Green Myth-Busting: Occam’s Razor
Myth: According to Occam’s razor, the theory that our current climate change is part of a natural cycle is correct.
Fact: Occam’s razor does not apply for two reasons: the theory of natural variation is no simpler than that of anthropogenic global warming, and most importantly, natural variation is not a valid theory, which is a prerequisite for the use of Occam’s razor.
Many times, when engaged in a debate with a global warming skeptic, I will encounter an invocation of Occam’s Razor. According to this maxim, all other things being equal, the simpler of two competing theories is most likely the correct one:
Occam’s razor (sometimes spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory…This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. - Wikipedia
When global warming skeptics invoke Occam’s Razor, they generally mean that the idea that climate change is caused primarily, if not solely, by natural factors is much simpler than the idea that human activity has caused such changes. Therefore, according to Occam’s Razor, the natural variations idea is the correct theory. As I stated above, this is an incorrect use of the maxim.
First, the natural variation theory is actually no simpler than anthropogenic global warming. The idea that current climate change is a natural phenomenon seems to be simpler to many skeptics because they generally don’t exercise the same amount of skepticism towards theories that agree with their ideologies, which results in a lack of any true examination of this idea. The argument I hear most often in favor of this idea is that our climate has always changed in the past, and humans weren’t around back then to influence it, so it must follow that our current climate is also due to natural factors. However, that is not a valid argument. Just because something caused changes in the past, it doesn’t mean that when a new variable is added, the new variability is not caused primarily by the new variable. So, in order to prove that climate change is indeed caused by natural factors, one must actually specify which natural factors are causing the change, and provide a statistically valid, quantified comparison of both natural and man-made causes, which shows that the natural factors outweigh human greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, if one put the necessary effort into proving the natural variation theory, it would no longer be considered any simpler than anthropogenic global warming.
Second, Occam’s razor requires that "all things [be] equal". In other words, the prerequisite for the maxim is that both competing theories be equally verifiable. This is a major problem for skeptics who would like to use it because there is no valid theory which explains our current warming as being due to natural causes. Many of the largest changes in our planet’s temperature in the past were due to changes in the earth’s orbit and tilt, called Milankovitch cycles. This is does not explain our current warming because we are already in an interglacial period (between ice ages). Some believe the Sun is causing our warming, but the Sun’s energy output stays relatively constant. In fact, recent research has suggested that the Sun’s activity has declined in recent decades. Others blame cloud formation, or the lack thereof, due to cosmic ray flux, but this theory also remains unproven with many problems of its own. Namely, cosmic ray intensity has remained stagnant in the recent past. Conversely, anthropogenic global warming is verifiable. Nearly all research points to a warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is what has given the IPCC the confidence to claim that it is "very likely" that global warming is due to human activity.
Simply put, this argument is yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue, rather than an honest attempt at finding the truth.
Tags: Climate Change, global warming, Green Myth-Busting, Science and Tech
- Uncategorized
August 9th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Why are the natural theories purported by the “denier-skeptics” summarily dismissed and explained away by those who believe that modern global warming is caused solely by the activities of man?
It is true that the apologists for the man-made global warming theories support their claims with science. However, it does not take long to understand that the science implemented is less empirical than it is social. Yes, there is empirical data from recent history being fed into the computer models, but many of the factors that look into the future are forced assumptions. As such, the model’s outcome can be driven by the modeler. Why would a scientist use forcing factors to manipulate an experiment? You can narrow the reasons down to two: Money and Power. Money is a function of economics. Power is a function of political philosophy. And neither exists wholly separate from the other.
Let’s start by discussing Power. It is a widely held belief that the corporations possess the wealth and by throwing a portion of their wealth at our political leaders they have gained the Power. This situation is one of the risks of having free market economics reside in a representative republic overrun with career politicians, lobbyists, political action committees, and other lackeys. The man-made global warming believers who work for the press regularly generate hit pieces that link the denier-skeptics to big corporations. The constant implication of those articles is that scientists can not remain unbiased if their work is supported by a big company. It is a shallow argument but one that is easily swallowed by a public that has been taught for two generations that business is evil and that government holds the keys to our socio-economic problems. These lessons are planks in the left-wing, socialist platform that to some extent resides on the fringe of every political entity. So, this fringe movement has to find its way into the mainstream, break the hold that existing business interests have on the government, and secure the Power for itself.
Now let us consider the Money aspect. Enlightenment has taught us all that science holds the answers to mankind’s plight. It is also widely held that a dying man will exhaust his fortune for a medical miracle that extends his life by even a single day. Therefore, it is only logical to use science to transfer the Money away from the business sector to another sector. Non-corporate scientists generally work in agencies that are supported by the transference of wealth from private taxpayers to public entities. Such entities include universities and government agencies; such as NASA, NOAA, etc. Some of the best and brightest people work for such entities, but sadly the income ceiling tends to be relatively low and pay increases literally require an act of congress. The creation of a looming, global environmental crisis that can only be understood by unbiased scientists could be just the ticket to expedite the transference of Money from the private to the public sector. Money collected via taxation and penalization of private individuals and corporations gets awarded (granted) to universities and agencies with the most convincing data/disaster scenarios, whether or not they can offer solutions. The scientists – like the rest of us – appreciate the raise but realize that additional monies will be needed in the future to continue the work. Therefore, the time has come to grow the crisis.
Here is where the marriage of Money and Power occur. For the scientists to guarantee an ever-increasing supply of Money, they have to get others to accept, support and articulate their ideas to an accepting public. Since many politicians want an ever-increasing share of Power, they are more than happy to ride upon the rising seas of global warming to secure elections and to advance politically. Since neither Money nor Power can exist wholly separate from the other, a symbiotic relationship between the science of consensus and politics must be developed and maintained. This is why the green movement will accept an Al Gore as one of its champions. They loathe that he is rich, became rich by inheriting money from tobacco farming and strip mining, has a bigger carbon footprint than Rhode Island, and wants to be president of an empire. However, he is noteworthy enough to take their message to those in government who can direct funding their way and secure their collective success. The situation is the similar for actors and musicians who preach the green life to the voting public, but live another. In the end, the science of consensus will only secure Power for those who portend to be true believers.
Now, if you return to the original question, you realize the basis of the extended answer. The problem can not be due to natural cycles because we can not control nature. However, if the problem is man made, we can legislate and enforce limitations on every man and control the masses. Today you lose the Hummer, tomorrow the Prius, the next day they take away your bicycle. Today you give up meat, tomorrow you give up crops, the next day they take away your “Soylent Green”. Sadly for the scientists who trusted in their representatives, they too will have to succumb to the will of the new Power brokers. That is - of course - until the next revolution takes place. As I have said before, we have a tendency to repeat history even if the mechanism that drives it changes.
Even though our present situation is far from perfect, I would rather take my chances with Mother Nature than see a green tyrant gain power.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Because they are false. Have you actually read through any of the complete explanations that have been provided? There are no viable explanations for our current warming based only on natural causes. It’s that simple.
I’m not going to address the rest of your comment, which is entirely political in nature. If you have any specific scientific arguments you’d like to share, please do so, and I’d be glad to discuss them with you.
August 10th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I have read several explanations that support natural causation and several that refute those findings. I do not archive any of the pieces, so back-tracking and listing them would require more time than I am willing to forfeit on the subject. However, the rebuttals almost always point out who is paying for the research or they just simply label those scientists as deniers and/or skeptics.
I will concede that you have probably done much more recent homework than I. I spent more time digging into the information in the early 1990’s. When I came to the realization that climate science had formed a symbiotic relationship with a political idealogy that I do not support, I became less interested in the data than in the purpose behind the results. I find the political debate much more interesting.
I do respect your right to not comment further due to the political nature of my comments, but you must realize that the issue can no longer be separated from politics. It was only a few months ago that the Supreme Court declared CO2 a pollutant, which means you and I pollute the environment just by exhaling. Was that decision scientific or political in nature? I was stupid enough to believe that I was doing plant life a favor by exhaling a chemical compound that they require for survival.
I would like to close with a bit of irony. I constantly hear the doom-and-gloomers argue that global warming will flood the low-lying areas of the world. I see the artists’ renditions that show the city of New York submerged under twenty feet of water. I have read the studies and seen the pictures regarding the disappearance of glaciers, icebergs and permafrost. Polar bears, seals and penguins are disappearing as a result. The information is all around me. However, I have for four decades lived and continue to live seventeen feet above mean sea level. If the ice is changing into water, where is it hiding?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Bobby,
You either haven’t read any credible rebuttals of the "natural variation" theories, or you are severely misrepresenting them. In each and every case, there is a strong scientific argument against such causes. Now, a side note may be inserted about funding to explain why such questionable theories might be proposed, without a firm scientific argument to back them up, but this is only after a solid rebuttal has been presented. I’d be happy to provide you sources on any specific argument if you’d like.
Politics may be more interesting, but I guarantee you that you will never find the truth unless you follow the scientific research that has taken place since the early 90’s. That was a very long time ago, and the science has progressed tremendously. Again, if you have any specific scientific inquiries or concerns, I’d love to discuss them with you. However, if you’re only interested in politics, I don’t think I’d be of any help. I don’t focus on that aspect as I know that I wouldn’t find any real answers there.
Actually, it can. It’s simple, really. You mention a specific scientific issue that you have trouble with, and then I provide you with a scientific response. See? No politics.
Rest assured that the Supreme Court did not rule that the EPA can regulate your breathing. Such an argument is a red herring, and is absurd. It doesn’t contribute to the debate at all. The Supreme Court simply ruled that the EPA could regulate new vehicle emissions. Yes, it is a political decision, because it was made by a political body. However, it was based on scientific knowledge of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
This is the kind of thing where paying attention to the science of climate change would benefit you. You shouldn’t expect to see New York submerged in your lifetime. The 4 to 6 meters of sea level rise that some predict is what would happen if major ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica melted. These events would take quite a while. The IPCC predicts a couple of inches by 2100. Please follow the science. You will be much better informed if you do. It would help avoid confusion of things like rapid sea level rise. That way, rather than misunderstanding or misinterpreting what someone like Gore says about it, you can understand that he’s giving a worst case scenario, which would require massive ice sheets to melt.
Thank you for your questions, and I hope this has helped.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Actually, it can. It’s simple, really. You mention a specific scientific issue that you have trouble with, and then I provide you with a scientific response. See? No politics.
”
Actually, the two can not be separated. Just as you would claim that deniers are funded by big oil (et al), I would suggest that you research the sources of the funding for the global warming machine. The list is long and the dollars far exceed anything that the skeptics are getting.
“rather than misunderstanding or misinterpreting what someone like Gore says”
If Al Gore is giving a worst case scenario that is not accurately representing the problem, why select him as the movement’s lead spokesman? For that matter, why select any politician to lead the charge if the argument is not political in nature?
Lastly, I know that Roy Spencer is on the denier hit list but he does break it down in simple terms and makes quite a bit of sense:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
August 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Bobby,
First of all, I actually try to avoid discussing sources of funding, because it is an ad hominem attack, and I know that science is on my side. I don’t need ad hominem attacks, which avoid the real debate, when I can talk about what scientific research has proven. However, since you brought it up, the point of discussing funding sources is not how much any particular scientist is getting to perform research. The point is to question the motives behind the sources. In the example of oil companies, for instance, there is the obvious motivation of the companies losing profits if they have to take action to limit emissions in some way. I’m not aware of any ulterior motives on the part of sources who fund mainstream climate science research. You seem to have researched it, so maybe you have something to share in that regard. Another important thing to note here is that we’ve been through this kind of thing before. Have you ever heard the old adage that if you don’t learn history you may be doomed to repeat it? Well, if we learned from recent examples here, we’d see that just about any time big business gets involved in paying scientists to do "research" and to speak out in public venues on a topic, the research and speeches were always extremely biased to their business interests, and were proven to be incredibly erroneous. Examples include smoking, seat belts, DDT, etc. Now, I don’t use this as a main argument, because science is on my side. However, it can be a relevant side argument to explain why some are so adamantly arguing erroneous points.
I was not aware that anyone had crowned Al Gore the head of anything. He has been an advocate of this cause for quite some time, before many others, which may be the reason for his rise to the center of attention. However, I was not aware that there was ever a "selection".
That might help explain why you can’t seem to separate science from politics. Dr. Roy Spencer, while a climate scientist, is also a very politically biased operative. Nearly all of his writings, even including press releases for his research are filled with political statements and conjecture. He’s even called into the Rush Limbaugh show to talk about climate change, not as an invited speaker, but as a dittohead. As to his new research on weather events causing cooling, I’ll have to reserve my judgment until the scientific community has had a chance to look it over.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“In the example of oil companies, for instance, there is the obvious motivation of the companies losing profits if they have to take action to limit emissions in some way. I’m not aware of any ulterior motives on the part of sources who fund mainstream climate science research.”
The United States’ and the world’s governments – like all past governments – are constantly growing. The growth as per usual is socialistic in nature. Evidence of socialism includes restrictions on individual freedoms (speech, weapons, etc.), cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare, welfare, centrally controlled infrastructure, centrally controlled education, and so on. All the programs probably started with the best of intentions but have grown to juggernaut status. The only way to maintain them is to increase the flow of money into the treasury. Taxing the masses works but tends to make the reelection of those who support it difficult. Since no one seems to like big businesses or rich people, the elected officials can fund their pet projects and curry favor with the masses by penalizing them. Developing a crisis that can be directly linked to big businesses (oil) and those that use their products (rich Americans) provides one mechanism by which those entities can have their wealth transferred to the ever-growing number of those dependent upon the system for their very survival. You can also price the middle class into the dependent class rather quickly. Ask yourself again why government bodies and leftist organizations fund mainstream climate science at a rate that easily outpaces any support the skeptics receive from private entities?
Quick Point: DDT was solely the victim of politics. A novel and a couple of non-repeatable thin-shelled eggs in the lab were only a trigger for its demise. Its inventor ate a tablespoon per day and lived into his 80’s. Alar and Dursban followed similar politically led demises years later (minus the ingestion tests).
Dr. Roy Spencer’s work get discounted because he is a dittohead and politically biased? Since liberalism and socialism dominate the culture of most universities, why not question the motives of those scientists that may have been indoctrinated at such institutions? Why do you wait for the scientific community to review Spencer’s work when you can read it yourself? You already know that their desire for climate consensus will take exception to anything he presents. It is always worth remembering that had scientific consensus reined supreme throughout history Columbus would have never left Europe, Franklin would have grounded his kite, Harrison would not have conquered the problem of longitude, Edison would have remained in the dark, Bell would have continued talking to himself, Westinghouse would have never hired Tesla, and Jonas Salk would have seen millions more die from polio. And that’s just a few examples of men who improved man’s lot by going against the scientific consensus of their day.
Lastly, you do a good job of presenting the science that supports your argument without injecting politics. I hope that my injection of politics into your forum was not too offensive. Take care.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I thought that you might appreciate something light-hearted from David Letterman:
Top 10 Good Things about the Greenhouse Effect - August 10, 1988
10. Melting polar ice caps make for better surfing.
9. Long lines at Disney World reduced by sunstroke.
8. With five years, Jerry Lewis’ hair will be bone dry.
7. Can use “stuck in road tar” as acceptable excuse for missing work.
6. ABC will take a $200 million bath on Winter Olympics.
5. Intense heat should open pores in General Noriega’s forehead.
4. My dog-shaving business will take off.
3. “I’m dehydrated” will replace “I’m not gonna pay a lot for this muffler” as America’s favorite phrase.
2. Can cook lobster by lowering it into toilet.
1. Hot babes, less clothes. ‘Nuff said.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:17 am
I’m sorry, but your argument is flawed. Occam’s Razor does indeed work (I don’t actually use it in any discussion, it’s hardly needed). You mistakenly didn’t take things to it’s simplest form. You liked to bundle all the causes together… BS, that’s not simplifying. If you simplify like that go back to algebra. You need to work with the simplest terms to actually use Occam’s Razor correctly.
Let’s go to the forefront runners of the arguments… it really comes down to the sun vs CO2. Now, CO2 naturally occurs–if I remove CO2 from the Earth… all of it… will Earth not have any heat? Of course it will. How about that sun? Yeah, the sun provides ALL the heat–CO2 doesn’t generate it’s own. Simplest cause of temperature on Earth? Sun. Period. There is no argument here, that is the simplest cause of temperature on Earth. In our solar system even. It doesn’t get simpler than that.
So as you see, Occam’s Razor does indeed work. Maybe next time you’ll learn to actually think before you blog out.
Furthermore, CO2 causing temperature is BS. A hoax. No proof of CO2 harming the environment, especially since man made emissions only make what, not even .05% of the air. All of the CO2 causes .28% greenhouse effect. Numerous other proofs against it, and it provides no proofs, and is basically just a fear campaign that hinders the poor nations.
Learn what CO2 REALLY does here:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
No, how about we stick to the real threats: deforestation, our disappearing rain forests, species disappearing, over-hunting, overfishing, pollution of plastics, water crisis… so many things, yet all overshadowed by a fake and pathetic hoax.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
For crying out loud, I have never heard anyone use or even implicate Occam’s razor in a debate about climate change. Is this post even relevant?
The “myth” seems manufactured.