How to Detect Pseudoscience: The Case of Bill McKibben and Catastrophic Global Warming

Bill McKibben's recent article, "The Terrifying New Math of Global Warming", has caused a sensation on the Internet. Typical coverage is the Huffington Post's awestruck "McKibben's Climate Change Masterpiece Is Strictly by the Numbers".

My colleague, physicist Eric Dennis and I read the piece and we both judged it as incontrovertible pseudo-science, skewed from beginning to end by the author's anti-industrial ideology. We could have done a point-by-point dissection of the piece (actually, CIP's researchers already have, and we will probably post it later).

But the problem with this piece, and the rave reviews and superficial opposition it's getting, is not any given fact or inference.

The problem that makes McKibben's piece possible is that Americans have never been taught to distinguish science from pseudoscience--how to think critically about scientific claims.

So on this episode of Power Hour, Dr. Dennis and I discuss the three questions you need to ask about any scientific claim you hear. Making a lesson out of McKibben, we explain that if you ask these questions of McKibben's piece (and most of what you read on climate) its claims of catastrophe are revealed to be baseless while its prescribed solutions are revealed to be catastrophic.

Don't believe me? Watch and find out. Stick around until the end, when we offer McKibben McKibben and anyone he chooses $10,000 to debate us at Duke University.

Bill McKibben famously said that if the (economically vital) Keystone XL Pipeline was allowed to exist, it was "game over" for the planet. We believe this episode is "game over" for Bill McKibben.

• Category

  Education

[Mike Staihr]

So, Alex's science partner is Dr.Dennis whose expertise is in the world of financial derivatives, Goldman-Sachs, Morgan-Stanley, and macroeconomics.....Am I supposed to take him anymore seriously than McKibbons sources???. Seriously??????

[Wim Ahlers]

Ah, the well known names. And the only well known names you can mention. You missed some important ones. Pat Michaels and John Christy. They are important because contrary some others you mentioned they are actual climatologists.

Roy Spencer actually is a bit of a weirdo. His climate model is based on God's plan ... never a good sign for a scientists. It does not help that he also openly promotes Intelligent Design. See also:

tinyurl*com/c4v3x2r

I would not surprise me if you like Monkton.

[Wim Ahlers]

Still comparing people with institutions?

Still confusing non natural sciences with the naturall sciences?

And explain to me why I should be impressed by you attacking the IPCC stats?

Impress me, find at least one accredited subject matter knowledgeable scientific institution in the world that confirms, or lesser, is sympathetic to, your criticism.

Btw, people being responsible for the current global warming is not even denied anymore by the greatest leading opponents against climate change.

[Wim Ahlers]

As to the climate models, the commonly used climate models are remarkably accurate within the predicted error bar. Albeit, most models are a bit on the conservative side. That is, in reality the climate change measured is for the most part above the norm.

And yes! Of course any claim countering the current consensus must obey the same scientific rules and same scientific scrutiny as the claims supporting the current consensus. And, as a rule, policy makers and politicians usually do not qualify.

[Wim Ahlers]

Global warming and climate change are two sides of the same coin. That is, the global warming is not the problem but the climate change it causes is.

There never was global cooling. For a very short time this was a hype in the mid-seventies. But it never was a real scientific issue.

There is no natural rate. But there is an unnatural rate. An unnatural is anything not caused by nature. The current rate of global warming and the associated climate change has no natural cause. Hence, unnatural.

[Robdrummer93]

Research Institute for Global Change of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado Boulder, Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Principia Scientific International, Global and Planetary Journal. I wonder if you do have a list with all the climatologists and paleontologists in the world on it and their position on this.

[Robdrummer93]

The IPCC has been caught lifting reports from Greenpeace, WWF and other pressure groups, who don't have anything reviewed. Observed average global temperatures are below the IPCC's 2007 assessment report's minimum prediction. You want names and organisations who don't buy the tale? Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor Willie Soon, Jay Lehr, Steve McIntyre, Professor Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, Dr. Charles Anderson, Professor Ole Humlum,

[Robdrummer93]

'Accredited' economists with Nobel prizes throughout the early 2000s thought the US had good monetary policy and a solid property market, 'accredited' people in the 16th century thought burning heretics would appease someone. I fail to see what 'accredited' has to do with being right, it is your duty to give the foolproof evidence that man-made CC is going on, not to tell me that you are infallible and the evidence is out there. I've already attacked the IPCC's stats ('accredited')

[Robdrummer93]

I don't think we're gonna make much progress here. You made the assertion below that man-made global warming, or is it global cooling or is it climate change? ...who the hell knows, is happening? Then you ask me to burden the proof. You've not established what the 'natural' rate is, you've parroted on about 'accredited science' without laying out what that is or who decides what it is and you gave half-arsed replies to the accuracy of climate models and their methodology.

[Wim Ahlers]

Again, I suggest you contact an actual accredited scientific institution with subject matter knowledge. Choose any. They will all confirm.

And to be perfectly clear, I did not ask you to contact a cherry picked scientist, Hanssen or otherwise. Because that would indeed be an appeal to authority. No. Instead I asked you to contact an actual accredited scientific institution with subject matter knowledge. Please do so instead of reacting with your unverified opinion.