Friday
Jun192015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The damage to science
Jun 19, 2015 Academia Climate: Sceptics Matt Ridley Matt Ridley has a good piece up at Quadrant, describing the damage that is being done to science by the religious adherence to global warming dogma. There are many memorable quotes in it, but here's one to set the cat among the pigeons:
Much of [the] climate war parallels what has happened with Islamism, and it is the result of a similar deliberate policy of polarisation and silencing of debate. Labelling opponents “Islamophobes” or “deniers” is in the vast majority of cases equally inaccurate and equally intended to polarise.
Reader Comments (55)
It's not science but academia that is in trouble.
Academia has expanded without pause since WW2, after all.
wow!
Academia is not the fundamental problem, MCourtney (although I castigate them particuolarly, too, for their responsibility to be better than they are), it is just the pointy, most clearly injurious, end of it. Unquestioned dogma is the fundamental problem, and it is rampant in the world today (Ridley is not the first to point out the parallels to be drawn with Islam--not Islamism, Ridley, Islam itself; be brave and call a spade a spade). In science, this problem of unquestioned and unquestionable dogma goes all the way back to Darwin and the rise of the theory of undirected evolution that is the paradigm for all the earth and life sciences--that theory, too, is utterly false, and if you think this is a benighted statement I am telling you that you are no better than the other dogmatists of the world, huddled closely around their delusions of grandeur and striking out at the unbelievers in blind emotion. The climate hoax coup d'etat is just the tip of a world-sized, endemic addiction to long-nurtured, divisive, and utterly false dogmas, whose effects are all climaxing now.
As an engineer I fear science is going to be put back a hundred years! The ever more scarey claims about what causes cancer, or this disease or that disease, all for the "cause", of political correctness, will finish science almost certainly. Even I am wary about the pronouncements on "lifestyle" choices made by the BMA, the classic being the "3 units of alcohol per day" limits, which one of their number admitted a year or two ago now were based upon no sicentific evidence whatsoever, but merely plucked out of the air as a figure somebody "felt" was appropriate! Deeply disturbing in many ways.
It is an excellent article. I don't think that any of it was new to me but it certainly pulled together many different threads to give a good overview of the scientific mess known as climate change.
I agree that the growth of sceptical blogs is a positive outcome. In fact, I think they command more credibility and respect than the leading scientists, leaving aside, of course, peer review which was renamed 'pal review' after ClimateGate. Unfortunately, these blogs only attract those with an interest in the subject.
I see no signs of the situation improving. There is too much money and political capital invested in the scam. Yes, it has become a scam, a gigantic money making scheme based on lies, misinformation, massaged data and exaggeration.
I see no sign of the academics cleaning up their mess or the learned bodies calling a halt to the exaggeration. Perhaps only Mother Nature can resolve this one. It may take more than a generation of measurement to show that any warming is not catastrophic. Alternatively, global cooling could focus minds within a decade.
"Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced."
Add.. "and despite poorly written papal encyclicals" to the list.
Andrew
Thanks for the link. Matt Ridley has outdone himself. He covers the ground nicely, nicely tying in earlier examples of the damage a "political consensus" has done to science.
This an excellent article, one of the best I've seen. Every politician should be forced to read it and explain why, where, and how it differs from reality.
The global warming dogma has certainly damaged science. Scientists and others were already causing damage but on a smaller scale. We see that funding can be used to purchase scientific credibility and endorsement, placing pressure on academics to deliver that which is desired rather than the results of objective research.
The food industry generates claims of benefits and alarm so regularly that the public is beginning to ignore the scientific advice. The scientists run the risk of losing all credibility. The public risk ignoring important warnings.
We see the same pressures in the pharmaceutical and medical fields. Commercial interests are becoming an important consideration when assessing the credibility of scientific work. This undermines the science itself.
Climate change is in a different ball game altogether. The treatment of sceptics is a good measure of the extreme polarisation and the depth to which this ‘science’ has sunk. The cost of climate change to the taxpayer is enormous. I suspect that there could be a significant backlash when this is over. Climate science will not be an attractive profession.
Ridley's article is fantastic.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/
Excellent post by Ridley.
I've said many times that the greatest peril, and most damaging effect of CAGW is the blow it will give to science.
We already live in an age of hysterical, emotion-led ignorance, Sagan's 'Demon-haunted world'. What is our refuge and how do we refute the lunatic faithful after science has shown itself to be so untrustworthy?
Imagine the world of 2035.
Small child, "But why should I believe scientists about X? In class they taught us about the Great Global Warming Farce of 2025. Everyone knows that scientists are no better than Imams."
Stuck Record
There need to be many more damaging blows dealt to science because it is not worth the many papers it is written on.
Science is massively incomplete and will be for thousands of years.
Ridley's piece is superb. If I had the money I would pay for this to be printed in the MSM as a single page spread.
The bulk of the article is so good it seems unfair to criticise, but two things made me shudder. The idea that lukewarmism is the place to be, half way between two extremes, falsifies the nature of the debate. 97% of us deniers are lukewarmers, according to Ridley's definition. (I know, I've counted them/us).
And the comparison with attacks on islamophobes is a terrible tactical mistake. It's a gift to anyone who wants to ignore the meat of Ridley's argument and ridicule him. Yes, there's a comparison with religion to be made, but not in a way which enables critics to associate us, however unfairly, with – well, with people we might not want to be associated with.
Harry Dale Huffman's comment makes my point.
Damage to pure science has been going on for a lot longer than the Climate Change scam.
Similarly to the 'consensus' on climate change, we are also told that smoking causes cancer, salt causes heart attacks and chlorofluorocarbons damage the ozone layer. Some, possibly all of these assertions may be true, but the evidence is not adequate to make these assertions.
Doll showed a general correlation between cancer and smoking - but correlation is not causation, and a detailed mechanism for a cause has remained stubbornly elusive. The DASH salt study which drove attempts to cut salt in our diet has been shown to be poor science, and the connection between CFCs and ozone coverage was simply hypothesised - experimental observation has remained scanty.
These three 'consensus' beliefs could really do with detailed independent scrutiny to establish their accuracy - but no one is going to critically investigate them - still less publish if the investigation shows the hypothesis to be flawed. And yet this is what science should really be about...
Dodgy Geezer, the tobacco thing has been built into a pretty solid case by now. It may have just been correlation back in Doll's day but that day has passed.
They've taken components of tobacco tar and proven they cause tumours in animals.
As these components are often aromatic compounds that are similar to proteins used in cell functionality the mechanisms seem to be believable - if not always fully defined yet.
What a Classic summary. As a previous commenter has said, should be compulsory reading. Such a pity that only those interested will read it.
I guess we wait for the insider response from Richard Betts to this excellent article.
hi all
How are the 1440's? Couldn't resist but
"..the great global warming dogma". Laughable. Ok try this.
"..the great gravity dogma" or possible more controversial on here
"...that great dogma of evolution".
See what I did. All you guys n gals have are juxtaposition of words and waffle.
And Mr Ridley is hardly one to brag about having in the same camp..
"See what I did."
I see it.
You made invalid comparisons for sameness.
Andrew
I dropped by on the ATTP site where they were discussing Matt Ridley's article. (Well, rubbishing it, really.)
I posted a comment, "Excellent article by Ridley."
It was never published. This makes the point better than I ever could that the ATTP site is not about physics or science. It exists to pile scorn on genuine discussion that questions the dogma. This was my second and last visit to the site. For those unfamiliar with ATTP it stands for "... and then there's physics." Someone with that name provides troll-like comments here on occasions. It seems like another example of bringing science, in this case physics, into disrepute.
@M Courtney
...Dodgy Geezer, the tobacco thing has been built into a pretty solid case by now. It may have just been correlation back in Doll's day but that day has passed. They've taken components of tobacco tar and proven they cause tumours in animals....
With the lack of a mechanism I remain suspicious. The 'proof' is no more than statistical correlation, and, while I used to take it on trust that all of these experiments were done correctly, I am no longer sure that that is so. There will have been major social pressure on the relevant scientists to come up with the 'correct' answer - in exactly the same way as Climate Change 'experiments' (which also involve statistical manipulation of data).
You will have read Ioannidis' paper, of course? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
I didn't read the article. I read Geoff Chambers' comment. That was enough.
Matt Didley is a preposterous, right wing nut who discredits and sullies everything he touches. Didley's place in history, let's remember is established as the little boy who fiddled with free market nuttery while daddy's bank went up in flames. He has massive negative credibilty. He belongs in Viz, not Quadrant.
The GWPF is a 5th column organisation who's purpose is to promote luke warmism and thereby provide a phony opposition that underpins belief in computer models while quibbling about the details .
Ridley cites a large number of examples to back up his argument. Those who disagree with his conclusions have the right to do that, but they cannot make the mass of evidence disappear. Climate change science does not bear scrutiny and is an embarrassment to the rest of the scientific world.
What surprises me in this debate is no one ever mentions the parallels between absurd CAGW hypothesis, amply dis-proven by empirical data and the equally absurd and equally dis-proven by empirical data HIV=AIDS=death theory that has been knocking around for even longer. Anyone in their mid-twenties will remember the hysteria promoted in the mid 1980s by the adherents of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. At that time predictions being made by the "experts" were along the lines of 1/5th to 1/4 of the heterosexual population in the western hemisphere simply being wiped out by 1990. It never happened. Initially AIDS encompassed 4 diseases. It has now been expanded to somewhere in the region of 25. People who merely question the hypothesis like Peter Duesberg, the most prominent virologist of his generation, are ostracised and called deniers, yet the real deniers are those who refuse to debate anyone. The parallels are uncanny.
Matt, undeniably - I am a fan of your undoubted word craft.
A warming climate - if the Sun ain't the driver - then pray, what is?
"extreme sceptics" - I am a realist Matt, given over to the pragmatic and boring, to observation and experiment, it is true to say that, of me - the inner schism 'that other half', is the eternal optimist and believer in the human condition, but usually the scientific half of me - wins out. To be a sceptic of man made warming, first there must be some substance to the supposition and hence for scepticism. Though, as I still maintain - they [Arrhenius to hockey stick man] got the correlation the wrong way around - increases in CO² go after rises in Temperature - >T= > CO².
It was still, a bloody good piece Mr. Ridley and I commend you for your patience and very well mannered wit in the face of some very determined and malicious campaign against you. Insofar as, vilification and calumny conducts, as you aver, there are remarkable similarities - Islam, the green blob both are vehement and fire poisoned barbs - at will, at whoever, with no thought or prejudice - now there's irony.
I believe, always you have to fight fire - with fire and no quarter will be offered.
The quality of Didley's arguments are totally irrelevant given that he
1. Promotes warmism and computer models
2. Uses Islamism as a metaphor, thereby establishing himself as a right wing headcase with zero mainstream credibility.
This is where modern Islamism was created. In British Egypt, 1942.
Britain first covertly funded the Muslim Brotherhood, a new radical force with a terrorist wing in 1942.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/05/bin-laden-radical-islam-collusion
esmiff
I occasionally agree with you and I always try to treat you with respect even when I disagree.
Is it too much to ask that you treat other people with the same sort of respect. The man's name is Ridley whether you agree with him or not.
As I said up-thread this article should be force-fed to all politicians who should be obliged to point out where it is wrong.
Perhaps you and oby-baby would like to be the first to volunteer.
I'll pop back later.
This thread proves many things about Bishop Hill and about those who oppose the idea of CAGW. I will use the word denier, I am happy to wear that badge but my apologies to those who are not.
Deniers have nothing in common except their objection to the notion of CAGW.
Deniers will fight each other on many non CAGW issues.
Many deniers do not even respect each other outside of the CAGW debate.
Athelstan at 6:57:
I'm with you 100% (or thereabouts). CO2 is one of the atmospheric gases that cools the planet, which is heated by the sun.
There is a superannuated professor for the public understanding of science called Richard Dawkins. Some of you may have heard of him. Does anyone know of any statement he has ever made on the subject of global warming?
I know it is not within his area of speciality but he presumably understands the scientific method and should have some idea of how robust the arguments in favour of the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are. He should also be aware that the practice of making regular adjustments to the historic temperature record needs to be explained to politicians and the general public otherwise it is inevitable that suspicions of cooking the books will arise.
Dawkins should also know enough about scientific history to know that scientists can be wrong and should be aware of scope for immense damage to the reputation of scientists and the public perception of science if politicians cripple their countries' economies because of a theory that turns out to be wrong.
Mike, the man betrays his inner motives by mis-spelling a real name.
Brilliant stuff from Matt Ridley. Naming names, calling out malfeasance and sharp practice is exactly what's required, especially when it's obvious that's what has happened. I'll stake a pound here and now not a single one of his named suspects launches a legal challenge to what would be - if incorrect, blatant libels. Another Ridley win, then.
PS @ Harry Huffman. I'm just an interested member of the public but I think you have a brilliant and fascinating theory re Venus / Earth pressure, but your manner isn't exactly conducive to engagement with your peers, Harry. Can't you try and be nicer?!!
The CAGW brigade (heavy division) have a multitude of fake theories to support their claims. The deniers have a huge amount of empirical evidence to support their claims. What exactly pray have the luke warmers got?
Oh yes, I remember - climate sensitivity models ^.^
kevin king, you make a good example of the damage to science. Even sound research is doubted because of the failures of the AGW crowd.
However, you have missed an important point about HIV/AIDS.
No-one has AIDS without also having HIV. That does sort of imply that HIV is a necessary pre-requisite for developing AIDS.
It may well be that the AIDS scare was over-hyped. Perhaps you over-reacted at the time because of your age and targeted marketing?
Or maybe medical science advanced quicker than expected? But that implies that they are correct about the link between HIV/AIDS.
Dung, lukewarmers have the fact that he world has warmed since the Little Ice Age and that coincides with CO2 emissions from the Industrial Revolution.
Also basic spectroscopy says CO2 absorbs and emits at known wavelengths.
It's not conclusive as the world isn't simple, but it seems reasonable.
One of the biggest problems with science – all science – is that it is often used to allay what may well be the greatest fear of all humans – fear of the unknown. As I have mentioned in another thread, we all happily acknowledge that we live in a chaotic system, which means that there is an awful lot of uncertainty out there; so much that there is little we can do to predict which way any of it will go.
The majority of the human race does not like uncertainty, and will do anything to make it more certain. They used to fling virgins into volcanoes for that sort of thing, in the not-so-distant past (a practice that is being returned to, at least metaphorically – for the time being!). There always has to be a cause for the uncertainty. It used to be easily laid at the feet of those who behaved a bit differently, or out of step with the community, who could be labelled, “Witch!” by what they said or did, or their non-compliance of performing the correct rituals, say, or of stripping off on top of a mountain.
Now, we can have “scientific” explanations – in this case, rising CO2. And what causes the CO2 to rise? Let’s face it, not only do we have to find a cause, we have to find a cause that can be blamed on someone (not the accusers, of course, but appeasement of the gods does require a culprit), and we have to find a cause that has a solution. Well, “science” has determined that it is the human burning of “fossil” fuels that is the cause, as it can find no other reason, utterly ignoring the fact that they haven’t actually looked for any other reason. Quite why the fact that, while burning of fossil-fuels has risen exponentially, the rise in CO2 has been more or less steady seems to have passed by those who determine what is “valid” and what is not has to be a mystery, but questioning of The Cause is something that now cannot be tolerated. And Science – True Science – is the sad victim of such intolerance, broken and bleeding as it is bludgeoned by ideologues, the collateral damage being the individuals, families and communities for whom Science has been the greatest protector and benefactor in history, who are to be forced to remain or return to subsistence living.
Oh. Is that a bit too much of a rant?
M Courtney
Sod correlation and sod scientific theories, the ice core samples say CO2 does not cause warming or at least it does not cause warming at CO2 levels above about 220 ppm.
I think I accept the spectroscopy evidence but not the way it is interpreted.
not sure if it's "damage that is being done to science"
to me it's more the damage by/to the so called "experts" in science, hungry for media attention/headlines/fame/grants etc...
when I now hear the MSM word "expert" on any topic I listen attentively & lo & behold they confirm my belief that we are informed on crucial/important topics by 2nd rate d/heads
My problem with Ridley comes from an occasion when he appeared in this place declaring 'peace in our time'.
We the great unwashed, it appeared, should rejoice that he, Ridley had made a great breakthrough in his discussions with the forces of climate science. Now we were all on the same side and should be respectful to our erstwhile opponents .
I was impressed by the very short shrift he received from honourable members of this forum.
Dung, I am extremely sceptical about the ice-core data.
It seems remarkable to me that the gas won't diffuse through any micro-fissures or liquid interfaces. That the ice has been a perfect crystal for thousands of years despite strong winds blowing over it... I'm sceptical.
Esmiff
Thanks for calming down. As cheshirered said of HD Huffman above, yours are comments I always read, since it's more interesting disagreeing with you than agreeing with a lot of others.
If Ridley sometimes comes over as a self-appointed chief of a lot of very bolshie indians, it's only because of the peculiar position he finds himself in. He and Nigel Lawson are just about the only two opponents of the consensus who the media can't ignore, for the rather quaint reason that they're part of the legislature. I criticised him above for making what I see as an artificial distinction between lukewarmers and sceptics, but he's probably doing it for tactical reasons, to avoid being lumped together with us lot.
The problem with bringing Islam, or Hitler or Stalin, into the argument is not only that it's as explosive and self defeating as a suicide bomber's truss, but that it has no explanatory value, since it can't explain a single thing about the Green Blob, like: Why now? Why them? And why this particular bee in the bonnet?
MCourtney provides the beginning of an explanation in the first comment here when he notes that Academia has expanded without pause since WW2. Once upon a time the university-educated formed a tiny minority of self-respecting and respected specialists, (doctors, lawyers, engineers, academics …) who shared a common culture without feeling the need to impose it on anyone else. When the educated élite form 30% of the population, they need some creed to bind themselves together and distinguish themselves from the common herd. Organic food and ethical bicycle maintenance alone is not enough.
A comment I saw on WUWT in response to Watts's posting of Matt Ridley's words.
Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2015 at 6:24 am
I think carbon-dioxide-induced warming during this century is likely, though I think it is unlikely to prove rapid and dangerous.
In other words, you Believe something, but not too much. It is like saying you believe an invasion of space monsters is likely this century, although it is unlikely to be rapid and dangerous. The rest of your arguments are sound, so why the need to kowtow to Belief? It’s a puzzle.
@Jun 20, 2015 at 7:29 AM | Registered Commenter M Courtney
The argument you raise is based on the behaviour of the Firn:
19 Nov 2014 - firn, ( German: “of last year”, ) also called Névé, partially compacted granular snow that is the intermediate stage between snow and glacial ice.
The argument is that snow does not turn instantly to ice, it first becomes firn which will still allow gas bubbles to move and thus separate the temperature signals from the age signals we get from the ice cores. I thought this sounded convincing and since I believe the ice cores are the most reliable guide to past temperatures, CO2 levels etc I had to check it out.
The problem with this argument is 'time'.
According to the ice core records the lag between changes in Temp and changes in CO2 levels can be as long as 2000 years however there is no evidence in the arctic ice cores that this 'Firn state' lasted more than 50 to 150 years. I was very relieved hehe.
There is also very strong circumstantial evidence that the ice core records are correct; RealClimate admits they are right ^.^
It's a good article by Ridley, devastating really for the hysterical ones.
@esmiff
...The quality of Didley's arguments are totally irrelevant given that he
1. Promotes warmism and computer models
2. Uses Islamism as a metaphor, ...
Ah...you have lost me here. I always thought that the quality of an argument depended on its internal logic and the truth of the initial postulates. The person making the point might be clinically insane, but the argument still stands on its internal coherence. This was a fundamental truth.
Are you saying that prejudice and political smears are the only real truth?
I regret to ear awful news, ignored by our esteemed colleagues that post here... A short list of century scale 'science' disasters with dissenters ostracized and worse
1, Aristotelian rationalism as the true basis of science, endured for 2,000 years! until Bacon, and that took 4 more centuries to fully develop...
2. Ptolemaic heliocentrism and cycles and epicycles, around 17 centuries, finally ends with Galileo in house arrest and Copernicus and Kepler hiding writings.
3. Asclepius and Hippocrates and the 'Theory of Humors' not fully replaced until Pasteur (germs) and Curie (X-rays), and then promptly goes back into superstitions about food that is 'bad' or 'good' for you, carcinogenesis, et alia...
4. Cholesterol hypothesis of Keys... Do yourselves a favor and research the utter destruction, by Keys and his acolytes, of George Victor Mann at Vanderbilt Medical School for daring to point out the errors and insubstantiality of the fats corpus. Still ongoing and still utterly deranged and government dogma, about 70 years.
I despair writing this and leave you with a thought from Robert Heinlein:
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Nice post glennDC ^.^
Dodgy Geezer
I read the article yesterday. It was a rambling, collection of information, all of which I had read before. However, he actively promotes the lie of warmism.
"The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century"
That as I said is my opinion of the purpose of the GWF and its motley crew of right wing pirates who's very presence will drive away any intelligent or reasonable interested party. To provide a completely phony and useless opposition.
Didley mentions Pachauri but fails to observe that he was simultaneously head of the IPCC and a director of the Indian Oil Corporation because that doesn't fit with the false dichotomy of capitalism vs environmental lobby he pushes throughout.
"He (Pachauri ) had been on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (1999-2003), GAIL (India) Ltd. (Largest
gas transmission and marketing company in India) (2003-2004) and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd
(includes coal and gas generation) (2002-2005).
http://www.iddri.org/Iddri/Intervenants-auteurs/Rajendra-K.-Pachauri
Wikipedia
On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri