Here I am on Hannity & Colmes, 21 Dec. 2007. Mark Steyn was sitting in for Sean Hannity. The other guest is Chris Horner of CEI.
There's some satisfaction in taking shots at Horner and CEI. God knows they get off too easy most of the time. And watching Horner bumble around and make no sense is fun.
- He called me an "alarmist" and decried ad hominem attacks in the same sentence.
- In a discussion of whether there's a scientific consensus, you are not allowed to appeal to the authority of science? What can that even mean?
- Did he really claim that all 400 of these people who signed Inhofe's press release are "peer-reviewed"?
And so on. Still, doing this kind of thing leaves me feeling a little dirty. There's zero chance of engaging in substantive debate, or of changing any minds. It's just an opportunity to practice, for fun. But I don't know if I really want to get good at being a dick and talking over people. It occurred to me when I got home and hugged my boys that I wouldn't want them to watch it.
Jeb Bush still skeptical about climate change
The new Senate global warming deniers
It’s no time for change, says ad from Gingrich’s group
Comments
View as Flat
Laurence Aurbach Posted 2:03 am
22 Dec 2007
Another Wack-A-Mole
First the global warming denialists tried to attack the scientific consensus demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. That effort collapsed in a farce of errors and backpedaling.
Now they're trying a new tack: Try to undercut the consensus demonstrated in the IPCC. Their strategy is to lie about and misrepresent the IPCC review process. It was pretty muddled on TV, but I think that's what Horner was trying to put across.
This latest round seems to be based on a denialist piece titled The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax which claims the IPCC consensus on AGW was reviewed by only seven qualified scientists. This has already drawn some debunking such as Blatant Hypocrisy Among Global Warming Skeptics: IPCC Chapter 9 and John McLean and the NRSP. I'd venture to say there will be more debunking to come, as the skirmishing of disinformation and smackdown plays itself out yet again.
As far as "mine is bigger than yours" goes, this short description of the IPCC process offers some numbers:
And in regards to the IPCC's data:
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:25 am
22 Dec 2007
True that, Dave
At least with this show's format they can't use you by cutting and pasting bits of an interview to portray your views in a negative light. Although, it is still a circus act.
I just finished reading "Amusing ourselves to Death," a book about how television has eliminated rational discourse through the printed word and public debate. The one positive about your appearances is that it draws readership to Grist where rational discourse and debate still happens using the printed word, while simultaneously improving its legitimacy (thanks to TV worship). The book was written in the mid eighties long before anyone ever heard of blogs.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
apsmith Posted 2:40 am
22 Dec 2007
Dave, you did good
Your answer on appealing to authority was spot-on. Horner looked ridiculous.
Did the "400" actually sign something put out by Inhofe? Kurzweil and Dyson and the others? That seems very unlikely!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:51 am
22 Dec 2007
Oh, and your performance was great
They are going to be inviting you back.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Koyaan Posted 4:21 am
22 Dec 2007
Logical Fallacies
In a discussion of whether there's a scientific consensus, you are not allowed to appeal to the authority of science? What can that even mean?
First, "scientific consensus" is a misnomer. What you have if you have anything at all isn't a scientific consensus but rather a consensus of scientists.
Second, "authority of science" is also a misnomer. Science has no particular "authority." Science is simply a process; a methodology. The authority you appeal to isn't the authority of science, but rather the authority of scientists.
The "appeal to authority" mentioned by Mr. Horner is one among a number of logical fallacies which ironically includes ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy because one's authority does not inherently make a thing true.
Appeal to consensus or popularity is also among the logical fallacies.
Moving on, you say on the Hannity & Colmes piece, "If you want to know what climate scientists think you should go ask climate scientists, not weathermen. They don't study climatology in meteorology school."
I find it strange that you should be so dismissive of meteorologists when the IPCC itself was established (in part along with the UN Environmental Program) by the World Meteorological Organization.
And if you bother to look, you'll find that those from various meteorological institutions figure quite prominently among the contributing authors as well as reviewers of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
You'll also find physicists, geologists, biologists, etc.
You essentially do what one of your fellow authors here did yesterday in his piece on the Inhofe list; pick a few from the list who may well be deserving of criticism, and use them to offhandedly dismiss everything else said by everyone else on the list.
And finally, in the Hannity & Colmes piece, you say "A slight look at this list turns up some real gems. People with no relevant knowledge about the science."
You then immediately follow this up with your coup de gras as to how closed the debate is by saying "Here's a statistic for you. In 2006 the new CEO of Exxon Mobil accepted the IPCC's conclusions..."
So now let me get this straight. Because some of the people on the list of 400 have "no relevant knowledge about the science," we're to dismiss everything said by all 400 of them. yet because the CEO of Exxon Mobil accepted the IPCC's conclusions, we should unquestioningly accept them as Gospel?
What sort of utter nonsense is that? Exactly what "relevant knowledge about the science" does the CEO of Exxon Mobil possess which the others you mention don't?
I see now why you wouldn't want your children to watch it.
k
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:29 am
22 Dec 2007
Yep
Douglass/Singer/Christy
More of the same strawman reports which these stonewallers love to put out.
Featuring some of our favorites:
John Christy(Completely reversed my atmospheric trend data on 'accident', lied about it on national TV, and then went shilling)
S. Fred Singer
(I still think the ozone hole doesn't exist and smoking doesn't cause cancer)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:43 am
22 Dec 2007
Except that
Except that they didn't really 'say' anything that was backed up by peer reviewed science.
Permalink
randino Posted 4:44 am
22 Dec 2007
You did us proud David.
But you have a point. Distinguishing yourself in such a forum is like giving a good performance in a WWF smackdown. Don't feel bad about shouting down a denier. The bastards deserve it.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Koyaan Posted 5:04 am
22 Dec 2007
Hmmmm...
And that somehow inherently makes everything which was said false?
k
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:40 am
22 Dec 2007
Excellent DR!
If I had kids I wouldn't let 'em watch fauxnews either. Mighty fine work on distiguishing appeal to authority from expert scientific opinion based on actual reserach data.
You really have to admire the lying technique of the CEI lawyer too. Claiming 51 scientists on the IPCC against 400 on the Inhoffe list. These are very skilled liars indeed. They know you can't sound bite an examination of their list. Or their claim that only 51 climate scientists agree with the IPCC.
Throwing out seemingly prestigious names of organizations and titles for the 400, brilliant. Do I smell a Rove behind this strategery?
That hits at the consensus argument. Mine's bigger than yours. The problem is that relying on consensus (a numbers game) made our side vulnerable to that tactic.
Once again, they have a bumpersticker, we have an essay. Maybe Satan is real? Hehey.
Colmes was great though, he is usually painted as a wimp. On a positive note, only the very faith filled bush fans still watch fauxnews, and we will never convince them anyway.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:53 am
22 Dec 2007
What is your point there, koyaan?
That was not a debate, it was a four minute pissing match. This is how American's now get all of their information. It's imbecilic.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
cce Posted 6:10 am
22 Dec 2007
Authority
Do meteorologists contribute to the IPCC report? Of course. Is the typical weatherman qualified to offer an expert opinion on AGW? Of course not. The typical weatherman is not an authority on the climate any more than a computer programmer is necessarily an authority on computer engineering or vice-versa. To say that so-and-so meteorologist somewhere on earth doesn't believe in AGW is a worthless statement. The AMS endorses the conclusions of the IPCC, and that's all we need to know about meteorologists.
The ONLY thing a layman can do is appeal to "the authority of scientists" or any other semantical construction of that phrase. That the average person should sit back and decide for themselves what the science says is absurd to the point of being insulting. The NAS was set up specifically to advise policymakers on matters of science, and for 30 years they have shown this to be a problem. The idea that people and government should instead listen to Marc Morano's list of 400 scavanged names is stupiditiy in motion.
And when Exxon Mobil stops funding think tanks, it shows exactly where the CEI is in the spectrum of political interference.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:51 am
22 Dec 2007
"authority" again
DR, you were terrific. You may not have liked doing it, but that is exactly the way it has got to be done. They say, "Grist says the number of Gore-doubters are very few, but lo and behold, there are 400 of them, and counting, so what's your problem up there in Seattle?" To which you responded perfectly: NOT like the typically defensive, reason-trusting environmentalist, but by unflappably, even scornfully, refusing to allow that your opponent's position had any merit.
When your sons are older, and understand these things, don't be surprised if they watch this brief adventure of their dad's with great pride.
Randy baby,
the World Wildlife Fund went after the Rock & Co. like tigers, so outraged were they by the abuse of "WWF" -- and they won!
Back to the question of "authority": Apparently we still have work to do, by way of untangling the different senses of that word. Trusting the teaching of an authoritative master from a sense of "ipse dixit" is not at all the same as trusting that teaching because it is in accord with good, responsible critical thinking.
Plato was quite right, that "size does not matter": the many should not be trusted to know the truth, just because they are many. But Aristotle's quibble makes sense too: sometimes size matters, sometimes democracy works, when the issue is so fuzzy and nebulous that no one can be believed to have any clear vision of it, and the judgment of the many has a slightly better chance of getting us to the truth than the opinion of any minority.
And so, "discernment is the mother of all the virtues," as a Christian Platonist of the 5th century CE said. And in the case of the climate crisis, knowing what we know about how scientists struggle, grapple and squabble, we have discerned very well indeed if we go along with Al Gore and DR, and trust the IPCC.
Here is a little story, a` la juive, which just goes to show that some people can never be convinced:
Five rabbis were out walking, and as they walked, they argued about a point of the Law. Rabbis Nahum, Eliezer, Moshe and Yitzhak said that a certain commandment strictly forbade a certain practice; but Rabbi Shmuel refused to accept their judgment, and more and more angrily insisted that the practice was permitted.
At last, he lost patience, and, turning his face heavenward, prayed: "O God!, show these men that I am right! Give them a sign! Make this staff that I am holding blossom into flower, in spite of its being made of dead wood, if I am right and they are wrong!"
Hardly had he said this, when a golden beam of light fell from heaven above, directly onto Rabbi Shmuel's staff, and the staff burst into the most beautiful lily-flowers.
At that, Rabbi Shmuel turned to the others and said, "Ha! Now you know!"
But Rabbi Moshe said, "So big deal. Before, it was one against four. Now, it's two against four."
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:27 am
22 Dec 2007
Authority
Having thought about it a little, I wish I'd taken a different tack. It's not particularly fruitful to debate the credentials of the people Inhofe dug up.
The more important point is that science is not done by public statements or press releases. It's done in peer-reviewed journals, and none of the people Inhofe turned up have published peer-reviewed papers questioning the basic consensus.
Also, as or more important than the number of scientists who state one or another position (whose is bigger) is the trajectory of the science. For decades, the basics of anthropocentric warming have been getting stronger and stronger, more and more fleshed out. The science is proceeding in a very clear direction.
They want it to be about people and personalities. I should have stressed more that such things are utterly irrelevant to the practice of science.
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:13 am
22 Dec 2007
Here's why it's wrong
<blovkquote>"Except that they didn't really 'say' anything that was backed up by peer reviewed science."
And that somehow inherently makes everything which was said false?
Whats wrong is that there's no substance behind their argument.
They effectively don't have an argument any stronger than a pre-schooler's:
"I'm right because I said so."
Which is made even weaker by the fact that most of these people do not even have relevant credentials.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 10:42 am
22 Dec 2007
debate
There's certainly more deniers and skeptics circling around this blog lately, due in large part to DR's good work out there in places like Fox. And that's good. But for me the argument's been over for some time. I have not seen any science that seriously waved a flag (without a lot of extra side-road-questionable detours) against the idea that people are behind this planetary problem. And that suits the situation to a T. We know we're running out of oil and its carbon cohorts, so I wish we could call for cloture & get on with the solutions sooner rather than later.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Koyaan Posted 11:36 am
22 Dec 2007
Hmmm...
Um... ok...
Er, and how exactly is your "there's no substance behind their argument" argument any stronger?
And what exactly are the "relevant credentials"?
se
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:12 pm
22 Dec 2007
Read it and weep
Koyaan, within the statements's own terms the relevant credentials are that the named individuals are "prominent scientists" who have "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects" of the consensus. Have you read that piece of crap? Do so and tell me approximately how many are left after subtracting just the obvious non-scientists (e.g. the TV weatherman), those with professional degrees whose members are rarely or never considered to be scientists (e.g. physicians, economists, engineers), and those whose statements don't challenge the consensus in any way (e.g. those who are just criticizing the Kyoto treaty or its implementation). See also Joe Romm's comments in the previous thread.
Permalink
Flamingo Posted 11:06 pm
22 Dec 2007
goodonya
but I can barely watch it. I have too weak a stomach right now....
Permalink
jenwolfson Posted 12:26 am
23 Dec 2007
'Murdoch launches effort to green News Corp'
Hey Dave--Back in May you guys ran a piece about Murdoch's launch of an "effort to green News Corp.'s operations and programming." Maybe next time you're on you could ask Hannity how he feels about that...
Permalink
jenwolfson Posted 12:35 am
23 Dec 2007
specifically,
"Murdoch launched a company-wide plan to address climate change that includes not only a pledge to reduce the company's emissions (which has come to be expected at such biz-greening events) but also a vow to weave climate messaging into the content and programming of News Corp.'s many holdings."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:13 am
23 Dec 2007
Murdoch
Worse than Cheney. That is the immigration problem to worry about. How to keep fellers like him out and remove them if they get in.
Cheney is evil, of course, but Murdoch is evil cubed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink