A recent paper introduced the idea of contrarian claim. Expectedly, contrarians raised concerns about it. A recurring one is: what if the claims were true? This note shows how this may lead to a head fake {1}. Let’s look at the following series of claims offered by J*, the most artful dodger of Climateball:
(C1) Since his rookie year, J* argues that AGW poses risks and requires significant action.
(C2) J* also argues that our response efforts to date have been woefully inadequate.
(C3) J*’s views, which he has not been shy to share, have led some to try to exclude or remove him from the discussion, with some considerable success.
Assume C1-C3 are true. How are they connected? Perhaps by this implicit claim: some tried to exclude J* because of his views, among them that AGW poses risks, deserves significant action in response, which so far have been inadequate. Is it credible? Not at all. Anyone with some Climateball experience ought to know that J* is in fact criticized in spite of holding C1-C2. How about this other one: nobody should criticize someone who holds C1 and C2. Unless J* is asking for preferential treatment, this does not work either. In-group criticism ought to be fine.
The reason why these claims are strung together is not made clear in the text. Despite two war stories told later on, J* did not disclose anything to support them, especially the last one {2}. What’s going on? The simplest explanation seems to apply – pure Climateball head fake. Nothing newsworthy there; some might argue it’s part of J*’s charm. Why mention them? Because AT’s latest post made me revisit the page, and more importantly because they illustrate a point related to AT’s previous post – what is being done with claims matters as much as what is being said. Let me offer two reasons why.
First, Climateball is a game of inference. Nobody’s an oracle. We’re more into reasoning, with arguments that we advance, support, and then evaluate. We seldom communicate using formal proofs, so we make judgment calls {3}. Look back at C1, C2, and C3. We posited them all true, however the conclusion eluded us. The disconnected claims failed to make a converging point.
Second, Climateball is also a game of interference. Instead of falling for the head fakes, look where the hips are going. In our case, notice the framing: J* agrees on AGW and that we should do more; yet he’s allegedly ostracized; why should he be when he’s been vindicated so often? The answer, in a nutshell, is because J* is whining once again. This is annoying, for if there’s one rule for contrarians, it must be:
1. Do not whine. That is all.
(Nathan Myhrvold)
Constant self-victimization might provide more adequate ground to criticize contributions from J* than some claims whose veracity could be granted with little effect.
* * *
Now, what has all this to do with C21? Take a good look at the paper’s classifer:
Clik here to view.
How is 1.1 (ice isn’t melting) connected to the idea that global warming isn’t happening, i.e. its superclaim {4}? Very loosely. There’s a big inference gap between the two ideas, so big in fact that often the dominating claim acts as a dogwhistle to be voiced over by contrarian onlookers. Instead of crying out “non sequitur!” like Fallacy Man would {5}, ask yourself what’s the point behind the claims on the table. If no answer to this interrogation is forthcoming, expect more head fakes, in which case keep calm and move your own ball forward.
§ Notes
{1}: In sports, a head fake is a type of feint whereby someone moves the head to fake an intended change in direction to deceive opponents. The same logic applies to Climateball.
{2}: His first story is a “run-in” with the late StephenS. His second story recalls that his Kyoto paper was “not popular,” “controversial,” and “cited about 100 times in the decade after it was published, but then almost 300 times in the decade after that.” Only at the fall of his piece does he reveal: it was my work on extreme weather and natural disasters that ultimately led me to being ostracized from the climate community. He refuses to tell more on this, “as this is long enough.” Nevertheless, But Emails. Unfamiliar readers are thus left in the dark.
{3}: Even if we communicated using inferences closed under deduction, the world would remain messy. Except for Lionel on a soccer field. Elsewhere he’s messier.
{4}: Where are the claims simpliciter in that map and how exactly does it consist in a taxonomy are questions left as an exercise to readers. It’s quite obvious that the fifth branch would need more love.
{5}: I contend that fallacy fluff does not work. My justification has to wait.