 In this series, we've looked at five techniques of science denar summarized with the acronym FLIC, Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Theories. In the first two parts of this series, we looked at two aspects of FLIC, Fake Experts and Logical Fallacies. In this video, we're going to examine Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Theories. In the previous video, we just looked at a whole range of different logical fallacies. It's a lot to take in, but we're not that far from covering all of FLIC. Next we're going to look at the denial technique of Impossible Expectations, and one specific type of Impossible Expectations known as Moving the Goalposts. Impossible Expectations are a demand for unrealistic or unattainable standards of scientific proof. This tactic exploits the probabilistic nature of science. When we publish scientific results, we typically provide best estimates within a range of estimated values. The Impossible Expectation argument can be persuasive because none scientists often have the misperception that science provides absolute proof. But science doesn't work that way, and in the real world, we typically don't need an exact answer in order to know whether there's a problem. Moving the goalposts is one example of the Impossible Expectations strategy, involving demanding higher levels of evidence after receiving requested evidence. This approach is often seen when it comes to sea level rise. When it comes to other measures of global warming, deniers will use a range of fallacies such as cherry picking to argue that global warming isn't happening. But sea level rise is so clear that it's impossible to look at sea level data and argue that sea levels aren't rising. So instead, deniers move the goalposts. They shift the focus to whether sea level rise is accelerating, a tacit acknowledgement that sea level rise is happening. So next we're going to look at the technique of cherry picking, as well as two particular types of cherry picking, the anecdote fallacy and slothful induction. Cherry picking involves selectively focusing on data that leads to a different conclusion from the conclusion derived from considering all available data. An example of cherry picking would be standing on the bow of a sinking ship and arguing that because the bow is moving upwards, the ship isn't sinking. This ignores the larger picture that overall the ship is going down. The most prominent example of cherry picking in the context of climate change is the argument that global warming stopped in recent years, referred to as the pause or hiatus. The surface temperature record is vulnerable to this form of cherry picking because the data is so noisy. Surface temperature fluctuates from year to year as the oceans exchange heat with the atmosphere. This means it's possible during a period of long-term warming to find short periods where temperature doesn't increase. By carefully cherry picking the right period, it's possible to mislead people into thinking global warming isn't happening, even when the data shows a long-term warming trend. The anecdote fallacy is a form of cherry picking that relies on isolated examples rather than scientific evidence in order to draw misleading conclusions. The most common example of a climate anecdote is the argument that cold weather disproves global warming. To illustrate how misleading this fallacy is, the logic is the same as arguing that when it gets dark at night, that disproves that the sun exists. Slothful induction ignores relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion. There's a fine distinction between cherry picking and slothful induction. With cherry picking, the emphasis is on actively choosing data that confirms your position. With slothful induction, the emphasis is on neglecting inconvenient information. One example of slothful induction is the argument that the sun is causing global warming. In order to come to this conclusion, one must ignore all the human fingerprints being observed in our climate system that confirm human causation of global warming, not to mention rule out the sun as the cause of global warming. To argue that the sun is causing global warming, you would also need to overlook the more recent data finding that the sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. Over the last few decades, global temperatures have increased, while solar activity decreased. While changes in the sun's brightness do affect Earth's climate, any influence from the sun in recent decades would be slight cooling. If you've got this far, congratulations, you are now in the home stretch as we're now on the last sea of flick, conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories involve the suggestion of a secret plan to implement nefarious schemes, and we see them all the time in climate misinformation. When you think about it, conspiracy theories are inevitable when you deny a scientific consensus. How else do you explain how all the world's scientists agree on something that you don't believe? When you think about it, conspiracy theories are inevitable when you deny a scientific consensus. How else do you explain how all the world's scientists agree on something that you don't believe? The most prominent climate change conspiracy theory is known as Climategate, referring to an incident in 2009 when climate scientists' emails were stolen and claimed to prove that the scientists were fraudulently manipulating climate data in order to deceive the public. This was done using the technique of quote mining, which involves selectively taking quotes out of context in order to misrepresent what people are actually saying. Some investigations were conducted into the scientists involved in the stolen emails, with all investigations concluding that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by climate scientists. However, one aspect of conspiratorial thinking is its self-sealing. Any evidence disproving the conspiracy just results in the conspiracy theorists expanding their theory to include that evidence. So every time a new investigation concluded that climate scientists did nothing wrong, deniers responded by expanding their conspiracy theory so that the investigators were in on the conspiracy. So that ends our three-part series on the techniques of science denial. It's a big family of techniques, and so it can be a bit intimidating. Making it just that little bit more complicated is the fact that often denial arguments can contain multiple fallacies. For example, take quote mining that we just looked at. As quote mining involves selectively picking quotes out of context, it's a form of cherry picking. It excludes some of the broader context in order to paint a misleading picture. Quote mining is also a form of strawman argument, misrepresenting a person's position in order to make it easier to attack them. So it's important to recognizing that identifying which denial technique is in a piece of misinformation is not always clear cut, and often there are multiple answers. But while the landscape of fallacies and denial techniques is a lot to take in, taking the effort to understand denial techniques is essential if we want to be resilient against misinformation. Practicing spotting different fallacies and denial techniques is a practical way of becoming more familiar with denial techniques. Ultimately, this is the best way to avoid being misled by misinformation.