Countering an anti-AGW gish gallop from Peter Machen

I've copied the following exchange from Linkedin:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-calver-8974ab_factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-activity-7114186771914993664-3bfa?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

​I've done that prior to deleting Mr Machen's comments in the relevant thread I created, in order to prevent my thread there becoming just another one on LinkedIn that Machen has hijacked and used to spread his anti-AGW misinformation and disinformation through gish galloping.

I suggested Machen put a coherent version of his thoughts about AGW into a separate website article or blog, rather than using the scattergun approach of multitudes of smaller comments sprinkled liberally through LinkedIn. That would make it easier for onlookers to read, assess and respond to his views in a coherent way, rather than playing an online equivalent of the game of "whack-a-mole" with his frequent, unsubstantiated  comments.   He did not respond to that suggestion.

I warned him I would remove his comments from my thread if he continued to extend his gish gallop.  He carried on anyway, chalking up a total of no fewer than 25 gish gallop points, without responding to any of the counterpoints I made to all of those points, before I decided enough was enough.  It's as if the Peter Machen LinkedIn profile, and the activities it engages in, are not those of an actual person but are those of an AI bot instead.  It makes you think ...  

I set out below the text of the LinkedIn thread before I deleted his comments.

Text copied from LinkedIn thread starts -------------------------------------------------------

​From me to Peter Machen (Chemist modelling engineering processes, Online Instrumentation, Digital twins - Greater Perth Area)

You're so prolific in your postings of comments (that almost exclusively include anti-AGW misinformation), that it's hard to keep up. Just one example is shown below. It would make it much easier for people to read and respond to your comments if you would put them all into a coherent piece of work, such as a long website article, rather than engage in a scattergun approach on LinkedIn with snippets sprayed around in a seemingly constant stream.

Example
You say:
"Strange how panicky alarmists get about rate of warming and blame CO2 emissions. Yet about 11,500 years ago studies show average annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet increased by around 8 °C in 40 years, in three steps of five years, while a 5 °C change in 30–40 years was more common. Humanity is still here and modern society is so much better equipped with climate/weather mitigating tools, like air conditioning and insulation, clothing, drainage, early warning weather alert systems, etc.
In case wiki is a derided source, check referenced papers at bottom of link.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event"


Your core points addressed, with some brief fact checking:

1) CO2 and temp rates of change in Greenland
Your implications are debunked here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
It's important not to take all changes in Greenland as representative of changes globally rather than locally/regionally. The IPCC does not fall into that trap, but you appear to have done so.

2) "society is so much better equipped with climate/weather mitigating tools, like air conditioning and insulation, clothing, drainage, early warning weather alert systems, etc"
True, and this is why adaptation actions are worthwhile alongside mitigation actions (such as decarbonisation). However, adaptation actions are easier for some communities (especially the more affluent ones) than others (such as vulnerable, poor communities).

3) "Dansgaard–Oeschger event"
These are reflected in the work of scientists summarised by the IPCC. They are regional temperature events, not global temperature events. They do not provide counterevidence to the IPCC's conclusion, in AR6 WG1 (2021) that:
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred"

The main issue with your comments about Greenland temps and D-O events is that they are not global events, so you use a logical mis-step in inferring anything of substance about the current problems caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming (largely driven by greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2) since the Industrial Revolution. We are now in a mass extinction event of our own making. This, and other AGW impacts, are already rebounding onto our own species at global scale.




from David Calver

By way of moderation, to avoid any perception of "false balance" in the exchange(s) here, I'd like to make it clear that the evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, caused mostly by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities) is so strong that the IPCC concludes, in AR6 WG1 (2021), that:

"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred"

The scientific community with expertise on this subject has over 99% consensus on AGW:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

To all intents and purposes, the matter is "settled" scientifically.

That does not mean there aren't uncertainties. Some remaining areas for genuine further research and debate include how fast the damages caused by AGW will worsen and build up, before our actions on decarbonising the global economy start to "bend the curve" and stabilise the global temperature anomaly.

See, for example:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-calver-8974ab_what-agw-damage-curve-do-you-prefer-attached-activity-7099823995314675713-fG9D?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Happy to debate those uncertainties with anyone.
 
For more about the risk of "false balance" in public debates, see this from 2018:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/

from which:

"What’s the BBC’s position?
Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position...
Be aware of ‘false balance’: As [man-made] climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate... To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken...
There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates... As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear."


 
 

from Peter Machen

David Calver Amazing how often you throw out red herrings like; others might think my posts aren't coherent and that the world is in mass extinction mode (because of CO2 emissions). My posts are other peoples research and papers. This digital world, built on fossil fuels is where post stuff and their papers. The beauty of such platforms is anyone can share info and challenge it or ignore it. I'm also actually not anti-AGW. There's plenty of localised albedo changes that could potentially join up enough to impact zonal climates (eg broad acre farming, solar panels, wind farms, clearing forests to power biofuels, concrete roads,cities UHI, airports, planes, etc). I am anti blaming the magnitude of any impact manmade CO2 emissions are claimed to have on global surface temperature. None of the rebuttals you post prove one way or other...none.
The only fact is the links we've both posted show science for sure ain't (yet) settled by a long way.


 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

Thanks. I note that you've not actually addressed the main points I raised here.

Instead, you've gone on somewhat of a tangential gish gallop, with several points, which I start to address here:

1) "... red herrings like... the world is in mass extinction mode (because of CO2 emissions)"
Not a red herring. See:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-mass-extinction-and-are-we-facing-a-sixth-one.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

2) "My posts are other peoples research and papers".
A misdirection - does not address that your posts are a scattergun, with many sources lacking credibility, rather than a coherent whole.

3) "I am anti blaming the magnitude of any impact manmade CO2 emissions are claimed to have on ... the links we've both posted show science for sure ain't (yet) settled by a long way."
False equivalence. The links I've posted are sources such as the IPCC, NASA, scientific institutions and climate scientists. All credible evidence which rebuts the points you have made (which are usually based on sources that lack credibility).

4) You use the frequent anti-AGW trope "the science isn't settled", rebutted here:
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm
 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

5) You slip in the phrase "This digital world, built on fossil fuels...".

You have conflated the state of the current world and fossil fuels. A more appropriate, more useful and less fossil-fuel-centric way of expressing world development, looking to the future rather than focussing excessively on the past, would be to say "this digital world, built on abundant energy...".

By conflating energy and fossil fuels, you are showing a lack of appreciation for the fact that abundant, cheap energy can be (and is being) delivered without burning large amounts of unabated fossil fuels and without sending huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Although the following is not the only solution for a decarbonised energy system, Mark Jacobson has done tremendously important work on establishing that 100% WWS (Wind Wave and Solar) could be a viable way of powering the whole world:
 https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

6) You say "The beauty of such [digital] platforms is anyone can share info and challenge it or ignore it."

That's true. Freedom of speech is a principle I advocate strongly. However, such freedom comes with responsibilities. One is the responsibility not to cause harm through such speech.

There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation about AGW on digital channels.

As the public harm caused by AGW becomes larger and more obvious, and the evidence and causal links strengthen between AGW misinformation/disinformation and its impacts on delays to actions to address AGW, there will be increasing reason to hold those responsible to account for their part in such delays.

Already, we see young people taking governments and/or companies to court for their part in delaying the decarbonisation transition. Eg:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-calver-8974ab_climate-change-six-young-people-take-32-activity-7113128899349209088-AJPS?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop


 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

7) You suggest you are "not anti-AGW. There's plenty of localised albedo changes that could potentially join up enough to impact zonal climates (eg broad acre farming, solar panels, wind farms, clearing forests to power biofuels, concrete roads,cities UHI, airports, planes, etc)"

What you are claiming/implying, then, is that there is AGW, but that it is from human actions other than the main ones scientists say cause global warming, and that it is therefore not significant enough to have impacts on global average temperatures.

That is a very narrow definition for the opposite of "anti-AGW", to justify excluding you from the category "anti-AGW".

My definition, which I think would be shared with the vast majority of climate scientists, is:

"an anti-AGW position is the pseudoscientific dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change".

With this, you qualify as being anti-AGW, with your views expressed above about "broad acre farming, solar panels, wind farms, clearing forests to power biofuels, concrete roads, cities, UHI, airports, planes" providing confirming evidence for this classification, in addition to your many and frequent recent contributions here on LinkedIn.
 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

8) You say "None of the rebuttals you post prove one way or other..."

The rebuttals I have been posting in response to your posts, are counters to your claims about AGW.

9) It's not down to me to "prove" AGW. I'm not qualified to do that. And "proof" is not the most appropriate word to use in this context. However, scientists with relevant expertise have, to a very high degree of confidence, for example as reflected and summarised in many sources including the IPCC and all credible scientific institutions around the world, concluded that AGW is real, it has serious consequences, and we must collectively act on it to reduce the public harm.
 
 

from David Calver
 
Peter Machen

10) You claim "The only fact is the links we've both posted show science for sure ain't (yet) settled by a long way."

No, that is not a fact.

It is a fact that the links we've each posted are just a tiny part of the scientific (and/or pseudoscientific) evidence for and against AGW.
Also, see:
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

from which:
"Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”."


 
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

The fact I've had to use 10 numbered points to respond adequately to your response illustrates that Brandolini's Law often applies in the context of online discussions about AGW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law#:~:text=Brandolini's%20law%2C%20also%20known%20as,it%20in%20the%20first%20place.
 
 

from Peter Machen

David Calver the fact you numbered 10 is true. Sadly it's not up to you to dictate which scientists own the truth.
After all, you'd know by simple analysis that either an increase of 185 meters in average cloud altitude or a decrease of average albedo from 0.300 to 0.293 would account for all of the 20th century increase in AGT of 0.74 °C.
Yet willing to put manmade 3% portion CO2 emissions in driving seat. Yeah, nah.


 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

Your 3 comments addressed:

11) You suggest" "it's not up to you to dictate which scientists own the truth"
Very true, but I think most reasonable people look to places like credible scientific institutions for the best and most strongly evidenced science on climate change. Do you have an alternative source of scientific evidence that you'd like to put up against those?

12) You talk about "the truth". That's an example of hyperbole. Science, in relation to climate change, is not about absolute truth but about weight of evidence, given that it's a complex topic.

13) You claim: "either an increase of 185 meters in average cloud altitude or a decrease of average albedo from 0.300 to 0.293 would account for all of the 20th century increase in AGT of 0.74 °C", but you don't cite any scientific source to support that claim with evidence. Please do so, for fact checking and credibility assessment purposes.

I note you have not addressed any of the 10 points countering your earlier response. Instead, you chose to extend your gish gallop with 3 more points to add to the 10. By way of illustration of this, I've numbered my responses to each new point 11 through to 13.

14) you suggest "... willing to put manmade 3% portion CO2 emissions in driving seat. Yeah, nah"
That is debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
 


from David Calver
 
Peter Machen

Your gish gallop count is up to 14 now (17 if you include the original 3 points in the example post of yours that I feature in my headline article).
 

from Peter Machen

David Calver mass extinction?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/11/the-mass-extinction-fraud/

 
from David Calver

Peter Machen

18) You signpost Wattsupwiththat.

According to Media Bias Fact Check:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/
"Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks."

This comment by you provides further evidence that you do not cite credible sources.

Please provide evidence from credible sources to support your assertions/claims.
 

from Peter Machen

Uncertainty? You love quoting NOAA as reliable. This is their data. Nothing alarmingly unmanageable here.

(chart shared)
 

from David Calver

Peter Machen

19) You cite "NOAA" and share a chart. Please provide a more specific citation, as it is not clear whether the chart you shared is produced by the NOAA itself, or from someone else's interpretation of their data. Please clarify. It is an important difference in assessing the credibility of any suggestions made based on the data.

This comment of yours provides another example of you using unclear or incomplete citations.

You suggest "You love quoting NOAA as reliable”.

I can't remember the last time I quoted NOAA. Please remind me when that was, and what I quoted.

Please note that US temperature monthly max temp data are not the same as global average temperature trends (aka "the hockey stick"). So, even if the data about US temps you shared is genuine, it doesn't say anything about global temperature trends over the same timeline and longer.

This is another example of you providing an argument that is irrelevant to the consideration of AGW having been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

You say "Uncertainty?", but it's not clear what you mean by that. Please clarify.
 


from David Calver

Peter Machen

After your latest two comments, the tally of your gish gallop points is 19 in less than 1 day. You still haven't addressed any of my counters to your previous 17 points.
I think it's only fair to warn you that I won't allow such a gish gallop to be carried on indefinitely in a thread I have created. There will come a point in time when I will delete such a gish gallop, in the interests of avoiding any impression of "false balance" in the discussion in this thread. I don’t do such a thing lightly, as I believe in freedom of speech. As I say elsewhere, freedom of speech has to be balanced against risk of public harm arising from that speech.
 

from Peter Machen

David Calver
seasonal CO2 cycle is independent of manmade emissions and temperature. Regular seasaw pattern persists. Hardly a driver and hardly any sign of dominant addition.
Plus a quick summary of CO2 half life calcs  incl. C14/C13.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/03/sunday-open-thread-33/#comment-2647189
As for references...blog sites like wuwt or jonova are not any less good or bad as your links to carbonbrief or skepticalscience.com...its a platform. Try follow the content not the messenger.
 (charts shared)

from Peter Machen

David Calver small % manmade.
Here's another estimate showing it ain't settled.
Manmade CO2 ( fossil fuels emissions) are only 12%?!  Natural 88%.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics
journals.lww.com
 


from David Calver

Peter Machen

20) you say "seasonal CO2 cycle is independent of manmade emissions and temperature. Regular seasaw pattern persists. Hardly a driver and hardly any sign of dominant addition."
Yes, you are right that CO2 seasonality is not a driver. Yes, you are right that it is not a dominant pattern. However, climate scientists are not claiming CO2 seasonality is a driver of global warming. You have provided another example of an irrelevant misdirection that does not disprove AGW.

21) You cite Joanne Nova. Not a credible source.
Her main claims debunked here:
https://www.desmog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook/

22) You suggest "blog sites like wuwt or jonova are not any less good or bad as your links to carbonbrief or skepticalscience.com", without providing any evidence for such a claim. Please provide some evidence.

23) You suggest "Try follow the content not the messenger". Another misdirection to dissuade people from assessing the credibility of a source. Any platform should be assessed, eg using something like the "CRAAP" test. That provides a way of avoiding being hoodwinked by platforms that spread misinformation and disinformation. I also assess the original sources themselves, within the bounds of my expertise.


from David Calver

Peter Machen

24) You share a pair of charts side by side and they purport to show UK Met Office data, but, as is a frequent occurrence with your posts, you have not provided an actual reference to where the charts have come from (indicating who compiled them) - which is important in assessing the credibility of any inferences or conclusions drawn from them. Please provide proper referencing for those charts.

 

from David Calver
​
Peter Machen

25) You claim "small % manmade ... Manmade CO2 ( fossil fuels emissions) are only 12%?". The paper you cite suggests the anthropogenic fossil component is much smaller than the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.
That's a small variation on the well-worn anti-AGW trope, 'Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions', debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

This is also evidence that you have cycled around and have essentially started repeating your claims or making very similar variants of the same claims, without addressing the counterevidence already provided in this very thread, let alone other threads elsewhere on LinkedIn.