Arguments
Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Posted on 19 March 2010 by John Cook
Probably the most significant thing to happen to Skeptical Science over the last few weeks was the website got hacked! The first time it happened, content was changed in the skeptic arguments and one comment was overwritten (sorry, Peter Hogarth, you were the unlucky victim). A week later, they managed to remove most of the blog posts off the homepage. I am deeply indebted to Doug Bostrom who was able to figure out how the hacker got in, where they came from and offer a mountain of very wise and helpful advice on how to secure the website. Doug also advised there is a possibility the hacker got hold of users' login details. So I strongly recommend to all Skeptical Science users that you update your login password.
To sweeten the deal (as if your account security wasn't incentive enough), I've added another feature to the Update Profile form. You can now add a URL to your profile. Then whenever you post a comment, your username will link back to your website. This is a good way to get a bit of traffic to your website (and sate other users' curiosity about you). Note - if you ever want to update your profile in the future, you don't have to come back to this blog post. Just click on your username in the left margin (look for "You are logged in as Username").
Lastly, to prove once and for all that I'm a tragic data junkie (as if the resources taxonomy page wasn't enough evidence), I've added a new page called Global Warming Skeptic Contradictions. The idea for this page originated when I was discussing with a few other bloggers the notion that many global warming skeptic arguments flatly contradict each other. Someone pointed out a few webpages that already list arguments that contradict each other. For example, Climate WTF, Frank O'Dwyer and Mind of Dan have all posted on the subject.
Then it dawned on me that as Skeptical Science has possibly the largest database of skeptic arguments (feel free to submit any new arguments if they're not listed yet), it would be a simple matter to create a database of "contradiction pairs" - pairs of skeptic arguments that contradict each other. So I set up a List of Contradicting Arguments and added a few examples. But it's set up so anyone can add new contradiction pairs. You can also include a comment if you feel the contradiction needs explaining (but please keep it brief).
Of course, I know what some are going to say in objection to the whole concept of a contradiction page. Not all skeptics think exactly the same - they're not all one homogenous, identically thinking block. This is a fair comment and the fact that some skeptic arguments contradict each other doesn't necessarily invalidate global warming skepticism (there's plenty of empirical evidence to do that). That's not the ultimate point of the contradictions page. The ultimate point is coming later - I have a few other bells and whistles to add to this page once the list of contradiction pairs gets long enough. So please do add some contradiction pairs (browse those other blogs listed above for ideas). The more others contribute, the more it frees me up for other work such as a "Preview Comment" feature that many have been hankering for.
As regards the hacking, I was wondering what exactly was the content that got changed? Was it obviously vandalism or could a reasonable reader have assumed that it was coming from you?
I've even seen one skeptic use the arguments below on the same speech
"It's not warming - it's all urban heat island contamination"
"The warming is actually a natural phenomenon from the end of the last Ice Age"
"The warming is caused by the PDO"
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-of-hypocrisy.html
BTW I don't seem to be able to log out. I wanted to check my new password, but when I click the logout button I remain logged in. Is it my system or something at your end?
I very much appreciate all the suggested contradictions added to the Contradictions Page, both by yourself and everyone else. It was quite a pleasant surprise waking up in the morning to find so many suggestions submitted - much better than last week waking up to find the Skeptical Science website hacked! Of course so many submissions means now I have no excuse and have to get working on Phase 2 of the contradiction page (actually Phase 2 is going to be the really interesting part but it's also a bit more work than Phase 1).
If I'm providing links or resources for people, form both sides, I almost exclusively cite your site now, it has become an invaluable resource.
The so-called "Friends" of science fell into this trap with an ad campaign against science and AGW last year in the run up to Copenhagen.
Anyhow, this post by you has reminded me that I still have to donate some funds! Sorry for the delay, I'll move on that today.
Reminder to anyone who used the same password here and elsewhere, it's time to change _all_ of them to different ones. You don't want them pretending to be you.
And maybe time to figure out some kind of authentication.
I second this suggestion - do NOT use the same password at different websites.
The contradictions page is a great idea. I always found it odd that sometimes the same exact people will use arguments that contradict each other. At present, though, it seems like the only link to the page is from here. Is there another way to get to that page, so that it's still accessible when this post gets a bit outdated?
2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.
4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.
7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.
8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.
19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien).
23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous).
25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson)
29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled".
34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times.
40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous)
43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)
I like the contradiction page, although it's limited to the drop-downs
Note that if a skeptic argument isn't yet listed, you can always add it to the list. That's why I opened up the database to user input, to make the list of skeptic arguments more comprehensive.
Speaking as an ex-journalist, I would expect quite a few news outlets to run with the story, in the light of other recent hacks. This should garner more interest in the site. It will also demonstrate in a fairly unequivocal way the kind of fanaticism climate scientists are up against.
I guess it is so because the contradiction section is still in construction phase.
I am right?
I don't want to see denialist propaganda in my e-mail.
(last time I commented in WUWT I was equated to a maoist terrorist. These deniers have no idea of minimum decency)
Anyway John, glad to hear that you got this nipped in the bud. Have had a small brush with ID theft before and it is very scary!
"By concentrating on the just the single dodgy issue of AGW, ad nauseum, we’ve basically killed off the blue fin tuna. ..I hope that you’re very happy with yourselves - Pats on the back all round.......... "
I'm not sure of the absolute logic of poster #12 on Richard Black's blog but it does highlight something I'd started to notice about that blog. Last year the blog focussed almost completely on climate change. This year it's shifted to a mix of biodiversity/enviroment and climate. The climate posts get maybe 10x more posts than the biodiversity posts. This suggests a far greater interest in climate than environment at least among his readers. Although it's hard to identify cause and effect.
On the contradiction list. The last paragraph stole my thunder. It's is completely unscientific to set up the two oppositional camps (deniers and warmers) and then highlight the contradictions within one camp. Science is a dynamic ever changing process. Contradiction is the norm, seeking to use all powers to remove it (apart from empirical evidence) srikes me as dogma. It's the political and moral imperative that seeks to setup this strong delineation of ideas.
Having said that there's no opportunity to show contradictions in the pro-warmer camp.
The only 'contradiction' that I can think of at the moment is that of the Antarctic sea ice increasing at the same time as the temperature of the Southern Ocean rises -- an anomaly that has been discussed in some detail (see 'No 10' in the 'Most Used Skeptic Arguments' list).
Also, it's time to also check the Skeptical Science iPhone app for bugs.
-- frankbi
Anyway thank you all so much for all your hard work. This is a regular visit for me now, and i share the link frequently, as the format is so user friendly for less sciency friends to use. And a lot of the comments are very useful to me too, unlike a lot of sites where you have to wade through reams of hobbyist denial rubbish.
I had to sign on to give my thanks and support, but i have made sure to use a super duper different password that will be stored in my brain only :-)
I suppose you could take the hack as a complement, it shows you got the denyers worried.
Hopefully nothing was put up anywhere using my name...
As others have said, I hope that you track down the low-life who hacked the site. A public naming and shaming at the least is deserved...
On a happier note, I too love the extras. Skeptical Science is mandatory reading for anyone remotely interested in climate science!
However, how will you rebuff their next obvious move: to claim that you must have hacked yourself, to make them look bad?
-- frankbi
I agree the unwelcome attention is more evidence of the ethical as well as logical bankruptcy of the denialists.
?Has the hack been linked to denialists?
I thought of an analogy for the unscientific denier/alarmist imposed split.
Think of this approach applied to politics in general. We have the 'centre ground' represented by the moderates in the main political parties. Pro-market liberals and social conservatives.
Outside this 'concensus' we have what might be described as the extremists. Some examples might be religious conservatives, green environmentalist, free market libertarians, leftists and many more.
What can we say about an extremists position on issues like taxes, immigration, healthcare and so on. Very little because they all disagree. Does this disagreement say anything about the validity of their position? No, just that we should never have grouped them in the first place.
The cyber-attack hasn't been linked to denialists, and even if it has, it's OK anyway for them to attack, because I don't like the label "denialist".
-- frankbi
Let me think... well, for one thing I'd like to know which IP address(es) the cyber-attacks came from. Also, what were the exploits being used, and did the cracker(s) try to create any hidden backdoors for future incursions?
Thanks for your time!
-- frankbi
"...how the hacker got in, where they came from..."
No details... bummer.
You seem to have it upside down. The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'. It's this fact that labels (and excludes) those that have something else to say. I don't see that Pielke et al want the label.
It's been pointed out many times that 'deniers' very often do disagree with each other, often they are each others biggest critics because they have competing theories. This is the norm for science.
It's the moral and political aspects of the climate debate that sets up this goodies vs baddies scenario.
Has that been pointed out many times? I'm not sure that it's even true, let alone that it's frequently pointed out.
I think John's point in this thread is that skeptical arguments often implicitly contradict each other, but it doesn't follow from this that skeptical persons actually contradict or criticize each other.
And in fact, in my experience, it's very rare for this to happen. When was the last time on this blog that a "skeptic" jumped in and disagreed or corrected another "skeptic"? I spend far too much time responding to even rather obviously mistaken claims by RSVP, gallopingcamel, etc. Personally, I would love it if other skeptics would debunk some of their claims too. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen.
I think that the reason for this is that most "skeptics" are motivated more by opposition to the consensus view than by any deep investment in any one particular competing view. If someone were really, really convinced by the whole "galactic cosmic rays" argument, you might expect her/him to argue vociferously against AGW, and to argue equally vociferously against other skeptics who claim that the earth isn't warming at all. But you very rarely see that!
And I think that's OK, actually. There's nothing wrong with being diffusely skeptical in opposition to a more coherent argument. Let's say that one of your co-workers suddenly can't find a book, and concludes that another co-worker must have stolen it. You could quite reasonably suggest a whole bunch of mutually contradictory hypotheses -- maybe she actually left the book at home, or maybe it's buried under the clutter on her desk, or maybe she forgot that she loaned it to somebody. Obviously those alternative hypotheses can't all be true, but that's OK.
But I think we should be clear on the asymmetry here. The consensus view is, and has to be, very coherent about the big picture (though there's lots of disagreement among scientists about the details, something which many skeptics may not fully appreciate). If a British team claims to have detected a slowdown in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and their claim seriously conflicts with other models or data, that's a contradiction that has to be resolved (generally, by examining other data or other analytical methods or whatever). Eventually, it becomes clear who was right and who was wrong, and the "consensus view" expands incrementally to incorporate that improved understanding.
In contrast, the skeptical position can tolerate an almost unlimited range of internally contradictory claims. Very occasionally, you will see a higher-information skeptic contradicting a lower-information one, but usually only on a topic that is so far out (e.g., Beck's claims, or Steve Goddard's "CO2 snow at the south pole") as to be generally embarrassing to the skeptic cause.
We know enough about the climate system to be confident of the role of CO2.
vs
We know too little about the climate system to experiment with geo-engineering.
But please do keep the proposed AGW contradictions coming, they're interesting to read.
Common sense however does matter, eventhough you AGW supporters consider yourselves above it. You are wrong. Not as wrong as hackers but still wrong:
Poll: Americans Least Worried About Global Warming
Americans rank global warming dead last among eight environmental issues to be very worried about, a new Gallup Poll reveals.
The percentage of respondents who said they worry “a great deal” about global warming was just 28 percent, down 5 percentage points from last year.
The following are eight environmental issues and the percentage of people who said they are very worried are, according to the poll results released on March 16:
Pollution of drinking water, 50 percent
Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, 46 percent
Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for household needs, 45 percent
Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste, 44 percent
Air pollution, 38 percent
The loss of tropical rain forests, 33 percent
Extinction of plant and animal species, 31 percent
Global warming, 28 percent
For all eight issues, Americans are less worried now than they were a year ago, with the percentage drops ranging from 4 points for “maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water” to 9 points for “pollution of drinking water” and “the loss of tropical rain forests.”
Worry about global warming peaked in 2007, at 41 percent, and stood at 40 percent in 2000.
“Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years,” Gallup observed. “That could be due in part to Americans’ belief that environmental conditions in the U.S. are improving. It also may reflect greater public concern about economic issues, which is usually associated with a drop in environmental concern.”
Nonsense. Science is all about competing arguments. If you want to see competing arguments hashed out, try going to a scientific conference some time. And I guessed you missed the arguments that the IPCC seriously underestimated future sea level rise (by assuming no contribution from melting glaciers). Seriously, there are so many counterexamples to your claim, and as Ned posted in #42 most if not all of what is now the consensus view started out as a hotly contested argument about competing ideas.
It ties in nicely to what John has posted here. Willis, Dr. Svalgard, etc. pretty much go after Goddard quite hard.
Also, on another recent post about the Iceland volcanoe, a few geologists are trying to "help" certain skeptics, get their geology correct.
To be honest, I cruise both pro and con sites every day, and find that there is less of a choir on the con sites. Now maybe that is because there happens to be more lay people on skeptic sites that have heads full of crap trivia and the scientists try to show them the real data, or maybe it is just the way of the skeptic side, that all science must be challenged. Don't really know.
But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl!
Before you get too excited, I hope you know that Willis is no scientists, and Svalgard is not one of the world's leading scientists ...
Though at least he's done some research. Actually, i think he's pretty much the only scientist who routinely posts at WUWT, and it's mostly to tell people they're wrong (it's hard to understand his brand of skepticism, actually).