The COVID-19 pandemic continues due to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19. Unfortunately and predictably, baseless claims spread on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, just as conspiracy theories also spread on the origin of the AIDS pandemic caused by the virus HIV. These claims center on the conspiracist idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, instead of naturally evolving and spreading completely outside of a lab. The sources below undermine this idea in its various forms.
Friday, August 21, 2020
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Endnotes for: "The Dangerous Myth that Sweden Achieved Herd Immunity"
This is a list of references for this Medium post:
There are also accompanying Twitter threads on herd immunity:
- India + herd immunity: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1387315729096220676
- USA + herd immunity: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1357561386176503809
- Nic Lewis + herd immunity: https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1349995780116013059 ,
https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1382545347898138632
Monday, February 10, 2020
+Myth: The IPCC's 2007 ~0.2°C/decade Model-based Projection Failed and Judith Curry's Forecast was More Reliable
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaws
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaws
In 1997 [677] or 1998, global warming paused / underwent a hiatus [4; 5; 7; 8 - 10; 13; 54; 55; 57; 670; 680], and will likely continue to do so until the 2030s [4; 9; 14; 57; 1182, with 1180]. Moreover, climate shifted in 2001/2002 [2; 3], supporting a prediction of post-2002 global cooling [3]. This rebuts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) [7; 10; 54; 55; 98] use of climate models [1140] to predict global warming, since the IPCC predicted a warming trend of about ~0.2°C/decade [7; 18; 97; 98; 211; 212, as per 211, 213, and 214; 215; 216, page 133; 217, figure 3; 218, pages 14 - 15; 219; 220, section 3.4; 221 - 223; 224, page 84; 225, page 16; 226; 227, figure 24 on page 456; 228]. Consistent with this lack of warming, as of the beginning of 2019, 2018 would not be one of the top five warmest years in the thermometer record [32].
In 1997 [677] or 1998, global warming paused / underwent a hiatus [4; 5; 7; 8 - 10; 13; 54; 55; 57; 670; 680], and will likely continue to do so until the 2030s [4; 9; 14; 57; 1182, with 1180]. Moreover, climate shifted in 2001/2002 [2; 3], supporting a prediction of post-2002 global cooling [3]. This rebuts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) [7; 10; 54; 55; 98] use of climate models [1140] to predict global warming, since the IPCC predicted a warming trend of about ~0.2°C/decade [7; 18; 97; 98; 211; 212, as per 211, 213, and 214; 215; 216, page 133; 217, figure 3; 218, pages 14 - 15; 219; 220, section 3.4; 221 - 223; 224, page 84; 225, page 16; 226; 227, figure 24 on page 456; 228]. Consistent with this lack of warming, as of the beginning of 2019, 2018 would not be one of the top five warmest years in the thermometer record [32].
Myth: The IPCC's 2007 ~0.2°C/decade Model-based Projection Failed and Judith Curry's Forecast was More Reliable
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaws
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaws
In 1997 or 1998, global warming paused / underwent a hiatus, and will likely continue to do so until the 2030s. Moreover, climate shifted in 2001/2002, supporting a prediction of post-2002 global cooling. This rebuts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) use of climate models to predict global warming, since the IPCC predicted a warming trend of about ~0.2°C/decade. Consistent with this lack of warming, as of the beginning of 2019, 2018 would not be one of the top five warmest years in the thermometer record.
In 1997 or 1998, global warming paused / underwent a hiatus, and will likely continue to do so until the 2030s. Moreover, climate shifted in 2001/2002, supporting a prediction of post-2002 global cooling. This rebuts the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) use of climate models to predict global warming, since the IPCC predicted a warming trend of about ~0.2°C/decade. Consistent with this lack of warming, as of the beginning of 2019, 2018 would not be one of the top five warmest years in the thermometer record.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
+Myth: Ocean Acidification Requires that an Ocean Becomes an Acid
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth claims that ocean acidification occurs only if the oceans become an acid. And since the oceans have not become an acid, no ocean acidification occurred. Scientists recently began to mislead the public into thinking human-made (a.k.a. anthropogenic) ocean acidification occurred, because scientists wanted to illegitimately frighten people about environmental changes.
The myth claims that ocean acidification occurs only if the oceans become an acid. And since the oceans have not become an acid, no ocean acidification occurred. Scientists recently began to mislead the public into thinking human-made (a.k.a. anthropogenic) ocean acidification occurred, because scientists wanted to illegitimately frighten people about environmental changes.
Myth: Ocean Acidification Requires that an Ocean Becomes an Acid
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth claims that ocean acidification occurs only if the oceans become an acid. And since the oceans have not become an acid, no ocean acidification occurred. Scientists recently began to mislead the public into thinking human-made (a.k.a. anthropogenic) ocean acidification occurred, because scientists wanted to illegitimately frighten people about environmental changes.
The myth claims that ocean acidification occurs only if the oceans become an acid. And since the oceans have not become an acid, no ocean acidification occurred. Scientists recently began to mislead the public into thinking human-made (a.k.a. anthropogenic) ocean acidification occurred, because scientists wanted to illegitimately frighten people about environmental changes.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
+Myth: The IPCC's 1990 Report Over-estimated Greenhouse-gas-induced Global Warming
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaws
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaws
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).
Myth: The IPCC's 1990 Report Over-estimated Greenhouse-gas-induced Global Warming
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaws
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaws
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over-estimated greenhouse-gas-induced warming when they used climate models to predict global warming in their 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).
Friday, September 13, 2019
+Myth: Science Denialism is as Rampant Among Liberals as Among Conservatives
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.
Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.
Myth: Science Denialism is as Rampant Among Liberals as Among Conservatives
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.
Political conservatives in the United States, in comparison to liberals, remain less likely to accept the science on man-made climate change and evolution. They also trust scientists less on these topics. But left-leaning science denialism on vaccination, genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and nuclear power balances out this right-leaning science denialism. So science denialism remains as prominent among liberals as among conservatives.
Sunday, July 1, 2018
+Myth: Polar Bear Population Numbers Imply that Man-Made Climate Change does not Negatively Impact Polar Bears
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.
Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog) [1; 2, from 6:45 to 8:25; 3, from 7:59 to 9:04; 4, from 1:15 to 2:02], Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin) [149], Paul Homewood [23], Investor's Business Daily [63], The Daily Caller [17], The Globe and Mail [20], WattsUpWithThat [18; 19], Susan Crockford [18; 19], Climate Depot [21], and various other blogs [18]. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth [17 - 19; 21; 23].
Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.
Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog) [1; 2, from 6:45 to 8:25; 3, from 7:59 to 9:04; 4, from 1:15 to 2:02], Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin) [149], Paul Homewood [23], Investor's Business Daily [63], The Daily Caller [17], The Globe and Mail [20], WattsUpWithThat [18; 19], Susan Crockford [18; 19], Climate Depot [21], and various other blogs [18]. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth [17 - 19; 21; 23].
Myth: Polar Bear Population Numbers Imply that Man-Made Climate Change does not Negatively Impact Polar Bears
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.
Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog), Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin), Paul Homewood, Investor's Business Daily, The Daily Caller, The Globe and Mail, WattsUpWithThat, Susan Crockford, Climate Depot, and various other blogs. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth.
Polar bear populations increased, so either scientists do not know that man-made climate change detrimentally affects polar bears or those detrimental effects are exaggerated.
Purveyors of this myth include Steven Crowder (via his blog), Sargon of Akkad (a.k.a. Carl Benjamin), Paul Homewood, Investor's Business Daily, The Daily Caller, The Globe and Mail, WattsUpWithThat, Susan Crockford, Climate Depot, and various other blogs. Crockford acts as the central node from which many myth proponents drew this myth.
Friday, June 8, 2018
On How the Operators of Judith Curry's Blog Respond to a Clear Fabrication
Backstory: How some contrarians can respond to evidence of fabrication
This post breaks from my usual format. Instead of just critiquing a myth about science or addressing some arguments in philosophy, I want to make a point regarding a recent blog article. The article in question was authored by an individual named Javier in February 2018. The noted climate "skeptic" Judith Curry posted Javier's blog article on her website, as she has done for numerous other blogposts authored by Javier.
I recently discovered a clear fabrication in Javier's February 2018 blogpost. I discuss the fabrication in detail in section 2.7 of "Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation"; I will explain the fabrication again later in this post. In section 2.10 of the aforementioned blogpost I also address other serious flaws in Javier's blog article.
Friday, June 1, 2018
+Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard) [1, from 11:26 to 13:42; 2; 37; 38], Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog [51, figure 110], Iowa Climate Science Education [41], Patrick Moore [3], Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson) [40], CO2IsLife [39], and various climate science critics online [4; 5; 36].
The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard) [1, from 11:26 to 13:42; 2; 37; 38], Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog [51, figure 110], Iowa Climate Science Education [41], Patrick Moore [3], Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson) [40], CO2IsLife [39], and various climate science critics online [4; 5; 36].
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard) [1, from 11:26 to 13:42; 2; 37; 38], Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog [51, figure 110], Iowa Climate Science Education [41], Patrick Moore [3], Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson) [40], CO2IsLife [39], and various climate science critics online [4; 5; 36].
Myth: An Ice Core Shows a Spike in CO2 Levels without a Spike in Temperature
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard), Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog, Iowa Climate Science Education, Patrick Moore, Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson), CO2IsLife, and various climate science critics online.
The myth claims that an Antarctic ice core revealed a recent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, without a concurrent rise in temperature. Thus recent CO2 increases did not cause much recent warming.
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard), Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog, Iowa Climate Science Education, Patrick Moore, Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson), CO2IsLife, and various climate science critics online.
Proponents of this myth include Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steven Goddard), Javier of Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog, Iowa Climate Science Education, Patrick Moore, Suspicious0bservers (a.k.a. Ben Davidson), CO2IsLife, and various climate science critics online.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
+Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.
The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.
Myth: Karl et al. of the NOAA Misleadingly Altered Ocean Temperature Records to Increase Global Warming
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.
The myth states that Thomas Karl and other researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misleadingly, or fraudulently, altered sea surface temperature records in order to artificially increase the global warming trend. Karl et al. fabricated an analysis in this way in order to remove a recent "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.
Monday, April 30, 2018
+Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation
The outline for this post is as follows:
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth [5; 11 - 21; 447; 1055; 1069, figure 1 (with temperature change in panel d updated in 1057); 1589; 1604; 2576; 2577]. There is also an evidence-based [7 - 10; 34 - 74; 84; 202, chapter 3; 394; 684; 887; 1078; 1101; 1108; 1185; 1357; 1658; 1659; 1741; 1754; 1787; 1831; 1836, pages 22 - 24; 1838, page 57; 2484] scientific consensus [31, table 1 (particularly: 28; 574; 2534; 2535; 2536, updated in 32, figure 2 v007 on page 11, and 33, page 49 {with 2485 - 2495}); 499, page 28 in chapter 2; 500] that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics [22 - 30; 309 - 312; 314; 331, page 3.8; 399; 943 - 946; 947, table 3 on page 4594; 1363; 1435]). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation [75 - 83; 85 - 87; 89 - 93; 95; 96]. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.
Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth [5; 11 - 21; 447; 1055; 1069, figure 1 (with temperature change in panel d updated in 1057); 1589; 1604; 2576; 2577]. There is also an evidence-based [7 - 10; 34 - 74; 84; 202, chapter 3; 394; 684; 887; 1078; 1101; 1108; 1185; 1357; 1658; 1659; 1741; 1754; 1787; 1831; 1836, pages 22 - 24; 1838, page 57; 2484] scientific consensus [31, table 1 (particularly: 28; 574; 2534; 2535; 2536, updated in 32, figure 2 v007 on page 11, and 33, page 49 {with 2485 - 2495}); 499, page 28 in chapter 2; 500] that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics [22 - 30; 309 - 312; 314; 331, page 3.8; 399; 943 - 946; 947, table 3 on page 4594; 1363; 1435]). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation [75 - 83; 85 - 87; 89 - 93; 95; 96]. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.
Myth: Attributing Warming to CO2 Involves the Fallaciously Inferring Causation from a Mere Correlation
The outline for this post is as follows:
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis (divided into multiple sections)
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "main version" version of this post, which means that this post lacks most of my references and citations. If you would like a more comprehensive version with all the references and citations, then please go to the "+References" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth. There is also an evidence-based scientific consensus that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.
Changing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels correlate with long-term temperature changes on Earth. There is also an evidence-based scientific consensus that humans caused most of the recent global warming, predominately via increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 (just as there is an evidence-based scientific consensus on other topics). Therefore scientists attribute most of the recent warming to man-made release of CO2. Some critics object to this causal attribution, since the critics claim the attribution involves incorrectly inferring causation from correlation. The critics' claim is the myth this blogpost focuses on.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
+Myth: Judith Curry Fully and Accurately Represents Scientific Research
The outline for this post is as follows:
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
- The Myth and Its Flaw
- Context and Analysis
- Posts Providing Further Information and Analysis
- References
This is the "+References" version of this post, which means that this post contains my full list of references and citations. If you would like an abbreviated and easier to read version, then please go to the "main version" version of this post.
References are cited as follows: "[#]", with "#" corresponding to the reference number given in the References section at the end of this post.
1. The Myth and Its Flaw
Judith Curry is a prominent critic of mainstream science on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) [1 - 4]. A number of parties champion her positions and cite her as an accurate source of climate science information [88 - 94], including the George C. Marshall Institute [91], the Global Warming Policy Foundation [90], The Daily Mail [92], The Washington Times [94], John Stossel [93], and the "lukewarmer [95]" Matt Ridley [89]. Curry's reliable representation of scientific research is the myth this blogpost addresses.
Judith Curry is a prominent critic of mainstream science on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) [1 - 4]. A number of parties champion her positions and cite her as an accurate source of climate science information [88 - 94], including the George C. Marshall Institute [91], the Global Warming Policy Foundation [90], The Daily Mail [92], The Washington Times [94], John Stossel [93], and the "lukewarmer [95]" Matt Ridley [89]. Curry's reliable representation of scientific research is the myth this blogpost addresses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)