Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

“Dark matter” and dinosaur extinction

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/06

“Everyone” knows that the collision of an asteroid with Earth damaged the environment so much that the dinosaurs died out and only much smaller creatures survived. Many also know that the impact crater, the Chicxulub crater, has been found beneath the surface near the Yucatan peninsula. Just consult Wikipedia, or Google for more sources.

Except: Google also turns up some reservations, for instance “What really killed the dinosaurs? New challenges to the impact theory” (BBC program).

Several decades ago already, paleontologist Dewey McLean (as well as some other geologists and paleontologists) had made the case that the dinosaur extinction was brought about by climate changes owing largely to the enormous volcanic activity associated with the Deccan Traps (a region in India) —
see Dewey M. McLean, “Impact winter in the global K/T extinctions: no definitive evidence”, pp. 493-503 in Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, ed. J. S. Levine, MIT Press, 1991.
(McLean’s somewhat lonely public dissidence is mentioned in my book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine [McFarland 2012, pp. 97-8]. I knew McLean, we worked at the same university.)

Donald Prothero is also a paleontologist. Recently he posted the following in a book review on amazon.com:
“that the impact at the end of the Cretaceous is the primary cause of the extinction of dinosaurs has been discredited in recent years. . . . the consensus has now swung to the idea that the massive Deccan eruptions in India and Pakistan were far more important to the end-Cretaceous extinctions.”

Prothero’s review is of the book by Lisa Randall, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs: The Astounding Interconnectedness of the Universe, which postulates the presence in the Milky Way (our galaxy) of a disc of “dark matter” that somehow periodically liberates comets or asteroids that go on to cause periodic extinction events on Earth.
In his amazon.com review, Prothero also debunks the notion that extinctions follow an identifiably periodic pattern.

My own trouble with Randall’s speculation is that “dark matter” is no more than a fudge factor necessary to make Big-Bang cosmology fit the observed facts. There is no shred of direct empirical evidence that “dark matter” exists.
Things just don’t add up in Big-Bang cosmology. Actual observations of quasars and galaxies do not jibe with calculations based on the known force of gravity and on the presumption that redshifts reflect speed relative to Earth (Doppler effect).
There isn’t enough gravity. So “dark matter” was invented to yield that needed extra gravity. “Dark matter” is associated with “dark energy”, for which we have no evidence either.
All this “dark” stuff is supposed to make up more than 90% of the universe, at the same time as “dark” is the euphemism for “we know nothing about it, we just need it to make the equations balance”.

This collection of science fiction is treated respectfully by the media.

But there is a much simpler explanation for the failure of Big-Bang cosmology to fit the observed facts. There is strong evidence that redshifts of quasars do not always result purely from Doppler effects, that quasars are associated with the creation of new matter which has an inherent redshift:
— see Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Interstellar Media 1987) and Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Apeiron 1998); for a summary, see pp. 113-18 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine.

Which all goes to show, as many others besides me have often remarked, that “What everyone knows is usually wrong (about science, say)”.  On all but the most non-controversial issues, TED talks and Wikipedia entries are among the sources most likely to be wrong, moreover wrong dogmatically, insistently, aggressively, uncompromisingly, as they treat every contemporary (and thereby temporary) mainstream consensus as Gospel truth.

A pervasive problem is that mainstream dogmas are taken as truth by people outside the particular field of knowledge:
Randall is a physicist, so she is not familiar with the range of views among paleontologists and geologists.
On the matter of HIV/AIDS, one finds economists like South African Nicoli Nattrass (The AIDS Conspiracy: Science fights back) and political scientists like Courtney Jung (Lactivism: How feminists and fundamentalists, hippies and yuppies, and physicians and politicians made breastfeeding big business and bad policy) getting the facts totally wrong, even citing mainstream sources incorrectly.
Many social scientists get a whole lot wrong about science, as when Steven Shapin asserted that scientists don’t value their technicians appropriately (p. 142 in Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science, Paraview Press 2001).
No one is immune, because we cannot look at the primary evidence on every topic of interest, so we have to decide, more or les by instinct, which mainstream beliefs to accept, at least provisionally, and which to doubt enough that further digging is called for. I went wrong by accepting mainstream views about UFOs and about homosexuality,  for example, and I’m probably wrong on some other issues where I haven’t yet woken up to it. But at least I’m aware of the problem. The media, though, apparently are not aware of it, nor are the publishers who put out books like Nattrass’s or Jung’s or Randall’s.

 

Posted in consensus, media flaws, science is not truth, scientism, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

What is scientific literacy good for?

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/03

The way scientific literacy is defined and measured makes no sense — see Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method (1992/1994 and still in print, which surely says something about the validity of its arguments).
Scientific literacy is measured by what people know about things like atoms and about “the scientific method”, in effect by how well they could function within science; whereas scientific literacy should surely mean what non-scientists need to know about the role of science in society: when to believe the experts and when not to. About medicine, by analogy, we don’t need to know how drugs work, say, we just need to know where to find data about how long they have been in use and what their side effects are and whether there’s already a law suit against the manufacturer that is still actively advertising it (quite a common circumstance; see anticoagulants Pradaxa and Xarelto and anti-diabetes Invokana at the moment (2015-16).

It turns out that current measurements of scientific literacy yield results that should be highly embarrassing to the expert gurus on this topic.

For example, people who score high on “scientific literacy” do poorly on distinguishing pseudo-science from science — Chris Impey, Sanlyn Buxner, Jessie Antonellis, Elizabeth Johnson, & Courtney King, “A twenty-year survey of science literacy among college undergraduates”, Journal of College Science Teaching, 40 (#4, 2011) 31-7.

When it comes to human-caused climate change, perhaps the measures of “scientific literacy” are pretty meaningful after all, because the most scientifically literate according to these tests are least likely to believe that human generation of carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change:
“Climate skepticism not rooted in science illiteracy: Cultural values, not knowledge, shape global warming views, a study finds” (Janet Raloff, 29 May 2012)

“New study: Numerical and Science Literacy cause Climate Change Skepticism” (1 June 2012)”

“Study: Climate skeptics and proponents score highest on climate science literacy…but are the most polarized” (Anthony Watts, 23 February 2015)

As I had pointed out in the first entry on this blog (A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?), most people’s views about human-caused climate change are determined by their political affiliation and not by their understanding of science or familiarity with the evidence.

 

Posted in global warming, media flaws, politics and science, scientific literacy | Tagged: | 6 Comments »

Who can be trusted about science? Not the Royal Society of London or the National Academy of the United States

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/01

An earlier post (Mainstream propaganda by the BBC about denialism and global warming) described a BBC television documentary in which the President of the Royal Society of London presided over a thoroughly misleading piece of propaganda seeking to entrench mainstream dogma about human-caused climate change, HIV as the cause of AIDS, and the claimed safety of genetically modified foods and plants.

The merest smattering of knowledge of the history of science and a smidgeon of common sense ought to suffice to demonstrate that the mainstream dogma is unwarranted on all three of those issue, incidentally:

1. Human-caused climate change: There is simply no proof on offer. The dogma is based on the banality that carbon dioxide gas absorbs infrared radiation, and that global temperatures overall have been rising in the last 150 years or so at the same time as industrial development has increasingly generated carbon dioxide.
But global temperatures actually cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s while CO2 was increasing, and temperatures have remained steady since about 2000 while, again, CO2 continued to increase. QED.

2. HIV and AIDS. HIV is held responsible for an epidemic of AIDS spread chiefly through sexual intercourse.
The website of the National Institutes of Health reports the apparent transmissibility of HIV as 8 per 10,000 acts of unprotected intercourse, from male to female; transmissibility from female o male is half of that, 4 per 10,000. Any epidemic requires that each infected individual pass the infection on to more than one other person in a short space of time. Transmissibility of less than 1 per 1000 is entirely incapable of generating an epidemic.
For comparison, transmissibility of known sexually transmitted diseases is not far from 1 in 2 (for chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis).

3. All the conceivable possible dangers of genetically modified organisms and their products cannot possibly be known or measured. No matter how much data accumulates, the unknown unknown may at any time deliver a black swan to confound all the scientific predictions and assurances. Half a century ago Alvin Weinberg pointed that out with respect to the safety of nuclear reactors. “Science” of course declared them safe, in other words Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Fukushima could not possibly have occurred. For what Wikipedia is worth, it lists 99 significant accidents in all.

But back to the Royal Society and human-caused climate change.

Andrew Montford has described in full detail how the Royal Society of London has been a proselytizer of human-caused climate change since at least 1989, under three successive Presidents and contrary to the Society’s proper role, which is to stick to science and leave politics and policy to others; see Nullius in Verba: On the Word of No One — The Royal Society and Climate Change.

The Royal Society pamphlet, A SHORT GUIDE TO climate science,  poses 20 questions and gives a one-paragraph pot-boiler answer to each, for example

“1. Is the climate warming?
Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations such as sea-level rise, reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content provide
incontrovertible evidence of a warming Earth.”

These one-paragraph mind-bites are expanded in Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices (NatAcadPress2012-14673), published jointly by the Royal Society of London and the National Academy of science of the United States. The questions are the same but worded differently, for example the first is not “Is the climate warming?” but “How do we know that Earth has warmed?”.
That small change has a rhetorical significance that is far from small: the question is no longer treated as open, it is declared to have been settled.

All those answers are misleading in some way, however, and they have been thoroughly debunked in THE SMALL PRINT: What the Royal Society Left Out.

In response to question 1 and its answer, for example:
“A fuller picture: This is hardly an important question. The Earth’s surface is always warming or cooling, or on some occasions barely changing. What is important is that the change referred to is small and imperfectly measured. It should also be stressed that the Royal Society guide does not mention the role of the time window they are using for comparison. The climate has cooled since the mid-Holocene climatic optimum 8,000 years ago, and the warming of the past few decades is relatively small in comparison.
Surface temperatures have increased on average by about 0.8°C since 1900. There was a rise of around 0.5°C at the start of the twentieth century, followed by a small fall from 1940 to 1970. From then until the late 1990s temperatures rose by around 0.5°C. Differences of a tenth of a degree are insignificant. The temperature is virtually unchanged from that at the beginning of the century. The two periods of increase are indistinguishable, although the earlier increase cannot be attributed to increased carbon dioxide.
The relation of other observations such as sea-level rise, Arctic sea ice extent and ocean heat content all depend on more factors than global mean temperature, and are hardly incontrovertible evidence of warming. That said, the possible acceleration of ocean heat content accumulation and sea level rise are close to the limits of our ability to detect and the values involved cannot be reconciled to each other. Depending on the time scale, other observational datasets are still more equivocal: global sea ice levels declined for several decades but are now above their long-term mean.”

In any case, on an even longer time-scale, that global temperatures are increasing is not in dispute, given that we are only about 15,000 years after a major Ice Age and it will likely be warming for about another 80,000-100,000 years or so before it cools again toward the next major Ice Age — there have been 7 or 8 such major Ice Ages in the last million years or so.

Only a couple of years after the Royal Society and National Academy had published Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices, the same two bodies published Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (NatAcadPress2014-18730), which goes even further in declaring settled as fact that human generation of carbon dioxide has been primarily responsible for global warming. This last pamphlet is replete with rhetorical trickery, sins of omission and of commission, and is clearly propaganda, nothing like a cool scientific assessment of the evidence. My detailed critique of it has just been published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: NAS-RS Review.

That the Royal Society and the National Academy are actively pushing to entrench as settled belief that human activities are producing climate change is evident from the way in which their publications have become increasingly one-sided, emphatic, and regrettably dishonest.

 

Posted in global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

The political division over climate change

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/11/01

A friend sent me this link  to a report of Senator Ted Cruz showing himself to know more about science and facts associated with alleged global warming than does the chair of the Sierra Club.

Looking for coverage of this story from other viewpoints simply confirmed that The Left  has its own facts and theories and The Right  has its own different facts and theirs, as I remarked in the inaugural post on this blog, A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?

In my view, Cruz is right on the science in this case but quite wrong in his politics. So I seem able to keep my science and my politics separate — but then perhaps that is not the case on every issue?

 

Posted in global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Climate change “deniers”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/10/16

Very good piece, “Climate change denier silenced for doing Climate Science and disagreeing with the science“.

“Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions” is the lead in to the story, but it also cites Freeman Dyson, greatly respected physicist who for decades was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton:
“‘It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change],’ he said, in an interview with The Register. ‘I’m 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.'”

Precisely my view: “A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?”.

 

Posted in denialism, global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Psychological toll of climate-science belief

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/11

Mountainmere  just drew our attention to the devastating psychological impact of belief in human-caused climate change.

Esquire carried (7 July) a story by John Richardson, “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job: Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it” — they are afraid to talk about it because of “the relentless campaign against them” in which the poor folk are labeled “alarmist”. (The heartbreaking Richardson story was picked up in a number of places, for instance “Climate Scientists Are Dealing with Psychological Problems”  as well as the Judith Curry blog that mountainmere had cited, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out”.)
If climate “scientists” want to know what a relentless campaign really looks like, they should examine the treatment meted out to those “denialists” who draw attention to the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

Richardson’s featured climate-scientist victim, Jason Box, is a stereotypical ultra-environmentalist: an American who has worked for Greenpeace, demonstrated at the White House, claimed that sea levels would rise inevitably by 70 feet in the next few centuries, and “escaped America’s culture of climate-change denial” by moving from Ohio to Denmark. A report of methane seeping into Arctic sea-water so terrified Box that he immediately tweeted “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d”, which naturally brought a flurry of headlines.
Box looks at the worst, and among the least likely, of the various scenarios generated by the computer models used by climate “scientists” — models that have been demonstrably wrong for the last 15-18 years or so during which there has been no warming while carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise; models that fail to account for the 1940s-to-1970s period when global temperatures were actually decreasing while carbon-dioxide levels were steadily rising.
Box thinks “most scientists must be burying overt recognition of the awful truths of climate change in a protective layer of denial (not the same kind of denial coming from conservatives, of course). I’m still amazed how few climatologists have taken an advocacy message to the streets, demonstrating for some policy action.”

Richardson’s story is full of errors, notably that “warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted”. No. The models have not predicted the empirical fact that global temperatures have been stable rather than rising since about 2000; some reports even have it as a cooling rather than a slowing or halt in global average temperature: http://isthereglobalcooling.com; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/the-portland-state-university-study-of-shrinking-mt-adams-glaciersa-good-example-of-bad-science; http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/12/no-warming-left-to-deny-global-cooling-takes-over-cet-annual-mean-temperature-plunges-1c-since-2000/#sthash.mowZKMjF.dpbs; http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here; http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783.

Richardson describes the terrible stress that climate scientists are under for bringing their message of lack of hope: “targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies”.
It’s just as well that they can continue to do their depressing work with the help of large grants and that any attempts to have them fired went nowhere; and that the “intrusive discovery demands” were no more than to ask for the raw data on which Michael Mann conjured his alarmist “hockey-stick” graph of unprecedented rate of warming — a graph that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped from its Reports because it was shown to be not a valid reorientation of the data. Professional scientific journals have increasingly being demanding that all data on which articles are based need to be made publicly available; it is not clear to me why climate “science” should be exempt. The only reason to keep data secret is to avoid that others could show that published analyses are flawed.
And those poor climate scientists suffered from having their e-mails hacked, revealing that they were deliberately fudging the evidence. (Google “Climategate” for details about that.)

So, anyway, those poor activist climate “scientists” are suffering gloom, sadness, fear, anger; “Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a practicing psychiatrist and graduate of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth slide-show training, calls this ‘pretraumatic’ stress.” Some are retreating off the grid to await the catastrophe. “No one has experienced that hostility more vividly than Michael Mann”, who barley manages to keep going as a well-paid tenured full professor at Penn State.

I urge you to read Richardson’s full story, especially the later parts that describe all the suffering that climate scientists endure.

For yet more insight, go to Judith Curry’s earlier blog post, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips”  which informs, among other things, about “the relatively new field of psychology of global warming”; followed by Curry’s sensible deconstruction of climate-change hysteria.

The unfortunate pre-traumatically stressed climate-“science” activists suffer quite unnecessarily. I recommend resort to the school of psychology, “rational-emotive therapy”, associated with the name of Albert Ellis; see his A New Guide to Rational Living, or Help yourself to happiness through rational self-counseling by Macie C. Maultsby, an acolyte of Ellis.
The essence of this approach is to list in writing one’s depressing thoughts, and then the emotions they arouse. Merely writing these down tends to reveal how out of all proportion the emotions are. Then, the really important part, annotate those depressing thoughts with the actual evidence.
With climate “scientists”, this should bring immediate relief, since all their depression arises only from computer models, whereas reality demonstrates that global warming is the result of the Earth recovering from the last Ice Age and that carbon dioxide has no appreciable effect, as proven by the periods from the 1940s to the 1970s and again since 2000, when “carbon” was being emitted relentlessly but Earth warmed not at all or even cooled.

 

Posted in denialism, funding research, global warming, media flaws, peer review, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, scientism, scientists are human, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »

All vaccines are not the same; some are worse than useless

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/02

I am not among those who question the value of all vaccines on principle. I don’t doubt the value of vaccines in controlling smallpox, measles, polio. I do question the use of adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines, and I do think it makes sense to vaccinate babies against measles and the rest in single shots administered over a period of time instead of all at once in multiple vaccines.

But it gets difficult not to over-react as Big Pharma concentrates on generating vaccines that do more harm than any good that has ever been proven.

It seems that Big Pharma has been running out of new diseases to invent (see Moynihan & Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients and other works listed in “What’s Wrong with Present-Day Medicine”) and has been turning increasingly to inventing vaccines supposed to guard against old or new infections.

The expected but not forthcoming “swine flu” epidemic led to rapid invention and marketing of a vaccine that turned out to have nasty “side” effects, for example, “How a swine flu shot led to narcolepsy”.

Gardasil and Cervarix, anti-HPV vaccines claimed to prevent cervical cancer, are a scandalous illustration; see for example “Merck Dr. Exposes Gardasil as Ineffective, Deadly, Very Profitable”  and related links. The only suggestion that HPV causes cervical cancer — or rather, that 4 out of four or five times that number of strains of HPV cause cervical cancer — comes from a correlation: those strains have often been found in women who have cervical cancer.

But correlations never, never, never prove causation, no matter that too many medical “experts” ignore this well established, long established fact.

I’ve become all too cynical about Big Pharma, lack of regulation, conflicts of interest, and the like. Yet I was taken aback to find that the National Institutes of Health profit from royalties from sales of Gardasil, and that there are exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that enable them to hide that fact and the amounts involved.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, funding research, legal considerations, medical practices, politics and science, prescription drugs | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Who looks at evidence? Almost no one

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/06/28

I’ve been a crank for a long time about Loch Ness Monsters, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at Tim Dinsdale’s 1960 film which shows quite clearly a huge animal swimming in Loch Ness, submerging while still throwing up a massive wake.

For more than a decade, I’ve been a crank about HIV not causing AIDS, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at the clear evidence that HIV tests don’t track something infectious, and that the numbers in plain sight on the website of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, rates of sexual transmission at less than 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse, mean that HIV cannot cause an epidemic.

Now I’ve become a crank about human-caused climate change, frustrated because people won’t look at the clear evidence that carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily even as the global temperature was level or dropping form the 1940s into the 1970s, when the experts were predicting an Ice Age; and as the global temperature has not increased since the end of the 1990s.

Why don’t people look at evidence?

Because, I’ve finally realized, they don’t want to risk having to change their mind. There is no positive incentive and plenty of negative incentive. It’s beyond cognitive dissonance, which is to evade the significance of evidence after having come across it. It’s obviously even better not to have come across the evidence at all.

On human-caused climate change (HCCC), disbelief is expressed loudly and publicly by “conservatives” (in my view more accurately described as reactionaries) who have that opinion for the wrong reasons, namely the belief that economic free markets are the most important thing and regulating anything is bad.

“Liberals” or “progressives”, on the other hand (who are actually not liberal or progressive but simply knee-jerk politically correct) don’t look at the evidence because they don’t need to, it’s of no interest to them, they would take their stance that humans cause environmental damage no matter what. And they maintain perfect deniability, they are blameless, they were just accepting what the authorities, the experts, have been saying loudly and incessantly.

Most of my family and friends treat my “reactionary” stance on HCCC as a minor flaw, allowing me space because I tend to get caught up in Quixotic stuff all the time. They have no interest in looking at the evidence because they are completely comfortable with the notion of HCCC because it fits their anti-reactionary political views — which I happen to share. If it turns out that this HCCC is mistaken, there would be all sorts of undesirable consequences, in particular that reactionary views might appear to have been vindicated.

I was distressed when Stephen Colbert took HCCC as proven. I am not happy when all the MSNBC crowd does so, but they’ve become too extreme for me anyway and I rarely watch. But I was very unhappy when Jon Stewart took HCCC as proven. And Pope Francis may have been the last straw (in the wind, as far as ever changing public opinion). Though I did get a sort of sardonic enjoyment from the pundits who pointed out that the Pope knew what he was talking about because he had been a chemist. And I am getting continuing Schadenfreude over the contortions of the Republican presidential candidates as they are forced to comment on the Pope’s encyclical.

Evidence-seeking, I realize, is an obsession of perhaps the tiniest minority there is. On the dangers of modern medical practice, there are just a few dozen voices crying out publicly in the wilderness. On HIV/AIDS, there is our Rethinking AIDS  group of some dozens of people, with a few thousand more quietly agreeing. On HCCC, there are a few academic types like myself who got here because of the evidence, and who subsist uncomfortably in the association with people whose political and social views we do not share, to put it mildly.

I’m beginning to accept that none of the items in my bucket list will see the light of an enlightened day within my lifetime: Nessie discovery, rejection of HIV=AIDS, rejection of carbon-dioxide-is-hurting-us.

But I do remain curious about how the “authorities” will adjust when reality eventually catches up with them irrevocably.

[Corrected 8 August 2015 in paragraph 7]

Posted in consensus, denialism, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, global warming, media flaws, medical practices, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , | 11 Comments »

Freeman Dyson on climate change

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/05/13

Freeman Dyson is an eminent, widely honored and respected  physicist. In the New York Times Book Review of 19 April 2015, he says this:

On climate science, I recommend “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” by Bjørn Lomborg. . . . Lomborg is an economist .  . . . [and skeptic] with understanding and respect for the beliefs . . . [he is] questioning. The reason why climate science is controversial is that it is both a science and a religion. Belief is strong, even when scientific evidence is weak.”

Posted in global warming, politics and science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Climate–change beliefs are politically and not scientifically determined

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/05/09

I had inadvertently posted this on my HIV/AIDS blog:

It’s nice when elaborately technical academic discourse supports what one already knew.

I had pointed out (A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?) that Fox News and its devotees (Republicans, conservatives, political right-leaners) deny that human-generated carbon dioxide has been proven to cause global warming (later morphed to unfalsifiable “climate change”) whereas MSNBC and its devotees (Democrats, liberals, political left-leaners) take as settled science that human-generated carbon dioxide has caused climate change including an increased rate of exceptional events.

That observational fact has now been scientifically re-proven by experts in cognition, decision-making, law, psychology: “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks”, Nature Climate Change, 2 (2012) 732-5. The estimation of risk from climate change correlated positively with cultural or political world-views but negatively with scientific literacy and numeracy.

The experts concluded with another finding that everyone should already have known, namely, that facts don’t persuade people: “One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy of the risk-perception commons . . . . A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict so long as the climate-change debate continues to feature cultural meanings that divide citizens of opposing world-views.” “Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change”.

The authors of this study accepted as given that human-generated carbon dioxide has been proven to cause global warming, climate change, and disastrous corollaries for our way of life. They presume that the risk is real AND MAJOR, and that estimates of it differ only as a result of perceptions, which of course are influenced by world-views. But if this is not accepted as axiomatic, then their findings can be interpreted in a much more straightforward way:

The more one knows and understands about science, the greater one’s numeracy and scientific literacy, the more is one able to recognize that human-generated carbon dioxide has NOT been proven to cause global warming.

Thus even a political liberal like myself becomes unwilling to accept that the risk from human activities is significant once he looks into the actual evidence. The prevailing belief in human-caused climate change comes from cherry-picking and misinterpreting historical data, in particular the time periods being considered, together with besotted infatuation with and obeisance to computer models — forgetting Computer Science 101: GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Posted in consensus | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers