The Internet makes it waaaay to easy to be stupid. Over at my other blog, a collective effort assembled by the Weather Channel, I write exclusively about climate issues. Each of my posts and just about all my colleague's posts dealing with the subject assume that climate change is real and that humans are largely responsible. It's easier that way to keep things short. It also happens to be a reflection of what climatologists think. But almost every post attracts comments from those who beg to differ and last week was no different. Except that some of the comments were more inane than usual.
In response to a post of mine on a new brewery in Greenland that used ice-cap meltwater, I got a couple of non-sequitur comments from readers who wanted to bring something to my attention. Here's one:
James - ever been smacked upside the head by the Truth? Or are 50,000 physicists from the American Physical Society just more inconvenient pseudo-scientists? Your next post should be quite a doozie. can't wait. http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
--This Bud's for the Truth
Wow, I thought. 50,000 genuine climate experts say climate change is bogus? I've got to read that. So I followed the link. And followed the link on which that post was based, and the link to that post's source and so on. Eventually I found out that the American Physics Society is indeed hosting, through its Physics and Society online forum, "a debate" on the scientific foundation for the consensus on climate change.
So what's the big deal? How does that translate into all 50,000 members of the APS trashing Al Gore? Well, there is this one odd line from the forum's editor:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
I would strongly disagree, and I strongly suspect that most climatologists would too. But even that kind of misrepresentation doesn't come close to implying that the entire society dissents from the consensus.
Some people just jump to conclusions, I guess.
But readers who don't use their brains don't bother me much. I was more troubled by the APS's choice of expert to argue "against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion," one Christopher Monckton.
Bob Parks, in his weekly What's New newsletter, describes that situation better than I could:
....on the denier's side was Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who inherited his father's peerage in 2006. Lord Monckton is not a scientist, his degree is in journalism and he's a reporter for the Evening Standard, an English tabloid. Whatever it is that Viscounts do, he may do very well, but he doesn't know squat about physics and his journalism suffers from it. Worse, somebody fed the media the line that Monckton's rubbish meant the APS had changed its position on warming; of course it has not. Few media outlets took the story seriously.
Thank the Lords of Kobol for small mercies. But apparently individuals who read the Weather Channel's blog did get taken in by the spin. Part of the blame probably lies with the APS, which really should exercise better judgment when it tackles the big questions.
- Log in to post comments
ugh, I heard this on some radio station in the morning, and it made me frown.
The American Physical Society 'Forum on Physics and Society'(FPS) web link referred to above, http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
with Monckton's 'contribution,' comes now with a disclaimer, at the top, in red:
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
The title page for this month's FPS newsletter,
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/
, has another disclaimer:
"The executive committee of the Forum on Physics and Society, however, believes that the statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society, that "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution," exaggerates the number of scientists who disagree with the IPCC conclusion on anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. That statement does not represent the views of APS or the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society. The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
I think that should settle the question on the consensus view of the APS.--
I am a member of the APS and the FPS; the FPS newsletter has always been a very open forum for all kinds of opinions (not necessarily endorsed by anyone but the author of the articles), and I enjoyed that. I suspect the editors allowed this article to be published, assuming that only APS/FPS members would read it, and be stimulated to discussion, and not expecting that this publication would be read by anyone as an endorsement by the APS or FPS nor widely quoted as such.
Four out of five dentists recommend I use Crest. I'm buying all the stock in it I can today!!! There should be a huge rush to buy it any day now!
I'm gonna be R-I-I-I-CH!!!
Apparently Viscounts masquerade as 50,000 physicists.
Unfortunately, Monckton was quick out of the blocks with the following:
Unfortunately, the editor of the APS Physics and Society Newsletter has been thoroughly pwned by Monckton, and we're going to hear about this "major, peer-reviewed paper in P&S, a learned journal..." for a very long time, no matter how much damage control APS puts forth.
Here's what I find interesting - unless one is a climatologist or has the equvalent understanding of the processes as does a climatologist, then one really has no idea if the consensus of every climatologist living, dead, or as yet unborn is correct.
I am a biologist by training, but no longer work in that area. Even as a biologist, there are many, many other biologists whose work I am in no way qualified to evaluate, and the same is true of them regarding the work in biology that I did. So for me to make any claim, one way or the other, regarding the quality of the science of climatologists is about as rational as engineers claiming they can prove that biological systems have been designed.
And if I, a trained scientist with many years of work doing what I got my degree in, am not qualified to judge the work of climatologists, then how could any person without a science background say anything whatsoever in favor or against the conclusions of climatologists?
The answer is simple: Politics.
For 99% of the people who comment on the status of the global climate, their motivation is political and the work of climatologists is used to justify their position after they have already established it.
When it comes to the scientific consensus, it can be a good indicator for the layperson that the conclusions the scientists have drawn accurately represent the current state of knowledge. But scientists are people, too, and are no more immune from their own political biases and desires to protect their reputations and their jobs than are the rest of us, and working for an oil company lab or a university lab doesn't make any difference.
So what you're saying is, all of us non-biologists have no business claiming that we should accept the theory of evolution (broadly interpreted) as an explanation of life's development, because we shouldn't be saying anything about the quality one way or the other.
This is patent nonsense, and defeats the entire purpose of having experts in any field. The rational thing action is, lacking any special expertise, to defer to the experts if there is a consensus opinion among them (as in ToE, in its broad sense). Only if no consensus exist should we take no position. The experts may be wrong, but (a) this is the rational approach, and (b) the occasions on which an expert consensus is wrong are few and far between.
It's the wrong question again, as usual. Surely it matters not one jot whether the IPCC, et al. are correct or not. What is completely clear is that we are despoiling our one and only home with almost everything we do as a society.
If humans had no effect on the planet, were not trashing its natural (current) state, wasting nearly every gallon of precious (almost certainly) irreplaceable oil and generally making a mess of things it would be far more interesting to have a good model of climatic cause and effect.
As of right now we just need to assume we're the problem and have to find a solution to ourselves. Whether we are the problem of any global warming isn't desperately relevant when nature is likely to find a solution for us once the oil, fish-stocks, potable water and the rest of our fragile eco-system comes crashing down around our ears.
You can't have anthropogenic warming without the anthropoids can you...
It's been said many times, but is worth repeating: scientists, accustomed to an adversary who plays fair, are not wise in the ways of dealing with outright fraud.
Oh come on! Everybody knows that the word of a genuine British Viscount is worth more than the opinions of a googolplex of mere scientists any day of the week.
@Davis:
"So what you're saying is, all of us non-biologists have no business claiming that we should accept the theory of evolution (broadly interpreted) as an explanation of life's development, because we shouldn't be saying anything about the quality one way or the other."
I think his point was that those who have the educational backing in the area in question are the reliable source on the matter, whereas someone with a backing in a different, yet still scientific field, may understand the end, but not the means, and that this cause fallacies in an argument, or even a misunderstanding of the theory in general, but I could be misinterpreting what he is getting at. I don't think it was meant that "if you don't know all the science then you can't understand", it's more, leave the debate to those who know the fact based support.
jj, you may be correct; it's possible I read the original comment in an uncharitable manner. I should probably have sought clarification before assuming a negative interpretation.
And here was I thinking that 50,000 physicists was the name of a rock band.
I've just read a follow-up to the above. I'm a materials scientist, by the way, so I know little about climatology but more about constructing and testing hypotheses.
Is is true, as stated in the following, that some of the values used to predict the constribution of CO2 to global warming are based on a single publication?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
I'm quite happy to accept the currently held model of anthropogenic climate change but as a working scientist I'm also fully aware that a number of widely-held and 'self-evident' 'scientific' views have been shown to be nothing more than elaborately-decorated crocks of shit.
I can't imagine being so desperate for legitimacy that I would pretend to have a peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal. That's just pathetic- and ultimately harmful to their cause. If they think they are being black-balled by the scientific community, then why ruin every opportunity for legitimate debate by behaving so badly?
The APS handed Monckton a platform (moreover, one which was not earned) on a silver platter and he more or less just crapped on it. I doubt he'll get a second chance.
Lots is been said against Monckton, and against his article, but IMNSHO the real issue is between the APS and the Editor of the FPS.
He's one that invited Monckton in the first place, and he's the one that wrote: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community..."
Without the above, there would have been no NewsBusters article, no DailyTech comment, etc etc.
The SPPI press release looks inconsequential, in comparison.
Note also the reaction of the APS to those words: "The statement [by the Editor] does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society".
They have not said the Editor made an incorrect statement: because, I suspect, there isn't an easy way to show if the "presence" is "considerable" or not.
jj,
Thank you. That is what I meant, if perhaps I did not make my point as clearly as I ought.
Davis,
This is where I said what you said:
"When it comes to the scientific consensus, it can be a good indicator for the layperson that the conclusions the scientists have drawn accurately represent the current state of knowledge."
I feel that if the -only- thing I can use to make a decision is the consensus of the experts, then I may be able to make a decision for my own use, but I have no business expecting others to agree.
On the specific issue of AGW, my claim is that the politics (emotion) so heavily outweighs the science (reason) that the consensus of experts is nearly irrelevant to what people end up believing. In spite of that, nearly all of the discussion among laypeople is about the quality of the experts themselves. The irony of this is that since none of the people relying exclusively on consensus has any ability to judge the quality of the science, then they must rely on the testimony of other experts to tell them if the science is any good. If this were a court case, then all that evidence would be hearsay and circumstantial
Considering the consequences to human society and the rest if the biosphere if AGW is true and we don't act to mitigate it, and the consequences to the world economy if we do, then I would expect that anyone who wants to be rationally involved in the discussion would rely on more than just the consensus of experts - no matter how qualified other people have told you that they are.
thanks..