Ask for evidence

Sense About Science have launched a new campaign encourage people to demand scientific evidence to support scientific claims made by companies and government.

Shall we start with the Stern Review then? That's a non-peer-reviewed work of art. Where's the scientific evidence?

Interestingly, Sir Paul Nurse is one of the campaign's supporters. This is odd because Sir Paul seems happy with model output alone in some areas of life.

Wagner speaks to IoP

Physics World has managed to extract some brief comments from Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of Remote Sensing who resigned over the Spencer and Braswell paper:

I saw several basic problems [in the Spencer–Braswell paper], including that correlation does not imply causality, the fact that 10 years' of satellite data are not enough to come to such strong conclusions about the subtle and long-term changes in climate, and that, indeed, too little quantitative evidence was presented to support these strong claims,"

He also denies having any pressure put on him. Which is odd when one recalls his apology to Kevin Trenberth.

(H/T Jonathan Drake)

Beware windfarms

Proven Energy has announced that it has a problem with one of its popular small wind turbines:

Proven Energy has become aware of a potential manufacturing defect in its Proven 35-2 wind turbine (The Proven 7 and Proven 11 are unaffected). We are investigating this, however, our work to date has now shown that a significant number of shafts may be affected across multiple manufacturing batches.  

With that in mind we are now advising all Proven 35-2 owners to place their wind turbines on brake as soon as it is safe to do so. Under no circumstances should you apply the parking brake whilst the wind turbine is rotating at normal operating speeds since this will place extra stress on the shaft. We will ensure that you receive regular updates in the interim period.  Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

In other words, that propeller whirling above your farmhouse is in danger of breaking off and turning you into a puree. Oh yes, but you can't switch it off until the wind stops blowing. Round where I live that could be six months or so!

Clearly in green circles, "Proven" means something slightly different to normal usage.

(H/T John Lyon)

Feed the Josh

Josh has got a tip-jar, which is just as well considering all the work he has been doing today.

It's here.

Sceptics in kilts

Mike from the Scottish Sceptic blog is trying to start up a new organisation for sceptics in Scotland, which, I'm sure you will agree, is an excellent idea.

Goremanghast

Having got off to a slightly premature start, Josh is now uploading toons to the Goreathon gallery.

Nursing times

Having recently announced that he wants to use the Royal Society as a tool to influence political debate, Paul Nurse has now decided that he's going to use his position as Royal Society president to try to influence elections more directly, taking a direct shot at the US Republican party.

Is it just me that finds the spectacle of the president of the Royal Society wallowing around in the mud just a little unedifying?

A Nobel deed

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society citing its stance on global warming:

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: xxxx@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

It's funny, but I thought that scepticism on the global warming question was tantamount to being "anti-science". Isn't that what all the unthinking science gurus say - the Simon Singhs, the Paul Nurses, the New Scientist clique and the Scientific American gang and the Chris Mooneys and the George Monbiots?

How are they going to explain this?

Ways of thinking

There is a petition doing the rounds to have children learn programming skills at school. John Graham-Cumming is discussing it with his readers here.

I've pondered in the past the different ways of thinking about the world and approaching problems and wondered if these might be the basis for a curriculum fit for the twenty-first century. (The learning-free curriculum that is being introduced here in Scotland is certainly not doing the job).

For example, I think that economics is a tool for understanding the world that gives important insights into the way the world works. Indeed in one of the Baltic states (Estonia, if I remember rightly) economics is a compulsory subject at high school. Formal logic is another area that I think is important.

In the same way, I think that programming is a way of approaching problems that has a more general application than simply writing computer code. So I reckon the petition is a Good Thing.

Biofuels nonsense, expect subsidies to continue

The New York Times is reporting that the European Agency has been double-counting the potential reductions in carbon emissions from shifting to biofuels.

“The potential consequences of this bioenergy accounting error are immense since it assumes that all burning of biomass does not add carbon to the air,” the committee wrote.

I don't suppose that this will make the slightest bit of difference to government policy in the UK though. Expect subsidies to continue to flow to biofuel projects.

(In related news, 13 windfarms had to shut down during the recent windy weather here in the UK - it was too windy. H/T Jiminy Cricket in the comments)

Peer review pickle

It is rapidly becoming a commonplace that peer review doesn't work. An article in Times Higher Education looks at the problems its use is causing at the research councils.

"Independent expert peer review" is contradictory. One submits a proposal and the councils ask experts to assess it. But these experts are likely to include proposers' closest competitors, even if they are selected internationally, because science is global - and real pioneers have no peers, of course. How then can the councils ensure that reviews are independent? To make matters worse, these experts can pass judgement anonymously: applicants don't know who put the boot in.

I suggest that the misuse of peer review is at the heart of the research councils' problems. Before about 1970, they largely restricted its use to the assessment of applications for large grants or expensive equipment. Scientific leaders protected the seed corn, ensuring that young scientists could launch radical challenges if they were sufficiently inspired, dedicated and determined. Today, the experts whose ignorance they would challenge might also influence their chances of funding.

There is obviously a suspicion that research funding is directed towards projects that will help the green cause and away from those that might question it, although it has to be said that evidence is thin on the ground. With a process like peer review involved, we suspicious members of the public are hardly going to be reassured though.

The cost of green

Matthew Sinclair was on the Daily Politics today, talking about the cost of the government's mad energy policies.

Word on Twitter is that he was extremely effective in the subsequent studio debate. I'll let you know when it's available.

An unexpected citation

Who would have thunk it? The Hockey Stick Illusion is cited in a paper in the Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry. I'm reference [19] in the excerpt below.

Confirming published conclusions

Reliability of experimental data is an essential foundation in all scientific research. (As I was taught when starting research, though the importance of reproducibility is stressed less often in recent reports.) Accordingly, based on best scientific practice [19], L’vov identifies, for scrutiny, all relevant aspects of his formulation, development and testing of CDV theory [1–4]: literature sources, relevant theory, methodology, experimental data, calculations, interpretations and conclusions. Further, careful re-examinations of published data for selected rate processes would either confirm and strengthen the theory as presented [1] or identify inconsistencies, thereby opening a debate, which could lead to new understanding and insights into the reactions concerned. Such tests of this potentially influential theory are required to confirm its reliability before its application, development and acceptance.

The Gorathon

In honour of Al Gore's latest 24 hours to save the planet, Bishop Hill is proud to present...the Gorathon, a 24-hour extravaganza of Josh cartoons inspired by the great Goracle himself!

Click on the image for more toons, and keep coming back, because Josh will be adding more throughout the day. (If you click on the first image in the gallery, you'll get a lightbox thingy)

Political Paul

Sir Paul Nurse appears to have decided that he hasn't been nearly political enough yet. Something must be done!

Nurse wants the society to have a stronger voice on the big policy questions of the day. "The Royal Society has a responsibility to provide advice on difficult issues, even if they are contentious," he says.

He hopes to boost the society's role in government decision-making by fostering greater involvement of its roughly 1,500 fellows and foreign members in preparing reports, potentially with the help of more policy staff. Nurse also wants to expand the number of authoritative and influential reports on key issues, such as nuclear power, climate change and the definition of life.

Interestingly, he also wants to extend the terms of officeholders. I wonder why? In my experience, this kind of step is rarely done for good reasons. I think I'm right in saying the officeholders currently have 5-year terms (certainly the president does). Why would they need more?

Update on Sep 13, 2011 by Bishop Hill

James Wilsdon, who heads (still, I think - he's leaving at some point) the Royal Society policy unit, tweets that the changes are as follows:

Council currently serve 1 or 2 yrs (President/VPs 5). Change would move Council to 3 yrs (like many charity trustees)