THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do people distrust science? Why do some of us reject consensus on a whole range of scientific findings? As Professor Stephan Lewandowsky explains, it often comes down to the way we look at the world.
What does Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity have to do with the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)?
What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer?
What does Reye’s syndrome have in common with the CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer?
And what do all those issues have to do with the fact our climate is rapidly changing due to human greenhouse gas emissions?
The answer is that in all those cases, solid scientific evidence was met with vociferous opposition.
The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition has been organised by vested interests, often successfully delaying political and regulatory action that posed a perceived threat to corporate profits. The peer-reviewed literature has clearly identified the subterfuge, distortion and manufacture of doubt with which vested interests delayed the control of tobacco, CFCs and sulphur emissions.
Even relatively small threats to profits can cause vested interests to spring into obfuscatory action as is revealed by the case involving the makers of aspirin. Aspirin consumption by children with viral illnesses increases the risk of Reye’s syndrome — fatal in one third of all patients — by 4,000%.
When this evidence became known, the aspirin industry geared up a counter-campaign that delayed the introduction of simple warning labels on their products about the risk of Reye’s syndrome by more than five years.
Before the warning labels became mandatory in the US, some 500 cases were reported annually; today, less than a handful of cases are reported each year.
The unnecessary death toll is readily obtained by multiplication.
The death toll from inaction on climate change, currently estimated by the World Health Organisation to be at 150,000 annually, is incomparably greater. Sadly, this is set to rise further in light of the organised manufacture of doubt by vested interests and their enablers in the media.
Much has been written about those “merchants of doubt” and the mendacious media malpractice, which has created a chimerical public “debate” about issues were long ago resolved in the scientific literature.
However, although those powerful factors must not be underestimated, they are only part of the story and two other issues must be considered.
First, organised opposition to science can arise for reasons other than a perceived threat to corporate profits.
Second, forestalling political action requires more than just organised opposition to scientific evidence — that opposition must also fall on fertile ground in the public. No disinformation campaign can succeed without a “market” of consumers willing to buy into it. So what makes average citizens receptive to such a campaign?
To illustrate the first point, examination of the opposition to Einstein’s theory of relativity reveals no obvious involvement of financial interests (which is not to minimise a political component involving nationalism and anti-semitism).
Intriguingly, a primary factor behind the opposition to Einstein within the scientific community arguably arose out of the thwarted career aspirations of physicists unable to cope with his revolutionary ideas.
Relativity threatened the “knowledge systems” of Einstein’s opponents; dearly-held ideas such as the ephemeral “ether” presumed to occupy outer space or the invariance of time were destined for the dustbin if relativity proved to be correct — as of course it has. Those threats were sufficient for Einstein’s scientific opponents to hold a rambunctious rally in Berlin’s Philharmonic Hall during which he was denounced as a fraud.
Threat is the key word here. Threats to financial interests. Threats to one’s career or to one’s ability to keep pace with rapidly-evolving revolutionary knowledge.
The notion of threat is key to understanding the rejection of evidence; whether it’s by vested interests, by mediocre scientists fearful of becoming outdated, or by the public at large when confronted by inconvenient science.
The public can feel threatened by scientific issues at many levels and for many reasons.
Perhaps most relevant to present public debate are threats to people’s “worldviews” – the very fundamental beliefs people hold about how the world should be organised.
Worldviews come in many shades and forms, but one prominent distinction — popularised by Professor Dan Kahan at Yale University — is between people whose worldview is “hierarchical-individualistic” and those whose worldview is “egalitarian-communitarian”.
Hierarchical-individualistic people (HI from here on) believe rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed differentially and on the basis of people’s own decisions without collective interference or assistance.
Egalitarian-communitarian (EC) people, by contrast, believe rights and goods should be distributed more equally and society should bear partial responsibility for securing the conditions of individual flourishing.
Like all binary classifications, the distinction between HI and EC worldviews lacks nuance and oversimplifies the complexity of human worldviews. Nonetheless, the distinction is extremely powerful and permits prediction of people’s attitudes towards numerous scientific issues.
Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals.
Why?
Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate.
To manage that threat to an HI worldview, the fundamental laws of physics underlying climate science must be denied. The greenhouse properties of CO₂ may have been known for 150 years, but those indubitable physical facts cannot compete with the need to protect free enterprise from the threats posed by socialism, communism, Nazism, Green “watermelons”, a corrupt IPCC, Greenpeace, the all-powerful solar-energy lobby, to name but a few of the imaginary monsters and enemies that are awakened by the peer-reviewed evidence.
Lest one think it is only climate change that elicits such emotion and seemingly irrational behaviour, similar effects arise with issues such as mandatory HPV vaccinations.
Although at first glance one might think protecting young women from cervical cancer is a worthwhile goal, HPV vaccinations have turned into an emotive and highly-politicised issue.
Why?
Because mandatory vaccinations give control to the state over parental decisions. Because the protection afforded by the vaccine may encourage young women to engage in sex. The resulting perceived threat to an HI worldview outweighs, for those individuals, the threat posed by cervical cancer itself.
Worldview is crucial to understanding people’s risk perception. And it is not only HI individuals who respond to threats to their worldviews; for EC individuals there are mirror images involving nuclear power or nanotechnology.
It is revealing to analyse how far people are prepared to go when they are exposed to belief-threatening scientific evidence. In one study, people dismissed the scientific method itself when confronted with threatening information. People will rather declare that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically than accept evidence that’s in opposition to their threatened beliefs.
In light of these data it’s not surprising there can be yawning gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance of that knowledge. Those situations necessarily cause immense frustration to the scientific community because, after all, the scientists believe they know, whereas segments of the public seem to deny.
The historical record largely affirms that view. Relativity is true, CFCs did cause the ozone hole, HIV causes AIDS, tobacco is bad for you, and yes, greenhouse gas emissions do cause climate change.
Are there ways in which such gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance can be bridged?
Potentially, yes.
There is much evidence that the framing of information facilitates its acceptance when it no longer threatens people’s worldview. HI individuals are more likely to accept climate science when the proposed solution involves nuclear power than when it involves emission cuts.
Similarly, the messenger matters. HPV vaccination is more likely to be found acceptable by HI individuals if arguments in its favour are presented by someone clearly identified as hierarchical-individualistic.
Conversely, acceptance of HPV vaccination collapses if the exact same information is presented by a bearded, latte-sipping academic with long hair and short pants. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s strong support for action against climate change is thus of considerable import.
Finally, people are more likely to accept inconvenient evidence after their worldviews have been affirmed. In a nutshell, if people are given an opportunity to take pride in their embrace of free markets and unregulated enterprise, they are subsequently more likely to accept scientific evidence that would otherwise be deemed too threatening to their worldview.
Luckily – and somewhat ironically – science has some of the best tools needed to understand why people sometimes resist science.
This is the sixth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.
- Part One: Does Australia care about science?
- Part Two: What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?
- Part Three: Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method
- Part Four: Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you
- Part Five: Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that
- Part Seven: When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud
- Part Eight: Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins
- Part Nine: Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science
- Part Ten: Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel
- Part Eleven: Scientists and politicians – the same but different?
- Part Twelve: Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist
- Part Thirteen: Selling science: the lure of the dark side
- Part Fourteen: Way off balance: science and the mainstream media
Mark Carter
logged in via Facebook
This article seems to come close but then drifts off wildly towards the end. For example, "if people are given an opportunity to take pride in their embrace of free markets and unregulated enterprise, they are subsequently more likely to accept scientific evidence"- that is a frankly bizarre statement. The prime advocates of stopping HPV and climate change denial are the exact political class which have embraced free markets and unregulated enterprise!
The public's engagement with science is filtered almost exclusively through the media industry. This is an industry which uses and abuses science as simply another source from which to concoct products or as a tactic to influence culture and politics. People don't trust science today largely thanks to the media industry's efforts.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
I keep getting censored, I don't swear. I try not to call people ugly names such as "climate sceptic" So perhaps I'm exposing lies.
I would like to pose a question, All these articles published here are by Government scientists in favour of the government position, is it a sign of propaganda when the opposing view is presented not by someone actually opposed but by another government scientist who is kind enough to explain that view to us.
Mr Lewandasky, another government paid scientist is good enough to give us the opposing view ,and then explain how ludicrous it is.
If you need propaganda and lies global warming NAZIS then maybe your position is untenable.
Comment removed by moderator.
Joel Courtney
Technologist
You may find that the last paragraph, if indicative of your general comment demeanour, is part of the cause for any claimed censorship (note: without proof of http post events to ensure that it's not poor connectivity issues).
I find that News Limited regularly prevents my comments on their pages from being published, have wondered the same, but never resorted to name calling. To quote one of Australia's most influential radio presenters:
"…name-calling is the province of those who can't sustain an intellectual argument…"
— 2GB, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 28th September, 2011
Joel Courtney
Technologist
You're equating the phrase "denier" and "sceptic" (the latter held as a badge of honour widely amongst people not willing to face the full force of peer review and scientific method) with the National Socialist Party of Germany - accountable for the torture and deaths of how many people?
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Here is your connection between peer reviewed science,empirical evidence, and killing people for their race .
This august body is precisely the same one right here in Australia currently asking us to trust them about global warming.
When it seems they are using the same measures to judge truth as they did 100 years ago
http://onehumanrace.com/docs/darwins_bodysnatchers.asp
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Theyve been kind enough to send me 7 emails telling me my comments are not inline with community standards and have been removed.
In other words agree with government apologists or we will censor your comments
Joel Courtney
Technologist
So you have read and accepted the <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/community_standards">community standards</a> and are frustrated when they apply them?
On the plus side, you'll note that you've been notified. This is a step above News Ltd's approach where they only allow for the opt-in of notification on publication - not on rejection and on the grounds that it occurs.
"Government apologists"? Oh, come on. Get serious with your commentary on the topic and perhaps you'll be taken seriously. You'll see plenty of "dissenters" (using your language) below.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
The point i've made several times and is continuously deleted by the Conversation is-
Even if global warming is true, why is it presupposed by science that we would prefer to give up our soverignty, democracy and freedom to a Global body to save our skins.
That debate has nothing to do with science.
The sheer arrogance of these guys that they believe their intellectual superiority overrides the average Australian's free choice.
Personally I'd rather die of sunburn a freeman by Law than live as a slave to a coolclimate global regime.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Next time you remember your forefathers on anzac day,who charged machine guns for King and country, keep in mind you're trading what they fought for, to save your skin
Joel Courtney
Technologist
Shall we review the references on the website linked:
Read moreThe first is "Creation Ministries International" - a website representing a movement dedicated to their belief in an absolute interpretation of their version (not mentioning which one as far as I could discover) of the Christian Bible. To wit:
<blockquote>The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
1. Scripture teaches a recent…
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Are you suggesting this same scientific authority did not claim the superiority of the white race had been proven beyond doubt, via empirical evidence/ peer review?
Comment removed by moderator.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Well , that has nothing to do with what Im saying here. But if you're suggesting I have a way of communicating with clarity and a little poetry, I'll concede the point.
Joel Courtney
Technologist
"…name-calling is the province of those who can't sustain an intellectual argument…"
— 2GB, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 28th September, 2011
Comment removed by moderator.
Eddy Schmid
Retired
WOW, bit off topic arn't we, however if your going to delve into such matters, it's only fair you include the Fourth Riech antics in Israel and the deaths from their actions as well ? To hell with it, let's cast a wider net and include NATO and the U.S. as well with their nifamous Guantanumo and laws to lock people up without recourse.
Eddy Schmid
Retired
Dontcha just LOVE that phrase, "Community standards".
I'ts almost as if it's some kind of law or something.
Problem is, who defines Community standards, is the Community involved at all in that defining, or is it simply the media and government ?
If the later, there's a name for that too, and it's most definately not DEMOCRACY.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
And some people (usually with sufficient knowledge of science) are perceptive enough to see where there are faults in "scientific" arguments or experiments that have been overlooked by the "scientists" and their peers - or errors in their logic such as when they assume that the absorption of IR radiation by carbon dioxide implies that process causes global warming.
Einstein saw fault and, despite the objections, put forward a theory which no one could disprove.
When penicillin was discovered it…
Read moreJoel Courtney
Technologist
Have you looked into the Berkeley Earth project ( http://berkeleyearth.org/ ) - founded and backed by those claiming skepticism (eg: Charles G. Koch) that the science backing climatologists findings was flawed found anything but a collusive environment that you are claiming (without evidence cited directly mind).
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Douglas Cotton's repeated posts of discredited arguments provide a splendid example of the rejection of science.
An example is his repeated discussion of a century old experiment on literal greenhouses. This would only be relevant to the current debate if the Earth were enclosed in a literal greenhouse, of glass and wood.
After reading Douglas Cotton's posts, one may want to also read the description of pseudo-science at http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
But Michael, there is simply nothing but Arrhenius' theory that even puts forward a case for a causal link between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. And you can't ignore Prof Wood's experiment which can easily be repeated. If models can't even explain his results, how can they explain the real world where winds and all sorts of natural events play havoc with assumptions of calm conditions.
Yes, yes, there was an apparent correlation for a cherry-picked period late last century, but correlation…
Read moreDerek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer
Wood's experiment was deeply flawed even in respect of greenhouses. He didn't consider what happens at night, e.g. And it's even less relevant to the atmosphere. Light hitting a greenhouse has already been filtered by atmosphere, so has a different mix of wavelengths from TOA light; and there's no convection above the tropopause.
Take a look here: http://boole.stanford.edu/Wood/
Troy Barry
Postgraduate student
Doug makes a fair point - the examples in the article can be framed as upsets of scientific consensus just as well as they can be framed a triumph of science over vested interest.
And then framing global warming as a science-versus-vested interests conflict can be challenged as well - it can just as comfortably be framed as a conflict between competing vested interests. Any collective organisation, especially governments, super-national entitities and anything funded by them, have a vested interest…
Read moreDennis Alexander
logged in via LinkedIn
"You should know about diffusion of thermal energy in the atmosphere which results in GHG molecules collecting and radiating away that energy."
The energy these GHG molecules collect was radiating away from the earch's surface. What happens is that they radiate some of that energy back towards the earths surface, some sideways for future capture and radiation in multiple directions (some back towards the earth's surface, and so on), thus reducing the net escape of radiant energy away from the earth's surface, through the atmosphere and into space. And we won't even bother with your misrepresentation of the whole energy transfer cycle.
Telling half the story is not good physics and telling less than 10% of the story might explain why you're not working in the field.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Derek:
There is fairly minimal filtering by the atmosphere that is likely to have any significant effect on the overall result. It certainly does not debunk Wood's experiment, and you haven't shown any reason why it should. After all, we are generally talking about IR radiation supposedly coming from the surface after all that filtering of incoming UV and visible light. Your comment "there's no convection above the tropopause" is incorrect - any movement of air up or down due to temperature…
Read moreDoug Cotton
IT Manager
It is you who is telling half the story. Please stop treating me like a beginner in all this. I'm sure you could have read what you just wrote on my website written months ago. Try reading what I have actually said above in the post replying to Derek.
Clue: Apart from the energy they capture and then emit from IR radiation from the surface, GHG molecules also acquire thermal energy by diffusion from oxygen and nitrogen molecules, because these molecules cannot cool in any other way, except perhaps for slight cooling as their thermal energy converts to potential energy when they rise to areas of lower pressure.
Go read http://earth-climate.com/CaseAgainst.html
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Light hitting the atmosphere is extensively "filtered". This is particularly true of the X-ray, ultra-violet and parts of the infrared. Even some visible light is scattered and absorbed.
Astronomers are well aware of this, since they observe light from celestial objects through the atmosphere. Douglas Cotton's statement on this topic merely confirms his pseudo-science credentials.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Again Ive had comment removed for being outside community standards.
I'll ask again, why does The conversation only have articles in support of the government position , written by scientists who are living off the government teat?
Clearly through comments we can see there are many scientists who do not follow the official position.
Could we please have a few alternate views in these articles?
Rather than a continuous stream of apologists from the government
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Is it possible there is an agenda here that goes way beyond the science itself?
Are there any scientists in Australia who have experienced career problems, lack of funding or other obstacles because they have not agreed with the official government views on what constitutes scientific fact?
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
My point in the first paragraph was that the filtering was not likely to have any effect on the result. In any event, the experiment was in the "real world" atmosphere at ground level. It showed that blocking infrared radiation with a cover that emulated carbon dioxide caused no additional warming. He deduced all warming was as a result of trapped thermal energy which was being conveyed by convection - not a result of trapped or back radiation.
And Michael, you still avoided the question (yet once more) about how oxygen and nitrogen molecules shed their thermal energy when they can't radiate it away.
And you apparently have no explanation as to why you seem to keep referring to trends in temperature data having to be linear rather than curved.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Yes, indeed their plot is not unlike the one I have been using for a long time, namely the second image here: http://earth-climate.com/photo0.jpg
I also read that Judith Curry, a Georgia Tech climate researcher with more than 30 years experience who was also part of the BEST project, has said "there is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped." She looked at the same data Muller did and noted it shows global temperatures haven't increased since the late 1990s.
It seems they did all that work but didn't take the extra step of determining best-fit trends.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
See is wrong, her statistical analysis is incorrect, see
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/exposing_a_climate_science_fra.php
for detailed reasons (although you have to scroll down a bit, persevere, it is a very clear explanation) from a physicist (as some people seem to be more impressed by physicists rather than climate scientists, but they have pointed out the same error as well)
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Doug the plan of the proponents of Global Warming tyranny is to draw those who oppose it into the minutia of scientific argument. So the average person tunes out.
Appealing to fairness or intellectual integrity when there is a hidden agenda driving the science is pointless.
If you see the grave dangers to our Law, soverignty and freedom that will result from "thinking globally" you might be better served not playing into their hands.
Argue only the big picture
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
So we have to depend on blogs for the truth do we? Good. I've got one too. I prefer curved trends like Trenberth's on Skeptical Science - Trenberth is well known and Skeptical Science is an award winning site at least. See the curved red line for sea surface temperatures on the plot with a yellow background and go argue with Trenberth about this plot which clearly shows a maximum in 2006 if not 2005, followed by a decline which, by the way, when we add current data for 2011 makes it look even steeper downwards.
http://skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.html
And if you don't feel Trenberth's plot is a long enough time period, try this one http://climate-change-theory.com/latest.jpg from 1979. There's that curved trend again.
Joel Courtney
Technologist
Wait, Doug, are you serious? "So we have to depend on blogs for the truth do we"?
Shall I refer you to the previous references you've made as the sole basis of claims?
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
We will never separate science from some sort of incentives when research grants remain the norm. Those advising the IPCC have received at least $20 million, maybe $30 million by now. Climategate showed how they manipulated the peer-review system, put pressure on journals even leading to one editor being replaced, etc etc. This was all whitewashed on the grounds of no provable criminal offense, but the damage was done and the decisions made based on what has now appeared to be false findings. I have shown how nuclear tests could have caused the warming, how carbon dioxide can cool the atmosphere and how curved trends should be applied to temperature data indicating declines in such.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Yes, by all means, and the physics too - Wikipedia will do.
Then be the first to prove me wrong about how GHG molecules cool the atmosphere.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Completely irrelevant to the point that was being made, which was that Judith Curry's statement was incorrect. You can draw pretty lines through any collection of dots, but without rigorous statistics to back them up, the pretty lines are just that (which was Ethans point, the statistics show that the world is still warming. Here's some more lines
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
[citation needed]
See also
http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/
And curved trendlines are a waste of time
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2009/01/australians-war-on-science-keeps-on.html
Wherein curved trendlines show that earth will heat exponentially
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-warming-updated.html
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
TPK: Career problems?
Yes. Timothy Curtin. See his post below: "I have direct experience of that, as recipient of condign punishment for potentially threatening career aspirations by challenging the climate orthodoxy."
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
I will repeat what I said before. The facts supporting Global Warming were mostly discovered on the watch of conservative governments that were indifferent to, or openly hostile to, the concept of global warming. So the scientific consensus on AGW was until recently, the direct opposite of "official government views on what constitutes scientific fact"
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm
Oliver Milman
journalist
This is an hilarious comment. It reminds me of the Stewart Lee sketch, where he's talking to an ignorant taxi driver who then splutters "But you can prove anything with facts!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw
Can you please point to evidence of this 'hidden agenda?' After all, it would involve tens of thousands of people around the world, from all branches of the scientific community and hundreds of governments of differing political viewpoints. Surely someone would speak out?
Most governments…
Read moreThe PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
When i went to school i was taught to prove whatever claims I made by giving sources. I made the point then in my tender years, that no matter my point of view, I could find sources to support it.
25 years later, I think I was damn right.That method of equating truth to me is senseless.
I will tell you what's occurring and you may then follow the roadsigns and equate the truth to your satisfaction. Or not. If you need to be spoonfed perhaps you should become a university student.
They seem to be good at it, then become our policy makers.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
I've read historical books- in particular about the protestant revolution
I've read the founding english laws.
I 've read quite a few of the announcements the vatican has made, that are on record.
I've read books written by the founders of the Lucis Trust (originally Lucifer Trust) who wrote the humanitarian charter for the United Nations.
I've read the 2 main climate Bills.
I've read the king James Bible.
There are the major roadsigns. Read them and see what conclusion you come to.
Eddy Schmid
Retired
There is a lovely publication available from publishers called SILENCING DISSENT, written by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Madddison, published by ALLEN&UNWIN.
An excellent publication that clearly details the lengths and depths our Govt and media, as well as interested parties will go to to do just that.
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer
Of course, the scientific maverick (Einstein) battling the entrenched view can and is being used to frame the anti-AGW scientific minority's attack on the consensus.
There are many such episodes in the history of science. My impression, though as a retiree I'm reluctant to admit this, is that the science is eventually settled on the side of youth. As Max Planck has been paraphrased, science advances one funeral at a time. It is interesting that Lindzen, Pielke etc. are nearer the exit door than most.
But impressions can be biased. When the upstart is wrong, it's not newsworthy. Research paper anyone?
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Now that they start the brainwashing about climate change even in Primary school I guess there is good reason why the older generation (like you and me, Derek) could have a less biased viewpoint. But being out of the "science" workforce, most don't have the influence to bring about "manipulation of proxy records," "suppression of other viewpoints," "intimidation of journal editors" etc, let alone manipulate peer-review.
I suggest these observations have nothing to do with the ages of Profs. Lindzen and Douglass - the Climategate records will stand in history and make news again when the current cooling and falling sea levels continue long enough to convince the world of their error. Perhaps they too will be gone or buried by then.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
The concept of Einstein as a scientific maverick is overplayed. He published in the peer reviewed literature, scientists accepted his work relatively quickly, because it provided an excellent description of our Universe, and he won the Nobel Prize in 1921.
This is very different from the climate "sceptics". "Sceptics" often operate outside the peer reviewed literature and relatively few scientists accept their conclusions, because "sceptics" research is often dubious.
Despite claims to the contrary, many "sceptics" have rejected science in practice.
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer
"The concept of Einstein as a scientific maverick is overplayed. "
True, though bear in mind that his Nobel wasn't (officially) for relativity.
Wrt age, just found this on w'pedia: "57% were substantially older than Einstein, one third was around the same age, and only two persons were substantially younger"
(Total 90?) And it gives Einstein's response as "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." So that's one author, not one fact. I.e., having 100 authors involved reduced its credibility. Nice point.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
" As Max Planck has been paraphrased, science advances one funeral at a time."
Except it doesn't, when historians actually looked at the acceptance of Quantum Theory, old established scientists were just as likely as young and upcoming scientists to accept quantum theory. Plancks comment was a nice piece of quotable snark, but not actually true.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Yes, interesting to note that government scientific position 100 years ago was that Aborigines wren't human but a missing link in evolution. This position facillitated the murder of many poor souls right here in Australia in the name of enlightenment and government's official scientific position.
Isaac Newton has stood the test of time because he found his science through study of the bible.
In fact the bible never needs correction or revision, despite constantly being ridiculed by science throughout recent history
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Troll - ignore
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Why do people reject science? here's why
http://onehumanrace.com/docs/darwins_bodysnatchers.asp
Rob Riel
Publisher
Oh dear. So those who questioned the methodology behind Michael Manne’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, for instance, are ‘rejecting science’ by calling attention to the many flagrant errors in his paper. Journalists who reported on the matter are guilty of ‘mendacious media malpractice’ for publishing the criticisms of both statisticians and less impetuous climate scientists. And any scientist who still asserts that there might actually have been a Medieval Warm Period (they are many) is a mere…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
"So those who questioned the methodology behind Michael Manne’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, for instance, are ‘rejecting science’ by calling attention to the many flagrant errors in his paper."
Except, again, there aren't (many flagrant errors, and if you bring up the "Program creates a hockey stick from anything" claim, that's a myth that has been debunked many times). And since the 'Hockey Stick" has been independently replicated by at least seven different groups, using different assumptions and methodologies, anyone who still ignores the "Hockey Stick" is ignoring science.
Stephan Lewandowsky
Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristol
Precisely. The obsession with a single 1998 paper when there are dozens of others that make the same point independently is itself evidence of exactly what I was talking about--rejection of science for, quite likely, ideological reasons.
keith may
Mr
I suggest you both do more reading up on the matter in hand, see
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
papers and publications all the way up to 2008 referenced which either refute Mann's Hockey Stick or cast more light on the situation.
This is a far from settled science.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Throwing around labels like "elite boffin" and patronising comments like "happy sailing, prof." is a poor substitute for a decent argument.
Rob Riel should also reread the comments thread.
Einstein published in the peer reviewed literature, his results were subject to scrutiny, accepted because they provided an excellent description of nature, and he won the Nobel Prize in 1921.
This is very different to the modus operandi of many climate "sceptics". Few publish in the peer reviewed literature and even fewer stand up to scrutiny. Rejecting studies that have been clearly proved erroneous is common sense, not elitist.
I suspect most scientists and academics are perfectly comfortable with counter-consensus papers on climate if they are peer reviewed and stand up to further scrutiny. The recent Conversation article on the CERN CLOUD experiment is an example of this.
keith may
Mr
Just out of interest, given your points on peer review and scrutiny, whats your take on the BEST project publishing papers prior to peer review and the resultant press coverage? Do you consider they approached obtaining feedback in the right way?
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Like much ground-breaking science, Michael Mann's early studies had problems that have been subsequently identified. However, if his methods were grossly flawed then his results would have been completely refuted by other peer reviewed studies.
Instead, there is actually remarkable similarity between temperature reconstructions, derived with a variety of methods. This is discussed in http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
McKitrick is wrong, pure and simple see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
and
http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf
for simple accessible primers. Some of the links to the per-reviewed literature may work for non-subscribers of these journals
keith may
Mr
that book was published in 2006 (bottom page II), the research has moved on - for example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-greenland-significantly-warmer-than-present-several-times-in-the-last-4000-years/
seems to indicate that at least for Greenland in the last 4000 years it has been considerably warmer than now and that the current warming is within normal climate variability over the last 1000 years... They also clearly show the MWP - something the original Hockey Stick 'removed'.
wattsupwiththat.com is a good place for active debate, good for balancing against coverage on other sites and considering the other POV in this debate.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
ARXiv open review of preprints before formal publication is widely accepted, indeed encouraged, in the physics and other scientific communities (that's why ARXiv was established in the first place.
Strangely, no one in the climate "skeptic" community seem to worry when Anthony Watts or other "skeptics" makes unsubstantiated remarks, but when the BEST group have the temerity to make available their evidence that supports the climate consensus, rather than the "skeptics" (and remember the BEST group was a "skeptic" group, and Watts expected them to support his stand), suddenly the "skeptic" community are howling with outrage.
Chris Were
logged in via Facebook
I think part of the problem is also the lack of "easy" access to facts and validation of information for the public.
In the media, you often have the "claims" of a scientist with 30 years experience being put up against "claims"of a "researcher" (who is actually a lobbiest of a vested interest) with little / no scientific expertise in the given area. The general public sees a 30 second news story and can't distinguish the scientific credibility between the two, so just agree with their pre-existing ideas on the topic at hand.
The Internet has made a wealth of information available, but it is still very difficult for the general public to get a snapshot view of all the facts and who supports or disputes such facts.
I'm interested in finding a solution to this problem.
http://www.chriswere.com/
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
It is common in physics (Richard Muller is a physicist) to put publications on the arxiv preprint server when they are submitted to a journal, accept comments from readers of the preprint and also take on the comments from peer review.
Press releases happen when the paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, not before. Physicists know to ignore papers that have been on the arxiv preprint server for too long without appearing in print.
BEST could have tried slipping their paper onto a preprint server when they submitted it, but media coverage would have resulted anyway. This being the case, they could have used peer review alone, but that would eliminate comments from a broader pool of scientists. I can see pros and cons to the approach BEST have taken, and which choice is best for BEST is unclear to me.
That said, it is essential that their paper is submitted for peer review and its results treated with some caution until they are appear in print.
keith may
Mr
If memory serves the BEST project only confirms what we knew already - that the world is getting warmer, it does nothing to strengthen the link between that warming and AGW. In fact in one of the papers they say "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated."
What I find somewhat problematic here is the lack of 'framing' around the coverage of the results from the papers (pre peer reviewed status).
I agree with Dr Singer below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/27/nature-pans-best-and-muller-pr-antics-prints-letter-from-dr-singer/
Mike Hansen
Mr
If you think that WUWT is a good source of climate science, you need to get out more.
Anthony Watts said of the BEST project: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
He is now attempting to throw Muller under a bus because the results did confirm that he was wrong. Watts is a denier - pure and simple. There is no evidence that would get him to change his mind because his opinion is determined by idealogy not science
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
No one disagrees that the medieval warm period occurs, but the consensus is that it wasn't a global phenomenon, but mostly local to Europe. See
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Myth:The_Medieval_Warm_Period_was_warmer
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
whatsupwiththat is NOT a good place for active debate, if you want real infromation from real scientists, realclimate.org is the place to go.
Rob Riel
Publisher
Ian and Stephan, there are many, many excellent papers which confirm global surface temperature increases in the throughout the 20th century. There are NO credible papers which confirm Manne's assertion that the Medieval Warm Period never existed -- nil, nada, and none. Manne's choice of proxies for that paper is subject to valid criticism, and it's merely supercilious to impugn the motives of those who have questioned the statistical validity of his result.
As regards the magnitude of warming…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Since Mann ha *never* asserted that the Medieval Warm Period doesn't exists, this is a strawman argument.
See box 1 here
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1
When people continue to focus on the Mann et al paper, when it's findings have been replicated and the issues raised addressed, one *has* to wonder what their motives are.
See reference above and here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
"Ian, I want to object in the strongest possible terms to your assertion that the many dedicated researchers who question Manne's conclusions are guilty of 'ignoring science'."
These "many dedicated scientists" are almost all McIntyre and McKitrick. 11 different reconstructions using differing methods confirm Mann et al (not Manne). See
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1
especially figures 6.10 and Table 6.1
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
"Watts Up With That" has the headline "Nature pans BEST and Muller PR antics, prints letter from Dr. Singer".
Contrast this with Nature's headline of "Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review." Dr Singer has contributed to the comments thread, but was his letter actually printed in Nature?
This distortion illustrates how the partisan blogsphere can be an unreliable source of information.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
But let's not forget, Judith Curry, a Georgia Tech climate researcher with more than 30 years experience who was also part of the BEST project, has said "there is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped."
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Indeed Keith, and, like the research, the temperature has "moved on" and downwards since 2006. I seem to have to keep reminding people of Trenberth's trend which no one refutes (after all it has Ken's name on it) which had a maximum the year that book was published, 2006 http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
But she is wrong. See
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/exposing_a_climate_science_fra.php
for a very detailed explanation of why she is wrong (you have to scroll down a bit to get to the details)
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
No, the temperature trend since 2006 has not been downwards, see
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-warming-updated.html
Dejan Tesic, PhD
logged in via Twitter
Even if that were the case (which, as Ian points out - it is not) the 4 years of weather does not a climate make. It is indeed stunning that some go around claiming to be "climate experts" (eg. J. Curry) and from what they're saying it is clear that they wouldn't know the difference between climate and weather, something that is at the high school science level. This is not a trivial remark, as climate scientists do predict that - even in the worst climate warming scenarios - there will be cooler years, and in fact it is quite possible that there will be whole decades cooler than average. But, that will not mean that climate is still not warming, and at the fast rate. See, it's very important to keep in mind at all times that climate is a 30-year weather average.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
The trend by Dr Spencer was based on 22 years and 10 months since 1979.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
You cannot possibly make out a case for extrapolating that polynomial (Excel) trend to the sorts of temperatures guessed by the IPCC for 2100 or whenever. Nor can you make out a case that a linear trend would be a better fit.
i don't care what you think of Spencer: raw data does not lie.
The portion of the trend which the IPCC used for such projections was not significantly longer than this 32 years - and all they did was fit a primitive and inappropriate linear trend.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
It's not a trend, it's a simple polynomial fit, which are REALLY bad ideas for trying to summarise noisy data. See
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2009/01/whats-up-with-polynomial-fits-yes-it.html
and links therein See also
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-warming-updated.html
where Spencers polynomial fits show global warming *accelerating*
Raw data doesn't lie, but we can substantially fool ourselves by not thinking critically about the raw data and using inappropriate graphing techniques
The IPCC projection (not guesses) actually fit with what we have observed
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer
OMG! I hadn't seen that chart before. What a joke.
There are two criteria to follow (AFAIK) when complicating an equation as a model.
(a) Does it make physical sense?
(b) Are the extra tuned constants justified by fit improvement?
For the second, there are standard methods using chi-square tables. I'd be willing to bet Spencer's polynomial fails that test. But it clearly fails the first anyway.
Maybe we need a Conversation thread on why people fail to reject blatant pseudoscience.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Yes, it's a bit hard to imagine what physical system a sixth order polynomial is modelling.
There is a lot of information on why people fail to reject pseudoscience (or get bamboozeled by denialists). The South Australian Branch of the Australian Science Communicators had an evenings discussion of this. The talks are not yet up on the RiAUS site, i'll check to see when they will be mounted. (hint to editors, I can do this when my exam marking is over)
John Nicol
logged in via Facebook
Professor Lewandowsky has said:
Read more"What does Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity have to do with the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)?
What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer?
What does Reye’s syndrome have in common with the CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer?"
Apparently Professor Lewandowsky is very familiar with the development of Einstein's relativity? While much has been written about this interesting topic, it is only on the blog…
Trevor S
Jack of all Trades
I haven't read the rest of the papers because this one appears to be full of giant assumptions and while these assumptions are qualified by the initial reference to the issue of using a binary system to classify, the author soldiers on none the less. Why indeed :)
Whether I am the example that disproves the rule or the "rule" is not useful as a guide makes me think, so that's something I guess ? I am definitely HI under the definitions outlined and worst of all, have a "libertarian" outlook to…
Read moreRiley Hunter
Lawyer
Even after reading this, I'm not sure what your main question really is. "Why do people distrust good science?" Or is it, "why do people distrust bogus science?" They are different questions that will have quite different answers. Also, on the first one, how do you know people distrust good science? Or are you starting with the assumption that all conclusions of science must be correct, just because it is called science? If that is what you are doing, you should never have written the article, and we should not have wasted our time reading it.
Rob Riel
Publisher
I've been following the climate science debate for some years. I don't have any time for 'denialists' who won't consider the whole thing a beat-up, ignoring the good science that has been done. Neither have I time for those who insist the science is 'settled' and who demean the character and motives anyone who questions it. I've read Manne's work, and about Manne's work; if he and his supporters didn't assert that the Medieval Warm Period was questionable on the basis of their proxy reconstruction…
Read moreTimothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Q. What does Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity have to do with the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)?
A. Both won almost immediate general acceptance, except in Nazi Germany in regard to Einstein.
Q. What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer?
A. Nothing. What acid rain? And there is no 1:1 relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Many die from the latter without ever having smoked, and as many live to ripe old ages despite smoking. Hint…
Read moreThe PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
I've read G. Edwrd Griffins book on cancer and I'm not convinced smoking causes cancer either. I recall as a youth the reluctance to link cancer and smoking in science.
I don't think smoking is good for you, but plenty of people I know have had or do have cancer and never smoked.
Maybe if the government spokesmen for science quit telling porky pies, we might take their pronouncements on face value.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Tim Curtin exemplifies those who reject science, as can be seen by his comments, that are laden with errors. The fact that the HPV vaccine is as topic of discussion during the Republican party primaries shows it has not won "immediate general acceptance".
Tim Curtin's comment on smoking is also telling. I doubt anyone has claimed a 1:1 relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The only reason I can imagine mentioning such a thing is to downplay the well established risks of smoking. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between drink driving and car accidents either, but it is still a bad idea to drink drive.
The link between the various issues Tim Curtin mentions is opposition was mounted by those whose interests (be it financial or ideological) were threatened. Tim Curtin may fall into the ideological camp, given his association with the IPA and Lavoisier Group.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
Michael, it seems like real science is rejecting the "science" of AGW ...
The last 60 years have seen an increase of 0.6 degrees, which extrapolates to another 0.9 deg.C by 2100. This is nothing like the IPCC projections. http://theconversation.homestead.com/60years.jpg
Furthermore, a closer look at the more accurate NASA satellite measurements in the lower troposphere since 1979 reveal a curved trend which is now starting to look like a decline http://theconversation.homestead.com/latest.jpg…
Read morejohn werneken
none
Bifurcated indeed. In part correct: resistance by definition is to threat. chit, because wtf sgould 150,000 deaths motivate ANYONE to do anything they dont want to. If my death, too late; if someone else's, wtf would I care? Everybody will die, so what.
I don't give a damn if climate change is irreversable already and guaranteed to kill 90% of the human race. Or 100%. Only if REVERSIBLE and likely to come close to 99%. Otherwise I will count the $USD and nothing else, because it's just another social or political problem. Like nuclear war, not a survival issue, just another one where many are risked and some are not, just like everything else is.
Don't you GD scientists know ANYTHING AT ALL about human beings?
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
Those who, explicitly or implicitly, reject the scientific method, fail on two counts:
A. Where they try and contradict empirical scientific observations which have reached a stage beyond reasonable doubt (examples: Darwinian evolution; plate tectonics; asteroid impacts; CFC-ozone relations; CO2-greenhouse/climate effects), they find themselves rejecting multiply tested bona-fide datasets as well as.the basic laws of nature
B. They forever avoid the question as to what method they would prefer…
Read moreThe PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
i reject Darwinian evolution by darwin's own premise. His finches have subseqently proved to be sharing identical gene pools. They did not evolve at all , but some genes became dormant whilst others became prominent according to usefulness.
Such is the genius of God's design.
mr Gilkson, fI'd like to see how you can address my challenge.
That being.- If random chance created life, could 100 billion dollars and the smartest 10 000 scientists on earth create a self replicating machine that can convert dirt, water,air and sunshine into a banana: from scratch
Mind you I'm not asking for every lifeform on earth, just a banana.
Could you do what random accident apparently did, with these resources?
Or would you need a large bowl of primordial soup before it suddenly became a scientific method?
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
My point of course is , how can random chance create life without any intelligence guiding it, driven by a vaguely explained lifeforce called "survival instinct".
But with exactly the same elements at their disposal , and a genuine force of the human intellect behind them, science cannot get even start to create the simplest lifeform.
Riley Hunter
Lawyer
Andrew, your post makes me question whether you really are a scientist (could be the sceptic in me). If you are a scientist, maybe you shouldn't be and you are giving science a bad name. I'm sure some people reject "the scientific method" (like this tissue guy above) but it's rare. Most sensible people don't reject the scientific method. You leave me wondering whether you understand the scientific method.
The stuff that is being shoved down our throats in respect of problematic AGW (and that…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Well, I'm a current working scientist (and an amateur astronomer, who's been co-author on one presentation to an international astronomical conference) as well as being a member of Australian Science communicators so it is with some authority I can say Reiley, you are wrong on almost all counts.
There is significant rejection of the scientific method in even the Australian population, amongst people who should know better (I can introduce you the supporters of homeopathy and alternative medicines…
Read moreComment removed by moderator.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
I'm sincere so I must be plain stupid.
Riley Hunter
Lawyer
Thanks for the reply Ian. However...
I know you are right, that a significant number of people reject the scientific method. Nutcases are everywhere. I don't know where you got 50% from, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was 80%. I suppose I meant that of all the sensible (and I did use the word "sensible" in my post) AGW sceptics that I come across (and there are a lot - many more than the AGW proponents would have us believe) very few would reject the scientific method, and of those that did…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
I'm going to do this in reverse order, because it relates directly to the issue of the article, namely why people reject science.
"Have you noticed that every single year, without fail, the MET and the BOM come out and say "last year was the warmest in history"? Quite frankly it is just not believable, and I don't care how many weather or other scientific "bureaus" tell me this, I will never believe it. It is quite simply not believable. "
Assuming this was true (it isn't), what is your basis for…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
"Is the warming unusual? You say yes. But Professor Bob Carter (and many others) say no. Professor Carter has a fantastic presentation that shows that the rates of temperature movement have been the same as recently many times in the past. "
Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, and his various proclamations have no credibility
see this take-down of his latest failure to understand data analysis
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
see also
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/bobcarter/
Why is Carter more believable than actual climate scientists?
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
"You dispute my statements of no statistically significant temp rises over the past 15 years. Well-credentialed scientists have made this comment. "
[citation needed]
See
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/01/noaa-2010-goes-down-as-a-tie-for-warmest-year-on-record.ars
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/jan/HQ_11-014_Warmest_Year.html
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
"In respect of the AGW argument I give the correlation of CO2 and temperature increases absolutely no weight at all. I would be interested to hear what you have to say about my natural (dare I say intuitive) reaction to 'correlation' and how it fits with your idea of the scientific method."
Correlation is not causation, but it does waggle it's eyebrows suggestively while mouthing furtively, "look over there". http://xkcd.com/552/
But, in this case, we have a known physical basis for the link. We know that adding more CO2 to a gas column will cause heating due to the green house effect. This can be demonstrated by simple experiments that even high scroll students can do.
See the box on the physics of CO2 induced warming here:
http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/file_52051.pdf
and here
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4.html#1-4-1
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
""the temperature rise has been tracking the upper limit of the IPPC predictions". Oh, it has not! "
see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Near Sited
Director of Pragmatism
Humans are often influenced by power and money. Governments have most of both, followed (distantly) by business.
The priests of science are above all of that. It is not possible for research or conclusions to be warped by such base impulses.
Lucky us.
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
And yet...the vast majority of te evidence for global warming accumulated under the watch of conservative governments, who were either completely indifferent, or openly hostile to the idea of AGW. Sceintists were finding data the governments (and industry) didn't want to hear, yet find it they did.
Allen Williams
Systems Engineer
I believe smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, general relativity is a more general and accurate theory than Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's EM theory, think the HP vaccine is a good thing (but believe its use should be left up to the individual, just like tobacco smokers should have choice), the connection between Reye's and aspirin is well-grounded. Further, I readily admit I don't have much of an opinion on ozone and CFCs or acid rain, since I have not looked into either topic in depth.
I…
Read moreAndrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
For those who accept the scientific method and are interested in a time perspective of current climate change, below is a summary of past and current developments in the atmosphere-ocean system:
1. The glacial-interglacial history of the last ~800 kyr is dominated by non-linear trends and abrupt climate shifts, including irreversible tipping points, driven by orbital forcing and GHG feedbacks and perturbed by short-term volcanic events. During the glacial-interglacial cycles the atmosphere-ocean…
Read moreJohn Nicol
logged in via Facebook
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate very much that you are placing here information for us to read and learn from. Would that other climate scientists might follow your lead and present their findings and details of research which can then be discussed, including by those of us who do not agree with the results produced by the models and wear the badges of sceptic and denier with honour. I have been disappointed with the handling so far of this very important debate on global warming and climate change…
Read moreTimothy Curtin
Economic adviser
My fan Mciahel Brown says above "I doubt anyone has claimed a 1:1 relationship between smoking and lung cancer". Well take a look at the government warnings on every pack of fags sold here - and not just cancer but blindness and much else, so much so that one wonders why fags are not banned outright, were it not for the tax receipts that help to keep Michael well paid.
Michael's habitual ad hominem continues when he says "Tim Curtin may fall into the ideological camp, given his association with the IPA and Lavoisier Group", presumably meaning to imply that I am a paid hack. Actually the flow of cash is the other way - and I am flattered that my subscriptions are enough for me to dictate everything IPA and Lavoisier do and say!
But the real nub is Lewandowski linking any who doubt the existence of global warming or of it being "dangerous" with the Nazis who tried to debunk Einstein. That is a smear campaign if ever there was one.
Derek Bolton
Retired s/w engineer
I believe the warnings only state that smoking can cause lung cancer. A 1:1 relationship would imply that every smoker gets lung cancer, and no-one else does.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Tim Curtin distorts the facts. He wouldn't need to if his arguments were robust.
Readers can have a look at the cigarette warnings at http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/australia-warnings.htm. When it comes to various smoking related illnesses, they do not claim a 1:1 correlation. For example, "Smoking is the major cause of cancers affecting the mouth and throat".
I did not claim that Tim Curtin was being paid by the IPA or Lavoisier. Merely that his ideology is consistent with that of these groups.
Finally, Tim Curtin should reread the article. While Stephan stated some of the opposition to Einstein may have been motivated by anti-semitism and nationalism, he clearly stated this wasn't the primary cause. Indeed, several Jewish authors contributed to the infamous "100 Authors Against Einstein".
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Andrew Glikson, when are you going to move on from the last inter-glacial, and face the facts? e.g. that
1. the "warming" such as it is since the cool phase 1900-1950 ended is 0.0125 oC p.a., which is hardly significant even summing over the last 60 years, and even that figure for the globe is largely a concoction by Hansne and Jones which does not represent what has happened to tempreratures here or in the contiguous USA (see yesterday's admissions by NOAA at WUWT).
2. That as L. Allen et al showed…
Read moreTimothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael Brown: "Tim Curtin distorts the facts". Which? please be specific.
What is actually said on the fag packs re cancer and blindness?
Then he says "I did not claim that Tim Curtin was being paid by the IPA or Lavoisier. Merely that his ideology is consistent with that of these groups". Well, I am proud to be associated with groups whose primary motivation is the propagation of political and economic freedom. BTW, Lavoisier was guillotined for inter alia his dedication to truth - and the…
Read moreMichael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
An example of Tim Curtin's distortions is his misrepresentation of cigarette warming labels, which I discussed above.
There are other examples.
100 Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931 while the Nazis did not achieve power until 1933. Not all of those who opposed Einstein were Nazis (some were of Jewish background), and there was much opposition to Einstein's ideas in the 1920s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory and elsewhere).
Much of the opposition to Einstein was from people with limited expertise in physics, just as much of the opposition to mainstream climate science comes from those who have very limited expertise in climate science.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael Brown: Yet again you have failed to quote the exact wording on fag paks re cancer and blindness caused by smoking.
Stephan Lewandowsky: you were seriously misleading when you claimed that an obscure meeting at Berlin's Philharmonic Hall in 1920 (arranged by the Bernard Madoff of his day) that attacked Einstein's Relativity was equivalent to obviously and naturally self-interested defence of smoking by tobacco companies - and to any who without any financial interest are dubious about climate…
Read moreMichael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Tim Curtin's arguments would carry more weight if he backed them up with supporting evidence.
Why not provide the relevant text from the cigarette packets? Why not provide some references to show there was no real opposition to Einstein in the 1920s? Why not provide evidence that "most extant leading physicist are far from persuaded that climate science is valid"?
I have expertise in science whereas Tim Curtin has virtually no expertise, as demonstrated by his litany of elementary errors (e.g…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Anyone can see them here
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-12-tobacco-products/attachment-12-1-health-warnings
The lung cancer warning starts "9 out of 10 lung cancers are caused by smoking"
And the campaign works! Quoting from the site below
"Trends in lung cancer death rates largely reflect smoking trends, with a time lapse of about 20 years. As overall tobacco consumption has declined, mortality from lung cancer has followed. For example, the male smoking rate started to fall decades ago and the benefits have had time to flow through. For females, the fall in smoking has been too recent to show this benefit and the female lung cancer death rate is still rising."
http://aihw.gov.au/chronic-diseases-mortality/
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
Who are these "extant leading physicists"? Why have the American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics and the European Physical Society all producing statements that confirm the consensus of global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Ian: Because all too often the people running those Institutes have their agendas as organisation men, leading to some high profile resignations.
Michael Brown yet again (sigh!): Lewandowsky claimed that the opposition to Einstein (such as it was) was akin to the tobacco lobby, but he cannot cite any vested interests that felt threatened by E=MC^2. His technique is the same as Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, who shamelessly rubbished a journalist's dissenting view on climate change…
Read moreIan Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
[citation needed]
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
I do not have expertise in econometrics, and would not dare to write on the topic. Tim Curtin does not have expertise in science, but this does not disuade him from writing on science.
The vested interests do not have to be financial, but can be ideological too. There was significant criticism of Einstein from outside the academic sphere in the 1920s (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory#Academic_and_non-academic_criticism).
Finally, below is a section of text from…
Read moreMichael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
So is Tim Curtin publishing his hypothesis that much of global warming "should be reassigned to anthropogenic water vapour”? I am curious to see which journal it ends up in.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Be patient!
How are you doing on your own peer reviewed papers on climate science, especially those rejecting any role for atmospheric water vapour despite both Tyndall and Arrhenius showing it was more potent than atmospheric CO2?
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
No climate scientist rejects the role of atmospheric water vapour and it is a feedback in the models. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ for a discussion.
I have the good fortunate of working with simpler systems than climate, comparing the locations of galaxies with what one would expect from dark matter models. Thus, maximum likehood fits using MCMC, verified with Monte-Carlo tests on simulated data suffice, as discussed in my 2008 paper on this topic (linked from my website).
Tim Curtin perhaps doesn't see the risk of applying econometrics methods (of which he is only an end user) on climate, which is has limited understanding. For example, does Tim Curtin have a clear understanding of the water cycle, and what happens to anthropogenic water vapour emissions once they leave the atmosphere (after just 9 days)?
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael: Least squares regression is a tool of analysis, and applied scientists should be able to use it. It is a travesty that so few of the AR4 WG1 authors show any familiarity with the technique when it is essential for attribution of causality amongst a range of variables in the absence of lab testing.
I am far from being an expert on econometrics, being just a user, not a theoretician therof.
However I do agree with your final point - "Intriguingly, a primary factor behind the opposition to Einstein within the scientific community arguably arose out of the thwarted career aspirations of physicists unable to cope with his revolutionary ideas" as I have direct experience of that, as recipient of condign punishment for potentially threatening career aspirations by challenging the climate orthodoxy. Well said!
Ian Musgrave
Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
[citation needed]
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
This could be called the "Evolution Theory of Science" I suppose.
1. Career aspirations will inevitably be threatened by those who question the establishment.
2. Hence, we have survival of the fitter-inners.
Elementary my dear ... Gore.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
troll : ignored
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
haha, exactly
Which is a comfort in a way.
Because if all the men of character have been ousted, who is left to oppose?
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Tim Curtin is perhaps unaware that many scientists (myself included) are familiar with least-squares fitting techniques, their origin and the many limitations. If he wishes to claim otherwise, he should back up his arugment with references.
Curiously, despite having limited expertise in econometrics and science, Tim Curtin feels confident writing articles on "Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change".
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael: why don't you publish your results? There is a difference between using LSR to fit trends and using it in multivariate regressions to achieve attribution of temperature change to human and non-human variables, something that Hegerl & Zwiers (AR4, WG1, Ch.9) refused to do, despite falsely promising that they would.
I did suggest referring to the voluminous work of Soren Johansen.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael Brown,
What is your evidence that I have less experience than you in using applied econometrics, over in my case a professional career of over 45 years?
Please cite your own work using that technique.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
I never claimed such a thing.
I restrict my publications to astrophysics, my area of expertise.
In the context of the climate debate, I am willing to pick out the gross errors made by "sceptics". Such errors are rather obvious to scientists, and do not constitute original research (it's more analogous to marking undergraduate assignments). Common errors include cherry picking of data or wild claims that can be rebutted with even a superficial knowledge of the field (e.g., water vapour is a feedback, not forcing, in climate models).
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
Beofre taking Tim Curtin's comments too seriously, one should go to the IPCC webpage at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html and search for "regression".
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
More nonsense from Michael, I am sorry to say. ALL my references to AR4 have been to WG1 which is where one would expect to find regression analysis of the relative significance of natural and non-natural determinants of temperature change (if such there is). Michael’s linking twice to WG2 and claiming that it addresses this issue using regression analysis is simply false. The word regression does NOT appear in the Contents. WG2 does offer some wholly unconvincing references to regressions of the…
Read moreTimothy Curtin
Economic adviser
The chapter 9 by Hegerl & Zwiers in AR4 referred to in my very latest post is in WG1.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
If you are not an expert in climatology then I suggest you are no more able to "pick out the gross errors made by 'sceptics'" than Tim, John Nicol, Spencer, Knox & Douglass etc are able to pick out the gross errors made by climatologists and modellers.
So, does carbon dioxide have a cooling role as it radiates away thermal energy gathered by diffusion from oxygen and nitrogen molecules which cannot radiate themselves? Yes or No?
Has the established science made a gross error, or have John Nicol and I done so?
Answer only with valid physics in which you should be an expert in all that is required.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
The search actually turns up "regression" from all of the working groups, including working group 1.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Re Michael Brown again: don't you think you could and should teach yourself some econometrics? It only needs fairly basic algebra which I imagine you have already. Then move on to advanced texts like those by Soren Johansen which still use only basic math. He really deserved a share of this year's Nobel, as his work has greatly extended that of Sims and Thomas Sargent, by applying it to climate change inter alia. His results are certainly consistent with mine (he is ranked in the top 5% of economists).
For example his 2010 paper "The analysis of nonstationary time series using regression, correlation and cointegration with an application to annual mean temperature and sea level" goes far to reject a link between rising global temperatures and sea levels. Now if I had written that you would have rubbished it, but it uses the same techniques as I do, although to be sure in a much more sophisticated fashion.
Joel Courtney
Technologist
Tim, there is a "reply" option while hovering over a comment which maintains thoughts, responses and comments in a thread so people can follow what others are responding to. It's highly useful and highly recommended.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
The paper at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1950555 seems to make claims that are less sweeping than those made by Tim Curtin, and contains many cautions and caveats. It is also a single paper, and should be treated with some caution until its results are reproduced by other research groups.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Mr Brown you spend alot of your time trying to shore up the indefensibility of the government's Chicken Little fearmongering. Since you are living off Australian's taxes might i suggest you stick to what you're being paid to do during work hours. And contribute to propaganda in your spare time.
The PropheticKleenex
logged in via Twitter
Or is this what you're being paid to do?
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser
Michael: The Schmith et al Abstract states "We find a relationship
between sea level and temperature and find that temperature causally depends on the sea level, which can be understood as a consequence of the large heat capacity of the ocean". That is quite sweeping, don't you think? And I expect you to get our idiot government to react by finding a way of draining the oceans to space - Gillard and Combet are that dumb they probably will! Joking aside, it would seem that since Greenland's ice cover has virtually gone (Times Atlas) and the Arctic sea-ice with it, perhaps these events will have a cooling effect on the oceans and thereby on GMT. If not, why not? Ice certainly has that effect on my scotch.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
TPK writes from a position of ignorance yet again. I was on leave this morning.
Michael J. I. Brown
ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University
The Times Atlas press release on Greenland ice coverage was grossly in error, and this error got some attention in the media (e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/times-atlas-error-scientists-mobilise).
As I have noted previously, one should also treat the results of individual papers with caution until they are replicated by other research groups.
Doug Cotton
IT Manager
A good example of why people reject science will be found in John Nicol's excellent, informative post which all should read at http://theconversation.edu.au/like-tears-in-rain-weather-and-climate-modellers-are-an-endangered-species-4217 "Thank you Mark ..."
john werneken
none
A lot of research is worth less than nothing, like this article. I mean its abundantly obvious that resistance to change has to do with resisting perceived threats. And death for some prevented only at significant incomvenience to many is not worth preventing. It's that simple.
Gideon Polya
Sessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University
An excellent article by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky with good suggestions based on the HI-EC analysis as to how "gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance can be bridged" by scientists and science-informed people.
However the analysis ignores the greed- as well as fear-based cultivation of HI positions and anti-science spin by the Mainstream media, corporate, political and indeed academic Establishments, most notably in Western Murdochracies (Big Money buys public perception of…
Read more