Hard News: Climate science and the media
154 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Really you are no more than 2-3 degrees of separation from a genuine expert,
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field. - Niels Bohr
A field guide to them: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1460
-
JLM,
I think, given the climate they operate in, turning things up to 10 most of the time is understandable. Not always *helpful*, but very understandable.
I started reading both Real Climate and Hot Topic from the beginning, and I'm pretty sure they both stated that they were going to engage sceptics in reasoned discourse and keep cool under all circumstances. When I read the baiting comments, especially on Hot Topic, I'm not surprised they don't always succeed.
-
"When I read the baiting comments, especially on Hot Topic, I'm not surprised they don't always succeed."
Gareth and Bryan are pretty good at staying on topic and not feeding the trolls but one of the really difficult things about trolls is that they say such annoyingly inane and plainly stupidly wrong stuff that it's sometimes hard to avoid. I'm getting better at it though...
I find www.skepticalscience.com to be a good starting resource which presents information without hyperbole and a very robust comments policy. the arguments page is an excellent resource for confronting yoyo-like denialist arguments.
-
Not to start a bunfight on the whys and wherefores of homeopathy - yes, I'm a qualified homeopath (working in IT), no, no-one knows how it works, yes, you get f*ckhead homeopaths, like you get f*ckhead doctors, and no, I really don't care if it boils down to a a placebo effect or coincidence if no-one's being told (illegally) that homeopathy will Cure anything - but that optical illusion analogy linked to above was pretty irrelevant, actually.
I'm particularly peeved at the staring at the sun crack, actually. If homeopathic remedies don't do anything, they don't do anything, including harm anyone. A few idiots might tell people not to go to regular doctors, but it's unethical in the extreme. Some doctors won't refer people to specialists when they need them; virtually all homeopaths (yes, again, excepting a few individual f*ckheads) will refer people to real doctors when it is a matter of life or death, or they are out of their depth.
[Expunging several paragraphs more on people's ability to spend money on whatever they choose, if it's not harming them and they are not being wilfully cheated.]
Off to watch the Ted talk now on scientific denialism for some really scary stuff - add me (despite the foregoing) to the club of people who are horrified at what passes for scientific analysis in the media and general population these days.
-
The majority of it is knee-jerk contrarianism, "Well, somebody told me something that sounds like it might be hard to believe given my current way of thinking about the world, so I'm going to ignore it." I don't see most global warming skepticism from people as coming from any deeper place than that-it's easy and comfortable.
I'm not so sure. It depends what you mean by skepticism. There's skepticism which is a denial of things, an active position of belief in a particular view. Then there's skepticism which is the refusal to actively believe that which is not proven (to oneself). This is a pretty rational position. Sure, people could go find out, but they probably don't have the time or inclination. I don't particularly care to find out, for example, about the tenets of every religion in the world, and prefer simply to remain skeptical on their claims. This is mostly because they have no effect on me at all, and I doubt my ability to have any real effect on anyone who does believe them - if either of these conditions were different, I might care more.
With AGW, I think the main source of disinterest is a feeling of total powerlessness. There's basically this simple feeling that no matter how educated one became on the subject it would have no effect whatsoever on the outcome. It would be a total waste of effort for the individual, the kind of thing you'd only do as a hobby, or because someone was paying you.
Having made the choice to remain mostly disinterested, and thus ignorant, skepticism is a fairly natural position to take. It's a "withholding of belief", rather than a "belief in the opposite".
It's not that it's hard to believe in AGW. It's that it's hard to be sure, without sacrificing a lot of time, or abdicating the responsibility for the surety to someone else. These are both sacrifices that a lot of people are unwilling to make for something that they can't influence or profit from.
I feel a similar way about a lot of scientific theories. How much effort am I really going to make finding out how much danger there is of large asteroids hitting the Earth? Without becoming an actual specialist, I couldn't hope to actually achieve anything by it other than perhaps making myself feel more or less safe. Same goes for the chances of a huge tsunami or volcanic eruption in Auckland. Or being hit by cosmic rays. All of these things pose huge risks for me, but there's also the counterbalancing understanding of my own powerlessness to really effect any purpose in deeply understanding the issue. The same amount of time could be spent doing something I find enjoyable or profitable, or even some altruistic act done simply to actually help someone in a concrete way, if my purpose in spending the time is moral rather than self-interested.
The apathy towards AGW is also two-pronged. Even if everyone on the planet believed it was certainly happening, I think opinions would be divided about whether we could actually do anything about it. Some of that would come back to unbelief in our ability to affect such a large physical system (which is the source of unbelief in AGW generally), but there would also be the unbelief in our ability to affect such a large social system as the entirety of humanity. In so far as general cooperation for "the general good of the planet, against powerful/wealthy interests" doesn't happen much in human history, it might seem quite scientific to believe there's bugger all chance of it happening this time.
-
TraceyMac - I have 2 remaining sisters who are nurses: between them, they have qualifications in general nursing & midwifery (both), psychiatry( one), a degree in nursing, and specialist qualification in ICU(one). And, they both use homeopathy...
I dont think there is ANY scientific verification of homeopathy (and I noted that when one of our sisters was dying of advanced cancer, homeopathy wasnt used.) I totally agree that if h. remedies dont do anything, they also dont do harm - and the placebo effect is -almost certainly what is operating.The touting of it as an effective measure beyond placebo effect is what makes me fight it. Example: occaisionally, I still get eczema: hydrocortisone creams work: NO homeopathic cream has ever worked.
-
To return to the issue of scientific literacy, part of the problem is there are so few things that are both easy to explain and are actually true at the same time. Case in point:
Daylight saving doesn't fade your curtains.
While the act of moving the clocks doesn't do anything directly to your curtains, one can argue that the forced changes in behaviour might. If it is dark when you normally get up, and you open your curtains, then the curtains will be not be exposed to sunlight, at least in the morning (and thus fade more slowly), if it's light when you get up, then there's a period during which time your curtains are in the sun, and therefore will fade more quickly. Therefore, for people who insist on getting up at the same hour regardless of circumstances, then daylight savings could fade their curtains.
What I'm trying to get at, is that there's so little we take for granted that is actually straight up "true". True-enough-under-most-circumstances for sure, but until we as a profession (I'm an environmental chemist, so a scientist too) stop using terms like "shown", "prove" etc... when all we mean is "this is our best guess [and we reckon it's a good one]", then we leave ourselves open to criticism that is both difficult to deflect, and most unfair. In my mind, the greatest challenge facing scientists is the mammoth task of somehow making the general public grasp that while nothing is certain, and nothing is as simple as it seems, that doesn't make it all totally garbage.
-
I can also see what happened at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. A small group that has been making climate measurements and conducting research for two decades increasingly found itself at the sharp end of a big argument and frankly did not cope.
A lot of it is that people have no idea what the working life of a senior academic in the UK is actually like. There's the teaching, and the lecture writing, and grad student supervision, of course. But then there are the endless course-team and Faculty meetings to attend, grant applications to write -- oh, and managing a laboratory, its staff, and its budget, too. Oh, and trying to get some actual research done so you can put a few articles out there for the REF.
The CRU guys are probably working 80-hour weeks, at least. It's not as if they're sitting round idly in their offices, just waiting for an FOI request to come through from yet another retired accountant in Swindon whose "climate scepticism" comes entirely from opinion pieces in the Telegraph.
-
@Russell
Your blithe assertions that 'someone' should have seen the CRU's plight and given them the resources to accede to the flood of vexatious FOI requests ignores a major problem: using what monies exactly? Universities here are not flush with cash, press offices often have as much as two whole staff!
Science funding is extremely explicit about what you can spend on what and trying to get permission from the funders to use money from pot A for another purpose, while possible takes time and no little bureaucracy. AFAIK there is no source of funds you can apply to here in the UK to deal with FOI requests.
The other problem is that much of the data was proprietary, from the UK Met office which is somewhat notorious in jealously guarding its data so it can make money of it. Perhaps the CRU should have made stronger efforts to change this, but it was not really a problem for them so why should they? The FOI requests asking for access to these data could not, legally be granted.
-
Having made the choice to remain mostly disinterested, and thus ignorant, skepticism is a fairly natural position to take. It's a "withholding of belief", rather than a "belief in the opposite".
Is that like agnostic not atheist?
nothing is certain, and nothing is as simple as it seems
Untenable positions for those who believe in a 'daddy knows best', 'I am the decider' model of social leadership. Or for a fearful public. However, science's overstatement of certainty is its own worst enemy when it meets a motivated, well-resourced and cynical opposition like climate change deniers.
-
Nathaniel Wilson - I think I will onsend this post of your's (with permission) round some of my family - the ones that listen to talkback radio but who actually do have quite good minds-
I come into a scientific perspective because I love & know & respect insects/arachnida, history, fish, archaeology, ornithology,music,cooking annnnd life-
and we are, quintessentially, the luckiest humans alive - so far-we can know- we can find out - we can be sure & assured-
I am a poet, Nathaniel Wilson, and I respect scientists deeply. You have peers who are capable of assessing your work, recognising through physical trial/processes and intellectual judgement whether or not your hypothosis is a goer- poets can only send words into the dark-
-
Is that like agnostic not atheist?
I guess so. I think you can still hold an agnostic position, even after having examined all the evidence quite deeply though. But yes, agnosticism is quite a common choice if you haven't found the time or reason to go into the guts of religion, and aren't inclined to faith.
In the analogy there are probably "agnostic" scientists on something like AGW, taking the position of neither believing in it nor not believing in it, but I'd be surprised if it was a common position. Ultimately the question is about something factual - it is happening or it isn't, and even if you think it can't be proved either way for sure, you'd probably have an opinion on it. This contrasts with a lot of informed religious agnostics who consider the questions of religion to be meaningless. But certainly the uninformed ones are analogous.
-
You have peers who are capable of assessing your work, recognising through physical trial/processes and intellectual judgement whether or not your hypothosis is a goer- poets can only send words into the dark-
Send it on, won't bother me. Without turning this into too much of a love-fest, I think you're selling yourself short eh, just 'cause poetry ain't science doesn't make it any less worthwhile. Surely getting a nod from a reader/listener or bringing a smile on their face is just as telling?
-
Nathaniel Wilson - assuredly - if it happens.
But one is a matter of factual dealing and part of the other is emotional dealing no matter how adroit or apt the words, and the all of it is connection.
You fellas do it with facts (and peer reviews!)
My lot do it with word tendrils and -eventually -I wish I could send a bird from here, a tui,a rirerire, and ,let you all hear
(now, I know there are ways to encompass all our birdsong - but -
@Islander
As a scientist who is also wont to put words on the page as verse I know what you mean. Many of my poems are just musings aloud and may never be read by another, that is not their purpose. Not to mention that I have never been brave enough to deny a poem its birth when I feel one looming up from the depths of my internal darkness and hammering on the back doors of my mind for release.
Scientific work on the other hand screams for release to the world, that is its purpose. Before publication it will have been spoken at group meetings, seminars, conferences and with visitors to the lab as well as long suffering spouses and children ;-)
-
Peter Ashby - and would there be a better definition of the kind of thinking our kind of human does than-- science reviewed/examined& promulgated, and further adjudged,: then linked with wild poems flung out for the joy of new knowledge**
not necessarily deep understanding - just the sipping, the sweet hints
**weirdly, the koukou have been calling loudly through this night - but owls are like that-
-
Your blithe assertions that 'someone' should have seen the CRU's plight and given them the resources to accede to the flood of vexatious FOI requests ignores a major problem: using what monies exactly? Universities here are not flush with cash, press offices often have as much as two whole staff!
Our sympathy with the CRU scientists does not change the law, Peter.
From the link I posted upthread, from the UK's deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith:
"The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."
And:
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham research institute on climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics, said: "I think that anybody reading the emails that have been posted online will have concluded that some of those showed an intention to avoid complying with the FOI. I always thought that those emails were the most damning.
"I think this is quite damaging. It remains to be seen why these requests were not handled properly. I think regardless of any action by the information commissioner, the university should clearly take appropriate action in response to this."
The six month statute of limitations under the FOI Act has elapsed, so there's no possibility of prosecution, but the handling of requests is being investigated as part of an independent review by Sir Muir Russell, which has a website where evidence is being progressively published.
FOI/OIA laws are now an essential element of our democracies, and it does appear that the scientists sought to deliberately frustrate the law. It's very reasonable to feel sympathetic for them, even angry at the position they were placed in. But no amount of special pleading will change the law.
-
In my mind, the greatest challenge facing scientists is the mammoth task of somehow making the general public grasp that while nothing is certain, and nothing is as simple as it seems, that doesn't make it all totally garbage.
False certainty and faux simplicity............and the general public.
Well, when the All Blacks lose at the World Cup next year, that earth shattering event might lay the ground work for you, um, in New Zealand.
Cant offer any suggestions for the rest of the world. -
How can you have confidence in a scientist's predictions after he has admitted throwing away his raw data? Is this kind of behaviour be acceptable in any field or profession? None that I have been involved in. As this is a foundational dataset for the AGW theory, its "dissappearance" ought to stop the AGW train in its tracks (but it wont).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
It is long past due for the world of AGW to be forced open. For a start a lot of the AGW research is being undertaken on the taxpayers nickel, so it ought to be available for review.
One small victory on that front. Be interesting to see where it leads.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/20/climate-sceptic-wins-data-victory
Why be skeptical? Because of all the hysterical predicitions that haven't come to pass. Because scientists have made mistakes before and will again in the future. Scientists are only human, they are subject to vainty and corruption like anyone else, and there is more money on the AGW gravy train for scientists, politicians and business people than any gravy train around.
But most of all, skepticism is necessary because the consequences of the proposed solutions to the theorised agw problem are so dramatic both in cost and impact, that we should be sure before we move down that path. AGW has to prove its case comprehensively and completely, it is not upto skeptics to prove the agw crowd is wrong. The dog ate my data doesn't cut it.
-
I'll just go get my bingo card.
-
(& Rich, the Manhattan Project consisted of the scientific Establishment of two continents. & it wasn't a particularly isolated occurrence either:`I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London'?)
I'll take one lazy swipe at that with the straight razor of deconstruction, and point out that the original post didn't mention the Manhattan Project, it specifically named a single utterance by a single individual.
If I wanted to go on slashing, I'd start asking questions like: 'what was the context?'
Did he intend 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. And I for one can't wait to crispy-fry me some gooks. Out of my way, peasant, for I am a whitecoat'.
Or did he intend 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. Oh Lord forgive me for the horrendous mistake I have made.'
And in the context of context, I'd point out that there was, at the time, a war on. No-one really knew what the other side was up to, but they knew that Germany was definitely trying to develop nukes. No-one really knew what the bomb would do, or what the long-term implications were. You can't apply today's morals to yesterdays context. Hindsight is 20-20, as the cliché goes.
And a quick peek at wiki:
After the war Oppenheimer was a chief advisor to the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of nuclear power and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. After provoking the ire of many politicians with his outspoken political opinions during the Red Scare, he had his security clearance revoked in a much-publicized and politicized hearing in 1954.
And if the original post meant 'The Manhattan Project', rather than Oppenheimer, then let's have a quick think about that.
'People' don't trust 'scientists' because of the Manhattan Project? Really? I'm finding that more than a little hard to swallow.
I could go on, and construct nuanced arguments, link to sources, and so on, but it would take me an hour or two. And I think I'd start getting a taste of what your average climatologists feels. Respond to argument, deconstruct argument, point out falsification of facts, point out facts taken out of context, end up back where we started. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum so you end up running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.
-
How can you have confidence in a scientist's predictions after he has admitted throwing away his raw data? Is this kind of behaviour be acceptable in any field or profession? None that I have been involved in. As this is a foundational dataset for the AGW theory, its "dissappearance" ought to stop the AGW train in its tracks (but it wont).
As your link notes, the uncorrected data were thrown away -- more than 20 years ago, it seems worth noting, and before Phil Jones was even there -- because the university didn't give the CRU a big enough building to hold its stuff.
The historical disposal of things that latterly seem important is hardly limited to science. Broadcasting has an extraordinary record in this regard. You can put as many "words" in "quotation" marks as you "like" -- the reality of the uncorrected data being biffed out a quarter of a century ago seems fairly prosaic.
Unless, of course, your actual aim is to build a conspiracy theory.
-
Having made the choice to remain mostly disinterested, and thus ignorant, skepticism is a fairly natural position to take. It's a "withholding of belief", rather than a "belief in the opposite".
@Ben
I don't find much to disagree with in your analysis, but I do disagree slightly with this conclusion. My view is that most people, whether consciously or not, have weighed up the lifestyle changes that they as individuals and as societal groups would have to make, and have, consciously or sub-consciously, decided to positively reject the scientific claims.
Contemplation of the sacrifices that would have to be made in order to actually make a significant difference is far, far too huge and scary a thought for most poeple to grapple with. Far easier to go into a state of denial. If I should loudly enough, it isn't actually happening, right?
-
there is more money on the AGW gravy train for scientists, politicians and business people than any gravy train around
Really? Someone should tell all those pharma, oil, gun, tobacco, banking, mining, airline and car lobbyists that they're in the wrong business.
After all, as noted upthread, science institutions clearly need more people to deal with all the FOI requests, and clearly they can afford to pay well, given all that money you've noted is sloshing around.
-
confidence in a scientist's predictions after he has admitted throwing away his raw data?
While I was working in Davis California we had to move the lab to the new biology building. Of course in the process we went through all the drawers and cupboards in the lab. Amongst all the things from our own lab there were many bits and pieces from previous occupants most of which we simply had to discard.
But one drawer held hundreds of microscope slides with thin sections of plant tissue on them. We weren't really sure where they were from until we noticed initials scratched on some of the slides. It turned out that we had a drawer full of Katherine Esau's original samples. For us those were pretty special samples and gave us a warm fuzzy feeling of being connected to a piece of the history of plant biology.
There wasn't much we could do with them so we kept a few and threw the rest away :(. That sadly is what happens to original data sometimes.
The fact that those samples had been abandoned by her does not make Katherine Esau's insights into plant development and anatomy any less valuable. It simply is the practical side of doing science.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.