Thread by @SteB777

The reason I want to highlight the well-defined concept of a specious argument, is it has become very apparent to me, that the majority of the wider public do not understand the concept at all. This is what allows climate crisis denial to persist.
1/🧵

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1678736551071690753

The arguments used by climate crisis deniers, have all been dealt with, 15 years ago or far longer ago. So predictable are these arguments, that Skeptical Science has a list of all denier arguments, which can be refuted just by linking to them.

2/skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f…

It is bizarre, that deniers are still using arguments, which have been comprehensively refuted 15 years or more ago, stating them as verbatim fact and getting away with it. The only reason this continues, is there's no public understanding of what constitutes a false argument.
3/

There is no general understanding, of why although an argument might appear to be superficially plausible, that it can be absolutely refuted if it is based on false premises, false assertions, logical fallacies, or just plain falsehoods.
4/

Often, deniers will list supposed scientific predictions, about the climate crisis, which supposedly later on, were shown to be untrue. Although it's quite easy to prove, piece by piece, that every one of these denier assertions is untrue, it's practically difficult.
5/

Not only is this tedious and time consuming, but if you go through it systematically, most people can't be bothered to read a refutation using so many words. You can make a false assertion in just a few words, which may take many thousands of words to refute.
6/

An additional problem is deniers don't use references. So they will just say, "they" were predicting another ice age in the 1970s, without ever saying who "they" were making these predictions, and where they made them. Making it even harder to refute their false argument.
7/

When you look into it, you find that these were not scientific predictions in a peer reviewed paper, but sensationalist headlines in a newspaper, written by a journalist who misrepresented the science.
8/

Take the old canard, about "they" were predicting an ice age in the 1970s. As the Skeptical Science refutation states, a quick perusal of climate science papers in the 1970s, proves that most were about climate warming, not cooling.

9/skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predic…

It beggars belief, that deniers are still using a false claim, that was comprehensively refuted in a peer reviewed paper, in 2008, 15 years ago. As I say, it is very easy to make false claims like this in just a few words.

10/journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/…

I have yet to come across a denier, where it wasn't quite easy to comprehensively refute their argument and they don't then resort to straight out lying, denial and a refusal to look at evidence. In other words, you've wasted your time responding to them.
11/

If these were honest people, they'd admit their error, and never use that argument again. But you see the same user names, or even well known people, using the same false argument, years after it was pointed out to them, why that claim was false.

12/

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1671823063669678083

Using their own principles, that if something someone said, had been proven wrong, so you shouldn't listen to them thereafter - then no one should have been taking any notice of @BjornLomborg for the last 14 years.

13/yalebooks.yale.edu/book/978030017…

@NaomiOreskes and @GeoffreySupran did this nice exposé of Oil Company adverts from the 1980s onwards, trying to dismiss concern about climate change. Unlike the deniers, these claims are well referenced, and with where they were published.

14/theguardian.com/environment/20…

Using the logic of deniers, this proves absolutely, that climate crisis denial has been totally discredited and no one should take any notice of it. But when the deniers get it provably wrong, they use different logic and principles, specious reasoning and sophistry.
15/

This why it is essential that the public are educated about specious and false argument i.e. sophistry, and how to spot it. It also speaks volumes about why the public are kept in the dark about the tricks of specious argument.

16/psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/memory…

Specious argument, false argument i.e. sophistry, is the primary tool the rich and powerful, the politicians in their pocket, and corporations, use to bamboozle the public, to rule over them, and to exploit them for their own ends.
17/

Specious argument, is a bit like the illusions professional magicians use, for their tricks. It looks like magic, it's convincing, and it fools people. Until or unless it is explained how trick works, and it then loses its magic.
18/

But most magicians are honest entertainers, not trying to convince the public that they have real magical powers. Whereas politicians, the media, corporations and science deniers, are trying to fool the public into believing that their arguments are genuine, when they're not.
19/

I used the analogy of the illusionist, to illustrate just how easy it is to fool most people, if the public are not aware of the sleight of hand being used. Which is why illusionists, generally, don't explain their tricks of the trade.
20/

It's no problem with illusionists keeping their tricks a trade secret, because they're just honestly trying to entertain. But very different, when dishonest manipulators of the public, are trying to fool the public to believe that their arguments, are genuine.
21/

There is no genuine argument that the science about anthropogenic climate change, the biodiversity crisis and the rest of the ecological crisis, are mistaken. But various vested interests, want to mislead the public into thinking that the science is mistaken, or uncertain.
22/

Science, and scientists are in general honest. They're not trying to convince you that they know everything. But they are very certain about the general principles and direction of travel. It's those trying to undermine the science, who are using intellectual sleight of hand.
23/

How, specious argument and reasoning works, should not be a trade secret, because this is the main tool the powerful and wealthy use to bamboozle the public, and to maintain their hold over us.
24/

@threadreaderapp Please unroll?