4 ms·

'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

'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.

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.