Entropic man:

If you were new to this propoganda game I would remind you that such an assemblage is known as a Gish Gallop.

"Gish Gallop" I have to look up, will get back to you on that one.

And so I did.

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

"Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

Ah well that is not the case here. Or at least I didn't do that :)

I offered a few papers to Phil Clarke, to which he then disagreed without much reason as to why.
He asked for more peer-reviewed papers, which he claimed would not even exist.
But they do and so I gave that to him. And I quoted some.
To these he had some more concrete objections, to which I have also reacted, explaining why I think those objections are not so good or invalid.
A simple matter of normal debate.

So starting with a few, but yeah there are many more because, as I understand, the argument used to be that 1) the MWP did not exist and then (when that failed) this was changed to 2) it may exist but only local. And for 2 you of course need a few more studies for each region.

However, ALL those papers are evidence for the same SINGLE argument: that the MWP did exist.
(Or if it did exist, then only locally. Or if it did exist, then only weak.)

And I certainly did not do so 'without regard for accuracy or strength' as this was limited to peer-reviewed papers.

So, going by the definitions above, that does not seem to be a Gish Gallop.

And note that I also gave several other arguments, unrelated to this list, like that the Mann 1998 paper had been refuted by McIntyre & McKitrick.
I also explained why the absence of overlap between the averages of the individual Level 1 studies (of that list) and the range of uncertainty of the Mann 1998 is evidence of disagreement between these two.
Some pretty strong arguments I think. Of course that is just my opinion.

On the other hand ... This has been going on for a while.
To me it seems that every time I land a punch the target suddenly switches and I need to refute yet another argument, several which seemed to me rather weak.And known to be so, AFAIK. In several cases I think the case has already been closed many years ago.
So perhaps you are right after all and I should stop responding...?

Radical Rodent:

JayJay: the rules of the game are these – if you give no more than 3 links, you are not giving enough supporting evidence; if you give more than 3 links, it is a “Gish Gallop” (and, no, I have no real idea of what that is, either, and that is despite looking it up).

Thanks :)
I think I get it, and yeah what you say is what I also suspected.

I'm afraid I dozed off in certain classes, and we didn't do them in English in those days.
I know a few, but those are Latin or otherwise well known, like 'Ad Hominem' or 'Appeal to Authority'

That Rational Wiki is quite fun by the way.
There are many more fallacies, many quite new to me (I'm still reading them).
WARNING: Big list coming up :)
Just look at them https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Rhoda

The nice thing about the thermodynamic approach is that you can do energy flow and energy content measurements for everything. You can see what the system is doing at any time and any trends.

The biggest problem is convincing the sceptics that the numbers have not been made up to assist the leftmob in their evil campaign to frustrate the perfectly legitimate activities of the rightmob.

JayJay

Despite her sarcasm, Radical Rodent is about right.

. A proper reply to a long post with many links can take a long time to research and write, by which time the debate has moved on.

Better to keep posts short and to the point with one or a couple of links.

Sometimes I ramble myself ( the effect of too many birthdays ), but I do try to keep it short.

I'm also outnumbered, so I often find myself answering one reply when several people have responded.

Entropic Man, as you have introduced the term again, and nobody but you cares, is it grammatically correct to describe the IPCC as a Gish Gallop, or all IPCC Reports as Gish Gallops, or is it Gishes Gallop(s)???????

If this is how Peer Review works in Climate Science, Trump should bin the lot, and label Consensus Climate Science as Institutionally Corrupt, and US funded Climate Scientists Guilty until proven Innocent, of Fraud and Corruption, with appropriate jail sentences and confiscation of assets.

As Climate Science has been clamouring for imprisonment for those that disagree, no objections could be raised, without more of the hypocrisy and double standards that have already destroyed Climate Science anyway.

Do you want to give .your denial of the MWP and LIA another thought, or did you make up your mind because of Mann's Hockey Stick? I did once, but I thought it through for myself.

JayJay

Thanks, too, for the "logical fallacies" link. I always enjoy it.

Read any online debate on climate change and you see examples of so many of these fallacies. We could even play fallacy bingo, but how would the winnings be collected?

Fallacy bingo :)
IDK, I guess it would be fun, so no real need for a payout I guess.

Some of these are quite difficult to pin down. I do not mean from the list, once you read them you go AHA!
I mean the other way around, someone says something and you go hmmmmm. Then try to find which one matches best...

Mar 9, 2018 at 11:11 PM | Entropic man

Climate Science is a fallacy. Bingo! I win

You are simply peddling propaganda.

Should everyone assume that you are not allowed to admit anything wrong with any Climate Science, if it has been Peer Reviewed by the self serving consensus?

Golf Charlie

I think you are confusing advocacy and inference.

In a court trying a case under criminal law one barrister is an advocate for the defence . Their job is to present the evidence that the accused is not guilty. Similarly the barrister for the prosecution advocates the view that the accused is guilty.

Between them they present to the court all the relevant evidence from the police investigation. The jury is then required to infer the guilt or innocence of the accused from the totality of the evidence.

You present the fallacy that the job of the scientists, and the IPCC, is to advocatec climate change.

The IPCC's job is actually more like a jury, inferring reality from the evidence.

Slightly Off Topic.

One fallacy I haven't yet found in the list is a fallacy that I would call: Appeal to the Excavator
{ Edit: This is perhaps a version of Invincible authority, a version of Appeal to authority. }

This happens a lot in archeology & ancient history discussions.
And something quite similar tends to happen elsewhere ...

The Context
It goes like this {hypothetical example}: Excavator X is lead author of an excavation of a city {actually one of the later excavators, the first was famous but also, well, a bit special}.
He logs many reports and (later) publishes papers a book about it.
Among other things he describes layer VI {just a purely hypothetical example, honest} as being quite abundant in weapons all over the place ' even in this open space' and 'under this arch several dozen arrowheads and a few other weapons were found, next to (and even in) a few skeletons', ' in this market place many remains of people were found', 'many signs of burning in this building, again', 'the top of these outer walls was destroyed', ' more weapons were found here, strewn about ' etc.
{ just paraphrasing from memory what he reported, but I think you get the idea }

Yet he concludes in a paper {or book, I forget}, written much later, that City VI was destroyed by an earthquake (sic!), and not by violence, so it can't be the long sought-after layer for the famous sack of that once great city. Instead he proposes City VII, a rather dismal affair.

This despite the fact that there was clear evidence (supplied by himself in logs, papers and book) for an assault and no evidence for an earthquake. The walls were massive and in good condition; the destruction of the top of the walls is fairly typical for the destruction after a sack. Bodies all over the place, not so much under debris of houses, also in open spaces and near the walls and gates, weapons and arrowheads everywhere.

The Fallacy
Then much later some other people start quoting him as evidence that indeed ('as we all know') City VI was destroyed by an earthquake, not a violent assault & sack of the city. Sadly, because VI seemed such a great match otherwise...

Now that is what I would call an 'Appeal to the Excavator'.

It confuses the strength of the arguments: the stated opinion of the person who collected the evidence versus that what the evidence itself actually says, quite clearly. While this opinion or statement is of interest, it can't really undo the weight of the actual evidence, when that evidence is so strongly against it.

Does this sound familiar?

{ which city was this by the way ... no peeking ...}

In case you hadn't guessed which city it was, this should help:

A letter was found, between the Great King of Hatti and a king of the Ahhiyawa, which is dateable to Hattusili III (c. 1267 – 1237 BC) and hence to the time of City VI (destruction layer c. 1250 BC), which said: "Now as we have come to an agreement on Wilusa over which we went to war..."
Directly associated with (the land of) Wilusa is a place called (by the Hittites): Taruiša.

{... still no peeking ...}

Still not guessed it?
This should help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilusa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter

{... no peeking ! ...}

Ahhiyawa: land of the Acheans
Wilusa: Illios
Taruiša: Troy

JayJay

All very confusing.

For example, you suggested earlier that 13C isotopes might not be declining.

I put up a link to an NOAA post including a graph showing data.

Was that a logically invalid appeal to authority (NOAA) or a logically valid argument from data to support a hypothesis?

The appeal to authority is system 1 thinking, while the argument from data is system 2 thinking.

The IPCC's job is actually more like a jury, inferring reality from the evidence.

Mar 9, 2018 at 11:33 PM | Entropic man

That may be the fantasy, but the reality is that the IPCC has always predetermined conclusions, and selects "evidence" accordingly. The promotion and subsequent attempted demotion of Mann's Hockey Stick proves it.

Never mind, another activist who forgot his Science has just got the push.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/09/out-one-less-climate-alarmist/
"One of the most irrational warmists in the world, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam PIK is getting forced out by his activism."

Introducing himself with 3 lies in the first line, does not make him exceptional in Climate Science.
"11/13/2017 - From accelerating sea-level rise and ocean acidification to increasing risks of extreme weather events and the "collision course" with Earth’s climatic tipping points - PIK director Schellnhuber presented "10 Must-Knows on Climate Change from Science" today at COP23 in Bonn, together with UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa, Wendy Broadgate from Future Earth, and Johan Rockström from the Earth League."

The simplest way of reducing his malign influence on Science is to bin the lot.

Entropic man:

For example, you suggested earlier that 13C isotopes might not be declining.

Actually I supplied several reasons why one should expect the 13C versus 14C ratio to be declining (13C declining relatively when compared to 14C). Then later I did state that I didn't know whether it was the case, just that it makes sense.
But never-mind.

I put up a link to an NOAA post including a graph showing data.

Was that a logically invalid appeal to authority (NOAA) or a logically valid argument from data to support a hypothesis?

I would say the latter: a valid argument supported by data. Anyone opposing that needs to argue that the data is incorrect.
NOAA is just the source in this case, the reference (it is used indirectly as the authority, it makes the data collected more trustworthy (collected by NOAA), but the data comes first, so perfectly fine IMHO).

It only becomes an issue when you quote the opinion of the person who collected the data, but only when that opinion arguably (or clearly) goes against the data that he collected & reported.
In case of disagreement between the opinion and the data, the data wins.

This probably already has a name, I just can't find it :)

The appeal to authority is system 1 thinking, while the argument from data is system 2 thinking.

Mar 9, 2018 at 11:52 PM | Entropic man

Climate Science should stop doing both. Why did it need to fabricate a dodgy 97% Consensus?

Newton only needed one apple to fall on his head, and he did not need to fake another 96.

JayJay

You may be familiar with the philosopher Thomas Kuhn and his concept of the paradigm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

The Kuhnian system of science is an attempt to get around the problems.

You start with hypothesis generation, testing by observation and experiment a la Popper. Experimental data then feeds new hypotheses. All this is quality tested by peer review and published.

Mistakes and fraud become obvious because bad work does not fit in with the rest.

Over time a body of evidence builds up and converges on a particular world view, a paradigm. That becomes the consensus world view until enough evidence builds up to replace it, usually with a more extensive version.

Prime examples include relativity, an expanded version of Newtonian physics, and plate tectonics which integrated a lot of separate geological processes into a single planetary system.

"You start with hypothesis generation, testing by observation and experiment a la Popper. Experimental data then feeds new hypotheses. All this is quality tested by peer review and published."
Mar 10, 2018 at 12:51 AM | Entropic man

When did Climate Science do any of this?
What was the original hypothesis?
How was it tested by observation?
How was it tested by experiment?

Where are the test results?
When were they published?

We know about the Peer Review and Publishing, it is corrupted.

Unlike contemporary warming which is pretty much global

Says who?

Says who?

Mar 10, 2018 at 3:21 AM | clipe

Climate Scientists, based on unreliable data sets. But I am sure it is all Peer Reviewed, the Fool's Gold Standard in Climate Science.

All weather is local.

Climate is defined in terms over weather over time, so climate is local too.

Any detectable historical climate would be local too.

To maintain the assertion that historical climate was local whereas current climate is global in order to justify dismissal of the MWP and LIA requires establishment of the global nature of the current change.

A third of measured sites are cooling, despite adjustments. ( As I understand it. ) In some places there is no change.

Therefore it is not valid to reject past climate non-CO2 variations because they are local.

Referencing a Judith Curry post, is this from WUWT

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/09/the-source-of-the-heat/

"Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that, or why it generally cooled after the Roman Era.

Nobody knows why it then warmed again up to the Medieval period.

Nobody knows why the warmer Medieval times were followed by fairly rapid cooling to the Little Ice Age of the 1600s-1700s.

There’s more. Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age. Certainly, the orbital parameters were there for us to slip into a glacial period … but it didn’t happen. Why? We don’t know.

Instead, and again for reasons nobody understands, rather than continuing to cool, the planet started warming, at about a half a degree per century for the last few centuries, right up to the present.

(Please note that “nobody knows” doesn’t mean “nobody claims to know”. I can find ten scientists tomorrow who all claim they know why the Little Ice Age came about … the problem is, they all have different answers. But the truth is … nobody knows.)

And as far as we can tell … none of those gradual temperature changes were caused by variations in CO2."

Climate Science is a collection of massively overpaid "Nobodies", claiming to be experts. They can't even be honest about past mistakes.

...... "...when there is no embarrassment with “homogenising” an entire country’s records..." ....

Climate Science has always favoured Stalinist methods, for the greater good of the privileged few.

As Climate Science refuses to admit mistakes or wrongdoing:

Exclusive: Trump's EPA aims to replace Obama-era climate, water regs in 2018
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks during an interview with Reuters journalists in Washington, U.S., January 9, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will replace Obama-era carbon and clean water regulations and open up a national debate on climate change in 2018, part of a list of priorities for the year that also includes fighting lead contamination in public drinking water.

The agenda, laid out by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in an exclusive interview with Reuters on Tuesday, marks an extension of the agency’s efforts under President Donald Trump to weaken or kill regulations the administration believes are too broad and harm economic growth, but which environmentalists say are critical to human health.

“The climate is changing. That’s not the debate. The debate is how do we know what the ideal surface temperature is in 2100?... I think the American people deserve an open honest transparent discussion about those things,” said Pruitt, who has frequently cast doubt on the causes and implications of global warming.

Pruitt reaffirmed plans for the EPA to host a public debate on climate science sometime this year that would pit climate change doubters against other climate scientists, but he provided no further details on timing or which scientists would be involved.

Pruitt said among the EPA’s top priorities for 2018 will be to replace the Clean Power Plan, former President Barack Obama’s centerpiece climate change regulation which would have slashed carbon emissions from power plants. The EPA began the process of rescinding the regulation last year and is taking input on what should replace it."

This is worth repeating:

"I think the American people deserve an open honest transparent discussion about those things,” said Pruitt, who has frequently cast doubt on the causes and implications of global warming.

The whole World deserves honest and transparent discussion. Given their 20 years of dishonesty and exclusion of opposing views, 97% of Climate Scientists should be excluded from any further discussions with the EPA.

The first MWP Project paper I looked at was Arsenault and Payette 1997, a tree ring proxy from North West Canada which found a 'well-defined' MWP between 850 and 1000AD. The next Canadian study listed is Zabenskie and Gajewski 2007 which according to CO2Science shows a MWP between 1200 and 1500, and cooler conditions during the period of the other study.

So yes, if you are prepared to redefine what Medieval means, and widen the net to a 800 year window, you can find some regional warmth.

But separated by centuries, not a homogenous, simultaneous global warm period.

More on the modus operandi of CO2Science.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html

5