>> What irks me is how easy this would be to clean up

It would be, if it were a simple matter of an oversight. I think it’s naive to think it is. Not that I’m comparing the US to Nazi germany, but it’s like thinking that one could change the course of Nazi funded research into eugenics by simply pointing out that a researcher failed to include the supporting data. There is an agenda. The problem is political, and that’s where the solution will come from, not in an abscure scientific journal.

The purpose behind the Team’s activities was not to advance science, but to simply provide political cover for politicians attempting to advance the agenda. In a similar way, any work by scientists which counters the Team will not advance science, nor affect the Team in any way. It is simply material that may be used by a politician who may be inclined to thwart the agenda.

>> I’m still up in the air on the barge example, though – what if they were filled with lead, and so of course sank?)

It would displace a small amount of water, which might add up to a few millimeters on the bank. But if you told a resident of a flooded town in Iowa that it was a barge that caused this, and that the extra rain had nothing to do with it, it wouldn’t pass the laugh test. Just like saying that an extra C02 molecule per 10,000 air molecules is what is heating the entire earth, rather than the extra sunshine.

>> It’s the assertions that simply cannot be judged based on analogy or common sense – those whose answers usually contain a long string of numbers, for example – of which I spoke

I’m not aware of any important ones in that category. One may try to hide behind a long string of numbers, but in the end, if one is claiming that a hair dryer can be used to heat a lake up, one is bound to get laughed at sooner or later.

>> If 358 serum biologists all tell me that WBCs are, in fact, embodiments of Satan

Which is what they are saying about carbon, the foundation of life, and plant food in the form of C02.

You described situations where someone with intelligence, but without technical expertise, could still validly critique assertions. (I’m still up in the air on the barge example, though – what if they were filled with lead, and so of course sank?)

It’s the assertions that simply cannot be judged based on analogy or common sense – those whose answers usually contain a long string of numbers, for example – of which I spoke. I see people from both sides roundly condemning people on the “other side” who have made assertions that are clearly beyond the ability of the condemnors to judge – but, the condemnors have taken a side – a position, as it were – and so they doan need no steenkin abilities or skills – because they have dogma.

“Ridiculous. I’m an electrical and software engineer. I do NOT have the duty to go out and find wrongness in other EEs and other software engineers and speak out about it.”

My poor word choice. Sorry. The duty you do have at that point is to yourself, and to your profession. If 358 serum biologists all tell me that WBCs are, in fact, embodiments of Satan, and you’re #359 in my path, my esteem for you will not likely be high. I’m simply saying that a critique of the “Satan as WBCs” school of thought right at that time increases our chances of dating immeasurably.

And, if each individual watches over their own turf that way, then every little absurd assertion will be corrected, and it will be done out of the purest of motivations: self-interest.

In general, you make a good point. I do agree that these scientists have a responsibility to understand the scientific method, educate the public about it, and use it themselves. And I also agree that integrity require that people who know better should speak up.

However, given that the entire scientific establishment have become pseudo employees of the state, and that in a free democracy like the US, the responsibility for that lies with the people, it’s hard for me to blame the pseudo scientific advocates. They are just doing their job.

The root cause of this problem is political philosophy, in that I don’t believe the federal government should be using tax dollars to fund scientific activity, other than that required to defend the country. We could remove the pseudo scientific advocates, and more would spring up in their place.

…

The bottom line is that the problems are (in order of importance): 1) political philosophy knowledge in citizens, 2) critical thinking skills in citizens, 3) knowledge about scientific method in citizens 4) integrity of scientists.

Ultimately, as Talleyrand? said, in a democracy the people get the government that they deserve. So I’d agree with you about that.

Within that most imperfect system, however, is where we live. Me, I think that (to take one example) when Science Magazine refuses to follow its own archiving policies (only, of course, for certain authors), it affects scientists and citizens alike. And I think that in cases like that, it is important that scientists and citizens of all stripes hold their feet to the fire. Me, I emailed Donald Kennedy to express my outrage that they would not require an author to archive his data, despite their stated policy.

And yes, many scientists work for the government. But the government has very clear, stated policies that require the scientists getting grants to archive their data.

The problem is that the NSF does not require that their grant recipients have archived their data. Like Science magazine, and Nature magazine, and the IPCC, the NSF also has clear archiving policies that it selectively ignores.

What irks me is how easy this would be to clean up. If Nature, and Science, and the IPCC, and the NSF merely said “we’re not accepting anything new from someone until they archive any overdue data”, it would all get archived very quickly and we could determine what is real and what is not.

None of this requires specialized knowledge. The issues are all things like transparency and honesty and adherence to stated policy and scientific norms. It’s not rocket surgery …

Now you are right, there is no requirement that you do anything about any of those egregious actions by people in positions of scientific influence and power.

It is also the case that for scientific malfeasance and back-hand deals to triumph, it is only necessary that good men do nothing.

All the best, my thanks to you,

w.

In general, you make a good point. I do agree that these scientists have a responsibility to understand the scientific method, educate the public about it, and use it themselves. And I also agree that integrity require that people who know better should speak up.

However, given that the entire scientific establishment have become pseudo employees of the state, and that in a free democracy like the US, the responsibility for that lies with the people, it’s hard for me to blame the pseudo scientific advocates. They are just doing their job.

The root cause of this problem is political philosophy, in that I don’t believe the federal government should be using tax dollars to fund scientific activity, other than that required to defend the country. We could remove the pseudo scientific advocates, and more would spring up in their place.

>> at that point, will you still be standing by silently

Actually, because the world of software is still largely a free market, it didn’t happen, and it can’t happen. After the Y2k era, CFOs came to judged by how many IT projects they could cut. Much profit draining IT spending was reduced. There was no bottomless pit of tax dollars going into IT advocacy. Most of the massive government IT projects failed, because someone actually wanted to use the software, which is the equivalent of the scientific method.

The bottom line is that the problems are (in order of importance): 1) political philosophy knowledge in citizens, 2) critical thinking skills in citizens, 3) knowledge about scientific method in citizens 4) integrity of scientists

>> It seems you have a curious view about the advice of experts. Would you say that “If a doctor say you need to take penicillin and you believe him, shame on you.”?

No, I don’t really. I regularly listen to my doctor and my lawyer. The point is that I use my critical thinking skills to make sure that what they are telling me makes sense. For example, what if over the years, I go into the doctor for 10 different things, and in each case, he tells me that I need to take drug X for it. I get suspicious because the 10 things are quite different, and it seems like no matter what the ailment is, he has the same solution.

To make it worse, the doctor starts calling me on the phone and coming over to my house, and desperately tries to convince me I don’t feel well, and his solution is always the same drug X. And then I find out that the drug company is paying him to push it, and that if he doesn’t, he’ll be out of a job.

So, should I use my critical thinking skills, or should I complain about why other doctors aren’t going out of their way to discredit this doctor, even though they are all working for the same drug company?

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN20412636
Scientists urge US to protect economy from climate
By Timothy Gardner
Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:57pm EDT

NEW YORK, Aug 20 (Reuters) – Eight scientific organizations urged the next U.S. president to help protect the country from climate change by pushing for increased funding for research and forecasting, saying about $2 trillion of U.S. economic output could be hurt by storms, floods and droughts.
“We don’t think we have the right kind of tools to help decision makers plan for the future,” Jack Fellows, the vice president for corporate affairs of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of 71 universities, told reporters in a teleconference on Wednesday.
The groups, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, urged Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain to support $9 billion in investments between 2010 and 2014 to help protect the country from extreme weather, which would nearly double the current U.S. budget for the area.
. . .
The investments would pay for satellite and ground-based instruments that observe the Earth’s climate and for computers to help make weather predictions more accurate.
John Snow, the co-chairman of the Weather Coalition, a business and university group that advocates for better weather prediction, said improved computers would help scientists forecast extreme weather events more locally, which could help cities better prepare for weather disasters.
. . .

Ridiculous. I’m an electrical and software engineer. I do NOT have the duty to go out and find wrongness in other EEs and other software engineers and speak out about it. If a software engineer tells you that the Y2k bug will destroy the whole economy, and you believe him, shame on you. If he tells you that the moderate functionality you want will cost you millions, and you pay him, it’s your fault, not mine.

When it gets to the point in your analogy when the reputation of the software engineering community is totally ruined by the scientific malfeasance of the other software engineers …

When it gets to the point in your analogy when software engineers have cost the world billions of dollars through unsupported and unsupportable claims …

When it gets to the point in your analogy when you say “I’m a software engineer” and people reply “well, I guess we know who not to believe, then” …

… at that point, will you still be standing by silently, and claiming “the death of responsible software engineering is not my problem, it’s all the client’s fault for listening to those folks”?

Because that is assuredly happening in climate science, the large and increasing numbers of “scientists” who are driven by politics and making unsupportable claims are incrementally destroying the reputation of the responsible climate scientists, the ones who actually practice science. And to blame that on the gullibility of the public, to say “shame on you”, misses the point entirely.

For those good scientists to speak out is not their duty, as you point out … but only because it comes from a much more basic urge than the urge to duty.

It is simple self-defense, to protect their own good names and reputations.

w.

PS – You say:

If a software engineer tells you that the Y2k bug will destroy the whole economy, and you believe him, shame on you.

It seems you have a curious view about the advice of experts. Would you say that “If a doctor say you need to take penicillin and you believe him, shame on you.”?

We generally believe scientists and doctors and engineers and the like because a) they are experts in the particular field of interest and b) we are not. It’s not clear what your preferred option to this would be. Distrust all experts? Laugh when they try to warn us of possible future dangers? Refer all questions to you, and you can decide? What is your preferable plan?

I was thinking that it might be semantics too, but when I got to this, I realize that it’s not. I think the problem is not that people take “positions”, but that they aren’t taking enough positions.

People aren’t using their critical thinking skills to judge wild claims with common sense. They are blindly accepting the assertions of so-called “experts”, because they don’t feel they are qualified. Just like when the scientific consensus said that racism was moral, people blindly accepted that assertion.

If someone told you that the Mississippi was flooding because humans are driving too many barges on it, everyone can use their common sense to determine if that’s likely or not. If someone told you that legally requiring that 25% of corn crops be dedicated to making ethanol is not the cause of higher food prices, everyone can use their common sense to determine if that makes sense.

And if someone told you that adding one more molecule of plant food per 10,000 air molecules can someone heat the planet, everyone can use their common sense to determine if that’s likely or not. It’s like saying that we can heat the lake up with a hair dryer.

So, my view is the opposite of yours. Less blindly following the elites, and more critical thinking skills.

>> whose wrongness will thus become a reflection on you and your profession – THEN you have a duty to speak. Loudly

Ridiculous. I’m an electrical and software engineer. I do NOT have the duty to go out and find wrongness in other EEs and other software engineers and speak out about it. If a software engineer tells you that the Y2k bug will destroy the whole economy, and you believe him, shame on you. If he tells you that the moderate functionality you want will cost you millions, and you pay him, it’s your fault, not mine.

“As I’ve said over and over, I don’t think that concerns over AGW stands or falls on the Stick; as I’ve also said over and over (and as bender says above), I think that AGW advocates over-rely on the Stick and its cousins as a cheap promotional tool and that they should work much harder at proper public expositions of their “real” arguments. I’m even willing to grant the possibility that this issue should be of concern to the public even if the Navier-Stokes type problems mean that GCMs are ultimately not particularly helpful. I think that it should be possible to think through the underlying physics and feedbacks and present it and that it would be salutary to do so.

“People have argued – if the Stick is wrong, then the situation is much worse than we think it is. My answer to that is simple: well, if it’s wrong, then we should know and govern ourselves accordingly; if it means policy action is more urgent, then so be it. But we should not thank the authors whose withholding of data and obstruction has made it so much harder to detect the error than it should have been. And if this is a risk, other people besides me should have taken some initiative in vetting the Stick. …

“I’ve compared the issue to the WMD argument, which was also a cheap way of arousing the public; and, myself to an analyst who observes that an aluminum tube is sometimes just an aluminum tube. That doesn’t mean that other arguments for the war couldn’t be made or that the war was right or wrong; just that it was [not] justified based on the aluminum tube argument. In that case, some effort was made to understand why they got the WMD intelligence wrong.”

B. In response to “Anyone who won’t take a position, because they are afraid of being called a denier does the same.”:

This is probably – maybe – semantics only, and we’re really on the same page, but . . . No one should be taking a “position.” “Positions” are what got us here. No one should be doing anything except watching and reading those assertions and reports and measurements that are declared to be accurate and valid and useful in drawing conclusions within those areas in which you – YOU! – are qualified to comment, contribute, and critique . . .

. . . and when you see something you know to be wrong, or sloppy, or overreaching, or . . . c’mon, we all know what I’m saying here . . . . you have a duty to delve into those wrongnities (new word – might be on the next quiz – I’d take notes, people) and either confirm your sense of disquiet, or learn why you were off, and if you have confirmed that your disquiet was warranted – that there has been wrongness spread in your own field of expertise, and whose wrongness will thus become a reflection on you and your profession – THEN you have a duty to speak. Loudly.

Mark,
I agree with your assessment of IPCC projections as unscientific. You may or may not know about an emerging a discipline called “Scientific Forecasting.” It has been working for 25 years or so now. It sounds a little like “Scientific Crystal Ball Reading” but they have developed a respectable body of literature now in four different peer-reviewed journals. One of the leaders of this emerging field is J. Scott Armstrong. He and Kesten Green audited the IPCC projections and found it wanting. http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf