4 ms·

On the other hand, the claim in the following quotation is logically flawed. 'True' and 'no evidence' are, importantly, not opposites: 'I was right to question

On the other hand, the claim in the following quotation is logically flawed. 'True' and 'no evidence' are, importantly, not opposites: 'I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures. When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.'

WillPostForFood 10y ago
What is the logic flaw? No evidence to support a position is enough to exclude it. Even though you are right, it doesn't mean it is proven false. It does mean no evidence of it being true.
- triplesec 10y ago
  'X is true' 'X is false' 'X is not proven to be true or false' are all different statements. He is committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. If OTOH he wishes to claim X is false he should say it was proven false. But I infer he didn't have such evidence, just that the committee had found no supporting evidence. Of course, in science truth is a probabilistic concept, but here we don't have the figures. I'd also like to read a response from other climate scientists or journalists to see if there's a part of the story he's omitting from his framing here.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    I agree with you what you are saying, but at least in the WSJ article, he doesn't claim it was "proven false" so the fallacy doesn't apply. He is being fair, and quotes the report which simply says "insufficient evidence". But that is enough to exclude from positive claims, even though it doesn't disprove it.
    - triplesec 10y ago
      The second paragraph of the quotation begins: 'When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite:' So he does claim that these are opposites. That is my problem with his argument as presented.
      - inimino 10y ago
        "There is statistically strong evidence of X" and "there isn't" are opposites. I think you're perhaps reading it over-pedantically.
      - WillPostForFood 10y ago
        OK, I see where you are coming from, and it is a fair interpretation. I just don't read opposite as equal to false. I read it the opposite of a proven claim is an unproven claim, not a false claim. But I think this is a distraction - even if he meant it as proven false, and fell into fallacious thinking, he should simply be corrected, not vilified, not investigated by the government, and not hounded out of a job by a billionaire activist.
        triplesec 10y ago
        That I agree with, if true. On a broader level OTOH, having now read the articles debunking his 538 writing, it seems this is not a reliable witness. See other links in this and other subthreads here
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >So he does claim that these are opposites. Opposites as "does not prove" (vs proves). Not opposites as in "disproves".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - inimino 10y ago
    "I was right to question" is certainly supported by "insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship" coming out later. I don't see any error based on the information presented in the article.
    - triplesec 10y ago
      That is a fair point. Although I've since read a couple of the articles the author complained about for groupthink, and they appear to have more credibility than him, however. For example: https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silvers-data-website-uses-deeply-misleading-data-top-climatologists-c6801fb06959#.kgdfuzfs6 https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silv... which is quoted in a Guardian article posted in another subthread lower down here.
      - nkurz 10y ago
        What specifically about that article makes you doubt Pielke's credibility? I've been loosely following his work for about a decade, and my impression has been that he's trustworthy at least in the sense that he believes what he's saying, and is not intentionally trying to mislead. Without studying it, the Guardian article has the appearance of an example of the "intense media campaign to have me fired" that he refers to. That such a media campaign exists doesn't make his detractors wrong, but it makes me want to closely evaluate their claims for accuracy.
        triplesec 10y ago
        Please explain to me how this Guardian article constitutes such. It's an article which goes into moderate non technical methodological detail on what Pielke did wrong and why, providing links and sources. Here's the link in this thread so you can study it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
        10y ago
  - Hondor 10y ago
    You seem to be focusing on the word "opposite" which I think was used in quite a reasonable way here, even if not technically accurate. Does that actually change the validity of his complaint? That fabricated data was published in the IPCC report, and later nobody was able to show that it was true? Perhaps it may turn out to be true oneday, but the meat of the problem is that it was published without evidence. Then compounded by the fact that somebody looking for evidence failed to find it.
michaelkeenan 10y ago
I think you're mistakenly interpreting that quotation as claiming that there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. But it instead makes narrower claims, such as: he was right to question the report; the graph was based on inaccurate information; the later data didn't show a relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. If he'd written something like "Because there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophes, as proven by the insufficient evidence to support that, I was right to question the report", then you'd be right. But he didn't say that. I think he's only saying that he was right to question the report because that graph was inaccurate and invented, and because later data showed there was insufficient evidence for the relationship it was supposed to show. If reports shouldn't contain inaccurate and invented data, especially invented data that isn't similar to empirical data, then he was right to question it.
- triplesec 10y ago
  If read that way I agree with you. Our readings may vary, since reference in English is not fixed.

WillPostForFood 10y ago

What is the logic flaw? No evidence to support a position is enough to exclude it. Even though you are right, it doesn't mean it is proven false. It does mean no evidence of it being true.

triplesec 10y ago
'X is true' 'X is false' 'X is not proven to be true or false' are all different statements. He is committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. If OTOH he wishes to claim X is false he should say it was proven false. But I infer he didn't have such evidence, just that the committee had found no supporting evidence. Of course, in science truth is a probabilistic concept, but here we don't have the figures. I'd also like to read a response from other climate scientists or journalists to see if there's a part of the story he's omitting from his framing here.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  I agree with you what you are saying, but at least in the WSJ article, he doesn't claim it was "proven false" so the fallacy doesn't apply. He is being fair, and quotes the report which simply says "insufficient evidence". But that is enough to exclude from positive claims, even though it doesn't disprove it.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    The second paragraph of the quotation begins: 'When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite:' So he does claim that these are opposites. That is my problem with his argument as presented.
    - inimino 10y ago
      "There is statistically strong evidence of X" and "there isn't" are opposites. I think you're perhaps reading it over-pedantically.
    - WillPostForFood 10y ago
      OK, I see where you are coming from, and it is a fair interpretation. I just don't read opposite as equal to false. I read it the opposite of a proven claim is an unproven claim, not a false claim. But I think this is a distraction - even if he meant it as proven false, and fell into fallacious thinking, he should simply be corrected, not vilified, not investigated by the government, and not hounded out of a job by a billionaire activist.
      - triplesec 10y ago
        That I agree with, if true. On a broader level OTOH, having now read the articles debunking his 538 writing, it seems this is not a reliable witness. See other links in this and other subthreads here
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >So he does claim that these are opposites. Opposites as "does not prove" (vs proves). Not opposites as in "disproves".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- inimino 10y ago
  "I was right to question" is certainly supported by "insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship" coming out later. I don't see any error based on the information presented in the article.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    That is a fair point. Although I've since read a couple of the articles the author complained about for groupthink, and they appear to have more credibility than him, however. For example: https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silvers-data-website-uses-deeply-misleading-data-top-climatologists-c6801fb06959#.kgdfuzfs6 https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silv... which is quoted in a Guardian article posted in another subthread lower down here.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      What specifically about that article makes you doubt Pielke's credibility? I've been loosely following his work for about a decade, and my impression has been that he's trustworthy at least in the sense that he believes what he's saying, and is not intentionally trying to mislead. Without studying it, the Guardian article has the appearance of an example of the "intense media campaign to have me fired" that he refers to. That such a media campaign exists doesn't make his detractors wrong, but it makes me want to closely evaluate their claims for accuracy.
      - triplesec 10y ago
        Please explain to me how this Guardian article constitutes such. It's an article which goes into moderate non technical methodological detail on what Pielke did wrong and why, providing links and sources. Here's the link in this thread so you can study it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
        10y ago
- Hondor 10y ago
  You seem to be focusing on the word "opposite" which I think was used in quite a reasonable way here, even if not technically accurate. Does that actually change the validity of his complaint? That fabricated data was published in the IPCC report, and later nobody was able to show that it was true? Perhaps it may turn out to be true oneday, but the meat of the problem is that it was published without evidence. Then compounded by the fact that somebody looking for evidence failed to find it.

michaelkeenan 10y ago

I think you're mistakenly interpreting that quotation as claiming that there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. But it instead makes narrower claims, such as: he was right to question the report; the graph was based on inaccurate information; the later data didn't show a relationship between temperature increase and catastrophe losses. If he'd written something like "Because there is no relationship between temperature increase and catastrophes, as proven by the insufficient evidence to support that, I was right to question the report", then you'd be right. But he didn't say that. I think he's only saying that he was right to question the report because that graph was inaccurate and invented, and because later data showed there was insufficient evidence for the relationship it was supposed to show. If reports shouldn't contain inaccurate and invented data, especially invented data that isn't similar to empirical data, then he was right to question it.

triplesec 10y ago
If read that way I agree with you. Our readings may vary, since reference in English is not fixed.