As I mentioned in a previous post, Christopher Monckton seems to have contradictory views on when something demonstrates the endpoint fallacy or not.
But his Great Pause posts are not by any means the most egregious example of this confusion.
Here is a video of a presentation he gave at Saint Paul, Minnesota.
You can watch the whole thing and find many examples of contradictions and nonsense, but the bit I'm interested in starts at around 43:40 and lasts a little under 5 minutes.
During those 5 minutes Monckton both condemns one graph as bogus whilst claiming an almost identical graph is genuine.
43:40
Here is the latest lie - in the 2007 report - the iconic lie there.
They're attempting to show that global warming is accelerating.
Implication that our CO2 emissions are accelerating and this is causing a more rapid rate of warming.
This is a statistical lie known as the start point or endpoint fallacy. Where you take a
jiggly up and downy dataset like temperature, where you don't know which way it's going to
go next, a stochastic dataset. If you choose your start point and your endpoints carefully
enough you can make it look as though any trend you want is happening. Here they've tried to
show a rising trend.
I'm now going to take the same data, but I'm going to take the more recent end of it, between 1993 at the present,
and I'm going to choose my own start points.
Look at this.
Top left 1993 to the present, top right 1997 to the present, bottom left 2001 to the present, bottom right 2005 to the present.
We're heading for a new ice age!
In case this isn't clear enough, Monckton now asks his audience:
Now here is a question for you - to see if you've been concentrating as alertly as I'd hoped.
Which of those two graphs is nearer to the truth?
Hands up for the UN's graph. None I think.
Hands up for my graph. A few.
Hands up for neither. Much more.
And those who said neither are correct.
Because remember I started out by saying this is a bogus statistical technique.
Every time you use it, it produces results which could only be right purely by accident.
It is invalid whether you do it to try and show a falling temperature or you do it to try to
show a rising temperature,
and I merely gave you that example to show how easy it is to bend the data in the way the UN has
done.
And it is a disgrace that a public authority in receipt of tax-payers money from around the world should dare to produce a graph like that one that we've just seen.
That should never have been done.
It is a clear continuing instance of deliberate bad faith.
There cannot be any doubt about what Monckton is saying at this point.
All the graphs he showed are only to illustrate how bogus the technique is.
That's taken us to 46:00.
Now skip forward a couple of minutes.
47:45
So we go on then to a lie which was told by the Director General of the National Climatic Data Center, Tom Karl,
when he and I testified along side each other in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee of Congress earlier this year.
I produced this graph ...
This graph shows exactly the same period as the bottom left one in his set of bogus graphs.
It isn't exactly the same as the one he showed to the Committee, that was this:
In either case the graph shows almost the same time frame as the bottom left one he's already claimed produces results which could only be right purely by accident.
So is he admitting to presenting a bogus graph to the Energy and Commerce Committee of Congress,
or is was he trying to make the same point to them, that a graph like this only shows a result that is a pure accident?
He goes on ...
... what I'm saying here is that there has been global cooling for the
last 8 or 9 years, statistically significant, and rapid cooling.
How many of you have seen that reported in any major news medium recently?
We are now up to 48:30, less than 5 minutes since he first described the IPCC graph as a lie.
He's admitted to showing a graph to a Committee of Congress that covers the same period as one he claims demonstrates the endpoint fallacy,
but is also claiming to his audience that it demonstrates rapid and statistically significant cooling.
You can see the whole hearing here.
Monckton's testimony start's at 1:21:30 - though the video doesn't capture the slide in question.
Again he says that the graph shows seven years of cooling, with no suggestion that it is based on a statistical lie.
There's a lot more that could be said about Monckton's recollection of this hearing, but that's moving outside the scope of this post,
which was merely to draw attention to Christopher Monckton's inconsistent notion of what makes for a bogus statistical technique.
And as theories go this was all very fine and pleasant until Veet Voojagig
suddenly claimed to have found this planet,
and to have worked there for a while driving a limousine for a family of cheap green
retractables, whereupon he was taken away,
locked up, wrote a book, and was finally sent into tax exile, which is the usual fate reserved
for those who are determined to make a fool of themselves in public.
Introduction
Among the inspirations for Conventional Signs are some of Martin Gardner's essays
on skepticism, in
particular those found in his book Science: Good. Bad, and Bogus.
The earliest essay in that collection, written in 1951, called The Hermit Scientist
describes a number of individuals who have come up with theories that challenged established
ideas, and for good reason were not accepted by scientists.
The second person to be mentioned in that essay is Dr Immanuel Velikovsky (the first is L Ron
Hubbard).
Gardner sums up Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision thus:
A few months before Hubbard's revelation, the Macmillan Company published Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.
The book throws together a jumbled mass of data to support the preposterous theory that a giant
comet once erupted from the planet Jupiter,
passed close to the earth on two occasions, then settled down as Venus.
The first visit to the earth of this erratic comet was precisely at the moment Moses stretched
out his hand and caused the Red Sea to divide.
The manna which fell from the skies shortly thereafter was a precipitate, fortunately edible, of
suspended elements in the celestial visitor's tail.
Later the comet's return coincided with Joshua's successful attempt to make the sun and moon
stand still.
The miracles of both Moses and Joshua were the result, Velikovksy informs us, of a temporary
cessation of the earth's spin.
Gardner's description is only really the tip of the iceberg
- Worlds in Collision also suggests that flies might have traveled on Venus to
reach Earth, Mars was also knocked out of it's orbit and came into close contact with Earth,
causing yet more biblical catastrophes,
and he hints that if any of this is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics, then Newton is wrong
and the planets are governed by some mysterious form of electro-magnatism that allows of the
events he describes to just happen.
WiC also makes it clear that this is only the start and there are more revelations
to be published in future books.
These would included ideas such as Saturn exploding and drenching the earth, and ancient
astronauts visiting the early earth.
Although Velikovsky's work is a tissue of absurdities, and has been recognized as such by every
geologist and astronomer in the country, it is astonishing how many who reviewed the book were
caught off guard by the author's persuasive rhetoric.
John J. O'Neill, science editor of the "New York Herald Tribune," described the book as "a
magnificent piece of scholarly historical research."
Horace Kallen, editor of the "Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences," wrote, "The vigor of the
scientific imagination, the boldness of construction and the range of inquiry and information
fill me with admiration."
Ted Thackrey, editor of the "New York Compass," suggested that Velikovsky's discoveries "may
well rank him in contemporary and future history with Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Darwin, Einstein.
. . ."
And the book received enthusiastic endorsement by those two eminent scientists, Clifton Fadiman
and Fulton Oursler.
Gardener was wrong in one important respect - his 1951 essay concludes:
Thus it is that probably no scientist of importance will present the bewildered public with
detailed proofs that the earth did not twice stop whirling in Old Testament times ...
The current flurry of discussion about Velikovsky and Hubbard will soon subside, and their books
will begin to gather dust on library shelves.
Neither Velikovsky nor Hubbard disappeared.
Velikovsky became increasing popular especially in the early 70s, when it was claimed that many
of his predictions were being confirmed by space exploration.
Also, there were detailed debunkings of his work by popular scientists, most noticeably
Carl Sagan.
His chapter in Brocca's Brain is a very detailed debunking of the astronomical
problems in WiC,
though it seems like quite a large sledgehammer to crack a very nutty nut.
But Velikiovsky ideas did die out after the 70s,
and tempting as it might be to draw comparisons between current nonsense, such as Global Warming
Doubters, and Velikovsky, I don't think it would be remotely fair.
But it turns out, thanks to Watts Up With That, I don't need to draw the comparison,
they've done it themselves.
WUWT in Chaos
Chaos - G.F.Watts
There have so far been three articles posted on Watts Up With That within a 10 day
period, mentioning Velikovsky.
Sensational Scientific Speculation
The first was called The Complicity of Journals and Magazines in Pushing Flawed IPCC Climate
Science, archived here.
In this essay, Ball says that science journals are too commercial and publish pseudo-science and
sensational articles in order to boost flagging sales.
But then complains that Macmillan dropped publication of the entirely scientific and
unsensational Worlds in Collision
... they [Macmillan] were the publishers involved with
the Velikovsky travesty, one of the most egregious examples of the conflicts that occur
between publishers and a search for the truth.
He then goes on to say that Carl Sagan an early promoter of human CO2 caused global
warming, felt so threatened by Velikovsky
that he published a book on the subject.
Ball concludes that He (presumably Sagan) is not to be believed on anything.
This post produced a lot of reaction. Those hostile to the views of WUWT couldn't believe their
luck.
Gavin Schmidt tweeted:
Today is obviously something
special: Tim Ball & Anthony Watts come out in support of Velikovsky https://t.co/r62KGYTGEZ
In the comments section of WUWT there was both delight from supporters of Velikovsky and dismay
from the more level headed doubters.
This lead to Ball posting this comment:
Wrong! I am not pushing Velikovsky.
Why don't you read carefully without automatically and almost immediately putting on your
blinders?
I was using Velikovsky to illustrate how mainstream academia reacts when somebody dares to
suggest anything other than what they push.
Step outside their prevailing wisdom and they disclose their tunnel vision and prejudices
quickly and nastily.
Harlow Shapley's despicable behavior in the matter was exposed by the letter he wrote to
Macmillan threatening wto get all academics to withdraw their textbooks.
The letter was obtained and revealed by the Harvard Hasty Pudding Club.
It's curious that he only mentions Harlow Shapely at this point, but Carl Sagan in the article.
Shapely in the 50s organized the boycott of Macmillan that resulted in them dropping the book.
Sagan in the 70s was highly critical of this action.
In this Ball again complains that he was falsely accused of pushing
Velikovsky, but spends most of the post seeming to do just that.
The part where he says he isn't pushing Velikovsky starts:
The reaction to my recent reference to Immanuel Velikovsky was knee-jerk, ill-informed, and a
classic example of scientific elitism.
I suspect that like so many such reactions they are by people who read or know little about the
events and issues involved.
I also suspect because it occurs all the time, that definitive opinions are based on a minor
matter unrelated to the whole story.
As G. K. Chesterton explained,
The thing which the world suffers just now more than from any other evil is not the
assertion of falsehood,
but the endless repetition of half-truths.
I was falsely accused, along with Anthony Watts, of pushing Velikovsky.
Ironically the unsourced quote from Chesterton is itself a half-truth.
Chesterton said it was England that was suffering, not the world.
It was a world in which painters were trying to be novelists, and novelists trying to be
historians, and musicians doing the work of schoolmasters, and sculptors doing the work of
curates.
That is a view which has some truth in it, both as a description of the actual state of
things and as involving an interesting and suggestive philosophy of the arts.
But a good deal of harm may be done by ceaselessly repeating to ourselves even a true and
fascinating fashionable theory,
and a great deal of good by endeavouring to realize the real truth about an older one.
The thing from which England suffers just now more than from any other evil is not the
assertion of falsehoods, but the endless and irrepressible repetition of half-truths.
There is another side to every historic situation, and that often a startling one;
and the other side of the Victorian view of art, now so out of mode, is too little
considered.
The salient and essential characteristic of Watts and men of his school was that they
regarded life as a whole.
They had in their heads, as it were, a synthetic philosophy which put everything into a
certain relation with God and the wheel of things.
Ostensibly the point of this post is to claim that a scientific elite tries to suppress
theories that threaten the
orthodox believe.
I don't agree with this, and his article is confused and contradictory, but the main issue is he
continues to use Velikovsky as an example of the
heretic being suppressed by the elite, and in so doing gives the impression that Velikovsky was
right, or at least plausible.
Anthony Watts added a disclaimer to this article insisting he's never ... never supported
Velikovsky's ideas ... in Worlds in Collision,
but he does ... support discussing them in the context of learning ....
Rightly Labeled Ridiculous
Three days later there was a joint post from Watts and Ball, called A response to being
Mann-handled, archived here, and is described
as a Full Disclosure – by Tim Ball and Anthony Watts.
This tries to set the record straight, insisting that neither Watts nor Ball
agree with Velikovsky.
But it distracts from this by going for a full out attack on Michael E
Mann, permanent bogyman for the WUWT.
Mann's crime in all this was to post a tweet saying that Ball and Watts subscribed to
Velikovsky.
Mann's accusation is completely false and indicates he either failed to read the article or if
he did, failed to understand its purpose.
The objective of the original article and follow up was to show how self-appointed elitists
hinder the advance of science.
A majority who made written comments about the article understood and agreed with the premise.
Even this full disclosure finds it difficult to say straight out that Velikovsky was wrong
Again, for the record, neither of us support Velikovsky's views on
planetary motion
.
Some
of them are rightly labeled as ridiculous.
However, to claim that we do, simply because the articles used him as an example of how some
in
science turn spiteful when confronted with ideas they see as threatening,
is wrong, and the elitist premise is well illustrated by the ugly behavior of Dr. Mann and
others.
But in the same article they say:
We pointed out that he worked with Einstein, who knew his claims and encouraged him.
We also pointed out that some who initially attacked his work, like Professor Hess, later
conceded that
many of his predictions were confirmed
.
Which could be read as being a little supportive.
To be fair, it seems obvious that Watts is genuinely
embarrassed that he allowed Ball to use such an example.
He says in the comments section that he was wasn't very familiar with Velikovsky's work when
Ball submitted the article,
and if he had been he would have asked Ball to find a better example.
I'm more curious about what Ball really feels about Velikovsky.
Ball's Opinion of Velikovsky
Ball claims that Velikovsky was merely the example to illustrate the behavior of the scientific
elite, and in no way did this show support for Velikovsky's views.
Leaving aside the premise of the scientific elite, the claim that Ball only regards
Velikovsky as an example of elitist persecution seems dubious to me.
Here are some of my reasons for this doubt:
If you do want to attack the suppression of ideas from a scientific elite,
why use a case like Velikovsky if you think his ideas are ridiculous?
It undermines your case if the work that was not accepted by the scientific elite
is
wrong, and worse if it is as ridiculously wrong as Velikovsky's.
If you are deliberately using Velikovsky to make a point that no matter how wrong
someone
is they should still be given a fair hearing,
why not make that clear from the start?
A simple statement such as I completely disagree with Velikovsky's theories, but I
will defend to my death his right to a serious publisher,
would have avoided any confusion.
Nowhere in either of the first two posts does Ball indicate any thing specifically wrong
with Velikovsky.
The closest he even gets to accepting Velikovsky might have made any mistakes is when he
says Sagan was more wrong on fundamental issues
than Velikovsky.
What he thinks Sagan got more wrong than Velikovsky was CO2 causing global warming.
Throughout the posts, Ball uses phrases that might give the impression he supports
Velikovsky, despite his claims he doesn't. For example,
As a result of Velikovsky's research, done with thoroughness and
precision,
he discovered anomalies that didn't fit the prevailing sequence of events.
Velikovsky's story is fascinating because of his innovative thinking and
accuracy of his predictions.
He quotes Michael Goodspeed:
More than 5 decades after the Velikovsky firestorm, questions first posed by Velikovsky
can no longer be ignored.
At stake here is not just the billions of dollars NASA has wasted chasing chimeras, but
the very integrity of scientific exploration.
Also at stake is the ability of the sciences to attract and inspire new generations.
And nothing is more inspirational than a sense of being on the edge of discovery.
No matter the outcome of this long-standing battle, the time of reckoning is at
hand.
The voice of Velikovsky's ghost WILL be heard.
He objects to Sagan and Gould criticizing Velikovsky's works, yet they are only
confirming what Ball claims to agree with,
that Velikovsky's ideas are ridiculous.
In the comments section Ball never complains about any post supporting Velikovsky, but does
write a long comment in response to others:
Some of the comments show the ignorance of their author.
For example, the claim that V was not a scientist by any measure, contradicts his formal
education and life work.
He worked and communicated extensively with Einstein on matters of science, in
particular electromagnetism.
Einstein had no problems with his credentials or abilities,
and if he is good enough for
Einstein he is good enough for me.
Then there are those who ask what predictions he made that were correct. This only
confirms they never read his work or subsequent discoveries and discussions.
If they did they would find his predictions that flew in the face of the then
scientifically held wisdom.
He compare the history of Velikovsky with those who oppose the theory of CO2 causing global
warming.
For example
The complexity of the corruption by the few scientists who hijacked climate science is
revealed by comparison.
They quickly established their views as the prevailing truth through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science,
but also misusing basic science.
They isolated anyone who challenged either part of their false 'offical' science in the same
way Velikovsky was marginalized.
But Ball is accepting the official science was correct in the case of Velikovsky.
Watt about Scientific Elitism
Ignoring Velikovsky, the argument of the second article was that scientific
elitism is damaging to science.
This is an old claim that I find unconvincing.
It's an argument that is used by people who are wrong, are rejected or ignored by people who are
in the best position to know they are wrong.
It's always so much easier to believe that the reason your arguments were rejected is not
because you were wrong,
but because there's a cabal of scientists, who cannot allow your views to be accepted for fear
it would undermine their authority.
It's the appeal to the romance of the heretic over that of a reactionary orthodoxy, which
in science is rarely correct.
As G.K. Chesterton explained -
The word heresy not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being
clear-headed and courageous.
The word orthodoxy not only no longer means being right; it practically means being
wrong.
All this can mean one thing, and one thing only.
It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right.
For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical.
And yes, I am taking Chesterton out of context to emulate Ball, and the use of this quote should
in no way be taken to mean I agree with any of Chesterton's views.
As far as the idea of the scientific heretic, Martin Gardner summed up the problem
When Renaissance science first began to free itself from metaphysical biases, it was the rule
rather than the exception for courageous pioneers to find their work greeted with derision by
their colleagues.
Galileo had to battle not only church authorities but fellow scientists who were more
preoccupied with Aristotle than with an experimental determination of how the world did, in
fact, behave.
As Aristotle's scientific authority declined, however, opposition to new ideas in science became
more confined to areas where science clashed with Christian doctrine.
Since the turn of the century, even this area of conflict has become remarkably small, and
widespread opposition by scientists to a legitimate theory,
based on verifiable evidence and cogent reasoning, is an increasing rarity.
For a contemporary scientist, often the quickest way to fame is to overturn a widely held
theory.
Einstein's work on relativity is an excellent illustration of how easily a revolutionary
hypothesis can meet with almost immediate serious response,
careful testing, and ultimate acceptance.
Of course there are exceptions ... But, if anything, science today leans backward in the
friendly consideration of bizarre hypotheses.
Moreover, Tim Ball's articles, especially the second, seem contradictory and careless.
It would take far too long to go over every problem, in many ways he's a lot like Velikovsky in
that respect.
But a few issues are:
Ball objects to pejorative and subjective adjectives, such as radical and notorious,
but then uses phrases like indoctrinated by formal education and describes scientific
specialization as the bastions of dogmatism and intellectual tunnel vision.
He objects to Velikovsky being described as a catastrophist, but Velikovsky constantly uses
the word catastrophy throughout his work,
and describes his ideas as theory of cosmic catastrophism.
He says Velikovsky was born in the Soviet Union. In fact he was born in 1895, 20 years
before there was a Soviet Union.
He claims the church promoted and protected the Ptolemaic system for 2000 years,
which is at best a wild exaggeration.
The Ptolemaic system hasn't even existed for 2000 years.
He says that Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould are both part of the scientific elite.
Yet both were popularizers of science, wrote popular books and Gould was frequently attacked
for his unorthodox ideas.
Moreover, both explicitly disagreed with the actions of Harlow Shapely in trying to get
Macmillan to drop WiC.
Sagan was particularly harsh on this action, calling it a disgraceful attempt by some who
called themselves scientists to suppress his writings.
