The distinguished Dr. Richard Feynman gave a speech in 1974 to Caltech called "Cargo Cult Science", here it is. He recall's how scientists interpreted the work of Millikan another Nobel Laureate who did some research called the oil drop experiment. Feynman laments that the scientists who followed Millikan were slow to correct errors although they got there in the end. "We've learned those tricks nowadays," says Feynman. The word "tricks" jumps out at me. Isn't that what global warming skeptics are banging on about when they read the CRU emails. Well, there you have it, back in '74 the word trick is used in a scientific context to mean something perfectly innocent. Cargo Cult Science, by the way is well worth a read.
Google Einstein's trick and you will find gravitational lensing the observation that proved light waves are bent by gravity.
Booker wallowing in Hubris
Its rather sad to see Christopher Booker and Andrew Montford moan that Amazon no longer seem to list their opuses in 'science' . Both of these writers attack the science that has been held in the scientific literature. Whilst they are writing about science do they have a right to expect their work to be categorized as science? I would argue certainly not . The hockey stick graphs and "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford , cannot both be right , ergo there isn't room for both of them in 'science' . Whilst Mann's work is held "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is polemic. The task and freedom of saying what the book actually is about remains with the bookseller.
Christopher Booker has announced he is getting his publisher to 'look into this' and is agitating for arch sceptical publisher Stacey International (Montford's publisher) to act too.
What's objectionable about Mr Booker is that he is trying to control the context of his work. As a Telegraph columnist he enjoys privileged access to the fourth estate, he uses that to attack the scientific method, and then demands the world look upon his efforts as science. Well done Amazon, I suggest they start a category just for Mr Booker and call it Hubris.
Christopher Booker has announced he is getting his publisher to 'look into this' and is agitating for arch sceptical publisher Stacey International (Montford's publisher) to act too.
What's objectionable about Mr Booker is that he is trying to control the context of his work. As a Telegraph columnist he enjoys privileged access to the fourth estate, he uses that to attack the scientific method, and then demands the world look upon his efforts as science. Well done Amazon, I suggest they start a category just for Mr Booker and call it Hubris.
The new iPhone Our Climate app : errors, lies, and critical omissions
A new toy for climate change sceptics is announced . The 'Our Climate iPhone app'. It gets reviewed in the Guardian by John Cook of Skeptical Science fame. John's review points out an obvious flaw " The cherrypicking nature of climate scepticism leads to an interesting phenomenon – sceptic arguments frequently contradict each other. One week, we're told El Nino is the cause. Next week, it's cosmic rays. No wait, we're cooling... Hold on, it's warming again, but this time, it's because of CFCs. Could anyone compile the many sceptic arguments into a single app without a mess of contradictions?"
In a nutshell climate change denial goes no deeper than what can fit on an iPhone app.
What climate change denial really needs is creativity. A new way to say the same old bollocks. Step up to the plate Australian blogger Jo Nova . "Really, this is a great endorsement" , writes Jo . To arrive at this conclusion Jo asks "Has he found errors, lies, or critical omissions?" Well, yes actually, but Jo answers the question for us and those exact words aren't used in John's review.
The flaw in Jo's argument is apparent. She is saying that any criticism that fall's short (in her view) of this yardstick amounts to an endorsement of her creed. It's a belief she is entitled to. But it's only that , a belief, it's not a scientific view. Moreover it demonstrates the bias that Jo Nova applies in her evaluations.
In a nutshell climate change denial goes no deeper than what can fit on an iPhone app.
What climate change denial really needs is creativity. A new way to say the same old bollocks. Step up to the plate Australian blogger Jo Nova . "Really, this is a great endorsement" , writes Jo . To arrive at this conclusion Jo asks "Has he found errors, lies, or critical omissions?" Well, yes actually, but Jo answers the question for us and those exact words aren't used in John's review.
The flaw in Jo's argument is apparent. She is saying that any criticism that fall's short (in her view) of this yardstick amounts to an endorsement of her creed. It's a belief she is entitled to. But it's only that , a belief, it's not a scientific view. Moreover it demonstrates the bias that Jo Nova applies in her evaluations.
Denial journalism - Money for nothing
At the height of the CRU hack the BBC invited Melanie Phillips on to 'Question Time' it's flagship current affairs discussion programme. "Is Global Warming a scam? " asked a member of the carefully vetted audience. "Yes" answered Mad Mel flatly, before positing that "a small group of scientists were conspiring to deny the evidence that the climate was getting colder rather than hotter" and unequivocally stated "there is no evidence for global warming" and "the ice is not decreasing it is increasing". No supporting evidence was offered throughout her rant.
So let's investigate. In answer to 'the ice is not decreasing' read this from the Montreal Gazette. To refute there is no evidence for global warming there is the entire canon of climate science, I reccomend the Skeptical Science website, or NASA.
But how could Mad Mel be so sure 'Global Warming is a scam'? I sent the BBC a Freedom of Information request asking how much Melanie Phillips was being paid to spout this claptrap. The answer came back "Please note that your request is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) but we are happy to explain journalists who appear on news programmes are usually paid a nominal disturbance fee plus any necessary expenses they incur and Question Time is no different."
So there you have it . The BBC is free with completely false claims on global warming. The scam is that licence payers money is paid to Mad Mel and her ilk to keep the lies coming.
Mad Mel - Disturbed
But how could Mad Mel be so sure 'Global Warming is a scam'? I sent the BBC a Freedom of Information request asking how much Melanie Phillips was being paid to spout this claptrap. The answer came back "Please note that your request is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) but we are happy to explain journalists who appear on news programmes are usually paid a nominal disturbance fee plus any necessary expenses they incur and Question Time is no different."
So there you have it . The BBC is free with completely false claims on global warming. The scam is that licence payers money is paid to Mad Mel and her ilk to keep the lies coming.
A few reccomended videos
Because of the work I am doing on this BBC complaint thing I have had to gen up on climate science and jeez... I thought Al Gore was sorting it all out. How wrong I was. The mass media is continually trying to sell us this skeptic vs. proponent crap when there should be an entitrely different debate. What it should be , I'm not quite sure myself so I've been trying to catch up on climate science and realised that I am about three decades behind the scientists, as is everybody else except these brave souls who have produced some great videos to reccomend.
I should start with Annie Leonard's "Story of Stuff" for an overview of how society is misled by consumerism ; but we've all seen it right ? One of the latest thing's on the web is Professor John Abraham's stunning rebuttal of Lord Monckton's recent speaking tour in the U.S.A. It's well worth a look, but I realised that it was rebuttal to what we in the U.K. would call a load of codswallop , it is by definition firmly in the denialists ambit . So I decided to look further to try and sus out what the real issues are.
For the science I moved on to this excellent series of scientific videos on You Tube by Potholer54, starting with "Climate Change the Scientific Debate" it's both sober and informative from a pseudonymous science journalist in Australia working under the nom de plume Potholer54. His videos are too numerous to mention here but I've yet to see a better explanation of the scientific method than this one and "Climate Change - Meet the Scientists" is a superb empirical rebuttal to skeptics. A must see also from Potholer54 is "Climate Change anatomy of a Myth" an excellent retrospective on the science and how it's been misrepresented by the media from as far back as the 1970s. So whilst the science isn't settled because science is never settled, it's fair to say there is a mountain of scientific empirical knowledge on the subject of climate change that is at odds with what the media have been saying.
The reasons behind that I can only speculate on, for now . Then I looked at Naomi Oreskes lecture to the University of Rhode Island . It is subtitled 'How a handful of scientists obscure the truth about climate change.' One cannot go away from this dry lecture without realising that climate change is the most important and relevant issue facing humanity today in the second decade of the 21st century, and that anyone facing up to this problem is dealing with a multi-dimensional issue not just about science but one that strikes at economics ideology politics and even the very nature of humankind. To say it is powerful stuff would be to hugely underestimate Oreskes work. All I can say in response to it is watch it!
Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990) is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent.
Now for more sciencey stuff making the case for action now I turned to "How It All Ends" from the superb hard working You Tube vlogger wonderingmind42, a US High School physics teacher. Importantly this also makes the case from a sensible risk management point of view, a POV completely obscured by the myth or real debate favoured by the mass media. The Nature of Science is well worth a look - it introduced to me the concept of "confirmation bias" which could prove important .Other stuff from wonderingmind42 is the conservatively titled "The MOST Terrifying Video Youll Ever See" which even has plaudits from General Anthony Zinni of the USMC !
But I can't leave wonderingmind42's films (there are at present over 95 of them) without mentioning what he calls the most important video you'll ever see, In which Professor Al Bartlett of the University of Boulder Colorado gives his lecture titled 'Energy Population and Arithmetic' which demolishes Capitalist Growth dogma. It's divided into eight parts - here they are: part 1, part 2 ,part 3, part 4 ,part 5, part 6 ,part 7,and part 8 . Doctor Al says " You are important people , you can think. If there was ever a time the human race needs people who can think it's right now, it's our responsibility as citizens in a democracy to think." He also notes the observation by H.L. Mencken "It is in the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false and comforting". Wise words , which I am finding sum up the public understanding of climate change today in 2010.
Here is a five minute cartoon from the PostCarbon institute that has to be mentioned in despatches.
So there you have it that's where I am right now. Does all this make me a climate geek? I hope so !
I should start with Annie Leonard's "Story of Stuff" for an overview of how society is misled by consumerism ; but we've all seen it right ? One of the latest thing's on the web is Professor John Abraham's stunning rebuttal of Lord Monckton's recent speaking tour in the U.S.A. It's well worth a look, but I realised that it was rebuttal to what we in the U.K. would call a load of codswallop , it is by definition firmly in the denialists ambit . So I decided to look further to try and sus out what the real issues are.
For the science I moved on to this excellent series of scientific videos on You Tube by Potholer54, starting with "Climate Change the Scientific Debate" it's both sober and informative from a pseudonymous science journalist in Australia working under the nom de plume Potholer54. His videos are too numerous to mention here but I've yet to see a better explanation of the scientific method than this one and "Climate Change - Meet the Scientists" is a superb empirical rebuttal to skeptics. A must see also from Potholer54 is "Climate Change anatomy of a Myth" an excellent retrospective on the science and how it's been misrepresented by the media from as far back as the 1970s. So whilst the science isn't settled because science is never settled, it's fair to say there is a mountain of scientific empirical knowledge on the subject of climate change that is at odds with what the media have been saying.
The reasons behind that I can only speculate on, for now . Then I looked at Naomi Oreskes lecture to the University of Rhode Island . It is subtitled 'How a handful of scientists obscure the truth about climate change.' One cannot go away from this dry lecture without realising that climate change is the most important and relevant issue facing humanity today in the second decade of the 21st century, and that anyone facing up to this problem is dealing with a multi-dimensional issue not just about science but one that strikes at economics ideology politics and even the very nature of humankind. To say it is powerful stuff would be to hugely underestimate Oreskes work. All I can say in response to it is watch it!
Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990) is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent.
Now for more sciencey stuff making the case for action now I turned to "How It All Ends" from the superb hard working You Tube vlogger wonderingmind42, a US High School physics teacher. Importantly this also makes the case from a sensible risk management point of view, a POV completely obscured by the myth or real debate favoured by the mass media. The Nature of Science is well worth a look - it introduced to me the concept of "confirmation bias" which could prove important .Other stuff from wonderingmind42 is the conservatively titled "The MOST Terrifying Video Youll Ever See" which even has plaudits from General Anthony Zinni of the USMC !
But I can't leave wonderingmind42's films (there are at present over 95 of them) without mentioning what he calls the most important video you'll ever see, In which Professor Al Bartlett of the University of Boulder Colorado gives his lecture titled 'Energy Population and Arithmetic' which demolishes Capitalist Growth dogma. It's divided into eight parts - here they are: part 1, part 2 ,part 3, part 4 ,part 5, part 6 ,part 7,and part 8 . Doctor Al says " You are important people , you can think. If there was ever a time the human race needs people who can think it's right now, it's our responsibility as citizens in a democracy to think." He also notes the observation by H.L. Mencken "It is in the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false and comforting". Wise words , which I am finding sum up the public understanding of climate change today in 2010.
Here is a five minute cartoon from the PostCarbon institute that has to be mentioned in despatches.
So there you have it that's where I am right now. Does all this make me a climate geek? I hope so !
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley : You're A Fraud. - Sue Me !!!
* Click here for the evidence on that one
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)