Links on Rational Discussion

Image via Wikipedia

Currently, I see that Rationality is all about a very high standard for yourself and for your allies. Worrying about the standard of rationality of enemies and opponents should be a very small part. There is a finite amount of energy, and that energy is best used to keep the self from deluding the self with comfortable ideas.

It is interesting that nobody wants to be seen as irrational, but very few happy assume the burden of a very high standard for rationality for their own thoughts.

John Wilkins - Evolving Thoughts - A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion

1. The Fallibility Principle
2. The Truth-Seeking Principle
3. The Clarity Principle
4. The Burden of Proof Principle
5. The Principle of Charity
6. The Relevance Principle
7. The Acceptability Principle
8. The Sufficiency Principle
9. The Rebuttal Principle
10. The Resolution Principle
11. The Suspension of Judgement Principle
12. The Reconsideration Principle
13. Fleck’s Addendum

Some of my own posts on Rational Discussion and Rationality:

• The next tack in Climate Disruption denialism - Scientists must be Nihilists
• The difference between Skeptics and Deniers
• Shifting between the genial general and the hard-nosed specific as a form of the "Shell and Pea game" - A juicy example of The Art of Controversy
• Uncertainty is not an argument for the status quo

Thoughts on Roger Pielke Jr. | Stand-Up Economist - Yoram Bauman

wikipedia.org - Childe's_Tomb

Thoughts on Roger Pielke Jr. | Stand-Up Economist - Yoram Bauman

As an economist, I found Roger’s lack of discussion of climate impacts to be extremely disturbing. If—totally hypothetically—the science said that hitting 450ppm would cause the planet to explode, I’m pretty sure Roger’s talk would have looked different. (At least I hope so!) The economic point here is that cost-benefit analysis has two halves—costs and benefits—and you can’t do it by just talking about one of the two halves. Why Roger failed to talk about both halves has me totally perplexed and leaves me questioning how much he actually knows about economics. (For the record, he’s not an economist, so I think this is a legitimate question, not an insulting one. He’s a political scientist, but his talk was not about the intersection of science and politics; his talk was fundamentally about economics.)

RPJr's rhetorical trick "there is a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation displayed in this post... Fortunately, my new book covers all of these points so that there should be no ambiguity in my views." is annoying.

As if a book is a tomb for the ideas of a public intellectual, and it makes them incapable of stating plainly their views in public forums.

Y. Bauman refuses to play ball:

"Okay, here are some questions: (1) What did you say about the tenets of climate science? (Then I’ll try to get a video of your talk and see if I owe you an apology.) (2) How would you quickly characterize the main points of your talk? (3) Since you note above that you “did not discuss costs or benefits”, I’m curious about why. Do you not think cost-benefit analysis is important? (4) How (if at all) would your talk have been different if the scientific consensus was that 450ppm would destroy the planet?"

Is RPJr so craven as to simply "hit-and-run" from this forum, now that the questions are specific?  Stay tuned!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related posts:

• The Post-Email-Hacking phase of climate denialism
• Complicity and Sympathy for Comforting but False & Dangerous Ideas
• It is time for some humility - Oh Lordy...
• Is using the term "Denialist" unfair?

[Edit 7/31/10]

To my surprise, RPJr replied; his answers:

1. I used a “bathtub” model to describe the challenge of stabilization and I argued that everyone in the debate on all sides agree that CO2 has impacts. Where there are debates is when those impacts become dangerous (the height of the bathtub, e.g., 450 ppm) and the consequences of spilling over. Such debates are of course legitimate.

2. Three points: A. Targets and timetables for reducing emissions now being discussed or even enacted in law (e.g., in the UK) are not credible (I think I proved this), B. Stabilizing concentrations requires advances in technology deployment and innovation rather than GDP contraction (shown a bit, but largely asserted), C. Acccelerating decarbonization requires much greater public investments in technology (asserted not proven).

3. I’ve written a lot of CBA, and teach it as well. This talk was not about CBA, but policy evaluation. I am happy to discuss the topic.

4. I have no idea.

flickr.com/photos/psd/1806225034
"Moral Compass" by "psd"

My comments to (1): "Such debates are of course legitimate."  RPJr has a problem with the debate coming to provisional conclusion, on the side of the science and the moral question of future generations being left a livable world - a provisional conclusion where we begin work on drastically reducing carbon emissions and mitigate previous carbon emissions, where GDP takes a major haircut if need be.  RPJr's fretting and fussing is consistent with the moral question of future generations being left a livable world always taking a backseat to today's GDP/standard of living - but he doesn't have the guts to admit that, or he realizes that if his cravenness is so obvious, he gives up any chance of political effect.

My comments to (2): Actually, this is the first sensible thing RPJr has ever said, to my knowledge.  It is very true: we have exactly zero experience with asking citizens to voluntarily cut their standard of living for the moral outcome of  future generations being left a livable world.  "Warmists", it can be argued, don't have the guts to admit this, or they realize that if they are so truthful they give up any chance of political effect.

My comments to (3): Why talk to economists about policy evaluation without reference to cause and effect?  That was Y. Bauman's original puzzlement.

My comments to (4): Pathetic.  Again, RPJr cannot deal with science predicting catastrophe (catastrophe, because it is hard to imagine the moral monsters that could cheerfully leave future generations an unlivable world), because his goal is that he moral question of future generations being left a livable world always taking a backseat to today's GDP/standard of living.  That can be used to perfectly predict his reaction to anything.

Protect American Jobs! No Soot Tax!

news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/soot-emissions-ice-072810.html

flickr.com/photos/statelibraryofnsw/2960116125/
Ice cased Adelie penguins
after a blizzard at Cape Denison /
photograph by Frank Hurley

"The quickest, best way to slow the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is to reduce soot emissions from the burning of fossil fuel, wood and dung, according to a new study by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson.

[...]

Soot from the burning of fossil fuels and solid biofuels contributes far more to global warming than has been thought, according to a new Stanford study. But, unlike carbon dioxide, soot lingers only a few weeks in the atmosphere, so cutting emissions could have a significant and rapid impact on the climate. Controlling soot may be the only option for saving the Arctic sea ice from melting."

I smell Stealth Issue Advocacy!  I smell a Dishonest Broker!  (I smell a witch)

Protect American Jobs!  No Soot Tax!  In my new book, soon to come out, I argue that there are huge technical barriers, costs are too high and that we lack political will.

The Nathan Myhrvold and the Freeman Dyson recommend painting black penguins white with lead based paint.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related links:

• The next tack in Climate Disruption denialism - Scientists must be Nihilists
• Calling "Climategate" for what it really is - Kerry Emanuel
• The Post-Email-Hacking phase of climate denialism - What can we expect?

Uncertainty is not an argument for the status quo

The cognitive errors that lets some take demonstrations of uncertainty and confuse them for arguments for continuing the status quo:

(For the following, substitute for "plausible" the phrase "developed/confirmed to such a degree that it is perverse to withhold provisional assent")

1) To inform a rational choice of actions, plausible full narratives compete solely with other plausible full narratives. If I open a door, and in the bright light of the room see a breathing tiger across the room, it is rational to step back out of the room and close the door. Any demonstration of uncertainty of my ability to tell a living tiger from a amusement park animatronic tiger is not an argument to stand motionless at the open threshold. The demonstration of uncertainty can be used to choose between plausible full narratives by discounting some narratives, but it (the demonstration of uncertainty) doesn't have the power to construct a plausible full narrative in opposition to the one under consideration, much less make the opposite of the considered action rationally attractive.

2) Rational action and rational inaction are both born of rational choice. By changing the language, changing the viewpoint, changing the scope, we can phrase action in terms of inaction, and inaction in terms of action. So what is temporally/culturally/situationally described as an action/intervention is under no extra burden of rational justification than what is likewise described as inaction/absence-of-intervention, and inaction does not have a lesser burden of rational justification than action. (Imagine that the decision to burn fossil fuels is remade on the 1st of each year, for example, with a corresponding decision of how much. So burning fossil fuels in the new year is the intervention, and we wish study if that intervention is rational.)

3) Demonstratively persuading plausible full narratives are not in competition with a swarm of idiosyncratic narratives that are each in contradiction with all others of the swarm. The contradictions inside the swarm renders the whole swarm repellent to the rational. From the swarm should emerge a small number of demonstratively persuading plausible full narratives, first, to challenge the mainstream narrative, second. Or else it is more likely the idiosyncratic narratives are just a symptom of the opposition to the mainstream being handicapped by debilitatingly idiosyncratic minds, incapable of meaningful rational persuasion.

Consider the inability to construct a plausible full narrative for a wide conspiracy to assassinate JFK from those who find fault with details of the many investigators that agree that Oswald was the sole gunman. Consider the inability to construct a plausible full narrative for a wide conspiracy throughout the US government to bring down the Twin Towers by controlled demolition from those who find fault with the details of the many investigators. Consider their pathetic nature. Likewise, note that those who would dispose of the mainstream narrative about carbon emissions and climate disruption and ocean acidification shirk from the burden of supplying an persuading plausible full narrative in opposition. How quickly they rush to use the art of controversy! Is it because they have no alternative?

Inspired by comments to the blog posting...

Only In It For The Gold: There Are Skeptics and Then There Are Skeptics

People who do not support vigorous policy can only be skeptics if they offer very high certainty that the science is biased to overstate the risks. Nobody does this very successfully. Some pretend to do this; at least their position is coherent, if not very well supported.

The Post-Email-Hacking phase of climate denialism - What can we expect?

Below is a great reply to RPJr from Bart Verheggen/ourchangingclimate

[To go along with Michael Tobis' http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/07/roger-jrs-top-ten-opinions.html]

I really appreciate Bart quoting of David Keith:

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/d5955c3b1446194e

"However when people and the political community hear technical people say “can’t be done” they assume we mean that technically can’t be done and that is untrue and destructive.

It’s destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared more about current consumption than we did about preserving our grandchildren’s chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our civilization developed."

Where do I agree with RPJr's list, and the viewpoint of the very-very-balanced never-dare-call-us-deniers boys and girls?  The most I would grant to RPJr, Fuller, et al. is that the lack of political will is as least as important as the science.  (I will not grant any more, because their behavior is consistent with a mania to provide intellectual cover for the powerful who refuse to consider a change in consumption consistent with the mainstream scientific view of the risk of climate disruption and ocean acidification.  The behavior consistent with mania (squealing for false balance and blubbering from hurt feelings from those naughty scientists) separates them from rational actors.)

These fellows cannot help but telegraph their moves, and, reading the above from RPJr, we can infer that in the near future morality and moral consequence will completely vanish from scope of their analysis.  It is a three-legged stool - science, morality, policy - and it is sufficient (and efficient) to attack a single leg to compromise the whole.  Their arguments (along with Kloor and Curry), now we are in the post-email-hacking phase, will suddenly be devoid of moral language, and they will open up the waterworks with Glenn-Beck-like whaling sniveling if any mainstream climate scientist dares to use moral language or draw out moral imperatives.

RPJr has already practiced with the term "stealth advocacy" for any climate scientist who has not suffered frontal lobe damage - in other words, for any scientists who is a whole human and cannot resist finding out the consequences of common moral imperatives (that we human individuals owe the future of the same quality (if not quantity) that we owe to the past that born us), and acting accordingly.

Comment on Pielke Jr’s main conclusions « ourchangingclimate/Bart

9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly. (Pielke)
Without specifics, this is impossible to answer, and is bound to lead to even more misunderstanding. I could try reading your mind of course. You probably have some of your critics in mind, notably some RealClimate scientists as well as Hansen, who you have criticized. I find this very problematic. In most instances that I followed (involving Gavin Schmidt, Michael Tobis, Eric Steig, Hansen, Briffa at different occasions), I have found your and others’ criticisms off base, besides the point, largely irrelevant to the bigger picture and having the smell of a smear campaign (science-bashing). As I commented regarding the latest McIntyre affair (see my review here): “A lot of scientists are getting understandably frustrated with self-proclaimed auditors of science (and their supporters) who cast doubt about a whole scientific field by blowing minor flaws out of proportion and insinuate accusations of scientific misconduct”. Against this backdrop of a lot of people ready to embrace any little nitpicked criticism as if it overthrows the whole scientific consensus, and ignore the mountain of evidence in favour of this consensus, I can perfectly well understand that a lot of scientists (and their supporters) are getting frustrated having to deal with this behavior and (mostly) fake arguments. In the grand scheme of things, the big problem as I see it is the contempt of science and its practitioners by a sizeable segment of the general public and some high profile bloggers; if a scientist responds to faux criticism in a frustrated tone, I find that a minor flaw in comparison. Granted, they (climate scientists) are your subject of study, so you naturally focus on their behaviour, but at the same time, please consider the context in which they operate, as well as the main message they are trying to convey. In light of this, your claim that “bad behavior by the folks at Real Climate does more to hurt the cause for action than the political actions of the skeptics” is preposterous. William Connolley brought up Fred Singer as the most obvious example.

Is climate science unique? Do the scientists need to be protected from themselves?

I discussion of bias, or is it a license to dispense with scientific results that are displeasing?  Where are the outside mechanism to help scientists when they cannot help themselves, because of their own bias.

Why is the mechanism of publication insufficient, when in all other scientific fields it has been exactly the way that the scientific community/mainstream dispensed with invalid results and replaced them with valid ones?

Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> The Unbearable Lightness of Bias

If these (don’t-you-dare-call-them-deniers) “bias-busters” could point to successes in other scientific fields for other scientific questions, all thanks given to their “bias-busting” scrutiny, a lot of people would see the benefit and drop suspicion.
Otherwise, we must pre-suppose that climate science is a “nonesuch” science — the only scientific domain where the practitioners must be protected from themselves.
Where is the rich history of success of outsiders providing “bias-busting” services for scientists? The outsiders that really help scientific progress get to know the practitioners and labs and journals so intimately, they end up having choices about how they ultimately publish and add to the literature — and that is, in fact, how it ultimately plays out successfully. And *not* by providing outsourced “bias-busting” services.


reply to Hector M. #14
I don’t deny that some assert that climate scientists must be protected from themselves.  I am curious to learn of the historical cases where outsiders’ free-lance bias-busting was found to be successful.
Because similar arguments were made that a cabal of Darwinists suppress papers that show intelligent design, and a cabal of medical regulators suppress papers that disprove tobacco carcinogenicity, and a cabal of dentists suppress facts about fluoridation’s mild control properties.
If I could consider the historical cases of success of outsiders’ free-lance bias-busting, when scientific practitioners needed to be protected from themselves, I could discern between clear-eyed skeptics and delusional denialists, and see if the proposed cure fits the illness.
Much like the judgement of the need for carbon taxation may be informed by the history of regulatory prohibitions of  fluorocarbons.  (Or the regulatory prohibitions on the sale of alcohol in the United States, they don’t all have to be positive examples of regulation.)
I am genuinely interested to learn more about outsiders’ free-lance bias-busting in science, where it had an effect, maybe good, maybe bad.  You overlooked part of my original remark in your reply.


It would be much easier see the good intentions of these denialists, if they didn't demand that everyone assume that climate science is a nonesuch science.

[Ugh, more]

reply to Judith Curry #24

"Scientific biases are challenging enough, but when these are augmented by political bias and a policy agenda, then the bias issue becomes the overwhelming challenge for the science."

This is asserted, but not demonstrated.

As a process that embraces self-correction, it is hard to come up with examples of errors that science has allowed to let stand, for all time, because of political bias and a policy agenda. I can't think of any.

[Aside: The closest I can think of is the denying of the possibility of a numerical intelligence quotient in the polite company of scientist, even though it is at least as well established as the Big Five Personality model, which is uncontroversial. But does that even count? Nobody is barred from publishing and the truth is available to the motivated. I am genuinely curious - Are there any examples of errors that science has allowed to let stand, for all time, because of political bias and a policy agenda?]

Is there really a need for a unique outside agent to police bias in climate science, alone?  The same process of refereed journal publication, that serves the scientific community/mainstream in other fields to dispense with invalid results and replace them with valid ones, breaks down *only* for climate science?  And where is the model for successful outside policing of scientific bias?  Does one even exist?  That would be even more controversial than the already controversial remedy of carbon taxation, because there is already research on the economic effects of taxation, and a history of taxation to counter perverse externalities.

Or is the issue of bias - a bias so insidious science should not dare to leave the extermination to mere scientists - a red herring?

The demand to treat climate science as a "nonesuch" science is the rub.  How can I distinguish a prickly intolerance for the possibility of bias from an excuse to discard results that are unwelcome from an excuse to disregard consequences of status quo behavior?

Reply to Bill Stoltzfus #26

Part of the reason that Judith Cury's "Team B" idea went over like a lead balloon was that the name "Team B" had an unfortunate historical connotation to the "Team B", commissioned by Director of Central Intelligence George H. W. Bush, of "outside experts" who attempted to counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA.  In reality, the CIA failed to represent USSR as enough of a military threat for the liking of defense hawks, so Team B manufactured Soviet military capabilities from whole cloth.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

I would rather 100% of published scientific results be attempted for replication by third parties, rather than 20% of funding be spent on fishing expeditions.  Because, if this is a mechanism outside of current scientific publishing guidelines, a group of outsiders would choose where the 20% was directed.  Leaving aside the issue that the comparative invulnerability to political and other agendas of this extra-scientific group is being simply asserted without basis.

Then there is the strange issue why science is singled out for hobbling.  What percentage of business, family, or personal decisions (the analog of scientific results) must be legislated for scrutiny by third parties?  Because is the track record of science worse than the tract record of business, family, or personal decision making?

[double ugh, even more]


Reply to Steve Fitzpatrick #29

I am looking for ways to distinguish accusation of insurmountable bias in climate science from such claims made against in evolutionary biology, tobacco carcinogenicity, vaccine research, etc.

You bring up FDA regulations, but then conflate the issue by stating "Note that these regulations exist in good part to eliminate as much as possible the influence of biases", when in fact these are strictly to try to prevent direct harm to patients by the treatment intervention under investigation.  Demonstrated by how they do nothing to prevent biases that don't strictly harm patients directly -- how else could the bias for over-reliance on pharmaceuticals stand?...  if these were, by design, to try to eliminate bias?

"But a more relevant question is “Are there examples of errors that science has allowed to stand for a significant period of time?”  A search for these kinds of examples might not be so difficult."   Then humor me.  The remedy, to fit the topic, must be an extra-scientific mechanism to eliminate bias that scientists are fundamentally otherwise unable to.  To best understand the beast being discussed, I would appreciate examples.  If it never existed, and never will, then that is the very definition of a red herring to discard results that are unwelcome and an excuse to disregard consequences of the status quo.  I would like to see this is a good faith argument.

I don't deny that the public demands more from climate scientists than protein folders.  But I want to see the distinction of the demand from the demands put on evolutionary biologists by members of the public, from the demands put on mathematicians by those who trisect the angle or square the circle, from the demands put on medical animal researchers by the property destruction and harassment by anti-vivisectionist protesters, etc.  Are the demands, for the most part, strictly to promote scientific truth found in the least time in the efficient way?  Or not?

A juicy example of The Art of Controversy

God bless the true skeptics - they exist, and they hold themselves and their allies to high standards.

This post was interesting to me for this wonderful technique of The Art of Controversy:

Only In It For The Gold; Guest Posting from "Willard" (from Neverending Audit): Willard's Meta-Audit

So here's a pea-and-thimble [shell game] strategy one might try out in a discussion:

- When confronted with general, collegial, and interpersonal criticisms, look and ask for specifics;

- When being responded to on specifics, return to the general mode, but on another subject, in a more collegial and interpersonal voice.

The reader can easily see that it creates an unwinnable position for the opponent.

From Willard - Very good catch of the specific technique of "The Art of Controversy" -- ducking and weaving between the general and specific. Thank you Willard.

A reminder to myself that my general point and my specific point should skip down the lane holding hands, so I don't fool _myself_ with the same technique (skipping down the lane being a metaphor for presenting an argument).

Also, a good technique for speaking about morality.  Have the specific moral action followed immediately by the general moral concept.  Have the grand abstract moral scheme followed immediately by suggested congruent specific real-world moral actions.

Is using the term "Denialist" unfair?

Image via Wikipedia

Took one of my infrequent trips to RPJr, was annoyed by the limp nagging to "play nice" that is his staple of trade, and found this garbage:

"The Tyranny of Denial" by Edward Skidelsky - Words that think for us - ProspectMagazine.co.uk

It is very poor undergraduate level writing.

• "Ours is a relentlessly positive culture." is given as a reason why "Denialism" is a naughty word.  Irrationality by culture is no impetus to hamstring my own vocabulary.
• "An accusation of “denial” is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception." Packing a moral judgement into a word is supposed to be an affront to gentility? He then says something mushy and vague about the Holocaust.  Pathetic.
  You don't need to be much of a Bayesian to see value in being informed by judgements of motivation. Forums where there are peculiar restrictions on when motivation can be considered simply exists to aid the Art of Controversy.
• "It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives." It is not "ad hominem" if the logical errors are laid out as well - judgmental language has no infective property to discredit all the text around it. Bizarre that Eddie gets in some jabs at people who use the term "denialist"; Eddie is under no burden to follow the spirit of his own censure.
• "One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed." - this is a silly overstatement of achievement - The Enlightenment rid us from all dogma?  The gross overstatement is part of a naked plea to join in the author's own hysteria.  And those laying down the charge of "Denialist" are anything but quiet - the moral judgement is foremost.  There is no point here.

Blubbering from those tarred with the epithet 'denialist' notwithstanding, the issue is Skepticism vs. Denialism. If you value judgement, you value skepticism.  Much foolishness tries to impersonate the appearance of skepticism, and that foolishness can be assuredly called Denialism.

From this blog: "The difference between Skeptics and Deniers"

Speaking of Uncertainty with a Mumble-Bumble-Mouth - Mike Hulme

Image via Wikipedia

Mike Hulme: We must stop saying ‘The science demands…’ by Tim Black - Spiked Debate

Mike Hulme prattles on about uncertainty.  [Ignore the bio photo of MH staring triumphantly at his rightmost piece of horizon]

Oh bleh, this Mike Hulme is not even operating at the level of the blogger Phillip Price, who is simply blogging on this topic as a layperson. Hey Hulme, we have tools for discussing uncertainty, and we can demonstrate the deniers are actually asserting much more certainty about the future, evident by their unwillingness to "take out an insurance policy" by starting to tax carbon even at a small amount. And they are asserting a much lower sensitivity than any physical theory can justify:

Phillip Price actually takes time to draw the curve of his uncertainty, a rigor the denialists avoid, no matter how Phillip Price attempts to draw it out of them:

http://manuelmoeg.blogspot.com/2009/12/talking-about-climate-change-publishing.html

http://manuelmoeg.blogspot.com/2010/05/seth-roberts-wrong-about-doubting.html

I agree that science, morality, and policy are best kept separate. But just using the word "uncertainty" for anything besides Revelatory Holy Scripture is silly, acting as if we cannot meaningfully compare different qualities and quantities of uncertainty.

If I take out an insurance policy on my house today, and my neighbor does not, it can be argued that I am rationally dealing with uncertainty, while my neighbor is simply non-rationally wishing it away, ineffectively.  I do not necessarily buy insurance today because I am _certain_ that I will have suffer arson or tornado.

If Hulme's writings lead to less harmful confusion of science, morality, and policy, I will provisionally temporally forgive him sloppiness with the term "uncertainty".

Keith Kloor: Compulsion for the formula of "He said/She said"

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/18/why-climate-journalism-is-a-rotting-carcass/

My God, threaten to take away their "he said/she said" journalistic device, and they become completely unhinged. Very embarrassing post from Keith Kloor. Taken with the comments below, the post is completely self-refuting.

Quoting Michael Tobis in the comments:

Is it any wonder the opposition starts down the road of exaggeration as well? There’s really no advantage to telling the truth here, and it is the fault of the fact that there is no institution delivering any news that isn’t political, in other words, nothing seriously resembling scientific or environmental journalism.

It’s as if all I had to do to get an innocent person I dislike condemned for murder is to accuse him of two murders. If the judge and jury were journalistically minded, it would be a pretty simple matter to get them to split the difference.

My own comment:

Keith, you turn criticism of the "he said/she said" journalistic device by your betters into an _example_ of the "he said/she said" device as you shrug off responsibility to differentiate the two sides.  [Following the link is not necessary, it is as bad as you would expect]

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/another-rock/

My lack of compulsion to frame the world as "he said/she said" makes it difficult to see equivalence between the extremes of  Joe Romm and Jeff Id.  The above by Jeff Id is classic bed-wetting 9/12 conspiratorial agitprop (if I may use the word out of historical political context).

Getting back to the beginning of my comment: the issue is shrugging off responsibility.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a very important article by Jay Rosen of NYU Journalism school on PRESSthink:

Jay Rosen - He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html

[Edit]

Kloor responds so:

[...] The irony is that if you really, really wanted to do something about greenhouse gases, you’d stop bitching about the things you can’t change (like msm journalism and skeptics) and start thinking of new ways to reframe the issue.  (Hint: Climate catastrophe is not working. So how long you want to stay with that one? Another couple of decades?)

If you see preventing climate disruption as a moral issue (and I think that is the proper way to view it), you will gasp at the moral bankruptcy displayed.

Whatever the irony is or isn't... some players are incorrigible; best to recognize those players early; embrace the moral foundation of the issue because only there is moral motivation to be found.

Seth Roberts, wrong about doubting Climate Disruption Risk

Image via Wikipedia

Wanted to highlight Phillip Price's responses to Seth Roberts, on the existence of human caused risk of climate disruption.

Seth Roberts, wrong about doubting Climate Disruption Risk:

"
Phil Says:  May 11th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Seth, as you might imagine I disagree with almost everything you say here. But let me give just one example. You say:

“Here’s what I would consider reasonable evidence for serious human-generated global warming:

1. Temperature higher now than in the past.
2. Temperature increasing at a higher rate now than in the past.
3. Good (= verified) model shows serious human-generated warming.”

But in fact, neither of the first two would be reasonable evidence of serious human-generated global warming if they are true, and the absence of them does not indicate absence of serious human-generated global warming if they are in fact absent.

Here’s the key fact that you seem to be unaware of (but that scientists who study this know very well): MORE THAN ONE PARAMETER AFFECTS THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH. It’s not all about carbon dioxide concentrations.

If high temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were due in part to higher solar activity, then those temperatures don’t tell us much about climate sensitivity to CO2. So your point 1 doesn’t really make sense. The issue with point 2 is pretty much the same, except with regard to the derivative of temperature rather than temperature.

And for the models…you assert that the models aren’t good enough to estimate temperature sensitivity, but you’re wrong.

Yes, I know that scientists, like everybody else, tend to be overcertain. But I don’t think that means that nobody knows nuthin’.

I asked you before, more than once, to give YOUR estimate of climate sensitivity (defined as the steady-state change in global average over preindustrial levels in response to a doubling of CO2 over preindustrial levels). You still haven’t answered that question. But it seems that for some reason you put very little of your probability in the range that almost all climate researchers think is most likely. So who is being overcertain?
"

Phil Says: May 12th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Check the IPCC report, chapter 8: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf there is an extensive discussion of climate modeling and why it is good enough to be sure that anthropogenic climate change is real and why the key parameters are likely to be not extremely far from the (admittedly wide) range of estimates.

But what I am taking issue is with much larger than your three assertions, though I think they are all incorrect.

You are criticizing people for being “overcertain” because their estimate of climate sensitivity has an uncertainty of “only” 6C, but your own estimate has less uncertainty than that, in addition to being centered much lower than the experts think is reasonable. I do not think you have any basis for having a narrower confidence interval than the experts do, and I do not think you have any basis for having a much lower central estimate than the experts do.

[ Edit 05/13/10; Michael Tobis weighs in ]

Michael Tobis Says:  May 13th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

To your first two points, there is nothing that says that warming has to be simultaneous with greenhouse forcing. Under present circumstances we in fact expect the contrary: the thermal inertia of the oceans and the masking of industrial dust mask the committed warming. So your proposed tests simply aren’t valid.

Also, climate models make effective predictions of many things, not limited to global mean surface temperature. As a particular point, they show and have shown since the 1980s that greenhouse forced warming is a near-surface phenomenon, accompanied by stratospheric (upper atmosphere) cooling. They also show a pattern of warming that concentrates on land areas in continental interiors. These long standing predictions did in fact emerge. So your claim that climate models are without skill are without foundation.

All of this is silly; it treats “global warming” as a falsifiable theory, a claim of a causation that is either true or false. This is foolishness. The underlying phenomena, (thermal radiation, absorbtion and reradiation in gases) is two hundred year old physics that is as well established as anything in science.

What’s at issue is not “whether” but “how much”. As Phil correctly points out, those who call themselves “skeptics” are not making an argument from ignorance, they are making an argument from certainty. If we really had no idea what the sensitivity was, we should be more concerned than ever. The attitude suggested by people who claim to be “skeptics” is utterly inconsistent with a lack of confidence in the underlying science. It is a claim that the the sensitivity is certain to be much less than all prevailing evidence indicates.

(Phil’s a bit pessimistic; I’d say the consensus range is 2 C to 4.5 C per CO2 doubling. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html )

And what if it were zero? Would we be out of the woods? No, even with a global sensitivity of zero we could have huge forced climate change, say, warming the poles and cooling the tropics. There is no doubt that the amounts of CO2 and other gases we are adding to the atmosphere change the way energy flows through the system, a system which at heart is fluid and easy to change. Even in the absence of knowledge and a low global sensitivity there are huge risks.

And then there is ocean acidification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Sorry. We have to deal with this.

[ Edit 05/13/10; my comment added ]

Seth Roberts says:

seth Says: May 12th, 2010 at 2:47 pm

[...] I’ll provide you my confidence interval in a few days.

It will not be forthcoming.  This was all a predictable exercise in the Art of Controversy.  But it is good to document how these each can be swatted down with minimal effort.

The difference between Skeptics and Deniers

Image by adaptorplug via Flickr

[ This post started life as a comment on the wonderful blog "Watching the Deniers" by Mike in Melbourne.  I am so happy Mike started his blog, because the Climate Disruption Deniers have a very shallow bag of trick, and they have them well worn from past fake controversies like tobacco carcinogens.  So it is great to have a blog dedicated to this.  ]

What is the difference between being skeptical and being a denier?

Skepticism can be a positive attribute.  Being called a denier is always a slur.  Is there a difference?  This is how I make the distinction.

(1) If skeptical, you realize the goal is to eventually replace the mainstream narrative with a new, fundamentally different narrative, at a higher standard of argumentation from statements of certainty.  If you are a denier, you are content to perpetually muddy the water to generate fraudulent controversy.  The test between the two is that the skeptic will dish out their harshest approbation to people on their own side who have no capacity for being constructive and who have no capacity to make valid judgments about quality of argumentation; where the denier in comparison will hold embrace any momentarily useful troll.

(2) The mainstream must accept the discipline of the highest standard of argumentation and demonstration - that is only right to be seen as mainstream.  If you are a denier, you take this to mean that the enemies of the mainstream are allowed to have no standard.  If skeptical, you allow the opponents of the mainstream to have a lower standard, but a standard none-the-less (a lowered standard is to remain productive until a cohesive alternative narrative has been fully developed).  The test is that the skeptic will throw people on their own side out of their camp if they cannot maintain consistently a minimal standard of quality of argumentation and demonstration.  The denier will continually forgive transgressions for any momentarily useful troll.

(3) If skeptical, you take delight in sound results, no matter from your own side or the opposing side.  If a denier, you have boos and hisses for all results, no matter how sound, from the opposing side - and cheers and huzzahs for all results, no matter how shabby, from your own side.  The true skeptic has more latitude with their boos, hisses, cheers, huzzahs.

(4) if skeptical, you see the value of provisional agreement on results today, perhaps to informed by new facts tomorrow, perhaps not.  If a denier, you shriek at any provisional agreement, no matter how relatively settled it is compared to matters of no discernible meaningful controversy, like planetary orbital physics.  If a denier, you shriek at any attempt to blow the foulest vapors of shabby results out of the room.  The denier does not need his viewpoint to prevail - the denier is satisfied with a permanent state of cacophony of controversy.  The skeptic is motivated by having their viewpoint prevail by quality of argumentation and demonstration.

(5) if skeptical, you see that uncertainty can be a valid reason to act today - for example, I buy home-owners insurance today because of uncertainty.  Nobody waits to buy insurance until they get a letter of intent from an arsonist that their home is scheduled to be set on fire.  If you are a denier, you give a privileged status to the status quo - if a denier you effectively say we must not deviate from the existing state until all uncertainty has been eradicated, which is a socially acceptable way to say we must not deviate from the existing state ever.

(6) if skeptical, you value sound results over decorum - all things being equal, decorum is preferred; but no amount of decorum can substitute for sound results.  If a denier, there is no amount of production of sound results that can forgive an opponent of a perceived violation of decorum.

These 6 are unnatural for people, because humans will regress to tribal behavior under stress.  The are only evident in people who value truth over the status of their own tribe.

In my own case, I am most interested in the economic and political consequences for AGW (Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming) or climate disruption, and I am not in complete agreement with the mainstream of the AGW believers when it comes to the economics and politics.  But the standard is so weak on the alleged skeptical side, I can only meaningfully develop and test my personal ideas with the AGW believers side.  That has been my experience.  Even Joe Romm, who is supposedly the worst of the worst of the AGW mainstream believer bullies, has demonstrated nuance when it comes to considering different economic tools.

I would like to see a demonstration that the AGW/climate-disruption mainstream side is worst at being skeptical of their opponents, than the skeptical/denier side.  The standard is so low on the AGW alleged-skeptics/deniers side, they would never agree to the above 6 points.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Intelligent Designers Enlist Climate Skeptics in the War on Reality (desmogblog.com)

The next tack in Climate Disruption denialism - Scientists must be Nihilists

Image via Wikipedia

Pair of posts on Keith Kloor Collide-a-Scape, about the Q&A with Judith Curry.

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/

Might as well prepare for the next tack in Climate Disruption denialism, pieced together from those salivating at the opportunity presented by Judith Curry's delight in the role of "anti-warmist" gadfly:

1) Rollicking dialogue favored over disciplined argumentation

1 Prime) Consider dialogs under discipline that allow them to terminate at conclusions where it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.  Call these dialogs "rationally terminating" dialogs.  Beware any forum where "rollicking dialogue" is always preferred to "rationally terminating" dialogs.  Those forums simply exist to aid the Art of Controversy.

[ quote web search: "perverse to withhold provisional assent" Gould ]

2) Scientists must be held to a higher standard than their critics... becomes... The critics of scientists can sink to impossible shameful depths of poor argumentation... becomes... It is off limits to point out in the critics their impossible shameful depths of poor argumentation.

2 Prime) If there exists a forum where there is no crime that brand someone a bad actor, that forum simply exists to aid the Art of Controversy. (No problem with scientists being held to a higher standard - the problem is when the critics are never under risk to their status as a member in good standing, no matter how impossibly shameful their tactics.  Also, the standard should be stated up front, or else the floor can sink down into a infinite number of basements of shameful argumentation.)

3) With the critics of scientists, you must never consider the motivation of those critics (strangely, scrutinizing the motivation of the scientists themselves is encouraged).

3 Prime) You don't need to be much of a Bayesian to see value in being informed by judgements of motivation.  Forums where there are peculiar restrictions on when motivation can be considered simply exists to aid the Art of Controversy.

4) Scientific facts can be contaminated by a scientist with an outcome preference or a policy preference, and the critics of scientists are under no burden to speculate on the mode of contamination.  And demonstrating contamination can be a substitute for demonstrating falsehood.

4 Prime) Forums where such a concept of contaminated facts is allowed simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

5) Only certainty can motivate action, and uncertainty can never motivate action.  That is why nobody ever buys homeowners insurance without getting a statement of intent from an arsonist that your home is scheduled for a fire.

5 Prime) A peculiar status for uncertainty gives the motivation for the Art of Controversy.

4 + 5) Scientists must behave as perfect nihilists.  A policy or outcome preference from a scientist, even if the logical consequence of a common humane morality of care-taking for the benefit of future generations, is disallowed.  (Strangely, this requirement to be perfect nihilists only applies to scientists.)  If imperfect nihilism is demonstrated, the publications affected can be discarded.

Commentary on 4 + 5) Forums with such a concept of mandatory scientific nihilism simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

6) Scientists writing in casual forums always risk their reputation, for a certain group of scientists.  Scientists writing in casual forums always have their casual statements enhanced by their reputation from scientific publication, for a certain *different* group of scientists.

6 Prime) Forums with such a concept of a blessed group of scientists simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

7) You are not to notice that delay serves privileged groups well.  So the Art of Controversy must be only seen as a Quest for Truth.

7 Prime) Forums where the profits from delay are off limit topics simply exist to be in harmony with those profits, if not to be compensated by a fraction of those profits.

Conclusion) I will assume the burden of discipline to avoid these failure modes, in anticipation that I will be called out when I violate them.  Then, properly shamed, I will document my failure and correct.

Finially, with a sour taste in my mouth, I end with a comment reply:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-3478
"Roger Pielke Jr. Says: April 27th, 2010 at 1:12 pm" speaking of "stealth advocacy"

> No one can control how their statements are used by others.  One can however be clear on how their views map onto policy.

This implies that "stealth advocacy" can be a sin of omission.

And, let me guess, a fact put forward by a scientist guilty of "stealth advocacy" has permanent fractional worth, irregardless of the truth of the fact.

You don't need to be much of a Bayesian to see value in informing an initial judgement in a fact from a judgement of the motivation of actor positing the fact.  But it is only fair to apply this to scientists, critics, pundits, others alike.  And, eventually, the judgement of the fact in isolation of political outcomes has to swamp out the initial judgement informed by motivation.  And, the judgement process must provisionally terminate, because the value is in the result, not in the sustained controversy (provisional on information fatal to the judgement).  And, uncertainty can compel action, in the same way that uncertainty about the risks to my home can compel me to spend money on homeowners insurance, now.

It is my opinion that you would not agree with the above.  I would like to be assured otherwise (of course, you are under no obligation).

Another of my comments:

> Stealth advocacy occurs when someone claims to be only discussing the fact, but in reality, is working to constrain the scope of policy options.  Such work can be intentional or unintentional...

The thing to be maximized is not the "scope" of policy options.  I could enlarge the scope of school-day bed-time options by actively soliciting the opinion of my middle-school daughter, but I am maximizing for long term education outcomes.

Publishing valid results of the significant possibility of climate disruption inconsistent with post-industrial human population numbers would "constrain the scope of policy options", if the published work was taken seriously.  Surely this is not what you want to curtail?

If I was to be uncharitable, I would say discussing "stealth advocacy" is a technique to indefinitely prolong the process of committing to an action commensurate with the possibility of climate disruption, because uncomfortable scientific results could be judged guilty of "constraining the scope of policy options" by removing comfortable but [untenable] options from consideration.

[more 4/27/10]

quoting "Roger Pielke Jr. Says: April 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm"

> Discussion of issues related to advocacy among scientists long pre-date arguments about climate policy.

How could I forget the controversy of tobacco carcinogenicity? ... Oops, there I go, "constraining the scope of policy options" again.

from "Judith Curry Says: April 27th, 2010 at 6:03 pm", quoting Mike Hulme: "Heated debate" http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/features/features/heated-debate

I agree with Hulme that "different legitimate positions people adopt about these ideological and ethical entanglements" can, with rhetorical tricks, be falsely turned into "arguments about belief (or otherwise) in scientific claims".

But, without a motivating morality about care-taking for future generations, the whole climate disruption argument is just so much dry stuff.  And, with that motivating morality, uncertainty is a call to action, not an excuse for inertia.

Again, using the example of [purchasing] homeowners insurance, certainty does not have a monopoly on rational reasons for action.

And it would be a peculiar motivating morality about care-taking for future generations, if it did not prompt skepticism against those who would prolong discussion before meaningful action.  If it did not, it could hardly be called morality at all.

Accepting this, you would expect some viewpoints to remain permanently separated.

What does an Unsustainable Society look like?

Image via Wikipedia

A long form comment inspired by:

Michael Tobis - "Only In It For The Gold": Still Bupkis

Quoting "watchingthedeniers":

> We should perhaps be looking at it in the context of other [successful] "PR" campaigns (in the sense the whole thing was manufactured).

Quoting "Steve Bloom"

> WtD, what gave the "scandal" media legs was the behavior of three journalists (Revkin, Pearce and Monbiot) at two outlets (the NYTimes and Guardian). In essence their coverage gave permission for the rest of the media to pile on. Revkin is most at fault IMHO.

> Actually it would be informative to re-examine Revkin's article in light of present information.

Hear, hear!

I wish I had a fraction of the gifts of John Mashey, to replicate the quality and thoroughness of his work on anti-science organizations and the few scientists they have been able to co-opt, but apply it to techniques and social structures.

What follows is a laughably bare outline, of dubious worth:

A society that is unsustainable in the long term, but stable in the short term, has this structure:

[The terms "vital few", "trivial many" are from Pareto]

"The vital few" - elites dedicated to maintaining their relative status in the short term, even to the detriment of their objective well-being in the long term.  Slavishly dedicated to seeking out short-term local maximums of their relative status.  They react badly and shut down discussion if anyone suggests their status be contingent on successful long term responsible leadership.  Stable because of all the energy these few disburse in maintaining the political structure and rules of decorum of the upper point of the pyramid.

"The trivial many" - common folk dedicated to shedding adult responsibility and shrinking the scope of their responsibility, even to the detriment of their objective well-being in the long term.  Slavishly dedicated to seeking out short-term local maximums of distractions and coping behaviors, with both distractions and coping behaviors preferred over enlarging the scope of their responsibility.  They react badly and shut down discussion if anyone suggests they enhance their responsibility and enlarge their scope of responsibility.  Stable because they have been promised plentiful distractions and pats on the head as a reward for laying prone in rough heaps - to be stepped upon by the vital few.

"The Insignificant" - everyone else who doesn't fall into the above two categories.  Too few to count.  The Internet allows these people an unprecedented ability to organize themselves.  But ultimately it is like two tiny bits of bacon in a massive bowl of split pea soup - the scarcity is so embarrassing it would almost be better to replace it with the complete absence.  And probably I am being too optimistic.  Stable because too few to count.

[Not all the members of "the insignificant" are responsible actors.  But all responsible actors, by exclusion, must be part of "the insignificant"]

The expected role of journalism: journalists are barely a part of the vital few, they have their noses pressed up the glass to better watch the waltzes and curtsies of the elites.  Journalist are under economic pressure, because neither the vital few or the trivial many are willing to pay for the type of corrective active journalism the US Founding Fathers imagined.  So really-existing contemporary journalists are attracted to an easy "he said/she said" narrative, and attracted to sources that can supply ample dumbed down copy.  Both play into the hands of well-funded PR sources, and since there is no financial mechanism to borrow dollars from a sustainable future, the money comes from the exploitation of historical unsustainable resources.

The techniques are all the old tools of the Art of Controversy.  Nothing is so easy to do as to shush down an idea nobody is comfortable with.  You would think with each error pointed out, the journalists would adopt disciplines to prevent that error from even happening again.  But everything is playing out as past anti-scientific obscurantism did, because no discipline is ever permanently retained.  [This explains why the punishment for plagiarism is so much greater and swifter than the punishment for lying and sloth and craven stenography for the purposes of the elites, in journalism.]

And, this form of journalism is socially stable because the vital few fear: (1) the responsibility of sustainability and (2) a society of plentiful human fulfilment, because they both pose a risk to their short-term relative status.  And, this form of journalism is socially stable because the trivial many fear the suggestion of enhancing their responsibility and enlarging their scope of responsibility, denying them their precious distractions and pats on the head.

The advantage of viewing all through the lens of this model is that time and energy can be saved by avoiding dialog with those who have no capability to remake themselves into responsible actors.  [Why argue with those who hold their opponents to a much higher standard of discourse than they do themselves and their friends?  Those who want a higher standard of discourse will lead by example.  This immediately paints all the alleged "reasonable skeptics/deniers" as bright red prats, you will notice.]

My preferred future: take actions to develop the pervasiveness of the morality of the sustainable long view, and the morality of plentiful human fulfilment.  Develop the pervasiveness of such morality *first*, and the programs of social and economic change *second*.  Any desire to short-cut the process will play into the hand of demagogues that simply want to change one set of worthless "vital few" with another set of worthless "vital few", to the cheers of the "trivial many".

Much like social activism of abolitionists in the late 1600's eventually led to the significant (but incomplete) eradication of slavery on December 10, 1948 (United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights).  Unfortunately, the social change of human society is literally glacial, when it comes to acquiring higher standards of morality.  Even *with* immense levels of personal dedication on the level of John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, 1855.

I appreciate your criticism of the above, so I can replace the garbage of my poorly constructed thoughts with something better.

Poppycock from Keith Kloor, whining for the loss of Climategate "He said/She said" journalistic narrative

Image via Wikipedia

Poppycock from Keith Kloor.

Collida-a-Scape: Choosing Sides

Nothing here except pouting from Kloor because somebody took his journalistic "he said/she said" narrative away from him, and now he is cranky.

"He said/she said" is for shit, when the Titanic is 15 minutes away from the last possible moment the boat can be steered away from the iceberg. If re-arranging the deck-chairs while the boat sinks is folly, how much more greater the folly if the re-arranging of the deck-chairs takes place when the wheel must be turned - folding/unfolding deck-chairs in the stead of saving the ship.

The only part worth reading is Michael Tobis's comment:

You mistake anger for gloating. I am angry. The harping on the sheer nothingness behind the accusations is not celebration. It is a necessary correction. There is nothing to the accusations against Jones. I am not dancing in the street. I am feeling somewhat vindicated for getting matters right in the first place, but my dominant emotion is outrage.

Does that mean science is constructed ideally? No, far from it. I myself advocate both for far greater openness and for formalisms that go to conduct rather than just to final publication. I think pure science should look more like applied science, and in particular climate science needs to wake up to being an applied science. I see the point about circling the wagons. I see the point about opacity. I see the point about arrogance. If seeing these things more clearly is a side effect of this charade, so much the better.

But positive side effects aside, it’s still a charade. There is no cause for vilifying Jones or CRU any more than there has been in the past about Mann or Santer or whoever the bete noir of the year is in denialist circles.

The only substantive question at hand is, when someone publishes someone else’s correspondence, which party committed the crime. I would have thought it was the party doing the stealing, not the party doing the having been stolen from.

If the press continues to get that wrong, it isn’t time to be talking about two-bit tribalism or wagon-circling in the scientific community. A criminal act was committed which resulted in the persecution of the victim. That is the story. It is a pretty interesting story. Why don’t you just run with that one for a while and then get back to us, mmmkay?

Tobis continues on "Only In It For The Gold": Still Bupkis:

Until the innocence of CRU becomes clear to the casual observer, the press is complicit in a vile and inexcusable act of calumny. We won't have much to gloat about until the press examines its role in this absurd disaster.

These "science reporters"... with "friends" like these...

The take-away is:

• Scientists will have to blog their way the front line of the narrative, to reach the public with the ability to tell shit from Shinola.
• Pure science should look more like applied science.

Michael Specter’s new book ‘Denialism’ misses its targets

Book review on Grist.org, by Tom Philpott

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-GMO

Scientific Denialism is an important topic, but we have to be wary of those who would simply pick winners and losers among those who sponsor denialism; in Michael Specter's book, for example, carbon fuel burners good, organic food producers bad.  But both make scientific denialism part of their public relations schemes.

But there's another, even more glaring oversight at work here. In a book devoted to "denialism," and "how irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives," there is almost no discussion of the most powerful and successful of all the denier cliques: those who insist human-induced climate change is a hoax.

...

But political and economic power are precisely what elude Specter's gaze. This great defender of science appears to be cursed with something that a love of science should have cured: naiveté. To be sure, the kind of know-nothing, reflexive anti-scienticism that Specter deplores certainly exists; and its adherents need a kick in the pants. Specter's boot misses the target. Moreover, he sees deniers everywhere, except where they are actually powerful and effective: denying climate change.

Unfortunately, to bring seriousness to the issue of climate disruption, it will take just as much work among the "friends" of science as among the "enemies" of science.

It is time for some humility - Oh Lordy...

Image by Perfesser via Flickr

"it is time for some humility, concludes [a deservedly humble man]"

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/statistically-improbable-phrases.html

The sheer nerve of a request for "humility" against those who put their reputations on the line by publishing, under the burden of responsible science.  A request for humility by a humbug.

My comment:

That piece is clearly not a book review (too short and too shallow), and it is not a piece of higher criticism because advances no thesis (concern trolling is the opposite of advancing a thesis).

It is a piece of opinion placed in a corner of Nature where the editors don't have to take any responsibility for the opinion.  And quite a shabby bit of opinion making.

And why this fringe voice chosen?  (Bjorn was caught out misrepresenting sources, the Superfreakonomics chapter was a hash, so RPJr steps up to the plate...  And RPJr's tack will run out quickly as well - it seems to be entirely based on the idea that facts can be "contaminated" by scientists who have a preferred policy outcome.  Because politics is a human activity, and scientists must not be human.)

An disreputable opinion published predominately without risk to reputation. Shameful.  If the self-described "reasonable voices" see the issue not as a matter of scientific fact but as a political or economic one, then commission a paper from a publishing political scientist or an economist.  Instead of publishing potshots and bobbing and weaving and concern trolling.

Was this garbage technique used before against other science that pained industries?  Is there a history of this technique used for tobacco or pharmacological marketing?  Or is energy policy widely understood by "the people who matter" to be all encompassing?

Obviously, industry funds a lot of research.  Is this garbage based on many industry voices among the circle of acquaintance of Nature's editors saying that the economic replacements for carbon fuels are just not ready yet, so the scientific question of human culpability in global warming has to simmer on the back burner for a while?  (Sadly, the industry concerns are probably more cynical than this - an indirect demand from those who get paid today that they deserve to get paid tomorrow, oil rigs or not, refineries or not.)

John Mashey did a bang up job tracking the pitifully few scientists who promote obscurantism against climate science, but I don't recall the editorial boards of top journals being included in his analysis.  And he didn't write about the techniques used in those journals to promote the Art of Controversy against uncomfortable scientific findings.