interesting but, as you predicted, it fails to convince ME.”

    There, corrected it for ya.

    “Yes. Medical research is double-blined, empirical research. ”

    Vaccine research isn’t double-blind. There’s a good reason I chose it as an example.

    “I don’t trust the experts I trust the research.”

    You cannot trust the research if you do not trust the experts who did the research. I’m not talking about trusting individual experts, but the group as a whole (minus the small group who come to contrary results). You do not have the knowledge and expertise to know whether this group of experts does not make fundamental mistakes in its procedures, or is unaware of confounding factors. You trust them to not make those mistakes.

    Unless you (and I don’t mean you specifically) are an anti-vaxxer. Then you *will* distrust these expert and *will* believe they make fundamental mistakes. You *will* believe their evidence is poor. And you *will* find arguments to reject the appeal to authority of the experts…

  332. Thomas Says:

    I just can’t help myself. It’s an obsession!

    > “As Willard has already pointed out a few times, you claim H17 does something it doesn’t do.”

    Willard claimed to point out that H17 didn’t do what I said it did. I give lots of examples that disproved his claim but he ignored them.

    > “You provided non-arguments, and therefore no counter-arguments can be provided.”

    This is simply not true.

    My argument again:

    1. The paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    2. The evidence offered to support this claim is given at Figure 2, which shows the results of the only original research preformed by the authors of H17. This result shows that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as other blogs.

    3. The evidence that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as someone else cites the literature is not evidence that they are wrong. Such an argument is a fallacious appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and unscientific.

    My argument has all the elements of a valid argument:

    A premise: The paper makes unscientific arguments and is rife with ad hominem.

    Evidence and Inference: The only research reported in is the fact that “denier” blogs don’t cite the literature as often as others, the paper offers no other scientific evidence that shows the denier blogs are wrong, it attacks Crockford without giving evidence that she is wrong, it attacks “deniers” with ad hominem, etc.

    Conclusion: The paper commits a fallacious appeal to authority and is an ad hominem laced, hatchet job, political screed.

    You say I provided non-arguments but your argument is the real non-argment. It’s just an assertion that is not backed up with evidence or logic.

    Willard asserted that the paper does not attack skeptics. But, again, this is merely an assertion not backed up by evidence. It’s a non-argument.

    > “In other words, you challenged the physical understanding of the climate system.”

    No I didn’t. I challenged the ability of models to accurately predict the future state of the climate. Nobody thinks the models are absolutely correct. Even the IPCC admits they don’t deal well with clouds.

    > “It is not a conditio sine qua non that RH stays the same upon warming. It may reduce, while AH increases.”

    You seem to be auguring against yourself. It was you who said RH stays constant. If RH reduces, because absolute humidity increases are small, the there would be less moisture for cloud production but also less of a positive radiative feedback to worry about.

    > “You do not have the knowledge and expertise to know whether this group of experts does not make fundamental mistakes in its procedures, or is unaware of confounding factors. You trust them to not make those mistakes.”

    Trusting an expert to do a job right is not the same thing as appeal to authority. A non-expert has to have some degree of trust in experts. Although we should never take the advice of an expert without first doing some research on our own. Experts often have conflicts of interest, they can be wrong even about the accepted science in their field, or they can have a reputation for making failed predictions—like climate scientists.

    However, appeal to authority is a different animal altogether. It is a fault of reasoning or argument that occurs when a person who is making a formal argument makes the claim that their argument is correct just because someone else says it is. In formal argumentation, and in science, one is expected to show actual evidence to support a claim. That’s what makes scientists, scientists.

    Appeal to authority is considered acceptable only when both sides agree the authority is correct. But this is obviously not the case with H17. The authors want to show that the “deniers” are wrong and that they distort understanding.

    As a scientist, you don’t get to say your opponent is wrong simply BECAUSE you are right, which is exactly what H17 does.

    > “Vaccine research isn’t double-blind.”

    I have no idea if that is correct or not but in the USA vaccines go through extensive testing and verification procedures before they are approved for use and they are carefully monitored for adverse side effects.

    I realize that it is not possible to conduct clinical trials on AGW, because we only have the one earth. I understand that models are the only tool we have for predicting the future state of the Earth’s climate.

    However, by adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere we have been doing an experiment on the one plant we do have. I think the results of this experiment do not warrant alarming claims of future warming.

    It’s just an opinion based on my knowledge of the subject. I don’t think it’s evil for me to express a somewhat informed opinion. I don’t think that makes me a “science denier.”

  333. Windchaser Says:

    1. The paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    Where, exactly? You’ve been challenged on this over and over, but I can’t see where you’ve shown that the paper claims the denier blogs are wrong.

    Not citing to the literature as often as the authors think they should is not evidence that denier blogs are wrong.

    I agree. From a strict logical perspective, there is not necessarily connection between someone who doesn’t cite the literature and someone who is wrong.

    However, in real life, there’s a high correlation between people who don’t cite the scientific literature and people who are wrong. It is a sign of one or more of the following:
    – someone who isn’t careful to cite sources for their claims
    – someone who is unaware of the evidence published in the literature

    It is extremely rare for a non-scientist, ignorant of the scientific literature, to overturn established research. Primarily because they don’t know what they don’t know. They are only looking at a small piece of the evidence, and typically evidence that tickles them the right way at that.

    Good science works by understanding the state of the evidence, and either showing that some of the previous evidence is incorrect, or presenting a new hypothesis that better explains the data. It never works by ignoring evidence.

  334. Windchaser Says:

    Which of the following is more likely to develop an accurate view of a scientific issue?

    – the person who reads all sides of an argument, and looks at all sides of the evidence

    – the person who only reads one side.

  335. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Has it occurred to any of you here (it obviously didn’t to the paper’s authors, who were–apart from Bart–too busy drooling over the chance to attack Dr. Crockford) that contrarian blogs observed for this exercise in futility actually cited the scientific literature by proxy?

    They cited Crockford. Crockford is religious about correct references. If they read and link to Crockford, they are exposed to the literature one click more slowly than if they link to the paper themselves.

    This exercise in illogic is so transparent that willard has to come out and chew up electronic space to bury the legitimate questions posed on this thread.

    But that’s because we have two legs, not four.

  336. Windchaser Says:

    that contrarian blogs observed for this exercise in futility actually cited the scientific literature by proxy?

    That’s… not really a thing.

    I can cite a Yahoo! article saying chocolate cures cancer. And that article cites another one, which cites another one, which cites another one.. all the way back to the original paper, which you’ll find rarely says what the Yahoo! article says it did.

    To do good work, you don’t just read the critic of a paper. You read the original paper, too, to make sure that their work is being faithfully represented. And, having done so, you cite them.

    This isn’t just some “oh he’s drooling over Verheggen’s work”. No, these are the kind of standards that my thesis committee required of me when I got my PhD. Sloppy work, where you only read and cite papers that agree with you, wasn’t permitted. That way, you can be sure that you’ve done your best to create an informed position on the issue.

    Good, thorough work requires reading and citing the scientific literature for yourself. The bare minimum would be reading and understanding the papers Crockford cites.

  337. Thomas Says:

    It seems Windchaser has joined the ranks of the argument ignorers.

  338. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Windchaser, that’s not what Crockford does. Spend five minutes on her site.

  339. Windchaser Says:

    thomaswfuller2, you don’t know what Crockford does or does not do until you actually read the source papers for yourself. At which point, you’d just cite them directly.

    And, again, reading the papers for yourself that she cites is the lowest acceptable bar.

    If you were doing a literature search on a subject, would you just follow one person’s citations? Or would you explore the entire field of literature for yourself?

    There is a right way and a wrong way to learn about a subject. I’m kinda surprised that you’re defending the one that involves a filter for viewpoints you don’t like. (In this case, the filter is Crockford).

  340. Windchaser Says:

    I’m not really expecting to change any one’s minds here.

    I just don’t get it; why people think that just listening to one side of a debate is a good and healthy way to get informed, rather than going and reading both sides’ views for yourself.

    If this were any other issue, I’d doubt you’d disagree.

  341. Willard Says:

    > Crockford is religious about correct references.

    That remains to be shown, and from what I’ve seen so far, I seriously doubt it.

    If reference religiosity only refers to the fact that SusanC includes lists of references, fair enough.

    If it means she cites the targets against which she opposes FUD, it’s less clear.

    If it means she clearly identifies what she criticizes, we’ve already saw an example where we need to walk into a hall of mirrors before getting a quote.

    If by that Groundskeeper means that painstakenly make sure that her FUD is justified, well, good luck with that.

    ***

    > If they read and link to [SusanC], they are exposed to the literature one click more slowly than if they link to the paper themselves.

    Empirical research shows time and time again that people don’t read much. They barely read abstracts. Few follow citations. In this thread alone, we saw ThomasM falling into traps after trap because he failed to follow citations. Singer had to be told a few times before clicking on a stupid link, to confirm what he knew all along about something irrelevant for my point, it goes without saying.

    But let’s assume readers of the Contrarian Matrix follow citations. (An existential proof: I’m such a reader, and I do.) What comes before getting to the lichurchur? FUD. In the Contrarian Matrix, FID always comes first.

    Here’s a theory as to why:

    ***

    > This exercise in illogic is so transparent that willard […]

    Because if that “exercise in illogic” was less transparent I would what? Groundskeeper can’t even beg questions in a coherent manner anymore.He has to rip off his shirt, once again, because he can’t have BartV all for himself. He’s already been told to address his concerns to BartV. No, he still needs to rip off his shirt. He needs to blame someone. Me, for a change.

    At the time of ThomasM’s farewell, which lasted six hours more than a normal sleeping night, there were 331 comments – 188 by our contrarian fellows, and 143 in response. That includes at least 8 incendiary comments by the sock puppets that were deleted, and one duplicate of mine. At least 80% of my comments were responses to contrarian crap. Notwithstanding an erratum for a stupid typo, the other 20% was to get to SusanC’s Master Argument.

    In the 57% of the contrarian comments of the thread, I have yet to see one single thing that could remotely be considered like constructive criticism. Not. One. Single. Thing. Even Jos’ cite carried a cheap innuendo. What have we got? Endless whining. Some rants. Moar victim playing. Some ref playing. Peddling every single level of the Contrarian Matrix – we even had the pleasure to see some “but MBH” and “but CG.” Personal abuse, ranging from light kafkatrapping to severe gaslighting.

    And loads of ad homs. O the ad homs! Do you have any idea how silly it looks to whine about the ad hominem in H17 under the light of the comments in this thread? I’m almost saddened by the fact that BartV finally had enough of you all peeing on his rug. Where’s the rug?

    You got to admit – that rug really tied the room together.

    If ThomasM could give it back, that’d be great.

    ***

    Where was I? Oh, right. Argument traceabillity. Do you, fellow contrarians, have any that could be traced back into what H17 said? I’m not talking about the crap ThomasM keeps repeating, armwaving, and handwaving ad lib., but something that looks like you’ve READ the freaking paper?

    Did. You. Read. The. Paper? Why haven’t you? When will you? Next month? How the hell are you supposed to criticize the paper if you don’t even dare read it? Is it really impossible for any of you to read that paper without fainting on a couch?

    Having the decency to show you read the paper is the less one can do to expect getting room service.

  342. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    I wrote, “Why would the effect of reflecting very intense solar radiation not be greater than the effect of reflecting low intensity IR radiation? For your idea to work, clouds would have to form only at night.”

    Marco wrote, “Nope, that would be a major oversimplification. It matters where the clouds are formed, both in terms of latitude and altitude. The structure of the clouds matter, too.

    It turns out the timing of clouds also matters. A paper, “Diurnal cloud cycle biases in climate models,” was published online Dec. 22 by Nature Communications.

    A summary of the paper is here.

    https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/01/10/spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle

    Quote: “Climate scientists have the clouds, but they miss the timing,” Porporato said. “There’s a strong sensitivity between the daily cloud cycle and temperature. It’s like a person putting on a blanket at night or using a parasol during the day. If you miss that, it makes a huge difference.”

    Which is pretty much the same point I made.

    Quote: “Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said.

    We learn, bit by bit we learn.

    The full paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

  343. Willard Says:

    Wow. Look at all the typos. I should have edited at least once before submitting.

    Since there are words missing, I posted a corrected version on my Tumblog.

    The TL;DR is this –

    Sorry to have lost my temper, Bart.

  344. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    > “I’m not talking about the crap ThomasM keeps repeating, armwaving, and handwaving ad lib., but something that looks like you’ve READ the freaking paper?”

    You have to actually attack my argument if you want to attack. Calling it crap is not enough. You have to actually address my actual amount with bonafide counter argument.

    Instead you just make kooky comments.

    It’s actually sadly pathetic.

  345. Willard Says:

    > You have to actually attack my argument if you want to attack.

    The gaslighting continues:

    Your first point is a strawman. The core findings of H17 is not that the Contrarian Matrix is wrong, but that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    It is possible to disregard overwhelming scientific evidence and be right. If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, contrarian blogs can certainly be right from time to time. You yourself can be right even if you mostly wave your arms for the sake of more empty screeds.

    Disregarding the evidence is still disregarding the evidence. Bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC is still bypassing the relevant lichurchur and deferring to SusanC.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39890

    There are other comments, but I rather like this one. Against my counterpoint, all ThomasM mustered so far is butbubut “The problem is that this core finding tells us nothing of value” (a red herring addressed on January 4, 2018-01-04 at 05:53, 21:01, and elsewhere) and that “your argument is nonsensical on it’s face” because, somehow, H17 is clearly meant to be understood as wrong, something I refuted more than two days ago by recalling that SusanC could very well be (among other things) not evening wrong and suggesting that “wrong” wasn’t the proper adjective.

    That’s when ThomasM removed his puppet, threw down the gauntlet, and repeated his argument all over again. But this time, shock and awe! He numbered his points. When the first one is a lie, it starts badly. But wait. There’s more – he now plays the Knight who says “Ni!”

    The most amazing thing is that ThomasM was making progress:

    There are lots of published research that one can read that shows vaccines are safe and effective.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-40127

    Following through this line of argument should give him all the shrubbery he requires.

    Let’s wish him luck.

  346. Willard Says:

    > not evening wrong

    Not morning wrong either.

  347. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    No, willard. 100% of your responses were ‘4 legs good, 2 legs bad.’

  348. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    So here’s my challenge. With clear, logical, non-mocking, language, address my actual arguments, as follows.

    1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    If you disagree quote actual language from the paper that shows that this is not a claim of the paper.

    2. I contend that the evidence offered to support this claim is given at Figure 2, which shows the results of the only original research preformed by the authors of H17. This result shows only that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as other blogs.

    If you disagree, quote actual language from the paper that shows that this is not so.

    3. I contend that the evidence, that deniers don’t cite the literature as often as someone else cites the literature, is not evidence that they are wrong.

    If you disagree, explain how a failure to cite literature is valid evidence that someone is wrong.

    4. I contend that such an argument is a fallacious appeal to authority, and circular reasoning because it assumes that the authors’ positions are correct, to prove the deniers are wrong.

    I you disagree, explain why such an argument is valid.

    I numbered the points to make your response easier.

  349. brandonrgates Says:

    > 1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    I contend that people who contend what a paper says should be the ones quoting the actual language of the paper, Thomas.

    Otherwise, one can contend a paper says something it doesn’t say and burden others with finding actual language which doesn’t exist.

  350. Thomas Says:

    Hey Mr. Brandon,

    Take an hour and read upstream. All you ask for is there. In seven points.

    * * * * *

    Thomas Says:
    January 8, 2018 at 03:58
    Willard @ January 8, 2018 at 01:15,

    Your argument is nonsensical on it’s face. Blogs that “deny and disregard” what the authors think is “overwhelming scientific evidence” are clearly meant to be understood as wrong.

    Whether or not it is a core finding that the denier-bloggers are wrong, it is clearly an important claim of the paper.

    If we assume the denier blogs are correct, the paper becomes a clear hatchet job—attacking what is correct.

    If we assume the blogs are neither right nor wrong, the paper looses all meaning.

    There are many other examples that show your claim to be wrong.

    1. You statement says “blogs that deny.” Denying overwhelming science is clearly an instance of be wrong.

    2. Bart, titles this blog page, “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice.” So he, a coauthor, thinks H17 is showing that blogs got it wrong. He does not agree with your claim.

    3. The title of the paper says “climate change denial” which clearly indicates that the authors think the blogs are wrong.

    4. The paper says Watts Up With That (WUWT) “consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it.” Denying what the authors call “overwhelming science” is an instance of being wrong.

    5. The paper says, “deniers often focus their attention on observations that, when taken out of context, they can frame in a way that appears to contradict or downplay the severity of climate impacts” which is clearly wrong conduct.

    6. “Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW” which is clearly wrong conduct.

    7. Even calling skeptic blogs “denier blogs” is evidence the authors think the skeptics are wrong.

    So your conclusion that H17 is not an attack on denier blogs is not supported by the paper.

    You wanna chime in? You gotta read first.

    Sock puppet.

    – T

  351. Thomas Says:

    brandonrgates

    Links to this …

    First blog post
    This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

    Sock puppet Gates.

  352. Thomas Says:

    And brandonrgates blog is called. “climateconsensarian.

    Really? Willard, et al?

    This is the best y’all can do?

    : )

  353. Thomas Says:

    Kipling said it …

    If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for [Willard’s] doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

    Yup. Kipling said it.

    : )

    – T

  354. Marco Says:

    “Which is pretty much the same point I made.”

    Not quite. You claimed “warming = more clouds = negative feedback that compensates for more water vapor”, and that’s not what the paper said. You might also want to actually read the paper rather than the press release. In the conclusion it is made clear that the identified issues likely have little impact on climate projections (in other words: they don’t change the positive feedbacks you doubted).

  355. Marco Says:

    Brandon R Gates isn’t Willard, Thomas. Cut the conspirational crap.

  356. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > If you disagree quote actual language from the paper that shows that this is not a claim of the paper.

    ThomasM doesn’t issue challenge, but when he does, he’s asking for negative existentials.

    Would quoting each and every single sentence of H17 do?

    ***

    Here’s what should suffice to show H17’s main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    This claim doesn’t imply that the Contrarian Matrix is wrong.

    That the Contrarian Matrix is wrong need not be assumed for this claim to be established.

    If logic had any value for ThomasM, that’d be the end of it.

  357. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    The opening sentences of J&P17 shows that the hypothetical positive cloud feedback, which you accept as fact, is actually far from accepted science.

    “As efficient modulators of the Earth’s radiative budget, clouds play a crucial role in making our planet habitable. Their response to the increase in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will also have a substantial effect on future climates, although it is highly uncertain whether this will contribute to intensify or alleviate the global warming threat.”

    > You wrote, “In the conclusion it is made clear that the identified issues likely have little impact on climate projections.”

    The paper actually says,

    “Model tuning used to compensate for these errors results in shifts of the DCC phase over the ocean and even larger DCC biases over the land. Thanks to the limited responses of DCC to global warming, such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection; however, they may induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength and distort the patters of land–ocean–atmosphere interaction. …”

    In other words, future accurate climate projection is possible, because the diurnal cycle of clouds will not change much in a warming world, but the turning errors probably do induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength, etc.

  358. Windchaser Says:

    1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    If you disagree quote actual language from the paper that shows that this is not a claim of the paper.

    Wat.

    “I’m going to make a claim, and the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong”.

    Climateball indeed!

  359. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    > “That the Contrarian Matrix is wrong need not be assumed for this claim to be established.”

    That’s not what I said. I said the paper does attack deniers as being wrong, not that it need not do so.

    > “Would quoting each and every single sentence of H17 do [to show that the paper does not say deniers are wrong]?

    No, clearly it would not because …

    1. The title of the paper says “climate change denial” which clearly indicates that the authors think the blogs are wrong because the denier science.

    2. The paper says Watts Up With That (WUWT) “consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it.” Denying what the authors call “overwhelming science” is an instance of being wrong.

    3. The paper says, “deniers often focus their attention on observations that, when taken out of context, they can frame in a way that appears to contradict or downplay the severity of climate impacts.” This is clearly wrong conduct in the eyes of the authors.

    4. “Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW.” This is clearly wrong conduct in the eyes of the authors.

    5. The paper calls skeptic blogs “denier blogs,” which is evidence the authors think the skeptics are wrong because they deny “real” science.

    I knew you would not have the courage to actually accept my challenge.

    Here’s what should suffice to show H17’s main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    The paper attacks skeptics as being wrong about Arctic sea-is and polar bears, and it offers the above statement as evidence they are wrong, but disregarding evidence is not proof that one is wrong.

    I knew you wouldn’t have the courage to respond to my challenge. I new you would continue with the snark, misdirection and refusal to actually address my argument.

    I logic had any value for Willard, this discussion would have been over two weeks ago.

  360. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > I said the paper does attack deniers as being wrong […]

    ThomasM said something a bit stronger than that:

    1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    ThomasM should put up or shut up.

    ***

    > not that it need not do so.

    That’s what follows from H17’s main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    ***

    > I knew you wouldn’t have the courage to respond to my challenge.

    Proving that H17 doesn’t claim something implies that (a) I quote every single sentence of H17 and (b) I show that every single claim doesn’t say that contrarians are wrong.

    It’d be easier for ThomasM to show where H17 claims what he thinks they claim.

    ***

    Somewhat related:

  361. Marco Says:

    “The opening sentences of J&P17 shows that the hypothetical positive cloud feedback, which you accept as fact, is actually far from accepted science”

    At no point in our discussion did I claim to consider positive *cloud* feedback to be a fact. Au contraire, *you* claimed cloud feedback must be negative, by doubting the positive feedbacks of increasing water vapor. You were the one who left little doubt that this must be so, and in fact one so strong that it would significantly mitigate the positive feedback from increasing water vapor.

  362. Thomas Says:

    By now, readers will have noticed that Willard reverts to nonsense mode when confronted with irrefutable facts.

    You can tell which statements are outright misrepresentations (i.e. lies) because they tend to be suffixed with sophomoric exclamations like, “own it”! or “shut up!”

    Willard,

    > You wrote, “ThomasM said something a bit stronger than that … ThomasM should put up or shut up.”

    The paper attacks deniers as being wrong, or claims they are wrong, or both. There is no significant difference; it’s just two ways of saying the same thing.

    It’s surprising that you managed to get all the way through typing that without noticing what a silly, pointless statement it is.

    > “Proving that H17 doesn’t claim something implies that …”

    Once again you are unable to grasp simple concepts and respond with cogent argument. I didn’t ask you to prove that the paper does not claim something.

    I wrote, “If you disagree, quote actual language from the paper that shows that this is not a claim of the paper. I already showed you many instances of the paper claiming or implying that deniers are wrong.

    The paper attack skeptics. The only original research they conducted was a survey that shows skeptics don’t quote literature as often as others. They offer this as evidence to support their contention that the skeptic are wrong. This a illogical and non-scientific, which means the paper sheds no light on the climate debate.

    It’s intellectually vacuous, drivel.

  363. Windchaser Says:

    Woooo, we got Thomas to actually back up his claims! So, in order:

    1. The title of the paper says “climate change denial” which clearly indicates that the authors think the blogs are wrong because the denier science.
    5. The paper calls skeptic blogs “denier blogs,” which is evidence the authors think the skeptics are wrong because they deny “real” science.

    #1 and #5 are repetitions, basically saying “because they use the word ‘denier’, they’re claiming the blogs are wrong”.

    Weak argument. A “X-denier” is just someone who denies X. That doesn’t imply that they’re right or wrong. It is simply a way of identifying their position. Heck, I’m a Flat Earth denier.

    2. The paper says Watts Up With That (WUWT) “consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it.” Denying what the authors call “overwhelming science” is an instance of being wrong.

    A stronger argument, at least with regards to WUWT. I would agree that “overwhelming science” typically indicates that the authors are taking a position as to whether WUWT is correct or not.

    3. The paper says, “deniers often focus their attention on observations that, when taken out of context, they can frame in a way that appears to contradict or downplay the severity of climate impacts.” This is clearly wrong conduct in the eyes of the authors.(emphasis added)

    Agreed. The author expects that the reader agrees that this is incorrect conduct. This is an implicit stance regarding a method of argumentation by “deniers”.

    It does not imply that “deniers” are necessarily wrong. One can advance a bad argument and still be correct (see the “fallacy fallacy”). I run across global warming “alarmists” with whom I disagree all the time (typically on Yahoo! news or somesuch).

    Think of this loophole as akin to someone saying “Imhotep pulls the Sun up every morning in his golden chariot, and therefore the Sun will continue to rise in the East and set in the West”. The argument is bad; but the conclusion is correct.

    So: good point about a method of argumentation (good job!), but it doesn’t support the claim that the authors think the deniers are wrong.

    4. “Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW.” This is clearly wrong conduct in the eyes of the authors.

    See #3. Saying “deniers use this bad kind of argument” does not imply “the deniers are wrong about global warming”.

    There is a connection, obviously. If a person consistently uses bad arguments, and furthermore, if these are their best arguments, then it is reasonable to conclude that they are likely to be wrong. They are not necessarily wrong in their conclusions, but the likelihood is significantly increased.

  364. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    You’re right. You never did say you considered positive cloud feedback to be a fact. Please forgive me for saying you did.

    I think I also I never said negative feedback were a certain fact. I just think negative is more likely because sunshine is much more energetic than earth shine.

  365. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > The paper attacks deniers as being wrong, or claims they are wrong, or both. There is no significant difference; it’s just two ways of saying the same thing.

    No, it’s not. To “attack deniers as being wrong” is an obscure predicate. It deserves due diligence. To “claim that deniers are wrong” is clear – there’s a claim.

    ThomasM should find that claim, report, and win.

    Or he should take it back, reword, and accept that his Master Argument falls short from what he purports to show.

    Tough choice.

    ***

    As promised, although a bit earlier, and since ThomasM fails to properly take his leave, here’s a hint: it’s not like we’ve never seen anyone try to derive an is from an epistemic ought before. Note the emphasis.

    Best of luck!

  366. Windchaser Says:

    The takeaway is this. The authors can say “denier blogs use X, Y, Z modes of argumentation, which are bad” without jumping to the claim “the deniers are wrong”.

    Any connection between the two is left as an exercise to the reader.

    It’s odd to me that you’re stuck on the “the authors say deniers are wrong” part, rather than discussing whether or not “denier blogs” do heavily rely on these modes of argumentation, and whether or not these modes of argumentation are indeed weak or faulty.

    To me, the latter is far more interesting.

  367. Thomas Says:

    Windchaser,

    Excellent analysis! Thanks for having the decency to actually respond to my arguments.

    See my comment at Jan 5th at 23:48 for the correct definition of denier.

    A “denier” is someone who practices “denialism” which consists of denying, “reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.” [Wikipedia] This is the meaning that the consensus has in mind when they use the word.

    Also the paper calls them “science deniers” which is clearly a pejorative. One can also Google the term to see how it is used in the vernacular, which is not necessarily the same as it’s dictionary definition. The word is always intended as an insult and as a way of calling out people if you think they are wrong.

    You wrote, “There is a connection, obviously. If a person consistently uses bad arguments, and furthermore, if these are their best arguments, then it is reasonable to conclude that they are likely to be wrong. They are not necessarily wrong in their conclusions, but the likelihood is significantly increased.”

    This is the important point. It’s not that poor argument proves that the arguments are wrong but it does show that the deniers are illogical and silly.

    Also, the authors clearly don’t understand what constitutes a logically valid argument (because the paper is based on at least two invalid arguments) so it’s not clear that they even understood that bad argument didn’t mean the deniers were necessarily wrong.

    Anyway, we seem to agree the paper attacks skeptics as being wrong, illogical, science deniers, etc.

    The next question is what research did they do to give support to their premise that deniers are wrong? And does the evidence produced by that research support the premise?

  368. Thomas Says:

    Willard says, “No, it’s not. To “attack deniers as being wrong” is an obscure predicate. It deserves due diligence. To “claim that deniers are wrong” is clear – there’s a claim.”

    No. They are basically the same statement. Also, it’s misdirection, my argument does not depend on whether it’s an attack or a claim.

    # stop the nonsense!

  369. Thomas Says:

    Windchaser,

    You wrote, “The takeaway is this. The authors can say “denier blogs use X, Y, Z modes of argumentation, which are bad” without jumping to the claim “the deniers are wrong”.

    This is the whole point of my argument. The paper does not attack the deniers positions, it attacks the deniers (the messengers).

    This is why the paper isn’t science.

    If a group of scientists want to show that another group of scientists have an incorrect position, they have to show data that actually undermines that position. Attacking the messenger is not science.

    You wrote,”It’s odd to me that you’re stuck on the “the authors say deniers are wrong” part, rather than discussing whether or not “denier blogs” do heavily rely on these modes of argumentation, and whether or not these modes of argumentation are indeed weak or faulty.”

    I’m stuck on it because it is the entire point of my argument. I am not claiming the skeptics are right or wrong. All I’m saying is this paper offers no evidence on that subject. It pretends to offer evidence but it’s not valid evidence. And it’s full of ad hominem.

    It’s intellectually vacuous and never should have been published.

  370. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > [M]y argument does not depend on whether it’s an attack or a claim.

    Let’s see:

    1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    ThomasM hasn’t substantiated that claim. He tried to shift the burden of proof. He failed. Either ThomasM’s Master Argument depend on its first premise, or it doesn’t. Which is it?

    ***

    Here’s a suggestion to soften ThomasM’s “claim”:

    What you identify as a premise, i.e.

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    is actually the main claim of the paper, dear Thomas. That’s what H17 tries to support with its social network analysis.

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39871

    Will we see the return of ThomasM’s “premise”?

    Will we witness a clarification of the concept of “attack”?

    When will he admit that he’s not attacking H17’s main claim, or even their argument?

    The suspense is thickening.

  371. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > It’s odd to me that you’re stuck on the “the authors say deniers are wrong” part, rather than discussing whether or not “denier blogs” do heavily rely on these modes of argumentation, and whether or not these modes of argumentation are indeed weak or faulty.

    That’s because you still fail to grasp the indomitable fact that contrarians always win, Windchaser.

    Search for “vaccin” on this page. Prepare to be mesmerized.

  372. Thomas Says:

    Leave me alone Willard.

    You don’t play fair, you have kooky ideas, wonky logic, and half them time I can’t figure out what you’re even trying to say.

    I’m not wasting any more time on you.

  373. Willard Says:

    I knew ThomasM wouldn’t have the fortitude to respond to my challenge.

    At least he got an ethos.

  374. Thomas Says:

    Nonsense alert. No challenge was issued.

  375. brandonrgates Says:

    > Take an hour and read upstream.

    Provide evidence of anything on this webpage I have not read, Thomas. Take as long as necessary. Hopefully sometime between now and the heat death of the universe you will be able to falsify my actual argument “with clear, logical, non-mocking, language.”

  376. Willard Says:

    > No challenge was issued.

    Here’s one:

    1. I contend that the paper claims the denier-blogs are wrong.

    ThomasM hasn’t substantiated that claim.

    Here are a few other ones:

    Will we see the return of ThomasM’s “premise”?

    Will we witness a clarification of the concept of “attack”?

    When will he admit that he’s not attacking H17’s main claim, or even their argument?

    And that’s just one recent comment.

  377. Thomas Says:

    Brandon.

    > I contend that people who contend what a paper says should be the ones quoting the actual language of the paper, Thomas.

    I had had already done that before you wrote it, and I did it again after you wrote it.

    > falsify my actual argument

    You didn’t make any argument, you only made a false accusation.

    Please leave me alone unless you have something real to say. I don’t have time for more silliness.

  378. Willard Says:

    > I had had already done that [quoting the actual language of the paper] before you wrote it

    None of these quotes identifies a claim according to which deniers are wrong. Most of these quotes support the main claim of H17:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    Also note that ThomasM condeded:

    I said the paper does attack deniers as being wrong, not that it need not do so

    If H17 doesn’t need to “attack” contrarians, whatever that means, then that “attack” isn’t logically connected to H17’s argument.

    ***

    Compare:

    There are lots of published research that one can read that shows vaccines are safe and effective.

    Contrast:

    There are lots of published research that one can read that shows sea-ice loss increases polar bears vulnerability.

  379. Thomas Says:

    Please stop stalking me Willard.

    All my quotes are instances of the authors trying to show that the deniers are wrong. Nowhere do they say the deniers are right.

    Windchaser understands (see today at 21:18). You keep pretending not to.

    > Also note that ThomasM condeded:

    I conceded nothing. Stop making absurd claims. You said the paper “need not attack” deniers but that doesn’t counter my argument that the paper actually does attack deniers. It’s just more of your nonsense.

    > If H17 doesn’t need to “attack” contrarians, whatever that means, then that “attack” isn’t logically connected to H17’s argument.

    You’re the one who said H17 doesn’t need to attack. Did you know what it meant when you wrote it?

    The rest of that statement is just gibberish. My argument has always been that the H17 does attack the deniers. It seeks to show they are wrong, and then it offers original research that does not show they are wrong.

    There is nothing to support your claim that I conceded anything? It’s just kooky, nonsense.

    > There [is] lots of published research that one can read that shows sea-ice loss increases polar bears vulnerability.

    Grrr … this is frustrating! I said it over and over again but it doesn’t sink in.

    The entire point of my argument is that the authors should have used that research to show that their view is the more correct view. That would have been science. The paper didn’t do that and what it did do is not science. It’s propaganda at best.

    You don’t read or don’t understand my posts, or you pretend not to. You don’t make cogent arguments. You keep cycling back to the same issues. You never conceded even an obvious point.

    You just snark and mock and post absurdities.

    Please just leave me alone. Go spout your nonsense somewhere else.

  380. Willard Says:

    > All my quotes are instances of the authors trying to show that the deniers are wrong.

    That’s untrue, but what matters here is that ThomasM switches from claiming to showing.

    Another begrudging concession.

    ***

    > There is nothing to support your claim that I conceded anything?

    There is ThomasM on December 29, 2017 at 05:17

    [T]he very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd.

    and there is ThomasM on January 11, 2018 at 18:27

    I said the paper does attack deniers as being wrong, not that it need not do so […]

    ThomasM doesn’t always talks of H17’s premise, but when he does, it’s a premise that H17 doesn’t need.

    Obviously he’s not a golfer.

    ***

    ThomasM knows what to do if he wants to be left alone.

  381. Thomas Says:

    Please stop stalking me with your nonsense Willard.

    I’m not leaving here just because you keep making ridiculous and untrue statements.

    Obviously nobody else cares because nobody else responds to your drivel.

    Pease stop attacking we with nonsense and leave me alone.

    I no longer care to hear your opinions. They add nothing interesting to the discussion.

  382. Willard Says:

    Here’s an example from the thread:

    This study lost considerable credibility when Jeff Harvey, The study’s lead authors cited Paul Ehrlich as a credible scientist […]

    The claim seems to be about credibility.

    It attacks the lead author of H17 and, by extension, H17.

    It does not show that H17 is wrong.

    Is it ad hominem.

    But is it valid, and what would be the thomasian premise?

  383. angech Says:

    “How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice”
    Starts with this lovely line
    “Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    Problem ?
    All the blogs try to promote scientific information, some for and some against AGW. This is the money comment.

    “overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.”

    So Bart,
    what is your estimate, from the experts, of
    1.The number of Polar bears in the Arctic now.
    2. The number of Polar bears back when satellite records showed the decrease in Arctic ice from AGW starting.
    3. How much the ice extent in feeding time has diminished
    4 How the decline in Polar bear numbers over this time matches.

    I would expect a paper attacking concepts of Polar bear numbers now and in the future would set these facts out in large clear scientific numbers and hence shoot Crockford down. .

  384. Thomas Says:

    Kooky Monster. It’s ad hominem. But not mine.

  385. Thomas Says:

    So stop stalking Mee.

  386. Marco Says:

    Angech,regarding your questions:
    “1.The number of Polar bears in the Arctic now.
    2. The number of Polar bears back when satellite records showed the decrease in Arctic ice from AGW starting.
    3. How much the ice extent in feeding time has diminished
    4 How the decline in Polar bear numbers over this time matches.”

    I suggest you try and read some scientific papers on the topic. You will quickly find that your questions are naïve, and the answers to those questions will not resolve anything.

    I am certainly no expert, but I do know that the answers to 1+2+3 already run into both confounding issues and changing estimates due to improved technology. For example, estimates of polar bear numbers have increased in the last few years. This has been highlighted a few times by denier blogs, but most of these seem to have missed (let’s just say that confirmation bias can lead one to miss important information – plenty of examples on e.g. WUWT of that) that the increased estimate wasn’t because polar bear numbers had increased, but because new methodology came with higher numbers than the old methodology, or because actual counting of poorly surveyed populations came with numbers higher than the old crude estimates. None of this means that polar bear numbers have actually increased. Add the confounding factor of several regions with polar bears repeatedly changing quota of how many bears can be killed (usually less and less), and you have a problem to link the overall number of polar bears and their change over time to sea ice extent.

    Another confounding issue: as discussed earlier in this thread, both too much (/too thick) and too little sea ice is bad for polar bears. You can thus have some polar bear populations increasing due to thinning ice, and others decreasing due to thinning ice. However, those thriving populations will also run into the same situation as the others at a future time point.

    The answer to point 4 comes primarily from studying single populations. See for example http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/populations/western-hudson-bay.html
    and references therein.
    Unexpectedly, you’ll find that Crockford disagrees with this.

  387. Marco Says:

    Thomas, thanks for acknowledging you put words in my mouth. I’ll gladly admit you didn’t directly say cloud feedback was negative (period), but rather that it should be, based on your own views of what clouds do.

    Note that a positive cloud feedback (as is observed for most models) is not due to the models *assuming* this to be so, but rather an outcome of cloud formation physics encoded into the models. Some models actually have a negative cloud feedback, and associated lower ECS somewhat above 2 K. That still means an overall positive feedback, mostly from increased water vapor.

  388. joe Says:

    So Bart,
    what is your estimate, from the experts, of
    1.The number of Polar bears in the Arctic now.
    2. The number of Polar bears back when satellite records showed the decrease in Arctic ice from AGW starting.
    3. How much the ice extent in feeding time has diminished
    4 How the decline in Polar bear numbers over this time matches.

    I would expect a paper attacking concepts of Polar bear numbers now and in the future would set these facts out in large clear scientific numbers and hence shoot Crockford down. .

    Nothing like reaching scientific conclusions with a single data point or very limited data points.

    An even more appropriate data points to use would be periods when the arctic had comparable ice levels such as the mwp or the very little ice such as the roman warming period or even earlier.

  389. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    yyy

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  390. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > I would expect a paper attacking concepts of Polar bear numbers now and in the future would set these facts […]

    That expectation might not be justified. Expressing it may indicate that reading BartV’s post or H17 has not been done beforehand:

    Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature. We restricted our literature search to scientific articles that investigate both polar bears and sea ice, and that shed light on polar bear ecology and how it may or may not depend on the presence of sea ice.

    […]

    Even though it is not the main scope of our paper, we described the scientific context of polar bear ecology and explained how and why polar bears depend on their sea ice habitat (summarized in my previous blog post).

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice

    High expectations contrarians should read first, and harder.

    Incidentally, BartV’s post contradicts the claim according to which H17 needed to show that the lichurchur is indeed correct. To show that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the overwhelming evidence regarding sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability, all H17 needs is to make sure it indeed does.

    Does any high-expectation contrarian dispute H17’s main result?

  391. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    You wrote, “Note that a positive cloud feedback (as is observed for most models) is not due to the models *assuming* this to be so, but rather an outcome of cloud formation physics encoded into the models.”

    GCMs don’t do the physics for clouds because it’s too complicated.
    Go to the cloud paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4) and search the page for “param-” and you’ll see several example of how clouds are parameterized, not calculated, In GCMs.

    Clouds are mostly parameterized based on other models that look at clouds, on cloud sized scales. But as the paper says, whether changes in clouds will cause more warming or less warming is far from settled science.

    I’ll stick with my working hypothesis that warming will result in more clouds, so more solar radiation will be reflected.

    But we digress. This has nothing to do with H17.

  392. Thomas Says:

    > “Our paper is first and foremost a characterization of the blogosphere, and how it compares to the scientific literature.”

    This is not the full story. H17 is first and foremost an attack on the denial blogosphere because, as is stated in the abstract,

    there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus [for AGW] and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW.”

    Even the title makes it clear that science-denying bloggers are wrong to use polar bears as a proxy to attack climate change.

    The paper is clearly an attempt to show that the denier bloggers are wrong and bad. For example, the paper explores three criteria for assessing the credibility of science studies (from Pimm and Harvey, 2000) and says,

    These criteria confirm that many denier blogs are deliberately distorting science to promote predetermined worldviews and political or economic agendas.

    But the three criteria are all based on logical fallacies. Data trails going cold, lack of credentials and who pays for research have no logical connection to whether the denier blogs are right or wrong.

    The authors characterize the opposition bloggers as science-denying, data twisting, misinforming, emotive language using, politically motivated, liars. To drive home the point they claim that these despicable people are also employed be cabal of self-interested corporate conspirators.

    The paper analyses a survey of blogs and finds that the opposition bloggers don’t cite the consensus literature has often as the consensus does. Clearly the authors think this is an important point because it is the only original research they did. But this finding tells us nothing about whether the denier blogs are right or wrong. It doesn’t inform the polar bear debate one way or the other. It’s meaningless trivia.

    The authors assume that their position on polar bears is correct.

    Then they show the opposition doesn’t cite the consensus literature as often as others—Then they present the fact that the opposition bloggers don’t cite literature often enough as evidence that the opposition is wrong.

    Then conclude that they are right so it’s important to go the world how right they are.

    Here is it in simplified form.

    We are correct.
    You don’t cite us,
    And you are bad people,
    So you are wrong.
    Therefore we are correct!

    It’s appeal to authority mixed with ad hominem, then wrapped up in a package of circular reasoning.

    In real science if you want to show you’re position is correct, you have to offer actual evidence that it is correct. H17 does not do that.

  393. Thomas Says:

    Real science has saved humankind from the darkness of abject stupidity, superstition, and received wisdom.

    Anyone who thinks science is good will condemn this paper because it seeks to break science. It seeks to return us to the days when high priests told us what we were allowed to think.

    # stop trying to break science.

  394. brandonrgates Says:

    > Anyone who thinks science is good will condemn this paper because it seeks to break science. It seeks to return us to the days when high priests told us what we were allowed to think.

    Telling people what to think so as to avoid other people telling them how to think may tend to be self-defeating, Thomas.

  395. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    Haha! That’s very clever. : )

    But I’m not telling people what to think about the issues of polar bears or AGW. I’m only urging them not to fall for an argument that is based on unscientific faulting reasoning.

    The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds. But evidence is valid only if the scientific method and the basic rules of logic are followed.

    H17 does not follow those. It’s unscientific and illogical.

  396. brandonrgates Says:

    > It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    I disagree, Thomas. Evidence supporting my disagreement may be found in any paper containing especially a conclusions section, but also a discussion section.

  397. Willard Says:

    > It only offers evidence

    Exactly:

    [H17 is] unscientific and illogical.

    No claim there. No attack either. Not even a premise according to which H17 is wrong. Therefore it can’t be absurd, trivial, unscientific or illogical.

    Only Sound Science.

  398. Thomas Says:

    I’m ignoring Willard’s comments.
    Because he ignores mine.

    Please stop stalking me with nonsense.

  399. Thomas Says:

    > Evidence supporting my disagreement may be found in any paper containing especially a conclusions section, but also a discussion section.

    Why dos that even mean? Please explain.

  400. brandonrgates Says:

    > Please explain.

    Science does not write itself, Thomas, humans do. The discussion and conclusion sections of a paper tell us what researchers think about data they analysed.

    The data may very well speak for themselves, but again someone has to gather it first — a decision process in and of itself.

  401. Willard Says:

    I point at this:

    We are correct.
    You don’t cite us,
    And you are bad people,
    So you are wrong.
    Therefore we are correct!

    And I point at this:

    You’re confusing the two definitions of premise. My dictionary defines the word as follows.

    premise | ˈpreməs |
    noun

    1. Logic; a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion: if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true.

    2. An assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory: the fundamental premise of the report.

    I was using the second definition when I wrote, “the very premise of the paper is fundamentally absurd.” In fact my sentence is almost identical to the example sentence from the dictionary.

    That is all the evidence one needs to offer.

  402. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    >The data may very well speak for themselves, but again someone has to gather it first — a decision process in and of itself.

    And the point is … ?

    With H17 someone made the decision to collect the survey data. This decision was wrong from the moment it was conceived because that data does not inform the debate. It tells us only that some bloggers don’t cite some papers. That’s all.

  403. Thomas Says:

    The discordant clash of cognitive dissonance did grow deafening. Yet Kooky did but wander aimlessly in the desert of no meaning. Randomly shooting his pointless arrows at the shadowy Jabberwock.

    “Beware the Jabberwock, my Kooky!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!”

    Workers Authors of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains brains!

    : )

  404. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    I point at this:

    [T]hat data does not inform the debate. It tells us only that some bloggers don’t cite some papers.

    and I point at this:

    We found a clear separation between the 45 science-based blogs and the 45 science-denier blogs. The two groups took diametrically opposite positions on the “scientific uncertainty” frame—specifically regarding the threats posed by AGW to polar bears and their Arctic-ice habitat.

    […]

    Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog […] as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears.

    That is all.

  405. Thomas Says:

    ’Twas [Willard], and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    Which man of reason would attend the pointless arrow of a frumious and slithy tove?

    Not I! … Says Mee.

    : )

  406. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    I point at this:

    The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs.

    And I point at this:

    INTRODUCTION:

    UN global plans on HIV/AIDS have committed to reducing the number of countries with punitive laws criminalizing key populations. This study explores whether punitive laws are associated with countries’ performance on targets set in the global plans.

    METHODS:

    The study used chi-square tests of independence to explore associations between legal status, key population size estimates, and HIV service coverage for 193 countries from 2007 to 2014. We used data reported by countries on United Nations Global AIDS Progress Report (GARPR) indicators, and legal data from UNAIDS, UNDP, and civil society organizations. Due to lack of sufficiently reliable legal data, only men who have sex with men (MSM) could be studied. The study utilized public data aggregated at the national level. Correspondence with individual experts in a subset of countries stated the purpose of the study, and all responses were anonymized.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

    A significantly larger proportion of countries that criminalize same-sex sexual behaviour reported implausibly low size estimates or no size estimates for MSM. This is consistent with findings in qualitative research that MSMs are marginalized and reluctant to be studied in countries where same-sex sexuality is criminalized. Size estimates are often used as the denominators for national HIV service coverage reports. Initially, countries that criminalized same-sex sexuality appeared to have higher HIV testing coverage among MSM than did countries where it is not criminalized. However, investigation of a subset of countries that have reported 90-100% HIV testing coverage among MSM found that most were based on implausibly low or absent size estimates.

    CONCLUSION:

    Criminalization of same-sex sexuality is associated with implausibly low or absent MSM size estimates. Low size estimates may contribute to official denial of the existence of MSM; to failure to adequately address their needs; and to inflated HIV service coverage reports that paint a false picture of success. To enable and measure progress in the HIV response, UN agencies should lead a collaborative process to systematically, independently and rigorously gather data on laws and their enforcement.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364567

    That is all.

  407. brandonrgates Says:

    > And the point is … ?

    Here, Thomas –> With H17 someone made the decision to collect the survey data.

    Hence, the following statement is false:

    > [Science] only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

  408. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    Hard to deny that science sometimes prescribes positions and beliefs:

    The concept of denial has its roots in psychoanalysis. Denial has been assumed to be effective in blocking unwanted memories. In two experiments, we report that denial has unique consequences for remembering. In our two experiments, participants viewed a video of a theft, and half of the participants had to deny seeing certain details in the video, whereas the other half had to tell the truth. One day later, all participants were given either a source-monitoring recognition or a recall task. In these tasks, they were instructed to indicate (1) whether they could remember talking about certain details and (2) whether they could recollect seeing those details in the video. In both experiments, we found that denial made participants forget that they had talked about these details, while leaving memory for the video itself unaffected. This denial-induced forgetting was evident for both the source-monitoring recognition and recall tests. Furthermore, when we asked participants after the experiment whether they could still not remember talking about these details, those who had to deny were most likely to report that they had forgotten talking about the details. In contrast to a widely held belief, we show that denial does not impair memory for the experienced stimuli, but that it has a unique ability to undermine memory for what has been talked about.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29264864

    The Contrarian Matrix could serve a peculiar mnemonic function.

    No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products mentioned in this thread is intended or should be inferred from that study.

  409. Thomas Says:

    brandonrgates ,

    > Here, Thomas –> With H17 someone made the decision to collect the survey data.

    > Hence, the following statement is false:

    > [Science] only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    There isn’t even a logical connection between those statements.

    Someone made the decision to collect the (meaningless) survey data.

    And people can make up their minds.

    How does the first falsify the second?

  410. Thomas Says:

    Kooky monster has to go to HIV literature to show the validity of a polar bear paper?

    Probably he hopes to evoke an anti-gay tirade. But I’m not anti-gay. I love gay people. Okay, not physical, but I still love them.

    > Hard to deny that science sometimes prescribes positions and beliefs:

    Not hard at all. Science offers evidence. It’s up to each of us to agree or not.

    But Kooky Monster does offer insight into what was intended when the authors wrote “denier” some thirty times. “Denial” is meant to be understood as a pathological condition, suffered by only by fools and sick people.

    As for the claimed experiment, was it replicated?

    Psychological experiments have a bad record of replication.

    > The concept of denial has its roots in psychoanalysis.

    Psychoanalysis seems very unlike science to me. Freud seems more like a charlatan than a scientist. Even modern psychologists disregard Freud as a kooky, kook.

    I prefer the hard sciences.

  411. Thomas Says:

    > The Contrarian Matrix could serve a peculiar mnemonic function.

    As could the Consensus Matrix.

  412. Thomas Says:

    Once again we have digressed.

    Kooky Monster and Brandon seek only to put a lot of words between an irrefutable argument, now way up the page, and the current vacuous comments.

    Both still avoid actually addressing the actual argument.

    This is weakness.

    Change the subject, misdirect, etc.

    But where are the authors?

    Still lurking. Still afraid to engage? Still afraid to defend their illogical, non-science paper?

    That tell us something.

    Mee thinks.

  413. Marco Says:

    Thomas, parametrization still involves the physics of cloud formation, as the parametrization is based on observations of how and when clouds form.

  414. Hans Erren Says:

    Marco to my knowledge, cosmic ray intensity is not parametrised in the cloud models, that is an implicit opinion by the modelers.

  415. angech Says:

    Marco.
    “Another confounding issue: as discussed earlier in this thread, both too much (/too thick) and too little sea ice is bad for polar bears. ”

    You can thus have some polar bear populations increasing due to thinning ice, and others decreasing due to thinning ice.

    So is it the ice that has to be just right?
    and why are both increasing and decreasing polar bear populations bad?

    Apart from the Goldilocks principle so beautifully articulated in the first comment the second does not seem to be logical.
    Oh well.

  416. angech Says:

    One would hope that when Bart retires and is free to to reconsider this paper without suffering any backlash that he would do the right thing by Ms Crockford, unless he still honestly believes the paper is fair, reasonable and not a personal attack on her, just her blogging views.
    I think that he should take into account the distress that she says this paper has caused to her.
    Whether it is true or not it is an expressed personal viewpoint even if a lot of skeptics agree with it. I do not think it is ever good to denigrate people in print to the world in this particular style and manner.
    attack her articles if she is wrong, fine, but with science, you are a scientist, not a sociologist.

  417. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    zzzz

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  418. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    Disregarding the evidence that H17 tells us more than some bloggers don’t cite some papers. Check.

    Disregarding the evidence that science sometimes prescribes positions and beliefs. Check.

    Disregarding the evidence that science offers more than evidence. Check.

    Disregarding the evidence that “denial” can be used as a cognitive concept that doesn’t imply any pathology. Check.

    Disregarding the evidence that “premise” works as a logical construct in Tommee Dumpty’s Master Argument. Check.

    If anyone uses that as evidence that the Contrarian Matrix disregards quite a bit, they can hardly be blamed.

  419. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings

    This concern could be substantiated the hard way or the easy way. The hard way is to show how to sample a subset of all the websites in a non-biased way. The easy way is to show contrarian websites that spread AGW FUD while using similar frames as in the scientific lichurchur on the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability. Bonus points if the sample doesn’t defer to SusanC and doesn’t disregard the lichurchur.

  420. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    It’d be hard to deny that Judy’s sometimes minimized the current sea-ice loss:

    [T]he conclusion must be that drawn that warming was more widespread in the Arctic – not just the Atlantic side – than is currently noted in the official sea ice data bases covering 1920-1945/50 and that the official records appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent during this period.

    The 1920-1940’s arctic sea ice melt can therefore be seen as remarkable, albeit the caveats about apples and oranges need to be applied. Looking at the evidence available from each of the arctic oceans means the ice extent probably lies somewhere within that experienced during the first half of the 2000’s, but was probably not as low as 2007 and 2012.

    https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

    The truth is out there.

  421. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    Your comments of the last three days have been off topic. They have nothing to do with H17. You’re just using them to direct the argument away from your obvious mistakes.

    The last time you discussed H17 and it’s implications was on January 10th when you wrote,

    > “For a debate an argument must be provided. You provided non-arguments, and therefore no counter-arguments can be provided.”

    I showed my argument has all the elements of a valid argument.

    You ignored that and wandered off into the clouds.

    That is intellectual cowardice.

    On December 23, Bart wrote,

    > “If someone has a good reason, or better yet, evidence, to believe our conclusion to be wrong, I’d be curious to hear it.

    But it turned out that he wasn’t curious at all. He just ignores a credible argument. Pretending something doesn’t exists is about as far from curious as a person can get.

    And it’s intellectual cowardice.

    Everyone who pretends to defend the paper refuses to actually address the most often expressed argument against it.

    That is intellectual cowardice.

    I bet Bart is just waiting for people to stop posting so he can delete these comments and pretend like this never happened.

  422. brandonrgates Says:

    > There isn’t even a logical connection between those statements.

    Sure there is, Thomas. Science doesn’t do itself.

    > Someone made the decision to collect the (meaningless) survey data.

    Now you’ve moved the goalposts.

  423. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    Okay, I see which nit you have been picking at. You quoted me out of context then assumed an absurd definition of “only.”

    The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only [simply] offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    Your argument is non-serious nonsense.

  424. Thomas Says:

    Nothing Kooky Willard wrote is evidence that the paper is not an attack piece. It clearly is, from beginning to end. No reasonable person could read it and believe otherwise.

    Nothing Kooky wrote is evidence to counter my claim that the paper contains many ad hominem attacks.

    Nothing Kooky wrote is evidence that the paper does not commit the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

    Everything Kooky wrote is just more Kooky Monster nonsense.

    Kooky types a lot of words but never once has he given a coherent counter argument that holds water.

    Just a lot of kooky, often incoherent, dismissive, rambling, disjointed, illogical, flippant, sophomoric, snark.

    Not one concisely stated coherent counter argument.

    This is intellectual cowardice.

  425. brandonrgates Says:

    > The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only [simply] offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    Observation: this is the 2nd time in as many responses to me that you’ve modified at least one of your previous statements by a parenthetical inclusion.

    Discussion: I only know two meanings of the word “only” when used an adverb. The second sense connotes a negative or unfortunate outcome to some causal chain, e.g. “I jumped out of the frying pan, only to fall into the fire.”

    One does not simply divine how “[simply]” modifies “only” such that “only” only resolves to a non-absurd assumption.

    Conclusion: It is unclear how the statement, “Telling people what to think so as to avoid other people telling them how to think may tend to be self-defeating, Thomas.” has been falsified, Thomas.

  426. Thomas Says:

    Obviously science does not “only” offer evidenced.

    “Simply” doesn’t modify “only.” It replaces it; as a synonym.

    In this sense the definition of “only” is (I Googled it):

    Only; alone deserving consideration. Example:
    “it’s simply the only place to be seen these days”

    Obviously “the place to be seen” is not the “only” place that one can be seen (one is not invisible until one sets foot in the “only please to be seen). It’s just the place that deserves consideration. It just adds emphasis to “science offers evidence.”

    My statement can be read as, “Science (and this point alone deserves consideration) offers evidence.”

    High priests, in contrast offer “only” received wisdom, which shall not be questioned. Of course high priests also sometimes offer other things; criminal sexual abuse of children, for example.

    Stop being so spinelessly willardish and actually address my actual argument.

    Willardish, the condition of being pathologically incapable of addressing an actual argument.

    I already addressed the “telling people what to think” canard.

    Science offers evidence, which can be questioned. High priests offer “received wisdom” which shall not be questioned. High priest tell people what they must think; science suggests what is (only) perhaps a more realistic point of view.

    You run this risk of falling down the rabbit hole of dueling definitions. Like Willard did with “premise.”

    Get over it. Move on.

    Grit your teeth, gird your loins, and try to summon the intellectual courage to actually address the actual argument.

    Picking nits is not enough.

    To convince people you have to actually address my actual argument.

    I know you won’t. Nobody here does. Because you all lack the intellectual courage to face facts.

  427. Thomas Says:

    It’s worse than I thought.

    Someone paid $3,750 to make the paper open access.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/pages/General_Instructions

    Bart, who came up with the money to make this paper accessible by all?

  428. Marco Says:

    “Marco to my knowledge, cosmic ray intensity is not parametrised in the cloud models, that is an implicit opinion by the modelers.”

    Hans, to my knowledge this has very little impact, as shown by the CLOUD experiments (see Dunne et al 2016).

  429. Marco Says:

    “So is it the ice that has to be just right?”

    More or less, yes. It’s like eating: too much is no good, too little isn’t either.

    “and why are both increasing and decreasing polar bear populations bad?”

    Why do you ask a question that does not logically follow from what I explained?

  430. Marco Says:

    “Your comments of the last three days have been off topic.”

    I’m sure you think so. From my side it was an interesting exercise to see how far you went in your dismissive approach to climate science and science in general. As expected, you are one of those who selectively shops in science: if you don’t care about its outcome, you readily accept it; if you don’t like its outcome, you’ll challenge the science, selectively shop in the scientific literature, and/or replace it with your own beliefs.

    This automatically means that any valid arguments in favor of H17 will very likely not be recognized by you as valid arguments. After all, H17 exposes the same behavior as your own: ignoring/selectively shopping in the scientific literature by those who reject mainstream climate science and its impacts.

    Maybe you’ll learn something from this video:

    “I showed my argument has all the elements of a valid argument.”

    Nope, you *think* you showed that, but I disagree. You are arguing a strawman, as Willard has pointed out numerous times.

    The rest of your comment is just a personal attack on Bart, hoping he’ll respond by removing your comment so you can cry “I am being censored! See, that means I am right!”.

  431. brandonrgates Says:

    > In this sense the definition of “only” is (I Googled it):

    Dictionaries don’t write themselves, Thomas.

    > High priests, in contrast offer “only” received wisdom, which shall not be questioned.

    The definition of High Priest is (I punched it into teh Goggle):

    High Priest
    noun
    a chief priest of a non-Christian religion, in particular.
    the chief priest of the historic Jewish religion.
    noun: high priest; plural noun: high priests
    the head of a religious cult or similar group.

    Word “science” not found.

    > You run this risk of falling down the rabbit hole of dueling definitions.

    There are many dictionaries.

    Goto: “In this sense the definition of “only” is (I Googled it):”

    ***

    If you’re reading this; congratulations, you didn’t get stuck in the loop.

    > I already addressed the “telling people what to think” canard.

    You wrote something about my statement: Telling people what to think so as to avoid other people telling them how to think may tend to be self-defeating.

    A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

    So I point at this:

    > I know you won’t. Nobody here does. Because you all lack the intellectual courage to face facts.

    And I point at this:

    > It’s appeal to authority mixed with ad hominem, then wrapped up in a package of circular reasoning.

    That is all the evidence one needs to offer.

  432. Thomas Says:

    Marco,

    Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it.

    > “From my side it was an interesting exercise to see how far you went in your dismissive approach to climate science and science in general.”

    Once again you dismiss me as a mere “dismissive” but I have not dismissed any of the science of AGW. I just don’t agree with the idea that it’s going to be any worse that the warming of the past 100 years, which was mild and uneventful.

    We disagree on cloud feedback but even the IPCC says that both the sign and magnitude of cloud feedbacks are unknown at this time. So my position on cloud feedbacks is just as scientifically valid as yours.

    My opinions are not anti-science. They’re not even all that different from yours.

    > This automatically means that any valid arguments in favor of H17 will very likely not be recognized by you as valid arguments.

    The only argument in favor of H17 was given by Peter, reinforced by Bart and twisted by Willard. Peter said H17 shows that skeptical blogs are far removed from the science. The paper does indeed show this at figure 2—that skeptics don’t cite the consensus literature as often as consensus blogs.

    But this argument is absurd in it’s face. H17 does not only show that skeptics don’t cite the science. It attacks the “science-denying, misinformation-spreading, far-removed-from-science, conspiracy-funded, credential-lacking, mis-framing, emotive-language-using, keystone-domino-kicking, skeptical blogosphere” as being wrong about polar bears and sea ice.

    The authors then conducted the only original research referenced in the paper—a survey of blogs. Clearly this research is intended to back up the claim. What they found is that skeptical blogs don’t cite the science as often as other blogs.

    Apparently the authors and you and Willard think this is evidence that the skeptical blogs are wrong. But it isn’t. It’s appeal to authority and circular reasoning.

    > “Nope, you *think* you showed [that your argument has all the elements of a valid argument] but I disagree. You are arguing a strawman, as Willard has pointed out numerous times.

    Willard said my argument is a strawman because, according to him, H17 does not seek to show that the “science-denying, misinformation-spreading, etc., blogosphere” is wrong about polar bears and sea ice.

    That is a patently absurd claim. It’s not possible to read the article and not come away with the understanding that the H17 seeks to show the denier blogs are wrong. The whole point of the paper is to show that the denier blogs spread misinformation so it’s important for “real scientists” to use social media to ensure the public is properly informed.

    Willard’s strawman claim ignores reality. It’s kooky.

    If you think it’s a valid argument please tell me why.

    It’s bad manners, and anti-science, to keep saying someone is wrong without actually explaining why you think they are wrong.

    > “The rest of your comment is just a personal attack on Bart, hoping he’ll respond by removing your comment so you can cry “I am being censored! See, that means I am right!”.

    I follow the rules very carefully because I’m afraid Bart might delete my posts again.

  433. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    Pointing at statements without making an argument does no good. I don’t know what you mean to convey by pointing at them. Are you saying, “look, a pretty statement!” or something else.

    I can’t figure out what the rest of your post is intended to convey either, so I can’t really offer any comment on it.

  434. Willard Says:

    > It’s not possible to read the article and not come away with the understanding that the H17 seeks to show the denier blogs are wrong. The whole point of the paper is to show that the denier blogs spread misinformation […]

    H17’s core finding is supposed to support its main claim:

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    H17 doesn’t need to show that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation. It’s common knowledge:

    Although science-based and science-denier blogs may draw on similar examples, they frame their claims differently. For example, scientific blogs provide context and associated evidence, whereas denier blogs often remove context or misinterpret examples. Frame analysis reveals how communicators present messages to audiences with the intention of influencing how the content is ultimately interpreted (Nisbet 2014). The same frame can be presented in both negative and positive ways, depending on the types of evidence and claims that a writer or speaker makes (Balgopal et al. 2017). Although frame analysis sometimes focuses on the dynamic process through which ideas are developed (Vliegenthart and van Zoonen 2011), the examination of blogs requires a focus on the written communication strategies used (Druckman 2001). Most importantly, any topic can be framed in exactly the way a communicator desires if it is not presented objectively, honestly, and with context.

    One could say that the fact that the Contrarian Matrix spreads misinformation is a premise of the paper. This premise supports H17’s conclusion, not the other way around. It forms a basis that motivates doing H17 in the first place. (That’s one meaning of premise.)

    Another assumption of H17 is that disregarding overwhelming scientific evidence and downplaying the impact of AGW on Arctic sea-ice and/or polar bear vulnerability amounts to misrepresentation, This assumption rests on basic semantics. Again, it supports H17’s main conclusion, not the other way around.

  435. Willard Says:

    > Apparently the authors and you and Willard think this is evidence that the skeptical blogs are wrong.

    The strawman in a nutshell.

  436. Willard Says:

    Interestingly, the Auditor stopped covering sea ice circa 2009:

    https://climateaudit.org/category/sea-ice/

    Judy’s category is Polar Regions:

    https://judithcurry.com/category/polar-regions/

    Both categories show that Arctic stuff can be balanced with “but Antarctica” FUD.

    The latest post at Judy’s ends with this summary:

    After re-calibrating the pre-satellite data, it now transpires that Arctic sea ice has alternated between periods of sea ice retreat and growth. The satellite record coincidentally began at the end of one of the sea ice growth periods. This has led to people mistakenly thinking the post-1978 sea ice retreat is unusual.

    The results from new sea ice proxies taken from ocean sediment cores suggest that Arctic sea ice extent has varied substantially over the last 10,000 years. They also suggest that Arctic sea ice extent was actually less before the Bronze Age than it is today.

    The current Global Climate Models are unable to reproduce the observed Arctic sea ice changes since 1901, and they seem to drastically underestimate the natural sea ice variability

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/

    Hard to deny that this summary downplays Arctic sea-ice loss and disregards the lichurchur. Incidentally, C&C maintains this blog Global Warming Solved. Here’s the TL;DR –

    For several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.

    https://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/

    Since C&C concludes that AGW is wrong, they must have that premise somewhere. Paging ThomasM.

  437. Thomas Says:

    > Another assumption of H17 is that disregarding overwhelming scientific evidence and downplaying the impact of AGW on Arctic sea-ice and/or polar bear vulnerability amounts to misrepresentation,

    It’s not just an assumption it’s what the authors claimed their research (the blogs surveys) shows. But the assumption, which is make explicit in the abstract and elsewhere, and the evidence, don’t show that the denier blogs are wrong. They only show the two groups hold different views.

    If the authors wanted to show that the overwhelming and un-debunkable evidence was correct and the bloggers were incorrect, they have to show evidence of that.

    An intellectual argument that assumes one is right, therefore their opponent is wrong, and ends with, they are wrong so, yet, we are right, is intellectual vacuous.

    Willard is incapable of grasping this argument, or unwilling to admit it’s right.

    That’s why I call him Kooky Monster and mostly ignore him.

  438. Thomas Says:

    > The strawman in a nutshell.

    Okay. So you agree the paper says nothing of value? If you don’t take the blog surveys as appeal to authority, you are left with:

    Some people don’t cite some papers

    Or people who don’t cite our papers don’t agree with us.

    What makes that interesting, publishable, science?

    So it’s either subliminal appeal to authority or it shows evidence of pablum. Either way it intellectual vacuous.

    > Paging ThomasM.

    Misdirection. The Connolly’s claim to have disproved the greenhouse effect. I allow that the greenhouse effect is real.

  439. Willard Says:

    > It’s not just an assumption it’s what the authors claimed their research (the blogs surveys) shows.

    The authors of H17 claim that the Contrarian Matrix disregards the lichurchur on the relationship between sea ice loss and polar bears vulnerability.

    They showed this by looking at how blogs pro and contra AGW frame that issue.

    They found that the Contrarian Matrix framed the issue differently than what the lichurchur suggests.

    They assume that how the relevant lichurchur frames the issue represents the state of the art on the issue.

    They also assume that peddling FUD amounts to misrepresentation.

    There’s no circularity there. There’s no need to assume that contrarians are wrong on that issue to observe that the FUD they peddle lacks scientific warrant, and that electing SusanC as one’s Arctic Champion looks dubious at best.

    If readers of H17 infer from the evidence laid out that the FUD the Contrarian Matrix peddles regarding the relationship between sea ice loss and polar bear vulnerability looks bogus, they can’t hardly be blamed.

  440. Willard Says:

    > So you agree the paper says nothing of value?

    Again with the double bind. Notice the switch from a non sequitur to a tentative to trivialize H17’s results. Even if that was true, it wouldn’t imply that H17’s main point is invalid. By that creative logic, unless a paper offers any evidence about who is right and who is wrong, it tells us nothing of value.

    The trivialization is refuted by observing that H17: illustrates how polar bears have become a ClimateBall proxy; demonstrates that following the citations is a powerful tool to spot when FUD is peddled; makes realize how small is the Contrarian Matrix. Et cetera. We’ve already been there twice already.

    Search for “nothing of value” in that thread to see how Thommee Dumpty’s two-step works.

  441. Thomas Says:

    > They assume that how the relevant lichurchur frames the issue represents the state of the art on the issue.

    > They also assume that peddling FUD amounts to misrepresentation.

    So it is an appeal to authority.

    I’m glad we finally settled this point!

    > There’s no need to assume that contrarians are wrong.

    This is not an assumption of H17 it’s a claim; made over and over again, with little and sometimes no supporting evidence.

    > If readers of H17 infer from the evidence laid out that the FUD the Contrarian Matrix peddles regarding the relationship between sea ice loss and polar bear vulnerability looks bogus, they can’t hardly be blamed.

    Well, they could be blamed for falling for an appeal to authority. But the authors deserve most of the blame because they’re the ones who actually did it.

    On the question of circularity consider the following:

    You and I are having an augment.

    Let’s assume that I’m correct—like the authors did—because I think I’m smarter and I hang out with the right people, or whatever.

    You take the contra side of the argument.

    I immediately know you are wrong because you dared to disagree with me.

    Therefore, I conclude, that I really am right.

    Therefore, I should get on social media and tell the world, so they can be right too.

    : )

  442. Willard Says:

    > An intellectual argument that assumes one is right, therefore their opponent is wrong, and ends with, they are wrong so, yet, we are right, is intellectual vacuous.

    Misconstruing an argument to make it appear circular is easy:

    (1) Take any premise;
    (2) Turn it into categorical statement;
    (3) Replace the paper’s conclusion with that hyperbolic “premise.”

    The shortest path to counter that argument is to recall what the authors claim. If the main claim is independent from that “premise” the argument can be dismissed as a strawman. That’s what happens here.

    H17 doesn’t show that contrarians are wrong, only that they disregard the overwhelming evidence about sea ice and polar bear vulnerability. It would have been possible for them to cite the lichurchur and use the same frames scientists do. In many cases they do. It just happens that in that case they don’t.

  443. Thomas Says:

    I don’t know what a “double bind” is. Please define.

    > Even if that was true, it wouldn’t imply that H17’s main point is invalid.

    If it is true that the paper tells us nothing of value then the validity of the paper’s main point doesn’t make any difference. It would also have no value.

    That some bloggers don’t cite some papers is not a finding that has value to anyone.

    If I did some research and found that most supports of AGW don’t drink Chardonnay, do you think BioScience would publish my paper, even if I did a principle component analysis and made some colored pie charts? Of course they wouldn’t. The wine mongers might find it interesting, no one else would.

    Anyway, H17 makes the point that the bloggers are disseminating misinformation and that “real” scientists should get on the inter-webs and put the right information out there. Showing that the bloggers are wrong is a fundamental point of the paper.

  444. Thomas Says:

    > The shortest path to counter that argument is to recall what the authors claim. If the main claim is independent from that “premise” the argument can be dismissed as a strawman. That’s what happens here.

    Please explain. what is the “authors’ claim.” What is that “premise.”
    Why can the argument be dismissed as a strawman?

  445. Willard Says:

    > what is the “authors’ claim.”

    Start here:

    What you identify as a premise, i.e.

    [W]e show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability

    is actually the main claim of the paper […]

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39871

    Our emphasis.

  446. Willard Says:

    > I don’t know what a “double bind” is.

    A bit late to rediscover sealioning, but let’s indulge:

    A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

    It’s easy to set up an inferential double bind is between non sequitur! and “tautology!” Considering that deductions could be seen as tautological, it’s hard to get away from that bind. We’ve already said all this earlier:

    https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-39947

  447. brandonrgates Says:

    I point at this:

    > Pointing at statements without making an argument does no good. I don’t know what you mean to convey by pointing at them.

    And I point at this:

    > The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only [simply] offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    That is all the evidence one needs to offer in Real Science ™ according to Thomas.

  448. Thomas Says:

    > The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

    So confront the inherent dilemma and the double bind will resolve.

  449. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    If you can’t express the point of your initial pointing then more pointing is pointless.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say and I can’t argue with what looks like gibberish.

    Try to make a point (not just a pointing) and I’ll try to respond.

  450. Willard Says:

    > So confront the inherent dilemma

    Easier said than done. For any contrarian that would scream “tautology!” there’s another one to scream “non sequitur!” When it’s the same that holds a pitchfork in both hands, everyone knows we’re not dealing with a rational enquiry anymore.

    In the end, Deductivism is dead and holism wins. But before we get into that, there’s another ClimateBall trick looming in. Let’s call it the evidential regress.

    Suppose Vladimir comes up with an idea. Estragon finds that idea bogus. Here’s a formal dialogue:

    [V] We should wait for Godot.

    [E] Why?

    [V] Because, Aliens.

    [E] Are you sure?

    [V] Yes, Chuck Norris told me.

    [E] Chuck Norris?

    [V] I wouldn’t say his name if I were you.

    [E] Why not?

    This can go on forever. The beauty of this dialogue is that V can wait for Godot while E wonders if he has enough evidence to wait. An infinite regress can obtain as soon as evidence is asked about evidence.

    Ask any four-year-old.

    Evidence-based science works the other way around. It establishes an evidence basis, then it gets to work. There are many things beyond evidence in science: hypothesis, testing, theory, explanation, law-like regularity, conjecture, caveat, discussion, etc.

    There’s no point in collating evidence if it’s not to explain or understand something. Moreover, the notion of evidence is far from being obvious. For instance, what could be considered one of Galileo’s greatest contributions to science is a thought experiment that refuted Aristotle’s theory of falling bodies.

    In clearcut cases such as H17’s, there’s no need to weight the evidence to observe where’s the weight of the evidence. When 85 out of 90 papers weighs against the FUD frame, and the five remaining ones aren’t even as brutally FUDly as what serves the Contrarian Matrix daily, one can safely conclude that the Contrarian Matrix is skating on thin ice.

    It’s always possible to ask if there’s any evidence to our evidence basis, but once it’s framed that way it sounds a bit silly, doesn’t it?

  451. brandonrgates Says:

    > Try to make a point (not just a pointing) and I’ll try to respond.

    One does not simply point a dead horse at water and make it drink.

    c.f.: The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    That’s two points, Thomas. I’ll give you three guesses as to which is the point, but you only need one.

  452. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    aaaa

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  453. Thomas Says:

    > When 85 out of 90 papers weighs against the FUD frame, and the five remaining ones aren’t even as brutally FUDly as what serves the Contrarian Matrix daily, one can safely conclude that the Contrarian Matrix is skating on thin ice.

    On cannot safely conclude anything from the evidence given unless one is willing to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

    As you just did. And as Bart, Peter, Marco, Brandon and H17 did.

  454. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    I’m sorry but I read your last post three times but I can’t make sense of it. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

    Here’s a tip, try using simple language to make your point with as few words as possible.

  455. brandonrgates Says:

    Thomas,

    The dead horse comment was an editorialization; a red herring, thus NOT the point. In the interest of brevity, I should be able to stop here. Nevertheless, I forge ahead.

    This …

    > Try to make a point (not just a pointing) and I’ll try to respond.

    … is incompatible with this:

    > The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    Now comes this …

    > On cannot safely conclude anything from the evidence given unless one is willing to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

    … which is incompatible with science being beautiful AND with simply pointing at evidence being insufficient to make a point.

  456. Thomas Says:

    Brandon I don’t understand why you think the three statements are incompatible. Nor do I understand why you imagine your dead horse is a red herring.

    What you wrote looks like nonsense to me.

    > I should be able to stop here.

    I think that is a good idea. Maybe you just need some rest.

  457. brandonrgates Says:

    > […] I don’t understand why you think the three statements are incompatible.

    I don’t understand why you don’t, Thomas. I could hypothesize, e.g. …

    > Maybe you just need some rest.

    … but without evidence of your mental fatigue levels, I would merely be speculating, which might tend to violate:

    > The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    The beautiful thing is I don’t need to explain why, what, where, when, how you don’t understand my point to make my point. I only need to offer evidence which supports my point so that people can make up their own minds.

    Since my evidence is your words on this page, all I need do is point at them to make my point.

  458. Thomas Says:

    < I only need to offer evidence which supports my point so that people can make up their own minds.

    I read it again and made up my mind; it's nonsense.

  459. brandonrgates Says:

    I point at this:

    > I read it again and made up my mind; it’s nonsense.

    And I point at this:

    > Since my evidence is your words on this page, all I need do is point at them to make my point.

    You should know the drill by now, Thomas.

  460. Willard Says:

    > On cannot safely conclude anything from the evidence given unless one is willing to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

    From “tautology!” we return to “non sequitur!”

    That conclusion could obtain if we assumed that every appeal to authority was a fallacy. This would be incorrect: from authority claims one can deduce authority claims. Which I believe is the case with this claim:

    When 85 out of 90 papers weighs against the FUD frame, and the five remaining ones aren’t even as brutally FUDly as what serves the Contrarian Matrix daily, one can safely conclude that the Contrarian Matrix is skating on thin ice.

    Skating on thin ice doesn’t imply one is wrong. However, it does indicate little support, at least comparatively speaking. H17 indeed found little support for contrarian’s FUD. H17 also found that the Contrarian Matrix elected SusanC as its Arctic Champion. Appealing to her authority doesn’t seem to bother Tommee Dumpty much. Because, evidence, no doubt. As if it could stand alone.

    Tommee Dumpty’s appeal to evidence looks like a nifty to disregard any inference that reveals the shortcomings of his argument. To wit: not only it’s a strawman, but it’s a double bind. This impression is reinforced by his obliviousness regarding BG’s point, i.e. that his “science only offers evidence” (however “only” gets redefined) bypasses the fact that inference is central to the scientific endeavour.

    Downplaying scientific inferences when they run against the Contrarian Matrix’ FUD is only par for the course.

  461. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    Sorry, but that’s just more nonsense. No serious agreement there.

    Pointing at things is not the same a making a point. You have to actually make an argument or counter argument that is supported by the evidence you point at. Otherwise it just pointless pointing.

  462. brandonrgates Says:

    > Sorry, but that’s just more nonsense.

    Don’t apologize to me, Thomas … they’re your words.

    Once again.

    I point at this:

    > You have to actually make an argument or counter argument that is supported by the evidence you point at. Otherwise it just pointless pointing.

    And I point at this:

    > The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    That is all the evidence one needs to offer.

  463. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    > Skating on thin ice doesn’t imply one is wrong

    It implies one is taking an extraordinary risk, which could lead to death. You can’t be more wrong than being dead from taking silly risks.

    > Appealing to her {Crockfords] authority doesn’t seem to bother Tommee Dumpty much.

    I have not read the blogs that refer to Crokford. It could be that they are also guilty of appeal to authority. But that doesn’t change the fact that H17 is.

    > however “only” gets redefined

    You and Brandon are not stupid enough to believe that my statement meant that “offering evidence” is the “only” thing that science ever does. You’re just trying to make me look stupid, which isn’t working, so get over it and move on.

    Even if that remark was stupid, you have to attack my argument not me. That’s how formal debate and formal argument work. The rules are their to avoid having to go over and over nonsense arguments. They can be dismissed by simply showing they are fallacious … only not here and not with Willard or Brandon.

    > From “tautology!” we return to “non sequitur!”

    More unmitigated nonsense. How is my argument either of those?

    Merely tossing out words and pointing at things is not argument. You have to offer enough specificity so a reasonable person knows what it is you’re trying to say. Otherwise it’s just nonsense.

    > double bind

    A double bind is, “a situation in which a person is confronted with two irreconcilable demands or a choice between two undesirable courses of action.”

    From Wikipedia,

    The classic example given of a negative double bind is of a mother telling her child that she loves him or her, while at the same time turning away in disgust, or inflicting corporal punishment as discipline: the words are socially acceptable; the body language is in conflict with it. The child does not know how to respond to the conflict between the words and the body language and, because the child is dependent on the mother for basic needs, they are in a quandary. Small children have difficulty articulating contradictions verbally and can neither ignore them nor leave the relationship.

    Where exactly is the double bind in my argument? Which two irreconcilable demands has my argument placed on you? Are you dependent on my acceptance?

    If so, allow me to offer a resolution for your situation. You can simply state that you are unable to disprove my argument but that you don’t accept it for personal reasons. I’ll let it go at that. I’m not trying to make you feel uncomfortable or unloved. I support your right to believe whatever you wish to believe.

    > bypasses the fact that inference is central to the scientific endeavor.

    No, because I didn’t say that offering evidence is the sole thing science does. I think only a fool would read my statement as a declaration of the only thing that science does. Obviously it is not the only thing.

    But just to be clear, what I actually meant to say is that, unlike religion, science does not prescribe what one must believe. Everyone is free to attack even the most reliable of scientific theories—like Einstein did to Newton’s gravity, etc.

  464. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Please try to elucidate an actual argument. Pointing isn’t working for me. What you mean by the pointing may seem obvious to you but it’s not obvious to me.

  465. Thomas Says:

    Once again, my actual argument is pushed way up the page by a bunch of meaningless nonsense. Perhaps that’s the real goal here.

    W.C. Fields put it this way,

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.”

    I clean up the language. : )

  466. Willard Says:

    > How is my argument either of those? […] Where exactly is the double bind in my argument? Which two irreconcilable demands has my argument placed on you? Are you dependent on my acceptance?

    JAQing off after being answered at least twice recently is a thing of beauty.

    For Tommee Dumpty’s “tautology!” move, search for “nothing of value,” and for his “non sequitur!” move, search for either “ad hominem” or “appeal to authority.”

    Any inference that preserves information can be seen as tautological, and any inference that isn’t closed under deduction can be interpreted as a non sequitur.

    Tommee Dumpty’s “but nothing of value,” “invalid ad hom,” and “invalid appeal to authority” miscontrues H17’s argument and minimizes its empirical content.

  467. brandonrgates Says:

    > What you mean by the pointing may seem obvious to you but it’s not obvious to me.

    Point, as to indicate something such as evidence:

    You never admit to having made mistake, even when your errors are obvious You arrogantly assert the truth of things that you have not demonstrated and you repeatedly insult me by saying I said things that I didn’t actually say.

    This is the conduct of a pathological, narcissist.

    You aren’t just kooky. You’re a kooky monster.

    Point, as to indicate something such as moar evidence:

    Even if one’s intellectual opponent eats babies that is not evidence that they are wrong on any given scientific position they take.

    This is a simple principle of logic. Most people are able to grasp it quickly. Personal attacks are often the last refuge of a loser. If you can’t win on the issues, attack the character of your opponent. Most people know this instinctively.

    An Actual Argument ™: Thomas is not “most people”.

    My actual argument is that Thomas’ definition of Real Science ™ is self-annihilating. Logically it cannot exist. Since his definition of Real Science ™ is used to Actually Argue ™ that H17 is not-Real Science ™, and is therefore useless (etc.), it follows that Thomas’ Actual Argument ™ fails.

    This conclusion does NOT entail that no argument against H17 can be successful.

  468. brandonrgates Says:

    > You and Brandon are not stupid enough to believe that my statement meant that “offering evidence” is the “only” thing that science ever does.

    What anyone but you believes is not relevant here, Thomas; what you argue is. Here again is evidence of your Actual Argument ™:

    The beauty of science is that it never prescribes positions or beliefs. It only offers evidence so people can make up their own minds.

    This defines:

    1) What Real Science ™ never does.
    2) One thing Real Science ™ “only” does.

    Obviously whatever else Real Science ™ does, it cannot violate (1) and still be considered Real Science ™.

    So I point at this:

    > It’s bad manners, and anti-science, to keep saying someone is wrong without actually explaining why you think they are wrong.

    And I point at this:

    > You’re just trying to make me look stupid, which isn’t working, so get over it and move on.

    That really should only/just/simply/actually/obviously be enough of that already.

  469. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    Your arguments are silly, pseudo-intellectual nonsense. There is no double bind in my argument (you don’t even understand the term), it’s not a tautology and there is no non sequitur.

    > miscontrues H17’s argument and minimizes its empirical content.

    It’s empirical content can be summed up as blogs that fall easily into two camps, also have different opinions.

    Hard to over minimize such vacuous nonsense.

  470. Thomas Says:

    Brandon,

    Your comments are also silly, nonsense.

    Not even worthy of a response.

  471. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    bbbbb

    Hi Bart,

    Reposted as this thread has stretched on a bit:

    You write, “2) From the SI: “A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author.” The objective was to use a large number of blogs, and at least including the “big” ones in both categories.”

    Given that the most highly trafficked blogs in your pool do not contest the lost of sea ice, and given that there are considerably more blogs than the 90 you found, how were the participating websites selected? You say you wanted the ‘big ones’ but the big ones you found don’t dispute your point and you missed some big ones.

    I note that you didn’t choose to use some very highly trafficked blogs such as Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre. I also note that some of the blogs listed as supporting the consensus view on the subjects discussed seem to have little relevance.

    I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.

    Who made the decision on which blogs to use and what were the criteria?

  472. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    Thomas Fuller – “I am concerned that sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper. You say 90 blogs were ‘found.’ But I am sure you found more than 90.”

    You comment is similar to others who have questioned what post facto selection of temp proxies has been used. For example – law dome which is one of the highest resolution proxies in antarctica and which shows an elevated MWP is excluded from gergis, pages 2k and has a virtually zero weighting in mann jones 2003.

    The individual who has pointed this error (along with numerous other errors in the use of proxies) is derided and receives fa greater criticism because he not a “preapproved climate expert” similar to Crockford who is not a pre approved expert – Both have only pointed out errors which the experts chose to overlook.

  473. Willard Says:

    > You comment is similar to others

    To six others, to be precise.

    The concern about sample bias could be substantiated the hard way or the easy way. The hard way is to show how to sample a subset of all the websites in a non-biased way. The easy way is to show contrarian websites that spread AGW FUD while using similar frames as in the scientific lichurchur on the relationship between sea-ice loss and polar bears vulnerability. Bonus points if the sample doesn’t defer to SusanC and doesn’t disregard the lichurchur.

    Acknowledging that the Auditor’s hasn’t covered sea ice since 2009 and that Judy’s downplayed recent sea ice loss would be nice too.

  474. Thomas Says:

    < The hard way is to show how to sample a subset of all the websites in a non-biased way

    One could certainly start by not omitting popular blogs like Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre.

    Curry posts about polar bears without mention of Crockford.

    https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/21/never-look-a-polar-bear-in-the-eye/

    That fact that it was left out, if it is a fact, is damning. Particularly because Curry is a climate scientists, not just a blogger.

  475. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    4 legs good, 2 legs bad, no, finding blogs that consistently one thing or another does not answer questions about sampling decisions. Which you would know if you knew anything other than ‘4 legs good, 2 legs bad.’

  476. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > finding blogs that consistently one thing or another does not answer questions about sampling decisions

    It would justify the concerns about sampling bias. These questions would look less vexatious with justified concerns.

    Reading H17 might also help.

  477. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > Curry posts about polar bears without mention of [SusanC].

    Tommee Dumpty forgets that this research isn’t about polar bears in general, but sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. Promoting ZacU’s book about how researchers count bear heads doesn’t cut it. Incidentally, SusanC does mention ZacU in one of her GWPF notes.

    Tommee Dumpty also forgets to mention that he may have found little else at Judy’s.

  478. willard (@nevaudit) Says:

    > Particularly because Curry is a climate scientists, not just a blogger.

    DANGER! WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! INVALID APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  479. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    So 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, you’re admitting you’re a robot? Most of us had already guessed.

  480. Willard Says:

  481. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    …and dem polar bears got four legs, too!

  482. Thomas Says:

    Willard,

    > this research isn’t about polar bears in general, but sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

    If you had bothered to read the link you would have seen that sea ice is mentioned many times.

  483. Thomas Says:

    < INVALID APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!

    Yes, H17 is improper appeal to authority so you would think they would look at authorities like Dr Curry.

  484. Willard Says:

    > If you had bothered to read the link you would have seen that sea ice is mentioned many times.

    Seems Tommee Dumpty hasn’t read it either – “sea ice” has been mentioned twice, and then there’s this:

    So this was Rocky’s grand theory, I thought: as the Arctic warmed and the sea ice shrank, the bears might somehow manage to adapt.

    https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/21/never-look-a-polar-bear-in-the-eye/

    We already saw posts at Judy’s that minimize actual sea ice loss.

    We have yet to saw other posts at Judy’s that could be related to H17’s topic.

  485. Willard Says:

    Compare:

    so you would think they would look at authorities like Dr Curry.

    Contrast

    That fact that it was left out, if it is a fact, is damning. Particularly because Curry is a climate scientists, not just a blogger.

    ***

    When will Groundskeeper and Tommee Dumpty provide a list of relevant posts at Judy’s?

  486. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    When will the authors of Harvey et al explain their sampling decisions?

  487. Willard Says:

    When will Groundskeeper read what H17 says about that?

  488. Peter Roessingh Says:

    Thomaswfuller2 keeps re-asking questions that have been answered: everything that is relevant to our work is explained in the paper and the supplementary data. However, to answer his particular questions about Curry’s blog and ClimateAudit, they are not in the dataset because they do not fit the criteria described in the paper i.e. they do not discuss in any substantial way both arctic sea ice and polar bear status.

    Thomaswfuller2 also keeps asking for details about the data selection as if that would make a large difference. We explained that we tried to find *all* blogs that discussed both arctic sea ice and polar bear status. The post at the top of this page indicates that the pattern in the data is extremely robust. Adding or removing a site like ClimateAudit, or even removing half of the data, will not make any difference to the conclusions. In addition, the code for the analysis and the criteria for inclusion are available, nothing stops thomaswfuller2, or anybody else to show why a particular site should/should not be included and proceed to show what that means for the conclusion of the paper. The site of Curry would be an interesting example. It was excluded because it only contains one copy and paste job, but if we loosen the criteria and include it in the dataset, were would it fall? Would it strengthen or weaken the final conclusions of the paper?

    That brings me to the last and most important point. As Willard also has noted, in this tread are now 487 reactions, but there is not ONE that makes the step from raising doubt about the methods to the actual *implications* of those presumed errors for the conclusion. Richard Tol is a case in point. He produced a new graph that clearly supports our conclusion but without him saying that.

    There are good reasons why this step is avoided, because it would lead to an even bigger problem for the critics of our paper, as has recently been pointed out by one of our co-authors (Lewandowsky) in an overview of the responses to our paper here:

    Lewandowsky highlighted a somewhat “Monty-Pythonesque” angle to the discussion: The conclusion from our paper is that the position of the pseudo-sceptics differs strongly from the position of both the science based blogs and peer reviewed papers on the subject. IF we would be wrong, there are two options: The pseudo-sceptic blogs DO agree with the peer reviewed literature that overwhelmingly concludes that ice is melting fast and that polar bears will be in trouble (clearly not an outcome the pseudo-sceptics blogs would welcome). Or alternatively, the pseudo sceptic blogs position DOES differ from the consensus in the peer reviewed literature, but the peer reviewed literature as a whole is wrong about the relation between bears and ice. That position questions the *combined* work of about all scientists in this field. I have seen even stronger statements, that in effect say that science as a whole can not be trusted. Taking such a position ends all meaningful scientific debate. Either way, the discussion is over.

    In summary, the ball is in the court of those who disagree with our conclusion. It is up to them to show that selection of a different set of blogs will indeed alter our conclusion, and discuss what the new conclusion would mean. That is how science works.

  489. Peter Roessingh Says:

    Sorry, the link got lost:
    An overview of the responses to our paper is here:
    http://planetjh.com/2018/01/10/polarizing-polar-bears-unmasking-a-proxy-war-strategy-by-online-climate-change-denialists/

  490. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Mr. Roessingh, thanks for your response.

    There are questions that arise both from Harvey et al and your response.

    My question about sample selection is actually very basic. Your study focuses on 45 blogs that you (somewhat disgracefully) label ‘denier’ blogs. However, there are more than 45 blogs that fit that description. How did you choose those 45 blogs?

    Both Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre have been discussing Arctic sea ice and polar bears at length, in McIntyre’s case for over a decade. They also cite academic literature very conscientiously. I find it odd that two of the most famous non-consensus blogs escaped your net. Your explanation is basically that both Arctic sea ice and polar bears are not found in the title of posts. That shows a remarkable lack of curiosity and perhaps even laziness.

    More broadly, I note that blogs that cite Dr. Crockford’s weblog in effect cite the scientific literature by proxy, as her weblog is punctilious about referencing the scientific literature, especially papers she contests. What allowance do you make for e.g., Bishop Hill linking to a post by Dr. Crockford that has up to a dozen citations to peer-reviewed literature?

    I will respond to what you label as the most important point, where you write, “As Willard also has noted, in this tread are now 487 reactions, but there is not ONE that makes the step from raising doubt about the methods to the actual *implications* of those presumed errors for the conclusion.”

    1. Several comments, or ‘reactions’ as you call them, do raise doubt about the implications stemming from identified errors in the methodology, either explicitly or implicitly. One example is my criticism of sample selection. I wrote above that “sample bias may prejudice the findings of your paper.” In fact, I wrote that repeatedly, as there was no response. In fact, ‘cherry-picking’ weblogs that you consider ‘denier’ would be, if true, a fatal flaw that undermines all your findings. You should know this. You should have stated the basis for selecting your sample in the methodology, whether by random number generator, drawing lots out of a hat–whatever.

    Parenthetically, as I haven’t mentioned this before, you would have been well-served to weight non-consensus blogs by popularity, or traffic, or number of comments. You make no effort to explore the very interesting differences between the 20% of non-consensus weblogs that do not contest what you assume is the key point in the discussion. I note that Watts Up With That and Bishop Hill, two of the most highly trafficked and influential (within the skeptic community) offerings are not labeled as disputing the literature. Instead of treating the different non-consensus blogs as a lumpen mass you should have identified the clear differences between several groups within your sample.

    As RomanM comments above, “Skeptic blogs are not identical in how the individuals from those blog perceive the Consensus doctrine. Many blogs discuss published scientific literature on specific aspects of the climate focusing on the interests and capabilities of their informal membership.”

    Obviously no paper can address everything, but these are areas of clear interest that could be addressed by the data you collected and were clearly germane to your study.

    If I have time to continue I will address other areas where comments here identify flaws in your work that may impact your findings.

  491. joe - the non climate scientist Says:

    Just a few observations worth noting

    The premise of the Harvey 17 appears to be “We are experts” “therefore we are correct”.
    Yet no where to be found is any direct response to the criticisms of the contrarians – The attacks on Crockford amounts to “she is not an expert – we are – therefore she is wrong.”

    Curry does have on cut and paste job on her website from Dec 2012. It should be noted that it is a pretty damning critique of Amstrup & Stirling. Further, the article points out one of the major problems for real climate scientists – separating the scientists from the activists.
    https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/21/never-look-a-polar-bear-in-the-eye/

    Climate Audit was omitted, but its only article on polar bears and sea ice was on the substandard statistical work of Harvey 17

    Powerlineblog was included as a contrarian blog – Yet it is a political blog and only comments on climate issues when the activists make absurd, outlandish and unsupportable climate claims. Why was it included – to boast the stats?

    How are we supposed to judge the quality of the science when the “experts” attack the person and not the criticism?

    How are we supposed to judge the quality of the science:

    when the experts put forth a substandard statistical analysis such as Harvey 17.

    when the “experts” – Bart Verheggen state “We thank Roman Mureika and Richard Tol for underscoring the validity of our conclusion.” skepital science, when they very clearly did not validate their conclusion

    when the “experts” Peter Roessingh state Richard Tol is a case in point. He produced a new graph that clearly supports our conclusion but without him saying that.” , when they very clearly did not validate their conclusion
    see above.

    when the lead author – Harvey cites Paul Erlich of the population bomb fame. Citing Erlich doesnt inspire confidence.

  492. Willard Says:

    > [The Auditor’s] was omitted, but its only article on polar bears and sea ice was on the substandard statistical work of Harvey 17

    H17 ought to have included blogs about H17, including RomanM’s second reviewer rant.

  493. Willard Says:

    > Both Judith Curry and [the Auditor] have been discussing Arctic sea ice and polar bears at length, in [the Auditor]’s case for over a decade.

    Here are the title of the posts at the Auditor’s under the “sea ice” category, with the date:

    Sea Ice – October 2009, Oct 10, 2009
    Spline Smoothing, Aug 23, 2009
    Sea Ice – August 2009, Aug 7, 2009
    Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years, Jul 11, 2009
    Sea Ice – June 2009, Jul 10, 2009
    A New Sea Ice Thread, Jun 18, 2009
    Sea Ice Satellite Failure, May 26, 2009
    Antarctic Sea Ice Re-visited, May 6, 2009
    Sea Ice 2009, Mar 29, 2009
    Ward Hunt Ice Shelf Stratigraphy, Jan 9, 2007
    Ellesmere Island Driftwood, Jan 5, 2007

    We can see 11 posts in total, ranging from Jan 2007 to Oct 2009, 5 open threads, 1 citation to Tony’s, and 1 post about Antarctica.

    Of the four remaining ones, the first two are there to support his “but MWP” line and aren’t related to the relevant timeframe, the third one is about tree rings, and the fourth one was a technical article about smoothing from which NickS rebutted in the comments.

    Something’s amiss in Groundskeeper’s story.

  494. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    …and don’t forget, she has two legs!

  495. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    That’s the problem when you sort by searches instead of reading the blogs… You miss a lot. It’s something Jimmy Prall might do, or cartoonist John Cook.

    It’s not research. It’s a lazy substitute for it. Mein Kampf didn’t have genocide in the title, either.

  496. Willard Says:

    > That’s the problem when you sort by searches instead of reading the blogs…

    Groundskeeper pretends he reads Judy’s and the Auditor’s, and yet tells porkies about them.

    Fancy that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: