The Reef Ain't Dead

[GordMay]

Not every topic warrants a “both sides” approach. Some viewpoints are simply not backed by empirical evidence, or are based on false information. Often, opposing arguments are presented as Equivalent, when, in fact they are mismatched - and one suffers from one/more Cognitive Falsehoods.

On one side, we have Dr. Spencer, and a very few other experts, plus a great number of ideological propagandists - and on the other side, we have the vast majority of experts, plus a great number of ideological propagandists.
Thus, there is a mismatch [a False equivalence], on the weight of evidence, of the opposing expert opinions (ignoring the ideological propagandists, on both side).

False equivalence is a type of cognitive bias or flawed reasoning style. False equivalency means that you think (or are told) two things should have equal weight in your decision-making. Why are we susceptible to false equivalence? Because it simplifies our thinking. There are less critical thinking skills needed, when we accept two things as equal, rather than unequal.
This falsity can be observed in several forms:

If one expert represents the common mainstream scientific view, while the other expert is there to support a theory that lies on the far side of the credibility spectrum, you have an expert witness mismatch. The comedian John Oliver noted this problem in a segment of HBO’s Last Week Tonight[*1]. Suggesting that the media set up a false parity when pitting one scientist who believes in man-made climate change against one scientist who discounts it, Oliver’s solution is to represent the true proportions. So he invites three climate change skeptics to share their views, and then fills the studio with 97 scientists on the other side.
[*1] ➥

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

In a post on SciDev.Net[*2], University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Sharon Dunwoody discusses the problem of false equivalence in science reporting, and the fact that reporting on conflicts in scientific opinion leads to the often inaccurate view that “no one really knows.” Instead of encouraging journalists to simply pick a side, she argues that they should accurately report on the weight of evidence. “With this approach a reporter would ascertain not which truth claim is most likely to be valid,” she argues, “but which has garnered the most support from the scientists qualified to vet it.” Experts can convey the same weight of evidence in reports and on the stand.
“Let’s change how we report truth in science journalism” ~ by Sharon Dunwoody
[*2] ➥ https://www.scidev.net/global/opinio...ce-journalism/

If one opinion has solid data supporting it, but the other opinion is conjecture, they are not equivalent in quality.
A very small percentage of non-authoritative scientists' opinions are given equal weight or seen as "competing against" 99% of scientists' opinions.

A false dichotomy is another type of false equivalence. The common form of this is, "If you are against X, then you are against Y." For example, the fallacy "If you are for gun control, you are against individual freedom." Anti-vaccine activists proclaim that they have just as much solid scientific evidence as pro-vaccine scientists, but anti-vaccinators' evidence is largely anecdotal.
False equivalence leads people to believe two separate things are equally bad, or equally good. A look into how damaging this thought process is can be found in Isaac Asminov's article, "The Relativity of Wrong." Asminov wrote, "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
"The Relativity of Wrong" ~ by Isaac Asminov
➥ https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScie...ityofWrong.htm

False balance is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them. This concept often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where journalists present both sides of a story, as if they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows that this is not the case.

A false authority is an authority figure whose authority is invalid because they either have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

They're ALL advocacy organizations, ALL pursue science in support of their favored and often predetermined outcomes, and are ALL funded by individuals, corporations, other advocacy groups, and charitable foundations who share and support their work and their agendas. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the real world L-E.
...
Whatever else they do or don't do, they help fund advocacy for a position you don't approve of but others do. Ain't free speech grand?

Well, that was exactly my point - you've reinforced the fact that, like the ones you've listed, Heartland, FoS, etc aren't doing science, just advocacy. And they don't "pursue" science, they mine it for supporting arguments. Of course, some veins are richer than others (-cough-consensus-cough-)....

But, of all of these, only Heartland was cited by the previous administration and many others AS IF they had legitimacy as an unbiased scientific source. Sorry, oil tycoons cannot just put on lab coats and become trusted scientists, even if they can get a few credible outliers to speak for them.

...as I suspected, you haven't found that Spencer is employed by either organization, but by a state university, and NASA prior to that. It's obvious you're actually not certain of any sponsorship or grants he may or may not receive, and as far as you (or I) know he may receive none at all. Maybe he gets the occasional honorarium or reimbursement for travel expenses, but hard to believe he'd risk his professional reputation for the sake of that. Nope, he probably speaks for, advises, and is associated with these groups because they share many of his opinions.

Originally Posted by StuM

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE."

Fair enough. It's true, I don't know for certain. Exile, as the resident Spencerologist, I expect you know better than anyone here how Dr Spencer has been funded. What's the truth, then?

I did find this, which I hadn't seen before. Interesting reading. My takeaway was that Dr Spencer is more than a respected meterologist expressing his opinion... he was and is a partisan, when it comes to climate change. A very knowledgeable one, certainly, but still partisan, and for a long time so. And this is fine, but it disqualifies him somewhat as an unbiased judge of the science.

Again, it's not a sporting event, and your frequent attempts to make it so trivialize the discussion. Opinions you disagree with can't credibly be labeled propaganda while equally unsupported ones are not.

Hey, you're the "both sides" guy, whenever uncomfortable facts are brought up. And you do not want to bring up hypocrisy.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... I did find this, which I hadn't seen before. Interesting reading. My takeaway was that Dr Spencer is more than a respected meterologist expressing his opinion... he was and is a partisan, when it comes to climate change. A very knowledgeable one, certainly, but still partisan, and for a long time so. And this is fine, but it disqualifies him somewhat as an unbiased judge of the science...

I don't think that Spencer's advocacy disqualifies his status, as a legitimate expert scientist, anymore than does the advocacy, in favour of climate mitigation, disqualify a scientist, on the consensus side.

He's still an expert, with a decidedly [wrong] contrarian/minority viewpoint.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't think that Spencer's advocacy disqualifies his status, as a legitimate expert scientist, anymore than does the advocacy, in favour of climate mitigation, disqualify a scientist, on the consensus side.

He's still an expert, with a decidedly [wrong] contrarian/minority viewpoint.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't think his bona fides or the integrity of his research are in doubt. And of course his expert opinion is still that.

But it's more than just having an opinion. He has taken leadership and advisory roles in more than a few "contrarian" advocacy groups. Would you trust a court judge who is also a director of the "Bring Back Capital Punishment League"?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not every topic warrants a “both sides” approach. Some viewpoints are simply not backed by empirical evidence, or are based on false information. Often, opposing arguments are presented as Equivalent, when, in fact they are mismatched - and one suffers from one/more Cognitive Falsehoods.

* * * [snipped for the sake of discussion space and not content]

Like many highly generalized, abstract, or conceptual notions, I have little to disagree with in this post (except declining to rely on comedians for anything other than comedy). But like with most theoretical concepts, even if we can call them truisms, their neatness tends to unravel when actually applied. When we do so here, we run into the same problem we've otherwise been discussing of late, namely the level of consensus after we get past the widely (albeit not universally) accepted and basic tenets of AGW, namely that it exists and is likely having an impact on the climate. It's certainly valid to argue, as Jackdale does, that we should be cautious, proactive and therefore reduce emissions accordingly, but how can you reach a scientific conclusion about the severity of impacts and their consequences when the science as a whole has yet to do so? If your criteria is based on a somewhat understandable but very personal aversion to the idea that we're altering the planet, then that means the human species never should have existed to begin with.

Jon Stewart's skit is useful in that it explains why some on these threads have such difficulty distinguishing between the claimed 97/99% "consensus" that speaks to the existence of AGW, as opposed to the more scientifically divided controversy over impacts, consequences, and proposed remedies. What does Jon Stewart's studio look like when you line up a group of scientists in the room based on their expert opinions on those issues? How about when it comes to whether the threats are severe enough to be considered existential? That AGW is exacerbating the pandemic??? This kind of thing is similar to what we often hear from politicians and self-promoters like Bill Nye "the science guy," but is pretty detached from reality. I mean, how many of the Greta's of the world really understand the upheaval that would ensue from the sort of fossil fuel reductions they claim are needed "now" to avert a "crisis?"

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... I mean, how many of the Greta's of the world really understand the upheaval that would ensue from the sort of fossil fuel reductions they claim are needed "now" to avert a "crisis?"

Wouldn't the degree of "upheaval" would depend upon the specific measures, selected, to achieve reductions?
For instance, I wouldn't expect very much upheaval from a revenue neutral carbon tax, nor from a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and incentives.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE."

He says that on his web site.

He, along with Richard Lindzen and William Happer, was paid to testify for Peabody Energy, a coal mining company, at hearings in Minnesota on the social cost of carbon.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eir-court-case

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, that was exactly my point - you've reinforced the fact that, like the ones you've listed, Heartland, FoS, etc aren't doing science, just advocacy. And they don't "pursue" science, they mine it for supporting arguments. Of course, some veins are richer than others (-cough-consensus-cough-)....

I'm afraid you're really digging yourself a hole here, and I'm at a loss to understand where the disconnect is. There are organizations that have teams of scientists working on, say, the environmental impacts of deforestation, and then there are organizs. who rely on those same scientists, or have their own, to advocate and lobby to stop deforestation. On the other side there are logging, cattle, or mining interests with their own teams of scientists who push back, perhaps making the case for alternatives other than what is being proposed by the other side. Do I really need to chew up more time and space explaining this? And if Heartland and Friends of Science found a scientist who helped them promote the idea that CC was all the fault of Martians from outer space, don't you think they'd be silenced under the weight of their own lunacy, or would you prefer to have the Federal Commission on the Oversight of Lunatic Organizs. shut them down? Is FoS or Heartland ripping donors off, using the funds to support neo-Nazi's, or otherwise threatening anyone with imminent physical harm? Whatever you want to (foolishly) claim about Spencer et al., he doesn't strike me as a promoter of hare-brained theories of CC. No, he simply pushes back on your preferred agenda and this is what ALL the drama is about.

But, of all of these, only Heartland was cited by the previous administration and many others AS IF they had legitimacy as an unbiased scientific source. Sorry, oil tycoons cannot just put on lab coats and become trusted scientists, even if they can get a few credible outliers to speak for them.

You, and you alone unfortunately, never fail to bring the level of discussion down to the schoolyard level. I see we have a new L-E certification requirement that requires organizations that promote science-based topics to be "unbiased." Good luck with that one. Or maybe we should have the govt have a "special" license requiring no partisanship for CC organizs only? The previous administration cited many things that were less than truthful. The new administration will and already has said some things that appear deceptive and less than truthful. As citizens, it's up to us to parse out truth from the "stories" politicians of every stripe have always liked to tell, or have someone we assuredly will not like do it for us.


Fair enough. It's true, I don't know for certain. Exile, as the resident Spencerologist, I expect you know better than anyone here how Dr Spencer has been funded. What's the truth, then?

Certainly not what you've been rather recklessly promoting. I've already posted what I know about the guy. Stop pursuing this irresponsible (and arguably libelous) theme.



I did find this, which I hadn't seen before. Interesting reading. My takeaway was that Dr Spencer is more than a respected meterologist expressing his opinion... he was and is a partisan, when it comes to climate change. A very knowledgeable one, certainly, but still partisan, and for a long time so. And this is fine, but it disqualifies him somewhat as an unbiased judge of the science.

If "partisanship" is another one of your required license tests, then James Hansen and Michael Mann also need to be deemed ineligible to promote their version of AGW science because of their well publicized partisan leanings. Do we need to remove your shovel at this point or are you ready to emerge from your ever deepening hole?

Hey, you're the "both sides" guy, whenever uncomfortable facts are brought up. And you do not want to bring up hypocrisy.

Hmmmm. More labels. Do you use velcro or pins? Try not to confuse a presentation of "both sides" with the ability to recognize that more than one side almost always exists.

I've always said it's relevant that Spencer et al. has conservative leanings, affiliations, and values, but that it's relevance is limited by evidence that it's corrupting his scientific/professional work. That he's interpreting the same satellite data in reaching conclusions that differ from his colleagues doesn't necessarily equate to being corruptly influenced. Only if there's evidence that this is so. Exact same test for someone like Michael Mann. Other scientists and laymen both laud and criticize his "hockey stick," but that doesn't necessarily mean he's unprofessionally corrupted the science that underlies it. Who, within the science community itself, is claiming that any of these individual scientists is corrupt? The claim has certainly been made that all the money and politics has arguably corrupted the entire field, but that's a completely different matter than individual scientists corrupting influencing the data, or the analyses and conclusions they derive therefrom.

Your fav orange bogeyman is gone (maybe), there's a new US administration in place, they purport to be CC friendly, they've killed Keystone again (unions & their workers are pissed), want to raise gas taxes, instill fear of a "crisis," go back to Paris, hitting all the prime time highlights and more I'm sure. Is it possible you can now begin to regain some control over your undisciplined, over-the-top hyper-partisanship so the rest of us could have more rational discourse??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Wouldn't the degree of "upheaval" would depend upon the specific measures, selected, to achieve reductions?
For instance, I wouldn't expect very much upheaval from a revenue neutral carbon tax, nor from a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and incentives.

I'm dubious whether trying to lower demand by raising prices via these means would achieve anything, at least now when we can expect a big spike in consumption as the pandemic (hopefully) eases. This is already being anticipated in the futures markets as oil prices have generally been on the rise.

As for FF subsidies etc., we've discussed this before and there's certainly plenty of media attention over it, but I'm not sure there's much to it beyond the fact that the tax code in the US (and other countries) strongly favors capital intensive industries like oil and gas which require large capital outlays which are therefore tax-deductible. The answer, of course, is to reform the US tax code but it seems there's little chance of that happening these days. I could be wrong, but I (vaguely) recall this being more a matter of how the media is labeling such tax breaks, i.e. what may be a legitimate tax deduction to some may be deemed a "subsidy" or "incentive" to another. Both labels are arguably correct, but often manipulated. But I'm generally against any direct govt subsidies for private corps., and when it comes to the burgeoning renewals industry I think tax dollars are better served supporting R&D than individual cos. themselves. Others disagree of course, so just my opinion.

[GordMay]

If climate change is as serious threat, as most scientist believe it to be, then any responsible scientist would be irresponsible to not advocate for mitigation.
On the other hand, if the threat of ACC is overblown, and the costs of mitigation as great, as some scientists believe, then they’d be irresponsible to not advocate against mitigation.

Shouldn’t every scientist, with a sincerely held conviction, on either side of the climate debate, advocate action/inaction, based upon that opinion?

Shouldn't scientists communicate their sincere scientific concerns, when they have such (especially in their field of expertise)?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

He says that on his web site.

He, along with Richard Lindzen and William Happer, was paid to testify for Peabody Energy, a coal mining company, at hearings in Minnesota on the social cost of carbon.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eir-court-case

It's customary for expert witnesses to be paid fees and expenses for consultation and testimony. In fact it's often set out by statute. Experts can, of course, waive such fees. There are some in various fields who make a living serving as full-time expert witnesses, but I don't think that's the case here. It should be no surprise to anyone that these respective experts testified in line with the interests and parties that they are aligned with vis-a-vis the science. Suggesting improper bias solely because they were compensated for their time and services is pretty lame.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

If climate change is as serious threat, as most scientist believe it to be, then any responsible scientist would be irresponsible to not advocate for mitigation.
On the other hand, if the threat of ACC is overblown, and the costs of mitigation as great, as some scientists believe, then they’d be irresponsible to not advocate against mitigation.

Shouldn’t every scientist, with a sincerely held conviction, on either side of the climate debate, advocate action/inaction, based upon that opinion?

Shouldn't scientists communicate their sincere scientific concerns, when they have such (especially in their field of expertise)?

How about an agreed upon survey by a respected organization like Pew? The only questions allowed to be asked would be those agreed upon by all. Or is there some reason such questions don't want to be asked??

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm dubious whether trying to lower demand by raising prices via these means would achieve anything ...

I’ve previously written [*1] about the efficacy of carbon taxes, so I’ll just make 2 points here:
- they’d spur producers & consumers to invest (at least to the value of the tax) in carbon reduction measures,
and
- they’d spur investment in energy efficiency*.

* Greater energy efficiency will almost certainly be an important component in comprehensive national, and global, strategies for managing energy resources, and climate change, in the future. Simply saving energy is the most cost-effective way to reduce demand, and carbon pollution, from power plants.
The cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable electricity, after all, is the electricity we don’t use.

[*1] Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post2808013

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Wouldn't the degree of "upheaval" would depend upon the specific measures, selected, to achieve reductions?
For instance, I wouldn't expect very much upheaval from a revenue neutral carbon tax, nor from a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and incentives.


That's what Macron thought in France when he tried to add a Green Tax on fuel..
The Yellow Vests hit the streets every weekend in their thousands for over a year.. Macron was forced to halt his plans.
Look at these differences in fuel prices..
France Gasoline Retail price today €1.34/litre / Diesel €1.29/litre.
USA Gasoline Retail price: $2.20/gallon / Diesel December 2020 Retail price: $2.59/gallon.
Bringing the USA to a parity with France as an example would mean Americans paying around $5.072436/gallon for Gasoline..
Methinks there would be a lot of public unrest if the subsidies were removed and then a Green Tax added on top..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Wouldn't the degree of "upheaval" would depend upon the specific measures, selected, to achieve reductions?
For instance, I wouldn't expect very much upheaval from a revenue neutral carbon tax, nor from a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and incentives.


That's what Macron thought in France when he tried to add a Green Tax on fuel..
The Yellow Vests hit the streets every weekend in their thousands for over a year.. Macron was forced to halt his plans.
Look at these differences in fuel prices..
France Gasoline Retail price today €1.34/litre / Diesel €1.29/litre.
USA Gasoline Retail price: $2.20/gallon / Diesel December 2020 Retail price: $2.59/gallon.
Bringing the USA to a parity with France as an example would mean Americans paying around $5.072436/gallon for Gasoline..
Methinks there would be a lot of public unrest if the subsidies were removed and then a Green Tax added on top..

Especially now when economies around the world will be trying to recover from the pandemic. I don't think people will be buying into climate "crisis" talk justifying higher fuel taxes when there are much higher priorities to accomplish. Such taxes, "revenue-neutral" or not, affect the entire economy, most notably food prices. But my best guess is the new US admin will do it anyway. Politics . . . .