The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’
The power of the pen, when used irresponsibly, serves not to illuminate and progress human discourse, but to confuse and stifle it. Christopher Booker’s article does a disservice to climate skeptics and climate activists alike.
Christopher Booker’s article, “The world has never seen such freezing heat,” published yesterday in the UK’s Telegraph, attempts to come across as a shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees. It falls considerably short. Instead, the writing is simply the latest in a series of posts designed to push the author’s own personal opinion against renewable energy and climate change action. This may be of little surprise as Mr. Booker has previously summed up climate change as “chicanery.”
Unfortunately, the credibility of Mr. Booker’s article as a rational piece of scientific journalism falls apart as early as the first paragraph under the weight of his personal bias. Moreover, the writing is so riddled with logical fallacies that the article actually does an injustice to the “climate skeptics” whose arguments it seeks to support.
- » See also: #4 Copenhagen, Denmark: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
Before listing some of the article’s bias and logical fallacies, one brief contextual note is necessary. It’s important to understand that science operates by searching for errors in existing theories and using those errors to improve the theories. Therefore, so-called “skeptics” play an important role in honing the accuracy of any theory. By locating inaccuracies, scientists can correct the theory to better model observable phenomena. However, the logic used in Mr. Booker’s article assumes that an error in a theory discredits or invalidates the entire theory. This is bad science writing. It undermines the mechanics of the scientific process and does a disservice to anybody earnestly interested in progressing the scientific body of knowledge.
Bias in “The world has never seen such freezing heat”
The writer uses strongly emotive words rather than rational language to sway readers. Emotive words reveal the author’s bias and strip the article of credibility as far as scientific journalism is concerned.
First, consider the negative emotional words used to describe climate change data and scientists studying climate change: surreal, blunder, alarm, notorious, startling, “huge question mark,” suffered, freak, lamely, extreme, dangers, glaring, confusion, scare, episode, hastily, etc.
Now consider the positive connotations behind words used to describe climate change skeptics: “expert readers,” leading, detailed, “astonishing discovery,” fame, “expert debunking,” etc.
A sampling of the logical fallacies in “The world has never seen such freezing heat”
Logical fallacy #1: hasty generalization. The writer infers that a single error made by the GISS brings into question all data GISS has ever published. This reasoning says, “you were wrong about X; therefore you must always be wrong about everything.”
Logical fallacy #2: ad hominem. The author engages in personal attacks of climate scientists. First, he describes a GISS spokesman as “lame” and he describes the GISS as lacking resources and quality control; second, the author implies that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is either naive or gullible with language like “Dr. Pachauri … may believe what Dr. Hansen tells him.” The additional inferred bandwaggon logical fallacy here is “reasonable people would not believe Dr. Hansen.”
Logical fallacy #3: non causa pro causa. This is one of the most common types of logical errors committed in the argument against climate change. It confuses coincidence with causation. The author reasons in the following way: The weather in a few local areas was cold. Therefore, the global climate must be cold. The global climate is neither caused by local weather nor does it directly dictate local weather from day to day. What’s more, the climate change model does not predict uniformly hotter weather around the globe; it describes the average temperature around the globe. In other words, October snow in London does not mean the average global temperature is colder than normal.
Logical fallacy #4: genetic fallacy. The author links Al Gore to Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Hansen to the error. This serves two purposes. Firstly, it seeks to discredit the GISS in the eyes of anyone who dislikes Gore, who is a somewhat politically contentious figure. Secondly, it says that if the GISS is wrong about climate change (see hasty generalization), then Gore must also be wrong to the delight of his detractors. Genetic fallacies attempt to undermine an argument by undermining somebody credited with giving birth to the argument. Although climate science did not originate with Al Gore, he’s sometimes seen as the father of the current push to respond to climate change scenarios.
Logical fallacy #5: straw man. This type of fallacy essentially says, “This person supports argument X and this person is clearly a bad person, therefore argument X is wrong.” The author attributes responsibility for the GISS to Dr. Hansen. In fact, he stops just short of attributing all climate change science to Dr. Hansen. Then, he attacks Dr. Hansen. First, the author attributes a large amount of the recent global concern over climate change to Dr. Hansen in the sentence, “If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr. Hansen….” (Note the heavily slanted use of the word alarm used to describe climate change science.) Then, he attempts to tie Dr. Hansen to “criminal” Greenpeace activity in order to discredit him, and by extension, the GISS, and by further extention, climate change.
Logical fallacy #6: proof by assertion. The author’s assertion that, “[global temperatures] have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped” is supported by no data other than the author’s own authority. This reasoning claims, “X is true because I say it is.”
Image credit: _StaR_DusT_ via Flickr, under a Creative Commons License.
Sandy,
Sorry, but you are a complete idiot.
If you still can’t understand that carbon above the ground in the air in the form of CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat in our atmosphere then I feel truly sorry for you.
The “CO2 is plant food argument” is ignorant in the extreme since it ignores 90% of the scientific case for man made global warming.
Unfortunately it takes ‘dramatic’ articles by the likes of Booker the combat the stream if pro GW articles which are excessive the other way.
My observation is that it is almost impoosble to debate the issue because of fundamental bias on both sides.
Also basic errors of this kind only support the view that the actions that Gov’nts are taking are extreme given the level of reliance on defective recording.
Could you perhaps do an article on the positive aspects of carbon trading - I don’t beleive there are any but hey follow the money!!!
In response to reader interest in the carbon cycle, I spent some time looking for a good video to explain the carbon cycle. Here are two, one spoken and one more artistic: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4ODWMZq5U and http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=y1EW3yb9Azg&feature=related .
Briefly, as I understand it as a non-expert, the carbon cycle is a constant flow of carbon between the ground, the oceans, plants and animals, and the atmosphere. Over time, a vast amount of carbon has been trapped underground in the form of oil, coal, etc. This carbon been virtually removed from the carbon cycle. It takes millions of years for carbon to be removed from the carbon cycle in this way. Extracting this carbon from the ground and burning it releases a large amount of carbon very rapidly (in geological time) back into the carbon cycle in the form of CO2. That’s why there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the known past. We don’t really know what will happen, but since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there’s good reason to suspect that the Earth will become warmer due to the extra heat CO2 can retain in the atmosphere.
Graham Cork: I think you make a good point. Surprisingly (for me), I feel that my views are progressively becoming more moderate (pardon the pun) as time goes on. I guess that I am realizing that there’s less value in spreading one’s own point of view than there is in learning from other’s points of view. I realize this might sound a bit hypocritical after trying to explain the carbon cycle (above), but there’s also an important distinction between science and a point of view. I’m of the opinion that spreading science is very acceptable as long as we add the caveat “as far as I understand” and we are willing to change our views as science develops.
On carbon trading, I’ll keep my eyes out for any new developments to write about. (And by the way, my personal bias toward carbon trading is favorable.)
Gavin,
You say you are not a scientist, yet you have ‘an understanding’ of the science. As a scientist, my understanding of the physics of CO2 and ‘greenhouse effect’ is that it is not physics. If CO2 warms due to absorbing infra-red radiation from the esarth’s surface, then its kinetic energy increases and convective forces cause it to rise. As it rises into a lower pressure region of the atmosphere, it expands and does work, so losing that kinetic energy and cooling. Where is the greenhouse effect in this natural process of convective cooling? Answer: It isn’t there and that’s why it’s not be observed by measurement of the atmospheric temperature. Perhaps you can explain to me your understanding of the science which is different from mine?
I think I may come back later and comment on each of your logical fallacies.
Dr Phillip Bratby: Thank you for contributing to the discussion here. I know the internet is a somewhat anonymous forum, but if you would be so kind as to give us a better understanding of what your academic background and current occupation is, it would add value to our discussion. I’m being fairly transparent with my knowledge and background and it matters, of course, whether a person has a PhD in physics or in psychology if he/she is going to lend a voice as a scientist in a discussion on climatology.
As I mentioned above, I think that whenever we talk about science in a public forum, we should say “to the best of my understanding,” since science is ever-developing by nature and no one person’s understanding is complete.
It seems that you are suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and/or that the greenhouse effect does not exist. If so, can you please provide links to support the claim? This seems like an understanding of CO2 that is not shared by the majority of the scientific community. I don’t mean to belittle your background; if it’s in physics, I have great respect for you. However, the greenhouse effect is a fairly fundamental concept in geophysics and I don’t believe that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a major point of contention. For instance, see physicalgeography.net for a brief explanation of the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html .
On logic, I would appreciate any logical errors you might be willing to find and share. Editing is a very time consuming job; the more eyes at the task, the better.
Phil said
The “CO2 is plant food argument” is ignorant in the extreme since it ignores 90% of the scientific case for man made global warming.
Or alternatively the AGW cult ignores the most basic fact about Life on this planet.
But hey, why let basics facts get in the way of your ‘oh so PC ignorance’.
Hi Gavin you wrote:
“That’s why there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the known past. ”
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Money quote:
“The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Eocene to 650 ppm[4] during this event.”
May I remind you we are around 370ppm of CO2 at the moment.
Believe your cult if you must, but don’t call the lies science.
Hi Sandy,
It’s quite late at night where I live, but I’ll look into your link in the morning. Thanks for the research. I’m a little wary of Wikipedia as a source of info, but I’ll do some more checking around. After all, I can only benefit from learning more.
I think we’re all coming from the same angle, which is that we feel defensive of science and hope it’s not misused to accomplish personal goals.
Back again.
logical fallacy #1: Christopher Booker knows that this is just the latest of a long list of errors in the GISSTEMP data (which also contain a lot of adjustments hidden from outside inspection).
logical fallacy #2: RealClimate have admitted that out of their budget of millions, GISS cannot afford to do proper quality control of the data (that seems like a lame excuse to me). In industry, a lot of time and money is spent on quality control - quality control appears not to be important to government scientists.
Dr Hansen is not known for being objective in his statements, so a reasonable person should take cognisance of this fact. Dr pauchari has been known to give lectures which do not tell a truthful story.
logical fallacy #3: Christopher Booker is only doing here what global warming alamists and the MSM do (but he was referring to many incidents of cold weather around the world in October). They blame every extreme weather event on man-made global warming - hurricanes, droughts, rainstorms, glacier melting, etc, regardless of the fact that they are caused by natural weather or climate events.
And don’t believe what climate models tell you - climate models only produce the results the modellers want.
logical fallacy #4: Hansen and Gore are linked by their desire to deceive the world with their contorted view of the truth and their manipulation of the data for political purposes. As Hansen is GISS, then GISS is tarred by Hansen. The problem for Hansen is that he has a conflict of interest. For 20 years he has nailed his flag to the mast of AGW and his climate model predicts an ever-increasing global temperature. The only way his models can be proven correct is by adjusting the GISSTEMP data to fit the models. He shouldn’t be in the position of running the models and running the data. The once-proud days of NASA being able to put a man on the moon are long gone and have been replaced by a bureaucracy that relies on a crumbling network of old land-based thermometers and seems unable to use satellites.
logical fallacy #5: There is no doubt of Hansen’s 20 years of alarmism (how many years to ’save the planet’, tipping points etc), all based on computer models and not evidence. And testifying in a foreign country in favour of criminal damage is also a fact.
logical fallacy #6: You are right and Christopher Booker should have given a reference to the satellite measurements of temperature that are evidence of his claim.
Gavin,
Thanks for your reply, which I did not see before my 2nd response.
My background is a physics degree and PhD. I am retired from a lifetime of work in the nuclear industry (shock horror!) Hence my knowledge of quality control and quality audit and a healthy scepticism of computer models.
I am afraid that I do not like the term “greenhouse effect” when describing the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, because the atmosphere does not act at all like a greenhouse (for a start it does not have a lid that stops natural circulation). As well as natural circulation cooling of the atmosphere (as explained before), I understand that gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-radiate energy in the infra-red wave band. However, the intensity of radiation is a function of Temp to the 4th power, which makes it a bit difficult to understand how a few parts per million extra of CO2 can have any significant impact when they are able to cool by doing work in expanding and are at a temperature much lower than that of the earth and much higher than the near-zero deg absolute temperature of space. I will try and find some references to explain the physics, but later. Your reference seems to be mostly hand-waving with hardly any physics at all. There is no mention of the major thermodynamic processes going on in the atmosphere.