A Blindspot in Cognitive Immunology Research?

Recently, I was considering purchasing the book "Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think", when I came across a comment in the book review, that I found to be extremely indicative of the type of reasoning plaguing the world. The short answer to the title of this post is "no", but I raise it because it's not evidently clear, given the methods presented by this research, on how to handle this type of backlash. Being interested in critical thinking, naturally I was intrigued by the idea of Cognitive Immunology. The idea is that there is a system in the mind, analogous to the bodies immune system, that can be trained, strengthened, and fortified to help the individual avoid believing parasitic beliefs. The terms refer to the mind’s ability to resist harmful influences, including misinformation, biases, and maladaptive thinking patterns. According to this research, critical thinking by itself is insufficient when it comes to preventing us from adopting problematic beliefs. I don't want to spend time explaining what I find wrong with this research program, so I'll be brief. Generally, I am on board with this program, but have some reservations with the analogy. I don't think the community has established there to be an analogous structure in the mind. Also, if the term is used metaphorically, it could be misappropriated. I also don't really see a distinction between "learning" and "strengthening your cognitive immunity"; it seems that a comprehensive critical thinking course would cover the majority of content recommended by this community, so I am not sure entirely where the value-add would be except for rebranding "critical thinking" in scientific terminology. Nevertheless, there is sufficient overlap with my goals and objectives when it comes to disseminating critical thinking skills that enable people to avoid being exploited. I'll first describe some of the basic recommendations from this research before I analyze the comment. 

Lets start by having a look at their 12 step recommendation for achieving mental immunity:

I am entirely in favor of every recommendation with the exception of Step 8. This has been in no way established philosophically. Nevertheless, I understand the sentiment. They are trying to avoid someone becoming some sort of moral relativist who is passive about discussions of morality. I wholeheartedly agree with this level of description and concern. We need to engage in moral analysis and reasoning to gain a broader understanding of the moral landscape. However, insistence on a moral objectivity can obfuscate the perspectivalism embedded within this complex discussion. I think many people come to some moral conclusion and insist it's objective at the expense of furthering the dialogue. Perhaps this can be avoided by adhering to the other steps. 

They also have a "New Socratic Method" resource that I find useful; although I don't entirely see the difference from the original method seen in the Socratic Dialogues:

I've got no problem with this outline. I'm constantly trying to figure out ways to improve dialogue so this to me seems like a useful resource. I am not sure how someone could disagree with this unless they severely lacked intellectual virtue. CI researchers also have resources distinguishing rational justification from dogmatism:

One trap novice critical thinkers fall into is some sort of radical skepticism when they realize many of their beliefs are held with dogmatic certainty. It's important to note that you can have firm beliefs provided they are arrived at through rational mechanisms. You just have to be willing to revise your beliefs if they cannot withstand scrutiny. CIRCE (Cognitive Immunology Research Collaborative) suggests several methods to strengthen cognitive immunity by enhancing critical thinking and reducing susceptibility to misinformation and cognitive biases. Here are some key strategies:

1. Mental Inoculation: Just as vaccines expose the body to a weakened form of a virus to build resistance, mental inoculation involves exposing people to small doses of misinformation along with explanations of why it's false. For example, if you know that deepfakes are becoming common, learning how they are made and identifying their flaws helps build resistance to their deceptive effects.
2. Cognitive Reflection: Engaging in slow, reflective thinking instead of relying on gut reactions can help counter cognitive biases. Ask yourself, “Is this claim supported by evidence?” or “Am I being influenced by emotions or cognitive shortcuts?”
3. Ideological Flexibility: Being aware of ideological immune systems (resistance to changing beliefs) helps individuals become more open to revising their views when faced with strong evidence.
4. Epistemic Vigilance: being critical of information sources and assessing their credibility. Cross-check facts from multiple reputable sources before forming conclusions.
5. Debiasing and Cognitive Hygiene: Identify and correct cognitive biases like the confirmation bias (favoring information that supports existing beliefs) or availability heuristic (basing judgments on easily recalled examples).
6. Socratic Questioning: Use systematic questioning to analyze claims, such as: What do you mean by that? (clarification), What evidence supports this? (evidence, more on this later), Could there be another explanation? (alternative), and what if this belief were wrong, what are the implications? (consequences)

We generally ought to strive for an ideological flexibility that can strengthen cognitive immunity. The more rigid an ideology, the more susceptible it is to pathogens. Beliefs should not be treated as sacred or immune to questioning. This requires epistemic humility, acknowledging that you might be mistaken, while being open to belief revision based on new evidence. The evidence must be critically assessed; is the idea based on reliable evidence? Does it come from a trustworthy source? Are there fallacies in the sources argument? In this process, we should ask whether the proposed belief encourages dogmatic thinking or open inquiry. Dogmatic thinking lacks epistemic virtue. Well functioning minds thrive on intellectual diversity and open dialogue; so you ought to avoid echo chambers but in a healthy skeptical way. Curiosity is generally a powerful antidote to dogmatism. Therefore, we ought to cultivate a spirit of inquiry, or a questioning mindset, where you constantly ask "what else might be true?" and "how do we know this?". This involves separating truth-seeking from group loyalty, committing to reason and evidence over identity and tribalism. Another important habit of mind, is intellectual charity. Instead of dismissing opposing views, try to understand them in their strongest form. One of the most important features is to practice actively open-minded thinking; engage in intellectual exploration rather than ideological entrenchment and be curious rather than defensive when encountering new information. Lastly, and probably most importantly, practice metacognition. Become aware of how you form beliefs and the potential flaws in your reasoning. Regularly reflect on why you believe what you believe. Think about how you are thinking; interrogate the methods by which you came to that conclusion.

So far, everything mentioned are methods and dispositions that are to be performed on a more localized scale. But what about immunity to systematic, coordinated, institutional campaigns, designed to obfuscate truth? Cognitive immunology provides methods to address these scenarios as well. Some of the methods include:

• strategies to recognize how institutions can create the illusion of scientific debate when there is actually broad consensus. 
• strategies to enhance greater epistemic vigilance and media literacy needed to detect conflicts of interest.
• strategies to break ideological bubbles by exposing people to diverse, reliable perspectives, key to counteracting group-based misinformation and echo-chambers.
• strategies to avoid the "marketplace of ideas" fallacy; cognitive immunology critiques the idea that all perspectives deserve equal weight. Instead, credibility must be determined by epistemic rigor.
• Cognitive immunologists advocate for algorithmic interventions (e.g., limiting misinformation virality) and teaching digital literacy. Bad ideas spread like viruses and are frequently constructed using memetic engineering.
• strategies to enhance cognitive inoculation—exposing people to authoritarian misinformation tactics beforehand to build resistance to extremist groups that use identity-based persuasion to cast doubt about objective truth.
• strategies of debiasing techniques—training individuals to recognize financial and psychological manipulation in narratives. This keeps us aware of grifters and misinformation peddlers (e.g., influencers, politicians, media figures) exploit cognitive biases for financial or ideological gain.

These can be summarized into a list of ten methods:

1. Cognitive Hygiene: "Clean" vs. "Contaminated" Information: Treat bad ideas like mental pathogens before accepting an idea. Has this claim been vetted by independent sources? Is this media outlet known for accuracy, or does it have a history of spreading falsehoods? Am I being emotionally manipulated? (Fear, outrage, tribalism)
2. Source Reliability Check ("Trust, but Verify"): Don’t just look at the headline or source name—dig deeper: Who owns or funds the media outlet? (e.g., corporate, government, activist) Is it transparent about its sources? What’s the outlet’s track record for factual accuracy? (Use factchecking sites)
3. Cross Checking with Independent Sources: If a claim is important, verify it across multiple reputable sources. Example: If one news site reports a major scandal, check whether other reliable sources confirm it. Be wary of single source stories or “exclusive” reports that lack outside verification.
4. Recognizing Manipulative Framing and Bias: Media can distort facts through framing, selective omission, and emotional language. Is this article aiming to inform or to persuade? Does it use emotionally charged words to trigger outrage? What alternative viewpoints or missing facts might change the story?
5. The "Illusion of Depth" Test: Misinformation often feigns intellectual depth but lacks substance. Test if an article or speaker makes complex claims by asking: Could I explain this claim in detail to someone else? What specific evidence supports this claim? Does this argument rely on vague buzzwords or conspiratorial thinking?
6. Epistemic Humility: Questioning Your Own Biases: Cognitive immunity weakens when we accept information that aligns with our preconceptions too easily.  Before accepting a story ask " Would I believe this if it contradicted my political or ideological views?" Check if you are falling into confirmation bias.
7. Checking for "False Balance" or Manufactured Controversy: The "both sides" fallacy can make fringe views seem more legitimate. For example, giving equal weight to climate scientists and climate deniers creates the illusion of an ongoing debate. Rely on expert consensus, not just debate presence.
8. The "Misinformation Hallmarks" Test: Watch for classic misinformation patterns like conspiratorial thinking (Suggesting a secret plot without clear evidence). Avoid Appeals to Emotion over Facts. Avoid cherry picking evidence; Using selective data while ignoring the bigger picture. Avoid moving the goalposts; Demanding more and more "proof" even when evidence is strong.
9. Algorithm Awareness: The Role of Social Media- Platforms amplify outrage and misinformation because it drives engagement. Actively follow diverse sources to counteract filter bubbles. Don’t rely on headlines or viral posts—read full articles. Use factchecking tools for viral claims (e.g., Snopes, Media Bias/Fact Check).
10. Applying the "Socratic Mindset": Instead of passively consuming media, interrogate claims by asking: What’s the strongest counterargument to this claim? If this were false, how would I know? What assumptions does this media source take for granted?

Cognitive immunity research and Mental Immunity emphasize active skepticism, crosschecking, and intellectual humility as key tools for assessing media credibility. The goal is not cynical distrust of media but responsible, evidence based filtering.

Okay anyways, how does this all connect with my original intention to write? As mentioned earlier, I was intending on purchasing this book when I came across a comment that I ended up copying and pasting, saving it with the title "Low Hanging Fruit" in my notes. The response was critical, but fascinating, because it seemed to reflect a genuinely thoughtful critique, until I noticed it to be an instantiation of a broader pattern of faulty reasoning. The response seemed to identify some fundamental flaw with cognitive immunology research. At first glance, it might even seem convincing; there are some thoughts expressed that, prima facie, seem valid. However, it's fundamentally a politicized  reactionary response that uses argumentative techniques that might not be explicitly covered by cognitive immunology research. I'll post the review below and comment bit by bit. The post is by a person named John and can be found here. 

From the examples given throughout this book, Andy Norman appears to be a left-leaning philosophical naturalist and gives the impression (at times) that he believes that conservatives and religious folk don’t have a shred of evidence on their side, but instead, blindly believe what they know ain’t so and stubbornly refuse to bow before the facts. They also are morally culpable for this as the ship owner in Clifford’s story, such warrantless beliefs are not only deadly to the individual but to society as a whole. His hope is people could adopt a method that can lead to mental immunity, so as to be protected from delusional conservative and religious beliefs.

I take issue with his concept of what belief is. Beliefs happen to us. I believe what I think is true and what I think is true I believe; the assumption of truth is intricately connected with belief. Though I have never been to Egypt, I believe it exists and I could not by the act of the will, decide to believe that Egypt does not exist. My belief in the existence of Egypt is based on trust in a variety of authorities. This belief is grounded in good evidence. There are lots of things I couldn’t believe, for example, the Hindu religion is so far outside of my plausibility structure, as well as philosophical naturalism seems utterly irrational and absurd. Sure, in a sense I could “will to believe” but this wouldn’t result in belief. If I decided I wanted Hinduism or atheism to seem more plausible to me and wanted to belong; I could read their books, surround myself with them, immerse myself in their worlds, and maybe someday, I would wake up, finding “belief” happen to me, meaning materialistic or Hindu assumptions would no longer seem false, but rather true. 

Andy is simply mistaken thinking faith is believing what we know is not true, for if we know it is not true, we don’t believe it. Those things which I believe, I rightly or wrongly think are aligned with reality, and unless I have a good reason, it wouldn’t be right to change my mind when I am giving what seems to be weak or fallacious counterarguments. 

It's quite interesting to assert that mental immunity research is designed explicitly to counteract conservative and religious beliefs. The research is designed to address a broad class of unsubstantiated claims, potentially formed through manipulative means. We can see above the methods recommended directly from CIRCE; they are essentially demarcating legitimate conclusions from illegitimate conclusions by investigating the means by which we arrive to our conclusions. If this person thinks their beliefs are substantiated by evidence, that's fine, but it's not at all controversial to claim that religious beliefs tend to be formed under highly manipulative settings. I've written about this ad-nauseum, so no need to belabor the point here. Religious institutions and conservative political ideologies tend to exploit cognitive vulnerabilities. This is not to say that left of center ideologies don't do this, and I don't think CIRCE concludes that this is an exclusively religious issue. Anyway, this was the first indication that this person is a reactionary of some sort. I understand the sentiment however.

In the second paragraph, the cards start to be revealed. While the person seems to legitimately identify topics addressed in social epistemology, by alluding to the institutional/systemic factors contributing to belief, they fail to recognize how these concerns apply to their own situation; which is a direct violation of cognitive immunology recommendations. They make a comment that their "belief that Egypt exists is well evidenced based on trust in a variety of authorities", but then juxtaposes it with beliefs that are unacceptable because they are too far outside of their "plausibility structure". But this begs the question; why has your plausibility structure taken that form? This belief about Egypt being well evidenced takes for granted, that in principle, it is verifiable first hand. In another sense, it's merely a matter of definition. Suppose you are in a territory not officially recognized by the international community as Egyptian territory, but historically Egypt has laid claim to it; would you then say you are in Egypt? Our assertions about reality are intimately connected with these socially generated knowledge structures. They are also connected with social groups we find ourselves more or less arbitrarily embedded in by means of historical accident. So yes, concluding Egypt exists is rational based on a variety of authorities, but the question still remains; why do you accept this group of people as authorities? On what basis are they authorities with respect to that claim? Do you merely accept these authorities because of some dogmatic reason or have you actively vetted them? Your "plausibility structure" could have been an artifact of your up-bringing; have you actively vetted whether this structure was established through a process of open inquiry? By contrasting this Egypt example, something empirically verifiable, with a belief system like Hinduism or philosophical methodology like naturalism (something religious people tend to mistakenly assume is a system of beliefs) they are conflating very different concepts, rendering the comparison meaningless. Belief structures are obviously different than accepting a proposition; something verifiable. But alas, they concede the very point, something recommended by Cognitive Immunology research, avoiding echo chambers. If they immerse themselves, expose themselves, or familiarize themselves in a charitable, actively open minded way, with systems of belief that seem to conflict with their own, they can identify baseline dogmas they take for granted, possibly resulting in belief revision. Perhaps they meet a Hindu, realizing they have a base assumption formed through indoctrination or some perverse means, and upon self reflection, they realize these same methods were foisted upon them. Would this not be a humanizing experience? Or would you continue conflating your identity with your rigid dogma? Intellectual virtues transcend dogmatic ideological boundaries. In the example I just gave, wouldn't you want to be consistent rather than special pleading for your preferred dogma? I am fairly certain no one is asserting faith to be "believing what we know is not true". What we are asserting, however, is that faith is believing in some proposition, or set of propositions, without justification. It is not knowing whether the proposition is true, but believing and affirming it to be true regardless, accepting the implications of that affirmation. Which of course, begs the question; why affirm something as true without proper grounding? Someone, like the person commenting, might claim their to be arguments and evidence. But if this does not withstand scrutiny through a process of critical dialogue, whether it be due to bad reasoning, lack of evidence, insufficiency of evidence, etc., you ought not affirm the proposition. What are these additional mechanisms, prompting you to affirm the proposition, despite alternative propositions being equally probable? If there were evidence, then faith would be redundant. It seems this person is failing to distinguish between dogmatic certainty and rational confidence, while also failing to recognize Step 10 in the list of recommendations. If you believe some proposition, on grounds that some set of authorities deemed trustworthy claim the proposition is true, then you must follow on by interrogating the plausibility structure that lead you to trust them in the first place. 

Now we move on to the meat and potatoes of the response: 

So now, let's pick up one of Andy’s favorite examples of irrationality, that is the “climate deniers”, those people who know global warming is wholly caused by humanity and will result in human extinction, and yet decide to foolishly suppress the obvious evidence and willfully choose to believe what they know is not true. Andy seems to think that if only they would see they are morally obligated to affirm what is true and bow before the evidence, they would repent of their evil denial and agree with the global warming alarmist, ridding their mind of a parasite.

But this is the problem, we who are labeled as “climate deniers” (an attempt to associate us with Holocaust deniers) actually believe that the “science is not settled” and there is good reason to question whether humanity’s Co2 production is the primary driver of climate change. My belief on the matter is grounded in what I (rightly or wrongly) consider good evidence. Both me and Andy, are in the position of basing our conclusions on faith in authorities and research, for neither of us is capable of personally proving and verifying claims these scientific claims. Of course, both of us are also biased by our political tribe, personalities, and experiences, which will influence who seems trustworthy and what evidence seems weak or weighty.

For starters, this is just a bad faith representation of climate science, and the people who subscribe to it as a causal explanation of the observed data. I bolded a few of these sentences because they are indicative of the low quality thinking patterns gripping our society. For starters, believing that "The Science is Not Settled" is akin to the "Teach the Controversy" campaign propagated by creationist think tanks. These are media specifically designed to undermine consensus in scientific fields that conflict with a religious world view. One method is to manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus so they can push an agenda; they frame it as "the debate still being alive and we are prematurely concluding something". This is normally associated with smear campaigns of reputable scientists and propagation of conspiracy theories that are aimed at convincing people "the truth is being suppressed". Evolutionary theory is firmly established and well confirmed in Biology. What think tanks like the Discovery Institute do, is strategically use methods like these to orient public opinion in their favor or to influence politicians to align with their view. They rarely refer to actual scientific disputes from within the community about things like modeling, analysis, and interpretation of systematically collected data. These same methods are used among climate change deniers. Later I will expand on this more because it just gets more and more obvious. 

Lingering for a moment on the "science is not settled" assertion, its quite interesting that they later claim the belief to be grounded in what they consider to be "good evidence". They think they are undermining cognitive immunology research, by implying correctly that evidence underdetermines theory and it's connection to a hypothesis is not always clear. They fail to realize however, that the determination of what counts as evidence for some proposition is not arbitrary or subjective. That there is "better" evidence that connects more directly to a proposition and that some data are simply irrelevant. You cannot simply assert X is evidence for Y without considering the process by which X is to be established as support for Y. Cognitive immunology research recommends we interrogate sources of evidence; which naturally includes interrogating what we even consider to be evidence in the first place. David Schum's "Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning" gives a very useful definition of evidence that enables us to think critically about types, sources, strengths, weaknesses, and classifications of evidence. He introduces the idea of evidential "chains" and "webs," where pieces of evidence are interconnected and influence each other. The concept of evidential dependence is crucial, as multiple sources may not be independent, leading to potential biases or double-counting, something we will see later. Schum details how evidence is weighed and combined, emphasizing the role of credibility, reliability, and corroboration. These are incredibly useful concepts to consider and understand when discussing topics like climate change, and why deference to experts is not "faith".

More importantly, Schum recognizes that determining what counts as evidence is not always straightforward. Schum defines evidence as any piece of information that has the potential to influence our beliefs about a claim or hypothesis. However, he emphasizes that evidence is not inherently evidential, it only becomes evidence in relation to a specific question or inference. This means that evidence is not an absolute property of a fact or statement but is instead defined by its use in reasoning.  For something to count as evidence, it must be relevant to a claim or hypothesis. Relevance is not always obvious, some evidence may be indirectly relevant or only become relevant when combined with other pieces of information. The inferential force of evidence depends on how strongly it supports or contradicts a claim. Evidence must be connected to a claim through a logical or probabilistic relationship. A fact or observation does not automatically count as evidence unless it is interpreted within a framework of reasoning. The same piece of evidence may support one hypothesis in one context and be neutral or even counter-evidential in another. This is very important, because this is crucially something taken for granted by climate denialists, while simultaneously exploited. Someone might use a global debunking argument (more on this later) by saying they reject the "interpretive lens by which the scientists collect data" by citing some alleged conflict of interest, while simultaneously ignoring the massive conflicts of interest guiding their climate change denialism. They might reason that an alleged expert has disproven the status quo, while failing to recognize the inferential force of consensus. They might reason that there have been doubt by experts, while failing to realize that doubt is normal within the scientific enterprise; it's more indicative of a well functioning body of inquiry than something fundamentally flawed, since this dialogue increases the probability of accepting true hypotheses. In other words, if you do not consider this to be good evidence, then you are simply mistaken about the attributes of high quality evidence. Would we consider DNA to be an inferior explanation compared to witness testimony? Probably not. 

Not all evidence is equally trustworthy. Testimony, physical traces, and documents can be misleading, incomplete, or manipulated. Schum discusses the challenge of deception and fabrication in evidential reasoning, emphasizing the need for critical assessment. He also highlights the issue of evidential dependence, where multiple pieces of evidence may seem independent but actually stem from the same source, leading to overconfidence in their strength. This is something routinely taken for granted by climate change denialists. Tracing back the information to the source almost always reveals a connection to something shady. While evidence assessment often involves human judgment, making it prone to biases and interpretive differences, this does not mean that anything goes. This is what this person is suggesting by suggesting the author is equally influenced by political and experiential bias. This is yet another tactic by many science deniers; a type of motivated skepticism. While it's true that its extremely difficult to transcend our perspective, and that attaining global objectivity might be impossible, there are known mechanisms to minimize this obfuscation, literally built into scientific practice. This is why the positions are not equivalent. And this is also why it's not a matter of "faith". It's always interesting to see religious people use that term as a slur. If a conclusion is based on reliable methods that have generated results, prima facie, it is rational to accept these conclusions absent understanding the intricacies of the methodology. But also, transparency is a key feature of scientific practice. In principle, you can investigate the methods yourself. 

Schum's ideas highlight why disputes about evidence arise, not just because people have different biases, but because the definition of evidence depends on context, inferential relationships, and underlying assumptions. This also explains why some legal cases hinge on whether something should even count as admissible evidence in the first place. In these examples, courts typically have strong reasons for not allowing something like hear-say to be admissible. In principle, this applies to climate change research. Even if a scientist disagrees with the consensus, a single testimony does not undermine bodies of evidence supporting the claim. Especially, if the dissenter is not directly challenging the analyses. This would simply be irrelevant evidence. Schum’s framework is particularly well-suited to addressing these kinds of disputes about evidence because he emphasizes that evidence must always be evaluated in context and in relation to a specific claim or hypothesis. He provides tools for assessing not just whether something counts as evidence but also how strong or relevant it is in comparison to other evidence.

When two people disagree about what evidence matters or which evidence should be given priority. Lets suppose someone is claiming climate change is false because someone allegedly fabricated a study. Schum would suggest evaluating the following key factors:

1. Relevance: Is the evidence actually linked to the hypothesis? Evidence is only meaningful when it has an inferential connection to the claim. In the climate change example, the fabrication of data by one scientist does not logically disprove the existence of climate change. The falsified data only affects claims that specifically relied on that data. Schum would highlight that just because a piece of evidence relates to a topic, that does not mean it has strong inferential force.
2. Inferential Strength: How much does the evidence actually support or contradict the hypothesis? Even if evidence is relevant, it might not be strong enough to outweigh a body of other evidence. The case of the falsified climate data is an example of weakly relevant evidence—it may call into question one particular study but does not refute the overwhelming body of independent evidence supporting climate change. Schum would say that in evidential reasoning, we must look at the net effect of all evidence rather than overemphasizing isolated pieces.
3. Competing Evidence: How does this evidence compare to the total body of evidence? One of Schum’s central ideas is that evidence exists within webs or chains, not in isolation. If the evidence supporting a claim is extensive and comes from multiple independent sources, a single counterexample (like one case of fraud) does little to weaken the overall hypothesis. He would argue that strong counter-evidence would need to attack multiple independent sources of confirmation, not just a single flawed study. Climate change research is also interdisciplinary; someone would have to refute these independent lines of inquiry. 
4. Dependence and Overweighting: Are people overvaluing certain evidence due to cognitive biases? Schum warns against confirmation bias and availability bias, where people selectively focus on evidence that supports their beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence. In the climate change case, someone rejecting the consensus based on a single case of fraud is likely committing an evidential fallacy, overweighting one piece of counter-evidence while disregarding the broader pattern. This seems to be standard practice by climate change denialists. 
5. Causal vs. Associational Evidence: Does the evidence address causality or just association? Some evidence may be indirectly related but not actually bear on the causal question at hand. A scientist faking data does not cause climate change to be false; it only affects confidence in that one study. Schum would say that evidential reasoning must distinguish between undermining a source (which weakens an argument) and undermining an entire hypothesis (which requires much stronger evidence).

In the case where someone claims climate change is not real because of a fraudulent study, Schum’s approach would evaluate:

• Relevance: Yes, the evidence is somewhat relevant, but only in relation to trust in that particular study, not to the broader hypothesis.
• Inferential Strength: Very weak—it does not actually challenge the mechanisms or data underlying climate change theory.
• Competing Evidence: The overwhelming scientific consensus, independent lines of data (temperature records, ice core samples, atmospheric CO₂ levels, etc.), and multiple replications outweigh the effect of one fraudulent study.
• Cognitive Biases: The person making the argument might be overweighting one counterexample and ignoring the larger evidential picture.

Thus, Schum’s framework would classify the fraudulent study as weak and largely irrelevant evidence in the context of evaluating climate change as a whole. The proper evidential reasoning would involve considering the total body of evidence rather than cherry-picking one case. Schum’s framework helps clarify why disagreements over evidence arise:

• Some people focus on individual pieces rather than net evidential weight.
• Some may misinterpret relevance, treating tangentially related evidence as if it were directly refutational.
• Some may rely on evidential shortcuts, like assuming that a flaw in one study discredits an entire field.
• Others may disregard dependence structures (e.g., multiple studies drawing from different data sources are stronger than those all relying on the same flawed dataset).

The best way to resolve these disputes is not just to argue about individual pieces of evidence but to evaluate the total evidential picture, something Schum’s framework systematically encourages. Cognitive immunology also encourages this; something the author of this book review must have forgot. Anyways, this is where it starts to get good. It's interesting to see this persons choice of evidence; what they deem to be relevant, inferentially strong, and complete. He continue by saying:

When I spent some time trying to find the best evidence that global warming is caused by human activity, I was at first humbled, for I learned climate is a remarkably complex system and I was also convinced that human activity could play a role. I understand Mill’s method of similarity and difference that lead to the conclusion that human activity seems to stick out as the primary difference. However, this is induction, and it is also clear that the precise relationships and factors involved in climate are not entirely understood. As the complexities of the human body, so it is with climate.

Anyhow, in my research I learned that the greenhouse gases humanity produces are tiny compared to what nature produces; if nature’s contribution is like a tidal wave, then our contribution is like a teaspoon in comparison. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 98% of our atmosphere is filled with Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and other gases, about 1 to 2% are Greenhouse gases. Of this Greenhouse gas, 95% is from Water Vapor, 3.62% is Co2 and 1.38% is other things like Methane. Of the Co2 96.6% is natural and 3.4% is from human activity. Now, compared to water vapor, the human contribution is 0.28%, and for all the alarmism; I thought 0.28% seems rather a small amount. Now, when forced to, global warming alarmists acknowledge these facts and of course, they have a quick response, and that is that human contribution is causing a positive water vapor feedback loop. 

But it was when I went to investigate whether humans are causing a positive water vapor feedback loop, that I learned that little is determined or known; that there is yet solid evidence that human activity is causing this, and it isn’t even certain that there is a runaway feedback loop. The whole bloody thing seems to rest upon a weak premise that hardly anyone ever even addresses.

I think its becoming obvious why I saved this comment in my notes as "Low Hanging Fruit". I mean, this is pure fucking gold. Again, I bolded what I've deemed to be salient. It's quite interesting to cite Mills methods, as if modern science models causality using a method from the 19th century. While not the sole method used in modern science, or explicitly practiced, Mill's methods can still be valuable as a starting point for generating hypotheses and exploring potential causal relationships, especially in situations where controlled experiments are not feasible. In some sense this inspired modern methodology, but still, quite interesting to cite this as your understanding of scientific practice, especially if cited as some sort of refutation of climate change. The writer proceeds to say that, this "is induction", as if stating the general form of reason underlying empirical methods, should somehow cast doubt on the specific results. Of course, all human knowledge is fallible, including "deduction"; as I can easily reject a premise, undermining your deduction. I say this because presumably, they are juxtaposing this with some "certainty" I guess you can achieve outside of the natural sciences? To be clear, we can only be certain of mathematical propositions; but these are necessarily tautological. We eventually need to apply these mathematical models to reality; and yes, there will be mistakes. And yes, there will always remain the problem of induction. I can undermine any claim, by appeal to a generally skeptical principle. But these scorch earth tactics undermine pretty much everything, including the positions held by the person holding the skeptical position. Again, this is an example of motivated skepticism. They imply that, because the climate system is complex and we have imprecise methods for answering questions about the system, then we must know absolutely nothing about the system. These are textbook methods used by industry funded denialists, and grifters like Jordan Peterson, to obfuscate the results from climate science. 

Which leads us into the first source they provide. I literally spit out my water when I read "National Center for Policy Analysis". If you are unfamiliar, it was one of many, still existing, conservative think tanks designed specifically to promote market fundamentalist ideology and cast doubt on any form of regulation, including those implied by climate change. There are several organizations, often labeled as "climate skeptic" or "climate denial" institutes, that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. Many of these groups have been linked to fossil fuel industry funding, political lobbying, or the promotion of misleading arguments. While skepticism is a normal part of scientific discourse, these organizations have been criticized for using dubious methods, such as cherry-picking data, misrepresenting scientific studies, or promoting discredited theories. Here are some of the most notable climate skeptic institutes:

1. The Heartland Institute (USA): One of the most prominent climate denial think tanks. It has received funding from fossil fuel companies and politically conservative donors. Organizes annual conferences promoting climate skepticism. It published a “Climate Change Reconsidered” series, opposing IPCC reports.

2. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) (USA): Opposes regulations on carbon emissions. It has previously received funding from ExxonMobil. It has promoted lawsuits against climate policies.

3. Cato Institute (USA): Libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch. Previously housed the "Cato Center for the Study of Science," which downplayed climate risks. It has argued against government action on climate change.

4. The Heritage Foundation (USA): Conservative think tank with a history of challenging climate science. Supports fossil fuel expansion and deregulation. Opposes policies like the Green New Deal.

5. The George C. Marshall Institute (USA) (Now rebranded as CO2 Coalition): Previously promoted doubt about climate change before rebranding. CO2 Coalition argues that carbon dioxide is beneficial rather than harmful. Has received funding from fossil fuel interests.

6. The Manhattan Institute (USA): A conservative think tank that downplays the urgency of climate action. Publishes reports minimizing the economic impact of climate change.

7. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (USA): Free-market think tank that has funded work criticizing climate science. Once offered scientists money to critique IPCC reports.

8. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) (UK): UK-based climate skeptic group founded by Nigel Lawson. Opposes climate policies and promotes fossil fuel interests. Criticized for lack of transparency regarding funding sources.

9. Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) (Australia): Australian free-market think tank opposing climate action. Ties to coal and mining industries. Has promoted misleading climate information in media.

10. Fraser Institute (Canada): Canadian think tank with ties to the fossil fuel industry. Has downplayed the risks of climate change and criticized emissions regulations.

11. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (USA): Promotes the idea that higher CO2 levels are beneficial for plant growth. Downplays climate risks.

12. Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) (USA): Run by Christopher Monckton, a known climate change denier. Distributes reports that contradict mainstream climate science.

13. The Cornwall Alliance (USA): Religious group that frames climate action as contrary to Christian teachings. Argues that environmental regulations harm economic freedom.

14. EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy) (Germany): A German think tank that spreads climate misinformation. Tied to far-right political groups.

While legitimate scientific skepticism is part of normal discourse, these organizations have been accused of engaging in deliberate misinformation campaigns rather than genuine scientific debate. Many have clear ties to fossil fuel interests and use misleading arguments to delay climate action. Some of their methods include cherry-picking data, misrepresenting scientific studies, funding biased research, lobbying for political influence, and spreading conspiracy theories. It's just quite hilarious to me that you cannot find a single scientific organization undermining climate change research; its entirely manufactured skepticism from right wing market fundamentalists. Every major national and international scientific body supports the conclusion that climate change is real, primarily driven by human activities (such as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation), and poses serious risks. This overwhelming consensus is based on decades of peer-reviewed research, observational data, and climate modeling. Here is a list:

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – The leading international body on climate science, producing comprehensive assessment reports confirming human-induced climate change.
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – Oversees international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement, based on scientific consensus.
3. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) – Tracks global climate trends and supports the IPCC's findings.
4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Provides global research on environmental changes, including climate change.
5. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Analyzes the impact of fossil fuel consumption on climate change.
6. World Health Organization (WHO) – Studies the health impacts of climate change and confirms human influence.
7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – Conducts satellite monitoring of climate change and confirms human-caused warming.
8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Tracks temperature, sea level rise, and extreme weather linked to human activity.
9. United States Geological Survey (USGS) – Studies climate-related changes in Earth's systems.
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) – One of the largest scientific societies affirming anthropogenic climate change.
11. American Meteorological Society (AMS) – Concludes that "climate change is real" and human activity is the dominant cause.
12. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – The leading U.S. scientific advisory body that strongly supports the climate consensus.
13. American Geophysical Union (AGU) – Studies Earth's climate systems and supports the conclusion that humans are driving global warming.
14. American Chemical Society (ACS) – Affirms the role of human-produced greenhouse gases in climate change.
15. American Physical Society (APS) – Recognizes human-caused climate change as a significant scientific issue.
16. Royal Society – The UK's leading scientific academy, strongly affirming human-induced climate change.
17. Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services – A major climate research institution.
18. European Space Agency (ESA) – Monitors climate data from satellites, confirming human-driven trends.
19. European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC) – Represents EU scientific organizations and supports climate action.
20. European Geosciences Union (EGU) – Confirms the scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change.
21. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) – Tracks climate trends and attributes warming to human activities.
22. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) – Recognizes human-induced climate change.
23. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) – Australia’s premier research organization confirming human-driven climate change.
24. Australian Academy of Science – Affirms the scientific consensus on global warming.
25. New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute (NZCCRI) – Researches human-caused climate change impacts in the region.
26. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) – Supports the global scientific consensus on climate change.
27. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) – Studies climate change and attributes warming to human activities.
28. Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) – Conducts research on monsoon patterns and global warming.
29. South African Weather Service (SAWS) – Studies regional climate impacts and human influences.
30. Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE) – Monitors Amazon deforestation and climate change impacts.
31. The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) (Germany) – A leading climate research center.
32. The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change (UK) – Researches policy responses to climate change.
33. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography (USA) – A major contributor to climate science.
34. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (UK) – Studies mitigation strategies for climate change.
35. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UK) – One of the most influential climate data centers.

Now back to this persons comment. It's quite hilarious, that after citing Mills Methods of all things, that they claim to not have found any evidence in favor of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Really? Quite an exhaustive search I imagine. It's also quite amazing that their counter evidence is from a Koch Industries funded, now defunct, conservative think tank, funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It's so funny to me, they don't even try to hide their bullshit propaganda; its literally in their name. This person even uses the language of right wing propaganda: "alarmism" and "alarmists" (as if the effects of climate change are not something to take serious). This is of course, simply a by product of the conservative media echo chambers that regurgitate this rhetoric ad-nauseum. But it get's even funnier. This person acknowledges that there are responses to their motivated skepticism, calling them a "quick response", as if it's a pre-canned blurb echoed by climate scientists, when in actuality that's precisely what this person is doing. You can't make this shit up.

They cite the existence of a positive water vapor feedback loop, calling into question it's validity. This is but one of the many climate change feedbacks that amplify the severity of green house gases. I understand that this could be a rather complex concept for people to understand; especially if you've never really been exposed to systems thinking. You first ought to be familiar with applied mathematics, then with dynamical systems, before getting to concepts from control theory like the mathematics of feedback. This is why I keep reiterating my fascination with their choice to cite Mills Methods; they are simply unaware of the modeling and analysis done in modern science. But these concepts are far from unapproachable. Simply googling it leads you to articles from physics journals, NOAA, American Meteorological Society, the EPA, and NASA; explained at a highschooler level. Therefore, as cognitive immunology research suggests, taking a step outside your echo chamber, can indeed increase your resilience to bad ideas propagated by malicious think tanks. 

Anyway, the response just kept getting worse. I do think this next one might be indicative of a gap in cognitive immunology; or it might not be readily obvious how to utilize the recommendations to avoid falling into this cognitive trap. What we have next is an example of a Global Debunking Argument. These are somewhat common in metaethics; but I tend to see the scheme applied outside of philosophical discourse to contentious and politicized topics like climate change. Global debunking arguments are skeptical arguments; it involves giving an account of how our beliefs originated, by proposing a defeater for those belief forming mechanisms. It essentially gives an account for how our beliefs about some proposition were formed, attempting to show how that process was somehow corrupted; or that we should be skeptical of that process. A defeater is something that undermines the justification for a belief. A defeater for some proposition need not establish the negation of the proposition. It may simply be evidence that whatever was taken originally to justify the proposition, is unreliable or misleading. What it attempts to do is remove someone's reason for believing that proposition; the reason is not reliable. Debunking arguments proceed by giving you some story about how a set of beliefs arose and then tries to show that this story undermines the reasons for those beliefs. Here is the general structure:

• S's belief that P is explained by X
• X is an off track process
• S's belief that P is unjustified

An "off track" process in philosophy simply means that the process by which you have come to some belief, is not truth tracking. Debunking arguments try to show that the belief was produced by processes that fail to track the truth. The truth of some proposition, plays no role in the reasons why people have come to accept the proposition. The story proposed must leave no room for truth tracking processes. I am sure you can imagine how this might apply to climate change skepticism. Lets expand on this argument scheme and then provide an example of how this is used in climate change denialism, before seeing what the person commenting on the post had to say in particular. A genealogical debunking argument undermines a belief by questioning its causal origins, suggesting that the way the belief was formed is epistemically problematic. Below is a structured argumentation schema following Douglas Walton’s style, with critical questions to challenge it.

Schema for a Genealogical Debunking Argument

• Premise 1 (Genealogical Premise - Causal History): Belief B was formed due to causal process C (e.g., evolutionary adaptation, social conditioning, political influence, or cognitive bias).
• Premise 2 (Explanatory Independence): The truth or falsity of B plays no role in C—that is, C would have produced belief B regardless of whether B is true.
• Premise 3 (Epistemic Deficiency - No Truth-Tracking): If a belief is formed due to C and C is independent of the truth of B, then B lacks justification.
• Conclusion (Debunking): Therefore, belief B is unjustified, and we should either reject it or suspend judgment.

Critical Questions to Challenge Genealogical Debunking Arguments

1. The Genetic Fallacy Test: Does the fact that a belief has a certain causal history automatically make it unjustified? Are we committing the genetic fallacy (wrongly assuming that the origin of a belief determines its truth or falsity)?
2. The Self-Defeat Problem: If all beliefs formed through Causal Process C are unjustified, does that include the debunking argument itself? For example, If rational thinking evolved for survival, not truth, then does that undermine all reasoning, including the debunking argument? If all beliefs shaped by social, political, and economic factors are unjustified, then skepticism about climate change itself is also socially constructed. Climate skepticism is often linked to fossil fuel industry lobbying, libertarian ideology, and anti-regulation sentiments—should we also debunk these beliefs?
3. The Third-Factor Strategy: Is there a third factor that connects the belief to truth, even if its origins were non-truth-tracking? For example, Evolutionary pressures may have led to true beliefs because true beliefs tend to be useful for survival (e.g., believing in predators keeps us alive). Can the belief still be rationally reconstructed, even if its origins were non-truth-tracking? Even if social forces influence scientific research, this does not mean that climate science is false. The reliability of climate science is supported by independent evidence, predictive success, and cross-disciplinary verification (e.g., physics, chemistry, oceanography). Unlike political or ideological beliefs, scientific theories make testable predictions—and climate models have successfully predicted global temperature trends, Arctic ice melt, and extreme weather patterns.
4. The Selective Application Problem: If this argument undermines belief B, does it also undermine other beliefs formed in the same way? For example, If moral beliefs are debunked by evolution, are logical and mathematical beliefs also debunked (since evolution shaped human cognition)?
5. The Empirical Constraint Test: Does the debunking argument apply to empirical claims where independent verification exists?  For example, Climate science relies on observable data—does a debunking argument really challenge its justification, or just its social history?
6. The Regress Problem: If we must question the causal origins of all beliefs, does that lead to an infinite regress where no belief can ever be justified?
7. The False Equivalence Problem: While all scientific fields face some institutional biases, the degree of scrutiny, peer review, and empirical testing in climate science is high. Comparing climate science to past failed scientific theories (like phrenology or eugenics) ignores the fundamental methodological differences.

Applying the general schema for a global debunking argument to the case of climate change skepticism, we can see how some individuals use debunking-style reasoning to undermine climate science. This follows the pattern of genealogical debunking arguments, which question the origins of beliefs to undermine their justification. Let's consider an example of how this argument is applied to climate skepticism:

1. Etiological Premise (Origins of Climate Science Beliefs): The acceptance of climate change is largely influenced by political, economic, and social factors, rather than objective, neutral scientific inquiry. Scientists are influenced by government funding, institutional pressures, and ideological commitments. The media and public discourse are shaped by political agendas and corporate interests.
2. Explanatory Premise (No Truth-Tracking Connection): If belief in climate change is shaped primarily by external social, political, or economic pressures, rather than by truth-tracking scientific methods, then climate science is unreliable. If scientists receive funding to support climate change research, their conclusions may be driven by incentives rather than truth. If mainstream media promotes climate change alarmism, public belief might be a social construct rather than a rational conclusion.
3. Generalization Premise (All or Most Scientific Research is Affected): Many scientific fields (not just climate science) are subject to institutional biases, funding incentives, and social pressures. The replication crisis in psychology and medicine suggests that even peer-reviewed research can be unreliable. Historically, "scientific consensus" has been wrong before (e.g., phrenology, early nutrition science, eugenics). Since scientific institutions operate under similar social and economic constraints, we have no reason to trust climate science more than any other potentially flawed discipline.
4. Skeptical Conclusion (Climate Science is Unjustified): If climate science is shaped by political, economic, and social pressures rather than truth-tracking mechanisms, then we have no justification for believing in climate change. Therefore, we should reject, doubt, or remain agnostic about climate change claims.

This debunking-style argument is commonly used by climate change skeptics, contrarians, and denialists to cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. Here’s are some common debunking arguments put forth by skeptics:

1. The Funding Bias Argument: Skeptics claim that climate scientists have financial incentives to exaggerate the effects of climate change. "Follow the money" reasoning suggests that grants, funding, and government policies drive research outcomes.
2. The Political Ideology Argument: Climate science is often linked to left-wing politics, environmentalism, and global governance agendas. Some argue that belief in climate change is socially constructed to justify government regulations and green policies.
3. The Historical Precedent Argument: Pointing to past scientific mistakes and paradigm shifts, skeptics claim that climate science could be another example of a flawed consensus.
4. The Media Influence Argument: The argument claims that mainstream media selectively reports climate data to create alarmism. Skeptics argue that if reporting were truly balanced, public perception of climate change would be different.

Here are some examples of how to use the critical question to address these arguments:

1. The Self-Defeat Problem: Debunking climate science due to institutional bias also undermines climate skepticism. If climate science is unreliable because scientists receive funding and operate within a political and social system, then the same reasoning applies to climate skeptics who receive support from fossil fuel industries, libertarian think tanks, and corporate lobbying groups. If skepticism about climate change is influenced by ideological commitments (e.g., anti-regulation policies, corporate interests), then why should we trust climate denialism any more than climate science? If social and financial influences alone disqualify beliefs, then skepticism itself must be discarded as socially constructed rather than rational. A climate skeptic claims that "scientists say what their funders want them to say", yet fails to acknowledge that many climate-denying organizations are funded by fossil fuel industries. If funding invalidates beliefs, then skepticism is equally invalid.
2. The Third-Factor Strategy: Empirical Constraints on Science. Science is not purely socially constructed—it is constrained by reality. Even if social, political, or financial pressures exist, climate science is not based on subjective opinion but on empirical data, predictive models, and independent verification. Unlike moral beliefs (which are shaped by evolutionary adaptation and cultural learning), climate science produces testable predictions that have been confirmed by reality (e.g., temperature trends, glacier melt, sea level rise). If climate science were just political propaganda, its models would be inaccurate—but instead, climate predictions have consistently tracked real-world changes.
3. The False Equivalence Problem: Comparing climate science to past scientific failures is misleading. Climate skeptics sometimes say, "Scientific consensus has been wrong before—why trust it now?" However, this ignores key differences between past failed theories (e.g., phrenology, geocentrism) and climate science.  Empirical rigor: Climate science relies on multiple independent lines of evidence, including satellite data, ice core samples, and oceanic measurements. Predictive success: Climate models have made accurate forecasts about warming trends, ice sheet collapse, and extreme weather patterns. Cross-disciplinary validation: Physics, chemistry, and earth sciences all support climate change—this isn’t just one narrow field making unverified claims.

With all this in mind, lets have a look at this persons criticisms. I think this is an instance of genealogical debunking, among other issues like factual inaccuracy. 

As I have not found convincing evidence, I would have to accept what the global warming alarmist claim based on blind faith. I guess if I really wanted to belong and be accepted by progressive democrats, I could believe what I don’t think is true, and eventually, one day I might find I actually believe it. But in this case, it does not seem responsible or wise to do so. Because 

1. we have decades of failed predictions by global warming alarmist1, they have a track record just as good as Christians attempting to predict the end of the world. 

2. Climate is a complex system, and yet scientists can only receive funding to look for “evidence” that supports that humanity is the primary cause, it is agenda-driven. 

3. There is evidence that scientists who are not in lockstep with the orthodoxy can have their careers destroyed. There is remarkable pressure not to go where the evidence leads, but instead to fit in so as not to be spotted by the modern inquisition. 

4. There is hard evidence of falsification of data, propaganda, and crooked research procedures. Considering this is a “global problem”, in need of global “solutions” and politicians know that the only way to “save the world” would be to obtain near absolute and global power, then it is of little surprise then why politicians have entangled itself themselves with the entire thing, which also makes me skeptical. 

5. The whole thing has all the trappings of fundamentalist religion and has ironically become anti-science, with the claims that the “debate is over” and the “science is settled,” hell, talking about having no concept of Karl Popper’s falsification principle! Then the loose way that everything, I mean literally everything bad, no matter how contradictorily the claims, is attributed to global warming, makes me rightfully suspicious; when I know causation is remarkably hard to determine.

If I can be convinced that humanity's microscopic contribution to the greenhouse effect is the primary driver of global warming, I will change my mind. I can honestly say outside of mere assertions (a hell of a lot of them); I’ve yet to be given any convincing evidence. I just don’t appreciate the smug assertion throughout this book, that anyone who doesn’t agree with Andy on this matter, is a “climate denier”; is knowingly and immorally believing what they know is not true, and have absolutely no evidence or reasons at all for their position. 

Isn't this beautiful? It really is low hanging fruit. There is nothing of substance, novelty, or originality here; just the same rhetoric propagated by climate denialists. They claim its not rational to accept the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change. Lets consider the factually incorrect assertions. The first point is in regards to the accuracy of model predictions; claiming them to "have the same track record as Christian predictions of the end of the world". First thing to note is that out of sample climate projections are not equivalent to religious prophecy. This is obvious. Climate models project distributions; this is a key thing to note. No model does point predictions nor claims to. Rather, many models use ensemble methods that predict probability distributions. Climate models provide probabilistic ranges, not absolute forecasts, and they have generally been accurate in predicting long-term trends. It's just simply a false equivalence: Comparing climate scientists to religious doomsayers is misleading because scientific predictions are based on data and continuously updated models. There have been incorrect short-term predictions, but the overall trend of global warming has been consistent with predictions. This is trivial, but why do people consistently, and predictably, use this as a counter argument? The reasoning goes like this: "If the research program is not perfect, then it is invalid". Reliability of a model is not measured in binary terms. As this misconception proliferates, the general public misunderstands normal scientific uncertainty. 

The commentors next point about complexity and the research program being driven by some sort of agenda is also a common tactic. They don't elaborate much on the complexity comment, but in my experience people will simply assert "that's too complex" as a way of dismissing all research about some domain; as if a system being complex means we can't know anything about it. I typically see many creationists make these arguments to dismiss biological evolution. This is merely a personal incredulity fallacy that deserves no consideration. As for the "agenda driven" comment, this cuts both ways, and actually defeats their own position. The argument assumes, without evidence, that funding is only given to those supporting a pre-determined conclusion. There are multiple independent lines of evidence (ice cores, satellite data, ocean temperatures, etc.), not just research funded by specific entities. This is typically not the case for climate skepticism. Generally speaking, very specific entities fund and promote climate skepticism; and have a strong incentive to do so. 

This next point about an "inquisition" is just pathetic. I've written about this at great length about Jordan Peterson and other academic "dissidents" who put on a contrarian facade, arguing that their position was attacked because of some grand conspiracy. While I am not saying this is impossible, the probability of it is extremely low. It's much more likely that someone's position simply could not survive the scrutiny of the academic community. However, it's much easier, and apparently very convincing to some people, to hold to some persecution delusion. There is little evidence of a widespread scientific "inquisition." The argument relies on vague accusations rather than concrete examples. As we dig deeper into specific examples, we find there always to be a connection to an industry funded libertarian think tank designed specifically to undermine climate research. The "accuse your enemies of what you are doing" tactic works wonders on uninformed people. Academic scrutiny and lack of credibility are not the same as persecution; bad science is rejected in all fields. The argument ignores the many climate scientists who have challenged aspects of climate science without losing their careers and scientists who originally sought to disprove the climate change but ended up proving it in the process!

This next point is equally ridiculous as the prior points. I think this person fundamentally does not understand how scientific practice works. While the philosophers may try to demarcate science by establishing the necessary and sufficient conditions of scientific practice, in the real world it's hardly that easy. Yes, falsification is a property of hypotheses we generally strive for. The key word is hypothesis. "Climate Change" is a body of research. The main hypothesis, that the climate is changing, is falsifiable, and well confirmed. The cause of that change, is well confirmed. The projections are indeed harder to anticipate but this doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable; that's just a bullshit assertion. Again, the self defeating nature of these arguments is hilarious. The fact that politicians are involved does not inherently invalidate climate science. There are political dimensions to just about everything, including climate change skepticism. This assumes a very conspiratorial view of the ultimate ends of politicians; as if the only goal of becoming a politician is to rule the world.  And while some individual cases of misconduct exist, they do not discredit the entire field. This exists in every field. You can only come to this conclusion through double standards combined with a binary way of thinking about the world. The assumption that climate science is globally orchestrated for political power is implausible given the number of independent researchers and institutions involved. Okay but why do people think this way? More on this later, but manufactured skepticism is a textbook example industry uses to obfuscate the discussion and delay political action. Appeal to conspiracy and slippery slope naturally arouses peoples sentiments and fears.

On to the last point. The phrase "the science is settled" does not mean no further research is allowed; it means overwhelming evidence supports human-caused climate change. This is just a misunderstanding of what "scientific consensus" means. Notice that their entire contention relies on globally debunking arguments. They have not provided a single argument that is directly related to the research itself. So yes, the science is settled. The skepticism comes through alternative, non-scientific mechanisms. More on those in a bit. Science-based policymaking is not the same as religious dogma; science relies on evidence, whereas religious belief does not. Now, I can resent with the last bit. There is a tendency by media to report sensational, non-constructive, doomsday stories about the underlying science. Media generally has this problem. But someone familiar with the scientific research would be able to distinguish the two. So it's quite obvious the person is actually unfamiliar with the science itself. 

Additional Resources:

1. Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and a Better Way to Think With Andy Norman
2. #474 Andrew Norman - Mental Immunity; Reason, Critical Thinking, Beliefs, and Morality
3. Nature & Nurture #61: Dr. Andy Norman - Mental Immunity & Infectious Ideas
4. Pirate Television: Naomi Oreskes - Merchants of Doubt
5. Merchants of Doubt: Naomi Oreskes on Climate Skepticism - LASCO-ELI conference (Part 1)
6. Global Debunking Arguments