More Smearing of Scientific Scepticism (Part 2)
Posted by jennifer, September 18th, 2009 - under Opinion, Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
THERE was a most extraordinary feature story and then interview last night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s popular late news program with well known reporter and television presenter Leigh Sales giving American journalist Chris Mooney publicity for his new book and a generous amount of air time to explain that anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming is scientifically illiterate and ignorant. A friend and colleague Andrew McIntyre send Ms Sales the following email in response:
Leigh,
I have a regular commentary spot on radio (Jon Faine’s Melbourne 774). I am constantly frustrated by the scientific illiteracy as outlined by Chris Mooney last night, particularly by the media, and especially by journalists within the ABC, including the much quoted Robyn 100-metres-sea-level-rise Williams. However, to say, as they do, that the science is settled is objectively and scientifically nonsense … and dangerous.
Firstly, you should know that it simply cannot be true that the science is settled when so many eminent scientists are contesting the science. I draw your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project [not be confused with earlier petitions that were sabotaged with false signatories] http://www.petitionproject.org/
There are over 30,000 registered scientists of which more than 9,000 with PhDs, in climate and related fields. Whatever else anyone thinks of climate science, you can hardly accuse these people of scientific illiteracy, which is what your programme was suggesting. The ABC should categorically refuse to accept this lie.
If you care, there is a brilliant summary outline of sceptical scientific arguments and graphs all peer reviewed by eminent scientists here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
They may all end up being wrong as may the IPCC, but they cannot be dismissed as unscientific. These were the very arguments that Senator Fielding asked Penny Wong and the Commonwealth chief Scientist to explain. They were unable to do so. Surely this was an enormous admission and an enormous media story, but scandalously, the ABC has completely ignored it to its disgrace.
Also, I dare you to interview Garth Paltridge who has just published a book, The Climate Caper. Professor Paltridge is probably the most eminent Australian scientist working on climate. He is an atmospheric physicist, was chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before becoming director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, and headed the Antarctic Research Division. Now retired, he can say what he wants, and clearly cannot be accused of scientific illiteracy. Have you asked why the ABC is not rushing to interview him on TV with appropriate headlines?
Secondly, why is that now, even the IPCC scientists themselves are admitting that their models are wrong in relation to recent temperature trends. These are the consensus scientists that are now admitting that something is wrong with the “science”. Please see The New Scientist article here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
All the best,
And don’t forget to insist that the scientists answer when you ask what they ate for breakfast. This last lot only talked about their dinner, yet again. And you were rolled.
Cheers,
Andrew McIntyre
Melbourne
*********************
Notes and Links
Public must engage with scientific fact: book. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 17/09/2009, Reporter: Margot O’Neill. Interview Leigh Sales
A new book called Unscientific America has put forward the theory that we are facing a dangerous divide between science and culture.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689426.htm
Author discusses science-culture divide. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast: 17/09/2009, Reporter: Leigh Sales, One of the authors of Unscientific America, Chris Mooney, joins Lateline from Boston to discuss the book. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689429.htm
World’s climate could cool first, warm later
September 2009 by Fred Pearce
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The Climate Caper
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=113
Part 1 is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leigh-sales-smears-scientific-scepticism/
Jeremcy
As a Lyellian I am an abject failure but then to deduce I might make a good creationist from the evidence is drawing a very long bow, indeed.
Lordy lordy, I misnamed you as Jeremcy, tsk, tsk, It’s Jeremy C, of course.
Oh but it also occurred to me that if being creationist implies that I am an empiricist, as my clerical predecessors were two centuries ago, then that is a label I will wear with honour.
What I won’t wear is the fictitious claptrap you proselytise.
I feel sorry for creationists, they devote their lives to unquestioning obedience to the word of their leaders, in many cases in fear of discipline should they have a contrary opinion.
I would defend their right to believe whatever they wished as long as they had the ability to seek truth without prejudice.
“Dismiss religion all you want, you can have a festering hatred for God and Christianity for all I care but don’t make the mistake of vilifying a whole subset of society because of your antagonism.”
Lordy lordy, I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious.
Luke et al, I’ve been thinking about why I am a skeptic because the reality is, for me at least, that despite what virtually everyone says on this blog, there is no absolutely hands down clear cut winner in the “evidence” stakes.
Remember Louis, I’m talking here from my perspective.
Anyway, it may come down to who got to me first(metaphorically speaking). For example, a couple of years ago I read a very interesting book about the little ice age which was compiled by a historian. There was a temperature graph in the front of the book aligned with a chronology of major events covering the last 1000 years in northern Europe. This graph clearly showed the MWP and the LIA so later on when I saw Mann’s hockey stick graph, It had a negative effect on me and I rejected it. Then began the biased search for information that reinforced my position which was quite successful and led me to paleoclimate sites which showed that the earth was warmer in the past such as the Eemian interglacial.
At some time I started looking at both sides of the argument but almost every site that I went to told me that I was stupid, an ignorant fool, akin to a holocaust denier, should be tried for crimes against humanity and wouldn’t know credible science if it kicked me in the groin. How was I expected to react?
Actually,now I think of it my first venture into the world of climate change was about 13 years ago when I stumbled upon John Daly’s site while I was searching for something else.
Anyway, the point of all this is that by a twist of fate or whatever, the skeptic side got to me first but there hasn’t been anything from the other side that I can actually comprehend that would change my mind. And the behavior of the likes of Monbiot etc just makes me dig my heals in.
I think with human nature it sometimes comes down to “are you a Ford or a Holden person”.
In America in particular, you have a division into a ‘faith’ based culture and a ‘fact’ based culture. The AGW/creationist meme is, roughly, about the relationship of Truth to Authority in a supposedly fact based culture. The AGW believers, and Mooney is a perfect example, expect that all citizens should dutifully believe in AGW on the basis of the authority of the IPCC and the ’scientific experts’. I am merely pointing out that this belief by appeal to authority is more of a feature of faith based culture than fact based culture.
The reality is that the evidence for the anthropogenic in AGW is very slim, so much so that prominent scientists are forced to lie about it when promoting AGW to the public. As a skeptic I find this corruption of science by those who pretend to be purer than pure to be highly amusing and an endless source of comedy.
Dribble,
Your posts are ‘the comedy that keepeth on giving’. You go from twisted and circular logic to ranting, wonderful!
So let me ask you a question….
“I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious”, so how do you account for me as an Australian? Or perhaps you could let me know to what authority I am taking orders from , perhaps; names, adddresses, phone numbers……email addresses…er….er…..drop boxes……er instructions folded in anewspaper left on the parkbench at three pm..
I’m sorry Louis, I got my question to dribble in ahead of you as I am sure you were just typing ‘evidence required’ to him on the above quote when this appeared.
hahahaha Chris Mooney got a spot on the ABC.
The idiot has a degree in English Lit from Yale. Did Sales mention that?
So Derek is there strict curriculum material given on AGW. Is there a balance or is it fairly trivial.
How much leeway do you have?
The issue of course is whether these young people will have any skills to filter opposing views in the media and to inevitably vote on these issues as adults.
And are students interested or would rather be playing footy?
Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.
To compare the creationists with global warming believers or sceptics is ridiculous.
Derek,
I’ve not bothered with the science for a long time – rather I recognise AGW as a political agenda and counter it on that level. It’s tied with with political correctness, deferral to authority, and the resort to character assassination, a variant of critical theory, points to the collectivists, finally achieving their goal by incremental takeover of our culture.
Wall Street has been expunged of capitalism – all the banks are now public utilities, and the US has caught up with the UK into the descent into serfdom.
As I never tire of repeating, contacts in the ALP have always maintained that AGW was about forcing us to live more sustainable lifestyle, and the science was but a means to an end.
However when confronted here with overwhelming stupidity even I think enough is enough – that it’s time to duck for cover and let the socialists learn from personal experience, (it will take them a generation) that their system does not work. Sweden has finally realised this and is starting wind back the nanny state. Unfortunately the US and Australia haven’t reached this state and must go down that path of experiencing the futility of socialism.
That Malcolm Turnbull is even “contemplating” some sort of different emissions legislation when he should be totally opposing it is a sign that the game is up. Our public service is wholly into this regulation, and it’s happening despite all our protestations, and like the US, we will have to do the hard yards before common sense prevails. Regulation of the workplace under the name of workplace safety has all the appearances of the totalitarian state – the paperwork you have to fill in on a monthly basis is mind boggling, Incident registers need to be maintained – I call them “snitch” books – because any activity could be considered to affect workplace safety. Soon political correctness will become pervasive – and if you stupid enough to tender for a commonwealth job, then all sorts of prerequisites are demanded – you have to have affirmative action implemented, diversity implemented, before they even give you a chance. So unless you have your token lesbian, poof, aboriginal, TS islander, etc, no work from the Commonwealth. If that isn’t a quasi totalitarian state, then I’m quite happy being a monkey’s uncle.
Climate change fears are merely the last hurdle they need to jump to enable energy regulation via emissions taxation.
What I am not sure about is whether they actually believe all this AGW stuff. The gulled here most certainly do, but ALP types I know don’t, and if the trade unions start to realise what is happening, then maybe there is hope after all, but I am not banking on it.
I don’t think anyone can counter overwhelming stupidity when it reaches a critical mass. All you could do is duck, get out of the way, and pick up the pieces and start anew.
Janama
I think Jeremy C was setting a straw man when he started on the creationist line of argument.
Jeremy C: ““I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious”, so how do you account for me as an Australian? Or perhaps you could let me know to what authority I am taking orders ”
Sorry, whenever I hear an evangelist crank up the bible-bashing, I automatically assume American. My deepest apologies for this slight upon your national character.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.”
Q. Where’s the science in AGW?
A. Please refer to the IPCC reports for all the information you need.
Q.E.D.
Hi Luke, sorry it took so long to get back to you.
“So Derek is there strict curriculum material given on AGW. Is there a balance or is it fairly trivial.
How much leeway do you have?”
It just so happens that I taught it today in my senior Biology class. It’s part of the chapter on “Human influences on Ecosystems” and it’s strict CSIRO party line stuff. It is, however only a cursory look at the issue and only uses basic information.
I have some excellent PPT CD’s from a company called BIOZONE that I used today. I started with a slide describing the collective role of GHG’s in the atmosphere, explained in simple terms how the GH effect works, showed a slide of CO2 conc. from Mauna Loa 1955-2005 and explained the seasonal variations, showed the standard slide of global ave temp 1860-2008 noted the overall trend upwards in both graphs and explained that scientists have concluded that the first graph is responsible for the second. Then we talked about the industrial rev. and how the increased human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere over the last 150 or so years is believed to be a major factor in the warming trend.
Then I told them that I don’t completely believe all of that but that they have to learn it for their exams.
The greenhouse effect is also part of the environmental Chemistry section in senior Chem.
“The issue of course is whether these young people will have any skills to filter opposing views in the media and to inevitably vote on these issues as adults.”
Excellent point Luke, I think that only rare students have these sort of skills and that I’m probably doing well to get them to acknowledge that there is frequently many sides to an argument rather than believing everything that they see on youtube. Most adults I know have only limited filtering skills.
“And are students interested or would rather be playing footy?”
Three guesses Luke.
You’ve got a problem louis as I didn’t start the creationsist argument – one of the silly propaganda meme’s you guys so easily latch onto.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book.”
Seems to me that you are displaying a Christian centric view of religion. The Koran is also a book about God – and his creation. There are others, most notably in India, but I will restrict my remarks to the Bible and the Koran. The point is that there is more than ONE book dealing with the creation of the world and all in it.
However, one might consider that the substantive point still stands – apart from the belief of the faithful that they are the word of God, these books show evidence of having been pwnned by more than one author, identity(s) unknown.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.”
Q. Where’s the science in AGW?
A. Please refer to the IPCC reports for all the information you need.
You can’t tell the difference between a book of myths and legends, written by unknown authors, that offers no evidence for any of it’s claims, and one that lists all it’s authors, has references for the evidence it relies on, that relies on the proven scientific method. That’s how poor the argument against AGW has become. No wonder people like are ’smeared’ as you put it. You refuse to even look at the evidence. That is not scepticism, and deserves no respect.
A sceptic is obliged to look at the evidence, otherwise they are not a sceptic. If they do not understand it, they are obliged to admit that.
Andrew McIntyre? Gee, he uses the same type of arguments to claim HIV does not cause AIDS (”look at all those scientists that disagree!”). An estimated 330,000 excess deaths in South-Africa may have been the result of this type of reasoning. But I guess that is valid skepticism, too. Seriously, Jennifer Marohasy, you sure know how to pick your friends.
Sadly, Latif’s story has been misrepresented, albeit probably unintentional. Latif’s papers propose a relatively stable period up to about 2009-2010, upon which there will be MASSIVE warming for 5-10 years (well above the projections), followed by yet another period of limited warming. The poor man is lamenting he has trouble how to explain that natural up-and-down movements over periods of 10-15 years are superimposed on a rising trend, and that this in the ’short’ term may even lead to some level of perceived cooling.