Category: Global Warming Denialism

This time it’s Steve McIntyre representing for the anti-global warming cranks following the HIV/AIDS denialist lead and using John Ioannidis’ study to suggest science is bunk. Never mind that this research is primarily focused on medical studies. Never mind that the study wouldn’t even exist if replication in science didn’t identify in the first place. Cranks like to latch onto anything that they think is embarrassing to science out of the mistaken belief that it makes their nonsense more believable.

It’s funny, I was sure they would have picked up on this stuff years ago, but the critical event was clearly the publication of his findings in the Wall Street Journal (clearly the go-to paper for cranks). However, despite not appearing in the editorial page, it’s still a pretty poor analysis I’m sorry to say. The point of this research isn’t to say that medical research is bunk, or sloppy, the point is to understand that an over-reliance on statistical significance and emphasis on positive results will inevitably result in false-positives entering the literature, through no fault of the authors or the editors.

For an excellent analysis that is easy to understand, check out Alex Tabarrok’s discussion of the research. His analysis also benefits from actually discussing what Ioannidis’ research means for medical science, and how it can reform to diminish these effects.

What can be done about these problems? (Some cribbed straight from Ioannidis and some my own suggestions.)

1) In evaluating any study try to take into account the amount of background noise. That is, remember that the more hypotheses which are tested and the less selection which goes into choosing hypotheses the more likely it is that you are looking at noise.

2) Bigger samples are better. (But note that even big samples won’t help to solve the problems of observational studies which is a whole other problem).

3) Small effects are to be distrusted.

4) Multiple sources and types of evidence are desirable.

5) Evaluate literatures not individual papers.

6) Trust empirical papers which test other people’s theories more than empirical papers which test the author’s theory.

7) As an editor or referee, don’t reject papers that fail to reject the null.

Steven Novella also addresses this research and Tabarrok’s analysis and emphasizes the importance of prior probability in determining whether a study is reliable (Tabarrok’s #1). Simply put, hypotheses shouldn’t be tested simply because they can be thought of at random. There should first be some biological plausibility for the effect. This becomes hysterical when Novella expands his analysis to address what the research says about complementary and alternative medicine studies.

But there are other factors at work as well. Tabbarok points out that the more we can rule out false hypotheses by considering prior probability the more we can limit false positive studies. In medicine, this is difficult. The human machine is complex and it is very difficult to determine on theoretical grounds alone what the net clinical effect is likely to be of any intervention. This leads to the need to test a very high percentage of false hypotheses.

What struck be about Tabbarok’s analysis (which he did not point out directly himself) is that removing the consideration of prior probability will make the problem of false positive studies much worse. This is exactly what so-called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) tries to do. Often the prior probability of CAM modalities – like homeopathy or therapeutic touch – is essentially zero.

If we extend Tabbarok’s analysis to CAM it becomes obvious that he is describing exactly what we see in the CAM literature – namely a lot of noise with many false-positive results.

Tabbarok also pointed out that the more different researchers there are studying a particular question the more likely it is that someone will find positive results – which can then be cherry picked by supporters. This too is an excellent description of the CAM world.

The implications of Ioannidis’ research, therefore, is not to undermine or abandon scientific medicine, but rather to demonstrate the important of re-introducing prior probability in our evaluation of the medical literature and in deciding what to research. As much as I am in favor of the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement, it does not consider prior probability. I have said before that this is a grave mistake, and the work of Ioannidis provides statistical support for this. One of the best ways to minimize false positives is to carefully consider the plausibility of the intervention being studied. CAM proponents are deathly afraid of such consideration for they live in the world of infinitesimal probability.

Considering scientific plausibility would also kill, in a single stroke, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) – which is ostensibly dedicated to researching medical treatments that have little or know scientific plausibility.

The irony is that cranks have started to cite this article in some snide attempt to disparage science as a whole, but in reality this research is mostly about why you shouldn’t trust crank methods. Instead of cherry-picking results the emphasis should be on literatures. Instead of testing modalities with no biological plausibility and publishing the inevitable 5% of studies showing a false-positive effect, one should have good theory going in for why an effect should occur. Finally, Ioannidis’ study would not exist if it weren’t for the fact that the literature is ultimately self-correcting, and the false-positive effects that inevitably make it in ultimately are identified.

I think most skeptical bloggers would agree that one common tactic one sees from denialists is whole-hog cut-and-paste rebuttals without attribution. For instance, on finds when arguing with evolution denialists that they’ll just cut-and-paste tired creationist arguments into comment threads.

We wrote briefly about the latest attempt by global warming denialists to suggest that the scientific consensus does not support climate change. To start with, it was little more than a repeat of the previous debunked attempts, and was hardly original.

Well, for more proof they can’t think originally, write originally, or do anything other than rehash debunked arguments, check out Lambert’s coverage of Shulte’s reply to criticism that he’s engaging in more typical denialist nonsense. It’s a cut-and-paste job from Monckton without attribution! Not only is it total nonsense – nearly every citation is miscategorized or misrepresented – but it’s almost word-for-word lifted from another global warming hack’s writing, without attribution or citation.

So continuing the long tradition of hack responses to criticism, the latest global warming denialist nonsense looks just like the same nonsense that was debunked in years past, and just like the kind of nonsense one sees from creationists.

And one can’t help but love the irony. Here’s Schulte’s last paragraph.

The author of the statement has been less than courteous, and less than professional, in having failed to verify the facts with me before thrice having used the word
“misrepresentation” in connection with a draft of a paper by me which he or she cannot have read at the time. Worse, the author of the statement has used the word “foolish” about me when he or she had not done me the usual professional courtesy either of contacting me or even of reading what I had written before making haste to comment upon it. I should not expect any properly-qualified and impartiallymotivated scientist to behave thus.

If the statement was indeed authored by Oreskes, I expect her to apologize for her professional discourtesy to me, and I invite the Chancellor of her university to enquire into the matter and then, if she be the statement’s author, to ensure that she apologizes promptly and unreservedly.

Ahh, “less than professional” accuses the denialist who plagiarizes in his response. I think Oreskes handled it just right. After all, does one really have to see each rehashing of a crank argument to know that it’s nothing other than the usual misrepresentation and dishonesty?

Oddly enough, I agree with (most) of one of them.

The attack on Newsweek’s article “The Truth About Deniers continues with a piece from Robert Samuelson in the WaPo. Samuelson, true to form, sees a hard problem and resorts to saying, “It’s hard, we can’t do anything about it!” His boring fatalism on any difficult problem seems to always end with assertions that if something requires regulation, or proactive government, it’s impossible. He’s also critical of Newsweek’s correct assertion that the attacks on the science aren’t for legitimate “dissent” but rather represent an organized disinformation campaign.

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don’t have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale — as Newsweek did — in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

The problem is that the people who are questioning global warming are fools, cranks, and industry stooges (or those duped by them). And Samuelson, without denying the science, is being a typical scold, crying about people who point out the anti-science, and economic motives of those who question the science for no other reason than they don’t like what they hear. We don’t call them denialists because we disagree with them or merely because they dissent. We call them denialist and cranks because they act like denialists and cranks! How many examples of cherry picking, or fake experts, or conspiracy theories, or references to being Galileo do you need to hear before it becomes clear the “dissenters” don’t have a leg to stand on? Take last weeks glorious exclamations from the denialists over the correction of the US record for instance. It did not change the global average for 1998, it did not change the trends, it had no real effect on the science. This is not the behavior of honest actors who merely are interested in finding the truth about the state of global climate. This is the behavior of people who don’t like a scientific result, in will latch onto anything, no matter how insignificant, to bolster their denialist position.

Dissent and denialism should not be confused Mr Samuelson. Global warming is not a “moral” crusade, as much as the denialists would like to compare themselves to heretics like Galileo being oppressed by the evil left-wing Al Gore global warming conspiracy. The only moral issue is the dishonesty of those who lie and misrepresent science for a political aim.

The second article, from Michael Gerson of all people, is a much better example of how global warming should be addressed – with technology. Giving credit where credit is due, the Bushie has a much more reasonable approach to the problem in “Hope on Climate Change? Here’s Why”
(more…)

The pathetic thing is that it’s the same old tripe. Emily Yoffe writes “Gloom and Doom in A Sunny Day” and rehashes the same tired old anti-GW tripe.

We start with the use of an idiotic example of misunderstanding climate change to mock global warming:

(more…)

George Monbiot posts his last reply to Alexander Cockburn.

Wisely, Monbiot has chosen not to continue arguing with a crank. At a certain point it’s always a lost cause. And considering Cockburn’s evidence one would be crazy to continue.

It turns out, the sole-source of his rambling diatribe against all global warming science – the papers from Martin “Guy I met on a boat” Hertzburg – turned out not to be papers at all. They were never published, never peer reviewed. The only peer-reviewed literature Cockburn managed to find to agree with him was published in Lyndon Larouche’s fake journal 21st century Science and Technology!

My favorite part though is Monbiot’s sad realization he’s got nothing but a crank to argue with, and his somewhat mournful decision to write off Cockburn for good. He hits upon some big truths about cranks.
(more…)

I should have known better than to trust a single quote cited by a denialist or crank. In our Case Study of Alexander Cockburn we pointed out his selective use of data but we missed a big fat cherry-pick.

It’s based on this quote from Cockburns article:

As Richard Kerr, Science magazine’s man on global warming remarked, “Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s become almost respectable.”

Tim Lambert catches Cockburn in this dishonesty and it’s a pretty bad behavior. It reminds me of the HOWTO again, in that people that become cranks really see only what they want to see in a source of information. It’s clear to any honest, reasonable person reading Kerr’s article that the conclusion was the opposite of what Cockburn suggested.

This is why it’s denialism, and not “dissent” or “skepticism”. They can’t seem to do it without dishonesty.