Those aren't scientists, the NIPCC is primarily funded by the Heritage Insitute. They're a conservative libertarian think-thank as such they're a political group. One, you've probably heard of before, they're the guys who ran the add campaign claiming the Unabomber believes in climate change.

The IPCC report is written by scientists with expertise in the field, the NIPCC report is written by lobbyists with clients in the field.

First I'd like some evidence of this extraordinary claim.

Second, assume for a moment that there was a group of people who genuinely appear to be charlatans who claim expertise where they have none and repeatedly lie and distort the truth to advance their own agenda which runs counter to the general welfare. What would you do about them? How do you suggest dealing with an instransigent group whose primary purpose is obstructing your work so they can benefit from your failure?

They look like libertarian talking points possibly from the Heritage Foundation or one their ideological ilk. They like to push the "they want to control everything so don't believe them" and "it can't be happening because capitalism" angles.

What's interesting is that if I move your start points around, I get a different graph on with different results. It's dangerous to put too much emphasis on cherry-picked time lines.

So... According to you the industrial revolution started in 1945, and there were no large scale events going on between say 1938 and 1945 which could have influenced the global climate?

Not at all. The driver simulation studies are designed to show that using a cell phone is more distracting that not using a cell phone, however, that's not a particularly useful result in the real world. The real question we want answered is whether normal cell phone usage patterns lead to a higher rate or severity of accidents. After all if you're not talking to someone on the cell phone, you could be talking to someone in the car, eating a sandwich, drinking a bottle of water, adjusting the radio, adjusting the air conditioning, reciting an entire Monty Python sketch to yourself, or lost in a fantasy. You can't compel people to pay attention with laws. The early evidence seems to suggest that distracted driving laws are not having any effect on accident rates.

Maybe cell phone use displaces other equally distracting behaviour?

Additionally, according to the U.S. Government the highest rate for distracted driving fatalities involving cell phones is 2.3% (21% of 11%) and that's for drivers aged 15-19. So it's a minority of a small minority of fatal accidents, the focus on cell phone use may be because the behaviour is more obvious, newer and thus easier to single out. This could be just another senseless moral panic.

Are those studies as rigorous as the studies that show children playing exciting games become more excited than those playing boring games which is then extrapolated to conclude that playing violent games must make children more violent? Sometimes the results of a study do not actually match the publicized conclusions.

I am skeptical, I believe those driving studies show that using a phone is distracting, but I'm not convinced that they actually show that the drivers are more distracted than they would be otherwise be. There are a number of other factors that would come into play in real world condition that might not be reflected in the simulators, including that there are plenty of other distractions in your typical car and I suspect a good driver would know not to use a cell phone when driving in trying conditions.

I think that's more of an attitude question than a placebo effect. Take for example, the 5 year surivival rate for untreated breast cancer, according to this NIH study it's under 20%, however, according to the American Cancer Society the 5 year survival rate for stage 0 and stage 1 intervention is 100%.

So. iIf a pacebo-based treatment were to delay a woman from seeking intervention from stage 1 to stage 2, her survival rate drops from 100% to 93%, if gets to stage 3, it drops to 72%, if she waits until stage 4, it drops to 22%, and if she never seeks any treatment it drops to less than 20% for 5 years (and around 4% after 10 years). That's the danger of treatments that rely on the placebo effect, they can delay the application of real timely medical treatment. In the worst case, the placebo treatment has effectively killed 96% of the people taking it by preventing them from seeking out real treatments.

Interestingly, it seems that having a positive attitude doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on breast cancer survival rates, and even if it did, the detrimental effect of not seeking a real treatment would almost always be worse. Of course, this is all much simpler than I'm making it out to be. After all, what would be better? Getting real life-saving treatment and having a positive attitude or getting nothing and having a positive attitude?

In most cases, the placebo effect is detrimental. The subject reports that his condition has improved, but it hasn't in any measurable way. That's the placebo effect, in serious illness not accounting for a placebo effect could kill your patient. The placebo effect can't cure your cancer, it can only make you think the cancer is cured. The placebo effect is worse than useless for the treatment of all real measureable illnesses.

The only places where the placebo effect is useful is areas where the illness itself is largely subjective and can not be directly measured. That basically restricts the useful placebo effect to symptom management, pain management, and a few other areas where how the patient feels is the only area of concern. For example, a pain control placebo may be better than a drug that gives the same perceived level of pain relief because the placebo has no effect at all.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Where does it say that for something to be settled, it must unfalsifiable. For instance, I think common understanding is that "settled science" is merely the collection of theories which are widely accepted and very unlikely to be proven false.

That would be the "settled science" we're talking about. It's settled, not indestructible.

Science could refer to either, depending on how you're using the word. There is "Science" the body of knowledge and "Science" the process by which we accumulate that knowledge. Without either you'd be nothing more than a smart monkey in a cave. Too many people forget that science is an iterative process, we produce knowledge and then build on the knowledge we previously created.

You can't stand on the shoulders of giants if you insist on always attacking their knees.

Which is actually why people sometimes talk about science being settled in the first place. You can't let one person who refuses to acknowledge what's in front of their face hold the entire world hostage to their (dis)belief. Saying it's settled, is simply a way of moving past obstinate roadblocks. That doesn't mean every time some claims something is settled it is, but if the vast majority agree then it's settled, at least for now.

There are a lot more possible explanations. For example another one is that some groups are pushing skepticism of science and scientists as a political tactic. Libertarians groups seem to fund an aweful lot of anti-science campaigns, for example. That may be because scientific evidence is often used to restrain the activities that free enterprise can engage in, something many libertarians oppose. They know attacking the messenger can prevent the message from being heard. In particular, in the climate change area, acceptance that there is a broad consensus of opinion among scientists and that the consensus supports global warming overwhelming tends to substantially increase acceptance of the findings. Thus, attacking the science and the consensus could be seen as a pre-emptive strike to prevent regulation and the dreaded source of all evil - government, for libertarians. I'm sure you could name other groups who have similar reasons to oppose the consequences of accepting certain streams of science.

Or a clue that they're taking to idiots. Never underestimate the persistance of an idiot with a grudge.