 In this three-part series on the techniques of science tenor, we're looking at the five techniques of science tenor summarized with the acronym FLIC, Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking, and Conspiracy Theories. In part one, we looked at examples of the fake expert strategy and some logical fallacies. In this video, we'll continue looking at more logical fallacies, starting with the technique of oversimplification. The logical fallacy of oversimplification involves simplifying a situation so much that it distorts the science and leads to a false conclusion. One example is the argument that CO2 is plant food, therefore emitting CO2 is good for plants. This argument oversimplifies the nature of plant growth, which requires not only CO2, but also a regular water supply and healthy temperature range. Global warming intensifies the hydrological cycle, causing more extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves, all of which disrupt plant growth. This argument is the same as arguing that our bodies need calcium, and ice cream has calcium, so all we need to do is eat ice cream. This argument is an oversimplification. Our bodies need a variety of things in order to be healthy, just like plants. There are two specific forms of oversimplification that are worth focusing on as they both distort the science in specific ways. The false choice and single cause fallacies. False choice, also known as false dichotomy, forces a choice between two options, when there may be other possibilities, or both options might be viable. Let me give you an example. Say you were asked which was true, do chickens come from eggs, or do eggs come from chickens? The answer is obviously both. A false choice forces us to choose between one or the other. This is like seeing a chicken hatching from an egg and arguing that this proves eggs don't come from chickens. The logical fallacy in this argument is false choice. An example of a false choice in climate misinformation comes from ice core data. When we look at past climate data from Antarctic ice cores, we see that when the earth came out of an ice age in the past, first the Antarctic climate warmed, then CO2 in the atmosphere increased. What happened was changes in the earth's orbit caused the initial warming, then as the ocean warmed, it gave up CO2 into the atmosphere. In other words, warming caused more CO2 in the atmosphere. This has led climate deniers to argue that because warming causes more CO2, that proves that CO2 cannot cause warming. In other words, they're arguing that we have to choose between either warming causes more CO2 or more CO2 causes warming, and it can't be both. But this is a false choice. In reality, both options are true. The fact that both CO2 causes warming and warming causes CO2 is actually important for understanding past climate change. The two acting together are a reinforcing feedback, with greenhouse warming from CO2 amplifying the modest warming from changes in the earth's orbit. This is what helped bring earth out of ice ages in the past. Single-cause fallacy is another form of oversimplification that assumes that there is a single factor influencing a phenomenon when multiple factors may be at play. For example, imagine arguing that because birds fly, that proves gravity doesn't exist. This argument assumes that only the force of gravity would apply to a bird in flight. When other forces, like lift and thrust, also apply and keep the bird in flight. While this type of single-cause fallacy is obviously ridiculous, that same fallacy is often seen in climate misinformation. The most common example of single-cause fallacy in climate misinformation is the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past, therefore modern climate change must be natural also. This argument contains the unspoken false assumption that because natural factors have caused climate change in the past, then there must always be the cause of climate change. This logic is the same as seeing a murdered body and arguing that because people have died of natural causes in the past, therefore the murder victim must also have died of natural causes. False analogy occurs when one assumes that because two things are alike in one way, they are alike in other ways also. For example, this is like arguing that because environmentalists are often vegetarians and Hitler was a vegetarian, then they must be alike in other ways as well. In other words, false analogy is used to associate environmentalists with Hitler. A common example of false analogy in climate misinformation is when contrarians liken themselves to Galileo who defied the consensus that the sun revolves around the earth. The implication is that because Galileo and climate denies are alike in defying a consensus, they're also alike in being correct while the consensus is incorrect. However, this analogy falls apart when you look a little closer. Galileo's conclusions were based on empirical observations, while climate denial is a rejection of empirical observations. Climate denies more closely resemble the ideologically driven opponents of Galileo. The phrase red herring comes from the old hunting days when smelly fish were used to put sniffing dogs off the scent. In arguments, red herrings are irrelevant points designed to distract people from a more important point. An example is the argument that CO2 is only a trace gas, 0.04% of the atmosphere. But the fact that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant to whether it can have an impact on climate. Over 99% of the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. Besides, we know from everyday experience that trace amounts of active substances can have a strong impact. Arguing to the police that your blood alcohol level is only 0.08% and therefore can't have any impact on your driving is not an argument that will get much sympathy. A specific type of red herring is the blowfish fallacy. This is a technique of laser focusing on some methodological aspect of scientific research blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from the bigger picture. I've seen first hand climate misinformation using the blowfish fallacy with my own research. In 2013, I was a co-author of a study finding 97% scientific consensus on human cause global warming. Since that paper was published to this day, our research has been attacked in attempts to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of these attacks focus on small methodological issues in our research that have no bearing on the final conclusion. More importantly, our research has been replicated by multiple studies using a range of different methodologies. Arguments using the blowfish fallacy try to distract people from the bigger picture that a scientific consensus is based on many lines of evidence independently confirming our scientific understanding. That wraps up part two of our series on the techniques of science denar. We've now gotten to the end of all the logical fallacies. In part three, we'll look at the last three elements of FLIC, impossible expectations, cherry picking and conspiracy theories.