That’s the title of my Fin column for Thursday 11 March 2010, which naturally picked out The Australian newspaper as a prime vehicle for these attacks. The Oz replied next day, with characteristic mendacity, pointing out that, on the same day they
ran an opinion piece by climatologist James Hansen, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief who also happens to be known rather snappily as the “father of global warming”.
Only problem was, they weren’t running Hansen to defend science against their attacks, but because his policy views (he opposes an ETS and supports nuclear power) could be used in their continuing wedge campaign. The piece (can’t find it to link ran under the headline “”Only carbon tax and nuclear power can save us”
Anyway, here’s my piece
Science the victim of dishonest attacks
It is a commonplace to observe that Australia’s scientific institutions and organizations, have played a central role in promoting Australia’s prosperity and in maintaining our country’s place as a leading contributor to the growth of knowledge.
In city and country alike, we rely on the predictions and analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology, predictions that have grown steadily more accurate over time. The prosperity of our rural sector has been built to a substantial extent, on the work of the CSIRO and other organizations devoted to agricultural science and natural resource management.
Universities have also played a crucial role. My own University of Queensland includes among its alumni such great scientists as Peter Doherty, whose work on immunology won him the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996.
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace. These attacks have mostly focused on environmental and public health issues, but they are gradually coalescing into an attack on science itself
A few examples
* In November 2003, Quadrant magazine published an article by Ted Lapkin blaming environmentals scientists for a supposed ban on DDT that had, he claimed cost millions of lives. DDT was never banned in anti-malarial use, and the claim Lapkin repeated had been cooked up by a tobacco lobbyist, who sought to put pressure on the World Health Organization, then campaigning against smoking in the Third World.
* On March 5 2006, Miranda Devine wrote that ‘Environmentalism is the powerful new secular religion and politically correct scientists are its high priests … It used to be men in purple robes who controlled us. Soon it will be men in white lab coats. The geeks shall inherit the earth.’
* On March 26th 2009, Jennifer Marohasy, then a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, accused the Bureau of Meteorology of tampering with weather data to fake evidence of global warming
* Andrew Bolt of the Sun-Herald has repeatedly asserted that climate scientists are conscious frauds, motivated by a desire for government grant money, most recently a few days ago in a blog post entitled ‘That buys a lot of Baas’.
* The Australian newspaper has campaigned against science and scientists so consistently that picking a single example would be misleading. Blogger Tim Lambert, who maintains a running series on The Australian’s War on Science is now up to instalment 46
All of this has reached a crescendo in the wake of the so-called Climategate affair in which a group of ‘sceptics’ harassed climate scientists at the University of East Anglia with a campaign of deliberately vexatious form-letter Freedom of Information demands, hacked the University’s email system to obtain the email files generated in response and then published distorted versions of those supposedly proving that global temperature records had been fudged in a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’. Subsequent inquiries showed that the selectively quoted phrases referred to perfectly legitimate methods of data analysis, but the enemies of science had a win in the media.
Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction. A striking example was the response of Phil Jones, the main target of the Climategate hack, when presented with deliberately loaded question about the statistical significance of global warming trends over short periods.
Jones answered honestly, and proceeded to explain the problem with this kind of analysis. The Daily Mail promptly ran a headline stating ‘Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995’
As the Economist observed, this was a flat-out lie, noting that ‘anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference’ That did not stop dozens of anti-science commentators from passing it on.
Now, however, science is pushing back, at least in Australia. Along with other scientific institutions, Universities Australia is organizing a national policy forum on climate change to be held in Parliament House next week which will not only restate the findings of science on this issue but respond to the stream of attacks on science.
Australia can, if need be, do very well without Quadrant, the Institute of Public Affairs and The Australian. We cannot do without science and scientists. The time has come to make a choice.
John Quiggin 
The tinest of typos:
Australia can, if need be, do very will [well] without Quadrant…
Those examples make some really good points.
Interesting post.
Science will win in the end..of coirse it will – it always does …..the lies about Iraq became obvious in the end too, just by way of offering a recent analogy (and has the great Iraq reconstruction and rebuilding happened courtesy of the coalition of the willing ???- not a chance – its a complete mess with the squirmings about withdrawal going on now – and no rebuilding).
Lies have a more intense but much shorter lifespan Ive noticed.
A deluge of lies can appear to be holding the high ground in the short term…but it can never win.
@Uncle Milton
Fixed, thanks. The final para was cut by the Fin, maybe for space reasons.
@jquiggin
I dont think so – JQ
(……cut for space reasons – no no no – more like fear on the Fins part of upsetting Quadrant and the IPA – you know – they have coal money and lib donation money and Rupe media behind them and might sue the Fin or the editor might get a demotion – buck buck buckoo).
Also – the Fin wouldnt want to upset the delusionist readership…we should consider the links here. There are delusion dollars behind the attack on mainstream science.
Sad really…but some media organisations that pose as credible also make sensationalist news income from generating heat where there really isnt any.
I think that rather than use ‘statistically significant’ it might be better to say ‘statistically meaningful’ because when not ‘statistically significant’ saying ‘statistically meaningless’ is often more accurate and less capable of misinterpretation than saying insignificant.
JQ, here is the Hansen piece as highlighted on the Barry Brooks blog
Australia needs more Tim Lamberts to track these attacks and call the perpetrators on there misrepresentations and straight out lies.
….Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction. A striking example was the response of Phil Jones, the main target of the Climategate hack, when presented with deliberately loaded question about the statistical significance of global warming trends over short periods…
Enjoyable article John. Personally, I think it’s time to go hard on the “sceptics” (i.e. deniers) and expose their dirty tricks. That this piece ran in the AFR is great, I could be wrong but the Fin has appeared to be fairly non-commital on the issue. Unless I’ve missed a Monckton op-ed in there 😉
Nobody is suggesting we abolish “science and scientists.” However, in this article, you are suggesting that we get rid of media and organisations that criticise scientists. in other words, you’re against a free press.
You want a scientific community that is above criticism. This is the most dangerous position I have yet heard articulated on this topic.
@munroe
JQ isn’t suggesting “we get rid of media and organisations that criticise scientists”. He isn’t even suggesting we get rid of Quadrant or the IPA or the Oz. He simply said we can do without them, which is true.
We don’t really have too much of a choice about these three’s existence but we do have the choice of whether we loudly decry their anti-science campaign and whether we support them or support science.
@munroe
PrQ suggests no such thing. He merely suggests indifference to the fate of tatty disinformation boltholes, much as we might be indifferent to other features of the culture that are of no obvious value to the community.
Scientists need our support, but The Australian and its ilk do not.
It’s as plain as day. Could you tell me what is meant by “The time has come to make a choice.”
Who has to make a choice, and what are the choices? Because it sounds awfully a lot like he’s talking about the Australian public as the chooser, and the choice is between having “Science and scientists” and having “Quadrant, the Institute of Public Affairs and The Australian”, which we can “do without.”
There is no wriggle room here. Quiggin’s meaning is crystal clear.
It is headline news everytime there is a shift in opinion polls, even if its well inside the margin of error. Journalists are hopeless when it comes to statistics, even though a basic familiarity with such concepts should be part of their training.
@munroe
It is organisations like the IPA and the Quadrant who are blatantly leading the charge for attacks on science in the media, tolerated by the vested interest aligned and blatantly right wing editorialism and commentariat in general in Australia (blatant). These organisations are questionably funded by those seeking to gain the most out of a delusionist campaign against scientific advance in the area of AGW and prevent polices to address it.
Do you want the truth?…then free press is precisely what JQs criticisms are..the right to criticise and hold up to transparency.. political propaganda rags like the IPA and Quadrant and a host of heavily funded oraganisations in the U.S. who actively support and promote liars and deniers to “non independent” and “non objective” mainstream media sources.
Taylorist type production line disinformation factories with emails and fax machines directly connected to media input lines…who measure their success each year in their annual reports by how many “pieces” they actually get published (not in journals but in the newspapers) paying piece rates to people like Jennifer Marohasy who otherwise no-one would know (such is her meagre contribution to real science). The Australian does not need support. The Australian needs exposure on the garbage it publishes and to fix the low moral and ethical standards of its journalism. The IPA and Quadrant are a major source of them media garbage.
Last par cut for space reasons John? You joke presumably. Pity, it was a nice line.
The article here read better than that in the AFR.
Misrepresenting the idea of ‘statistical significance’ need not be a lie – knowing that a claim is untrue but representing it as the truth anyway. Most people would not understand basic statistical ideas – even Des Moore who is a trained economist doesn’t.
I am uneasy about this ‘lie’ language that you and Tim Lambert are pursuing. I am certain that the authors you cite are wrong but to suggest they are deliberately lying is protesting too much.
@munroe
Yes … we, the Australian public can choose not to dignify this lot with our attention. Let them twist in the wind, wither and fall into desuetude. There’s no repression here, merely a macor analog of what every individual does when he comes upon someone whose conduct he finds unbecoming. PrQ does not advocate coercion — merely a withdrawal of respect and engagement.
@hc
It’s a lie if either
a) you know what you are saying is likely to mislead
b) you are entitled to strongly doubt the integrity of what you claim but propose it as robust with reckless indifference to one’s duty to speak in good faith.
If for example someone comes to my door and asks, “is your toilet working?” I may well say no, on the basis that right at theis very moment it isn’t. I may claim not to be sure it will work even if I try it since past perofrmance is not a sure guide to the future, but this would be dissembling — a form of lying because I have good reason to suppose otherwise.
The journalists who repeat the false and misleading claims must know know full well at the very least that the claims they are making are the subject of controversy. If they make no attempt to explore this controversy and offer up that which is pertinent and yet pretend they have comprehensive insight where they do not, then they are lying at least by standard (b).
The journalists we are speaking about of course have been advised in the past on each and every occasion they have made these false and misleading claims because I have been amongst those drawing their attention to their errors. Deltoid has publicised these things as well, so they could only not know if they weere deliberatley blocking their eyes and ears.
Liars all
I vow to henceforth do without a daily fix of Quadrant, the IPA, or Chris Mitchell’s epic rant The Oz – is that what we’re signing up for here? This is going to hurt them more than it’s going to hurt me munroe.
I’m not sure. You think that JQ is advocating a boycott…? It’s a reasonable interpretation, and slightly less totalitarian than abolition.
@munroe
Well it’s what I’m assuming munroe. Anyway, Day 1 of my sobriety and feelin’ good thus far thanks 🙂
Fran , I think that what you propose is a logical fiddle, an extra layer off the onion. You are assuming that an a lack of sureness indicates deceit. But I don’t think Bolt and his ilk lack sureness. They react tribally to most issues – incidentally as do non-reflective people on the left. It’s not bad faith but misguided ideology and group-think.
These people influence public opinion and need to be listened to and talked to. Calling them liars signals you will do neither.
I make it a point to single out people taking display ads in The Australian and to write to them explaining why I discourage people I know from patronising their businesses.
That is going to hurt The Australian more than not buying their paper (which is after all, produced at a loss recoverable only through the advertising). Mind you, I don’t like buying papers on environmental grounds, so I tend to make use of those in libraries or lying around.
hc, I agree that many of the people who parroted the Daily Mail line were ignorant rather than conscious liars. Of course some of the ignorance was wilful – it’s amazing what you can believe if you really want to, shut your eyes and try real hard.
But if people are so ignorant of concepts that are absolutely basic to any empiric enquiry, then whether in climate science or economics why ought we to pay their views any attention at all? Des Moore’s self-confessed ignorance, for example, destroys his credibility on the economic policy issues on which he usually scribbles.
@hc
While they certainly are tribal, their official ethos is rooted in being “pragmatic” and “objective” and “professional”. They know they are not being that, so the charge of bad faith applies.
This isn’t one of those things where “reasonable people can differ” unless one can differ on observable reality. You and I might have different notions of what is fair and different ways of working out what “fair” entails, and we might well get a bit tribal about it. But to utter complete bollocks about observable reality simply because these “data” would be more convenient is lying.
I disagree. We have done that, and public opinion has become murkier as a result, in part because we have implicitly allowed their view to fall within “dissent” ratehr than being categorised as flat out lying in the ervice of their side of the culture war. We should point to these folk and say that way lies madness and misery on a grand scale. These people have no business in public policy and their special pleading should be excluded from it.
We should treat these misanthropes and oddball sociopaths as cultural pariahs, as the enemies of human wellbeing that they are. There should be no comfort and no place for these cranks to hide from the disgust that is their due.
Forget the conspiracy theories.
It´s junk science.
Just who cares what Bolt thinks?
People make their own minds up when they see
the machinations of Jones and co as revealed by
not just some emails, but a whole lot of data.
The Harry_Read_Me.txt is not a lie, not a concoction
by evil right wingers. It is a shambles and a damning
example of the quality of work done.
Face it, Jones, the IPCC are inept and their ¨science¨
is third rate.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_granularity_of_climate_mod.html
The thing is folks, science has not been attacked. The IPCC UN report was incorrect, the
scientists that prepared the IPCC report, had fudged the data. And lied in their summaries. The idea that UN form a global government to tax developed countries and hand over to undeveloped countries, scared people. But this wasn’t new, skeptics have been attacking Al Gore’s presumptions for years. Haven’t you watched ‘Global Warming the Greatest Swindle (2007) It’s on U Tube, lasts 1 hour. And why 31,000 US scientists are suing Al Gore or trying too. The American coal industry is suing the US Government for saying they are contributing to global warming. People are concerned as Californian electricity prices have increased as the main grid is forced to back up solar and wind.
If people are paid millions to prepare so called scientific reports and are told to prove AGW
is causing it? And they can’t like UEA, UN IPCC, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Stephen Schneider (who predicted another ice age some years ago – Also on U Tube ‘An Ice Age commeth) and reputable scientists say they are wrong in their hypothesis, warn about the implications, then get called deniers? And other bad names. Who would you listen too.
Someone who has invested millions or trillions in Carbon credits and clean energy (like Pachauri and Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, etc) or honest scientists not paid, but can see the fraud in this scam. Who would you listen too? And also the economic,social and cultural problems that could have arisen and can still arise, if ETS or Cap & Trade is implemented. I feel sorry for those people who invested in Carbon Credits Trading, their prices are plummeting. No Cap & Trade or ETS – noone to sell the CCT’s too. Want curb CO2, just allow those big emitters, people who drive cars, industry, transport, farmers etc., will pay up to 50% for their carbon footprints. The types like Al Gore don’t care! He just paid $4 million for a condo where he predicted would be inundated by sea.
And all because someone like Al Gore et al, saw a way of making heaps of $$$’s and some
tin pot train engineer ideas of controlling international wealth, and distributing yours, mine
joe blogs down the roads, hard earning $$$’s to some dictator in Africa. Bet his people won’t see a penny of it.
Anyway according to a Rasmussan report 50% of people who voted never believed in the AGW bunk, and only 25% still believed. But before you make up your minds, you do your own research. CO2 doesn’t drive climate change! Period. So why tax it? Environmental sustainability and protection sure. Look at EU, they are dangerously facing more economic down turns, like UK, because of their cap & trade systems.
It forever amazes me 12th or 1st year science at Uni, is either not being taught or people
are ignorant of it? The Sun and sub atomic particles, ocean tidal directions, control our climate. CO2 pollutes. But one big volcanic eruption can create a nuclear winter. And if John et al, want to support a crime against humanity. Let them, don’t you be sucked in.
Good afternoon.
I’ll point out to Harry that the description of the claim as a “lie” was taken from The Economist, which isn’t exactly prone to zealotry. As a matter of fact, i noted in another post that the Daily Mail could probably plead to reckless ignorance. That’s not true for Lindzen and Motl who made up this particular turning point.
As DD says, we are dealing with people who either don’t know or don’t care about such basic concepts as “statistical significance”, but nonetheless think themselves qualified to “make up their own minds” and pass judgement on scientists who have worked on the topic for decades.
Having dealt with hundreds of these guys over the years, I haven’t encountered ten who aren’t utterly and woefully ignorant of even the basics of physics and statistics (those in the ten have been dogmatic rightwing tribalists, who let their tribal allegiances override their better judgement). Of course, there’s no obligation to understand these subjects, but if you haven’t done the basic work required to do so, you should accept the judgement of those who have.
To be clear, Munroe, I’m not advocating the suppression of any viewpoint, no matter how absurd. But I am saying that there is no reason to regard Quadrant, the IPA or the Australian as having any valid role in public debate. They belong in the same category as creationists and moon-landing conspiracy theorists (actually, Quadrant is edging into the first of these camps already).
This climate gate rort is driven by cultural and financial gain. Via fraudulent means. And good people are already hurting. Turn up the Greens.org.au website. Check out global governance and wanting to tax farmers for their animals methane emissions. seen the SBS
ads ‘Even if CO2 emissions ceased tomorrow, the methane emitted by farm animals will still
cause Global Warming – Eat Veg not meat and Save the planet. Not true science? Pull the other one please. And I thought Australian’s weren’t gullible. The Greens wanted to tax
farmers $11 per head of cattle and $7 per head of sheep. No how many sheep do we have in Australia and there are some we do eat but the majority are used for wool production or side products. Just google eh? I don’t eat much meat, and I’m into organics etc. But even I know if we plant more forests and grow bio fuels we’ll be having less room to grow our foods. Did you know the Japanese and Chinese want to buy our land in most probably Northern Australia? The politics behind this climate change scam is criminal!
Wake up Aussies, cum on, cum on!
Sorry hc,
but you are wrong.
Your definition of a lie:
“knowing that a claim is untrue but representing it as the truth anyway.”
What ProfQ wrote:
“The Daily Mail promptly ran a headline stating ‘Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995’
As the Economist observed, this was a flat-out lie…”
Phil Jones agreed, with qualification, with the loaded question: “Would you agree that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?”
“Scientist admits there has been no global warming since 1995” is a lie.
These people are liars by your definition. You can allow that if you like. Obviously some of us have higher standards.
I believe it is imperative that they neither be listened or talked to. They are liars, why legitimise that?
The ABC’s chair illustrated the problems with public discussion admirably the other day. In summary, he stated:
1. He is an ‘agnostic’ about AGW and always has been
2. He’ll keep an ‘open mind’ until he sees ‘compelling evidence’
3. He’s not a scientist and can’t make an independent assessment of the science.
The contradiction between 2 and 3 ought to be self-evident but Newman presumably doesn’t see it, and nor do so many of the self-described sceptics. That’s why the people you cite John will continue to have a sizable audience and why many people will not accept the [legitimate] way in which you frame the discussion. Cognitive dissonance I think it’s called, and it is far more common than rational thinking.
Bush bunny is fairly representative of the standard of debate on the other side, sadly. There is simply no point in engaging with this kind of thing.
As for the source linked by David, it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to see that the writer is seriously confused about the role of time in weather data. The reference to “a dataset that the Met Office someday hopes to have available on a monthly (or maybe even daily) temporal resolution ” is absolute nonsense. His own graph (from Spencer) shows that the data he is referring to is of data available at least 4 times a day. And the claim that no such data exists for Australia is nonsense – Google points to plenty of hourly data
http://solar1.mech.unsw.edu.au/glm/trnaus/CLIMATIC%20DATA.htm
This is an example of the way the Internet fools the unwary and has been doing so for a long time. You can present a web page with pretty graphs, technical jargon and appeals to largely irrelevant expertise, and, if it gives the answers people want to read, they’ll believe it.
John – You must be joking? To say in one sentence not to suppress viewpoints… and yet
label Quadrant, the IPA and the Australian in the same category as creationists and moon
landing conspirators? I find that insulting…. skeptics are honest people who see the dangers involved in this climate scam, climate fraud, climategate etc.
“A person who instinctively or doubts, questions or disagrees with some popular held conceptions or beliefs” Especially when the so called science is based on fraud, lies and making some sections of the community rich at another’s expense. That the skeptics people who are renown scientists in the field or allied fields, respected men and women, have been ignored for absolute years in the press and media. Now you and Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Phil Jones, are placed in the spot light and asked to ‘Please explain” with Senator Wong and substantiate why you still think that Sydney Harbour and sea front homes will be inundated by rising sea levels by 2020? And we will all die of heat exhaustion?
I expect you will cut this comment but I feel the climate change believers faced with the real science and scientists, are unwilling to hand back their millions, nobel prizes, academy and Emmy awards, and admit “Well we made a few errors, we are most likely heading for an ice age actually – but you haven’t died yet have you” Then aside “Drat it, my CCT’s
have dropped 50%’.
If I were you faced with this public embarrassment, I wouldn’t be canning the skeptics
(denier’s is very rude) I’d be suing the ones who sucked you in.
Well John, I studied Science at University, (I’m also a journalist and published writer) and as soon as Al Gore started spouting years ago, I saw it for what it was. I cringed when he got the Academy Award and then the Nobel Prize for Peace?) And if you can’t accept it my type of debate is being spouted all around the world it’s because you haven’t any relevant answers. The best being ‘we made a small error or errors, we lost data’
You are a dieing breed JOHN, (not to be taking personally of course, but all you argued for to support your beliefs is that we skeptics are wrong and equal to creationists!) you feel the science as settled and all those who disagree, and have disagreed for years but weren’t given any hearing in the media until recently, equal the creationist doctrines or moon landing conspirators.
You can’t take my ‘debate’ seriously because you haven’t any logical answers. Well guess
what we skeptics know you haven’t any and that fuels our fires better than yours. Get
my gist… you are like and your AGW believers like the creationists. When faced with science and Darwin’s theory, they started up saying, ‘Can’t be true, God created the world
in 4004 BC at 4 pm… ‘ fair dinkum.
They are still at it today – evangelists, and pentacostals, etc. Check out their sites on
climate change.
Anyway good evening and the best of luck to you personally, and hope you will see one day we skeptics did have a really good point, and no cap & trades or ETS bills will be passed.
@Bush bunny
yes you are concerned Bush Bunny – you are a concern troll – concerned about Al Gore who has more sense than most – concerned about science- concerned about intelligence when you havent got any – concerned about your right to disagree when you what you are agreeing with is crap
We kn ow your kind. Now go away – we only just cleared out a whole lot of trash but we forgot you obviously…
Now youve said your good evenings…can I say dont come back?
I think the thread demonstrates some regrettable truths about the public consideration of AGW.
First, we have Bush bunny: someone to whom the whole thing is plainly a game where they can have fun mocking the despised left. It’s best never even to acknowledge the presence of such people … something John which I thought you would have realised by now. Seeing a response to their contributions just encourages them to redouble their efforts.
The trouble is that we know Bush bunny et al are acting in bad faith, and there’s a tendency therefore to assume that ALL denialists are acting in bad faith. This is not a valid assumption.
The problems are compounded by the fact that genuine scientists like Plimer and Carter, while having very much the worst of the debate, are apparently quite lucid and personable chaps in person. If one puts aside preconceived notions of motivation and bad faith and considers them purely as scientists who have a different view to the majority, it’s easy to see how non-scientists of goodwill can conclude that there are legitimate differences that have still to be sorted out before they can commit to fairly drastic new policies.
In other words, people who have not taken the time – or may not have the time – to explore the history and background to the arguments in depth can quite understandably conclude that decisions should prudently be deferred for a while. Indeed if you start from the premise that all the scientists (and even most of the journalists) are sincerely interested in finding the truth, then it would be hard to arrive at any other conclusion. And I suspect that for many of the world’s decision-makers, AGW is no more than another of the five or six or 10 important issues about which they are waiting for the experts to reach consensus before they feel confident enough to take action.
@Bush bunny
You studied science? When you werent truanting and taking drugs you mean…another clueless fruit loop (and Ill proably get into trouble for calling you what you are…but JQs a lot more politre than me and he is willing to tolerate dissenting views as long as they are intelligent…so where is your intrelligent argument Bush tucker? (About as thick as a lump of damper cooked on an open fire when there is nothing better to eat).
@Bush Bunny.
You’re a journalist and a published author, eh?
‘Tis a pity that your knowledge of basic grammar and spelling is rather lacking…
Bush Bunny will be best as Bush Meat. Perhaps with some bush peppercorns to give the dull flavour some zest…
When the Australian News Paper Editorial has stuff about how the centre of the Earth is hot, and how scientists should be checking out what contribution to surface temperature that is making, I know we’ve got a bulldust expert on the loose. The not so subtle seed being planted is that a hot inner Earth must mean at least a fairly warm surface, and that scientists haven’t checked it! Or even worse, they have deliberately ignored it (they haven’t, and yes, it has been checked out on numerous occasions). To quote from the arrant nonsense in the Editorial (2010-03-12):
[My bolding of the pertinent text.]
Hmmm, maybe rabbit stew would be better – the stringy pieces of meat will have more time to soften up.
PS Bush Bunny, I won’t bother to provide the oh so easy links on the above, instead go to the one stop shop.
Bush bunny, are you by any chance a graduate of: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/53264/20051116-0000/www.aiu.school.tc/students.html?
Bush bunny, are you by any chance a graduate of:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/53264/20051116-0000/www.aiu.school.tc/faculties.html ?
honestly, if you walked into this debate right now, and knew nothing about the factual basis or any of what has gone on and just read the different comments, you would not side with so-called skeptics simply because they almost always come across as nasty, childish people,
most are so cartoonish i struggle to believe they are actual human beings
@smiths
Indeed, they mostly come across as authoritarian libertarians and maybe “slaves of some defunct economist” also.
@smiths
Oh oh Smiths …looks like bush bunny has become bush tucker.
I wish people wouldn’t feed the troll. I mean, really, do you think our arguments are going to change Bush Dill’s mind, when the solid logic of climate science can’t?
Please, just ignore him, have a grown-up conversation,
I’m glad that you have drawn attention to the morphing of these snarling dog attacks on specific issues, issues that are underpinned by scientific evidence, into a broadside against science and scientists in general.
Viewing it from up high the two political issues doing the most to set up a “pincer movement” against science and scientists are AGW and Creationism/ID/New ID. Common to both of these is that they may be framed as scientific explanation threatening values strongly held by a group with political clout.
In the case of AGW, businesses in the fossil fuel game want to exploit their reserves fully; this means that a strategy of casting doubts upon the science and using this to justify delay in (eventually) implementing a solution, is an easy strategy to execute successfully.
For C/ID/NID the affect group(s) are the Christian Denominations, and primarily the fundamentalist and evangelical end of the spectrum, who take Genesis – the chapter with all of the begatting – literally. Their strategy is to cast doubts upon the science buttressing Evolutionary Biology, and to then use the strange notion of balance to argue that science/biology students should be taught “the controversy”. This strategy is a fairly successful one because it doesn’t need to succeed all at once, but rather one school at a time is sufficient early on in order to establish precedent. It has worked rather well.
Taken together, the two issues of AGW and Evolution are under attack by opponents running fairly similar strategies to achieve their ends. In both cases the opponents starting point is to undermine the level of certainty in the scientific case, and one favourite tactic is to diminish the integrity of key scientists operating in the field, and this is executed through the hiring of “PR Transitioning” Firms whose role is to create an evironment in which the John Does or Norm Six Pack are assailed by “reminders” that the science isn’t settled, that the scientists aren’t reliable, are evasive and are incompetent, that the science is corrupted by the need to get grant money, and so on. The science itself is also undermined by the geurilla tactic of serial nitpicking; find an obscure detail and flush it out into the open (ie into the media glare) and appear to shoot it down, and move on to the next obscure detail before scientists have finished rebutting the previous attack.
The coalescing of just these two examples into a generalised attack upon scientific foundations and science/scientists in general has been astonishing to witness up close and blow by blow, thanks to the Web’s tools for searching, finding, tracking and aggregating. Most traditional journalists have dealt themselves out of the game when it comes to correcting the record; indeed, they are only too quick to accept PR handouts which claim to explain. As far as the public is concerned, science is tarnished, and this just makes further attack easy. The big problem is that this has progressed so far as to place signficant pressure to modify any school or university subjects that “disagree” with the aims of the opponents.
Further damage is done as potential science students pick up on their parents comments (about the issues under attack) and views, and as they starting reading newspapers and the like. By the time the student needs to choose there preferences for university, Law, Engineering, Medicine or even Media Studies look a whole lot better than science. And, those who do go for science are going to be confronted with weaker courses, in part due to the much lower cut-off score (due to lack of interest in the courses), and in part due to the successes of the attack strategies of those who oppose AGW mitigation, and/or oppose Evolution/Cosmology/Astronomy/Biology/Botany.
Ironically, the demand for mining engineers has guaranteed that geology is doing fine as a subject within mining engineering courses. I’m not too sure that the subject is fine in terms of continuity; that is, I wonder whether they are still pumping out enough geology scientists as opposed to engineers.
@Donald Oats
Sorry: the first part of the first sentence “I’m glad that you have drawn attention to the morphing ” [my bolding of the text] should read as “you (ie Pr Quiggin)” in place of the bold text.