“I have something in common with climate change myself. When I read about myth masquerading as fact, I find that my own temperature starts rising.”

Michael Kirsch thinks medicine and climate change might have some common elements.

“I don’t think that creationism is science and it should not be disguised as such. Global warming, or climate change, however, is more nuanced. While it is inarguable that temperatures have been rising, it is not certain and to what extent human activities are responsible for this. Clearly, this issue has been contaminated by politically correct warriors and those who have an agenda against fossil fuel use. Science, like all scholarship, should be a pursuit of the truth, without a destination in sight. Believing or wanting to believe that man is turning the world’s heat up may sound plausible, but it may not be true.

 

Just because something sounds true and logical, doesn’t make it so. In addition, repeating an opinion like a mantra isn’t sufficient to confer legitimacy on a view. Zealots and partisans gainsay these inconvenient truths.

In the medical universe, much is presented as true, which may be either false or unproved. Consider how many established medical procedures and practices have no underlying science to buttress them. Consider the following examples and decide if you agree that each is a good idea that makes sense.  Do they sound right or are they truly sound?”

Too often, people go off on things that sound right but are not truly sound. They then proceed to rationalize what they think sounds right and that is where the problem comes in. The often miss things like the comparison Kirsch provides between creationism and climate change. That is noting the ‘weak analogy‘ logical fallacy. The use of such fallacies is not restricted to a particular topic but rather to a behavior where trying to figure out what is truly sound is not the goal.

OK: Why should government money go for science, anyway? Sandwalk picked up the chain with Why Do We Do Science?

“Phill Plait of Bad Astronomy hits the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned [Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member Gets Schooled on Science Funding]. His defense of science should be the primary talking point whenever anyone questions the value of learning about the natural world.”

The idea is a good one, the straw man doesn’t help it. The idea:

“We research the Universe around us because we are curious, inquisitive, intelligent animals. We don’t know what snail mating habits might teach us. That’s why we study it. Maybe it’ll lead into insight on how animals behave, or a new chemical secreted during the process, or to insight on the environment where snails live. Maybe none of that.”

The staw man? It’s those evil conservatives.

“It’s an uphill climb, to be sure; the forces of antiscience are strong and loud. One of them is the Wall Street Journal, which frequently publishes ridiculous OpEds baselessly denying global warming.”

Of course, they couldn’t stick to just “If you don’t engage in the kind of research that Conservatives want, then you won’t get funded” but have to identify a few sample villains with generic topics of dear interest to ideologs – climate change and creationism in these samples. The meme here is also significant because it expresses the anti-capitalism ethos in another straw man. That is that the rationalization for science research is strictly a matter of return on investment. These are characteristics to watch for as they indicate that it is not suppporting ones’ point of view that is paramount but rather demeaning the opposition. That indicates the intellectual integrity is not a priority, either.

It took most of mankind’s existence to develop our most valuable tool for understanding the physical world and shaping it to meet our needs: the scientific method.

The key to its widespread use, beginning in the 17th century, was the growing freedom to pursue truth objectively, instead of submitting to the dogmas of church or state.

Today, however, we risk moving backward. Science is under attack by self-serving interest groups that reject objective inquiry because it frequently fails to produce politically desired results.”

Droz and Schalin describe When consensus trumps science starting out with the ‘debate’ about climate. “Perhaps the most aggressive attacks against science are attempts to inject value-driven methods into traditional science.” The use of the precautionary principle is suggested as one warning that intellectual integrity is suffering.

“these pretensions to “science” are typical of the progressive modern, whose ideological preferences and arguments suffer from the irrational prejudices and political self-interests that they routinely claim vitiate the traditionalist perspective.”

Anthropogenic catastrophic global warming? No, the topic Bruce Thornton is talking about is Gay Marriage and the Dysfunctions of Modernity.

“This incoherence is the consequence of modernity’s hubristic belief that human nature is infinitely plastic and can be shaped in any way we want. Determining the limits of such changes and redefinitions will ultimately be determined not by morality, knowledge, or argument, but by sheer power”

The problem is that a belief in a plasticity of human nature does not mesh very well with the idea that behavior, especially sexual behavior, is as innate and pre-determined as, for instance, such things as eye color.

Much of religion is based on the idea that man can rise above his inclinations and choose his behavior. That idea is a crucial component of a civilized society. It is the idea that is being contested.

“If fluoride is potentially dangerous in large amounts, isn’t it best to avoid it altogether? Not necessarily. Yale clinical neurologist Steven Novella, one of the authors of the well-respected blog Science-Based Medicine, put it to me this way: “Everything is toxic at a high enough dose; everything is safe at a low enough dose.” Yes, even water and vitamin C can be deadly when you consume too much. And the idea that something bad at high doses is also necessarily bad at low doses is based in part on the assumption that dose-response effects follow a linear pattern, but many scientists now think that biological responses are more complex than that. Some substances may only be dangerous beyond a certain threshold, while others may follow U- or inverted-U-shaped dose-response curves, such that substances have unexpected effects at high or low doses. (The anti-cancer drug tamoxifen, for instance, can stimulate tumor growth in small amounts.)”

Melinda Moyer got curious after hearing some rumors about the effect of flouride in water on children. See decided to check it out and reports on the question “Does Fluoride Make Your Kids Dumb? (Don’t trust the influential doctor who says yes)” at Slate.

Some people are gullible, some are skeptical, but one has to wonder about those who make it a life’s work to promote and promulgate fear and uncertainty with a complete lack of intellectual integrity. As Moyer illustrates, it often doesn’t take much effort to qualify the rumors and FUD mongering that floats all over the place.

“These laws are intended to make the job of prosecuting drugged drivers easier,” said Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University. “In states without these laws, prosecutors must rely on field sobriety tests or evidence that a motorist was driving erratically in order to prove impairment.”

Drugged driving laws show little impact: All 50 states urged to adopt such laws describes a study by economists at the University of Colorado Denver and Montana State University.

“Using state-level data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the period 1990-2010, Anderson and Rees examined the relationship between adopting controlled substance thresholds for drivers and traffic fatalities. They found that the relationship is statistically indistinguishable from zero and concluded that there is no evidence that these limits reduced traffic deaths.”

Much like a posted speed limit, the existence of drugs in the blood is an artificial criterion that serves more to facilitate an easy to obtain number. Such numbers make prosecution easier. They don’t make the roads safer according to this study.

There is a close analogy with ‘gun control’ as political ideologues struggle to find definitions for such terms as ‘assault rifle’ that can make prosecution easy. The goal of the legislation is set aside in the rush to ‘do something, anything’ that sounds as if it is supposed to work. The problem is that doing things that don’t work tend to irritate people and generate compliance problems or make everyone a criminal subject to selective government harassment.

“Closet climate skeptics in the scientific community are everywhere. They are afraid, with good reason, to voice their doubts. They are afraid for their jobs and their grants. They are afraid of being attacked by green students or colleagues. Even public skeptics are restrained and speak quite differently in private from their public personas. One reason so many skeptics are retired, or from fields not under control of the climate science establishment, is because, as pensioners or outsiders, they have less to fear from the anger of that establishment.

Science is important. When establishment scientific organizations squander the credibility of science for short-term gain, that really is a crime against humanity.”

Norman Rogers describes How to Destroy Science: Cast Self-Interest as Public Interest. The pattern is there: feeding from the public trough; sound good anti-human ideas; hubris; denial and delusion; projection;

why?

Both sides of the gun control debate are throwing studies that purport to show the validity of their position. David Sherfinski takes note of how Dueling data on gun crimes put new laws in crossfire at the Washington Times.

“gun-control advocates point to figures that seem to show a correlation between stricter laws and lower crime and homicide rates. Pro-gun groups, though, say the data show just the opposite — that violence and crime drops where concealed-carry laws are allowed.

The press and the public are caught in the middle, searching for concrete conclusions that are tough to come by.”

This, like climate, is tough to measure because there are so many variables to influence outcomes and they cannot be isolated in such a way as to get an independent measure of each variable. For instance, the ban on assault rifles was based on a firearm having two or more characteristics defined in a list. Most of the characteristics in the list were cosmetic and none had an established link to gun violence. Then, when statistics are cited, the trend is to use overall rates of selected crimes rather than those that can be traced to assault rifles much less to one of the characteristics listed as belonging to an assault rifle.

Traffic crash causes provide another example. The appealing adage is “speed kills” as an appeal to obey posted speed limits. The problem is that the studies of automobile crash statistics indicates that driving over posted speed is very seldom cited as a contributing factor.

There is also the problem of diverting the issue. Gun control issues involve much more than just an attempt to prevent their use in horrific crimes. It also involves matters such as self defense and property rights. An honest debate is going to be weighing these issues as well as making proper use of measures rather than culling them to pick and choose what is convenient for one point of view or other.

“Climatology is no longer recognisable as a science but has morphed into a fundamentalist ideology of a millenarian nature. Science only serves it to enhance claims of authority and certainty. Scientific ethics and evidence are employed selectively in accord with the noble cause of saving the planet from the corruptions of humanity and capitalism. Any conflicting reason or evidence is never sufficient for doubt but is only a test of faith to be overcome. Any opposing argument is not simply incorrect but driven by wilful evil, in league with big business if not Satan himself.”

John at Powerline suggested an essay by Walter Starck to Speak loudly and carry a busted hockey stick. It provides a good rundown on the current state of the global warming jihad.

“This blanket rejection of any possibility other than the hypothetical threat of AGW has led to some strange behaviour for people who modestly proclaim themselves to be the world’s top climate scientists.”

As to why, Starck offers an hypothesis:

“One doesn’t need to be particularly capable to speculate about some dire consequence of warming, receive widespread publicity and be treated as an important expert. Unlike in real science, no colleagues will dispute them and the few sceptics willing to question anything will generally be ignored and denigrated by all their peers. The news media will describe them as experts and provide the public attention they know they deserve but somehow had never been recognised by anyone else until they climbed onto the climate bandwagon. Grants then flow and jetting off to attend important conferences in attractive places with all expenses paid provides frequent welcome breaks from the tedium of academia. Perhaps best of all, is a delicious feeling of importance and moral superiority over all of the high achievers striving so hard to discover something of consequence about the real world. The only personal cost is to one’s own scientific integrity and that’s not worth much if one is just another unrecognised minor league academic no one had ever heard of before they joined into the climate alarm. In any case, saving the planet is the noblest of all causes and absolves any tinge of guilt in such regard.”

Save the planet … sounds familiar … new threats are being invented all the time … will intellectual integrity ever rise to the mainstream?

“Fracking’s move into pop culture goes beyond the silver screen, and some of music’s most legendary acts are also tackling the topic. The Rolling Stones’ new tune “Doom and Gloom,” released as part of the band’s 50th anniversary collection, includes direct references to fracking and cryptically ties the process to water pollution.”

New techniques for gas and oil well productivity are providing a case study in fear driven ideology establishing modern myths that damage and destroy. It is one Republicans should study to better understand techniques used against their candidates. It is the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) thing all over again. It was also there in the 60′s movement and the subject of many songs.

Fears over fracking spilling into popular culture describes it as a “controversial drilling technique.” Other sources have asserted that it is new technology. The claim is that it pollutes the ground water used for drinking. Fracking is controversial only in that some folks have taken it up as a means to act out and pretend they are trying to save humanity. It has long roots in its development and there is no evidence that it has adverse impact on drinking water supplies. In these sorts of ‘controversies’, though, facts and reality don’t seem to matter. Fear and ignorance are the driving factors.

“There’s certainly an uptick in Hollywood’s involvement in energy issues. Part of the reason is, [critics’] arguments don’t stand up scientifically,” Mr. Eshelman said. “They can’t win this argument based on facts and science, so they have to turn to a community that is going to listen to them. They find that with the Hollywood crowd and the entertainment community.”

Perhaps Mark Steyn had it right when he suggested that funds normally oriented at campaigns be redirected towards making blockbuster movies to contrast with the ‘feel good’ anti-human, anti-business, and anti-technology propaganda films that are produced to promote causes that fly in the face of reality.

The farmers in North Dakota have taken a pre-emptive strike

” Farm groups in other states also had become concerned about the Humane Society and other animal-welfare organizations pushing laws to ban small crates for chickens and pregnant pigs, and what they saw as a heavier hand with federal regulation under President Obama.

“Farmers pushed back with social-media campaigns designed to sway public opinion and their own initiatives, such as a law passed earlier this year in Iowa that makes it a crime to lie on a job application to get access to a farm to record video of animal abuse.

North Dakota’s constitutional amendment takes farm protection a step further.”

Blake Nicholson describes how North Dakotans enshrine the right to farm at the Washington Post and also notes that “voters in California rejected a measure calling for labeling on food products containing genetically modified ingredients.”

Striking the hand that feeds us, whether it is food, fuel, or security, is a habit engrained in the Animal House Nation’s culture, the ‘want to feel good but not think about it’ contingent that seems to be predominant. The farmer’s in North Dakota have won a bit of push back and that may just help feed the poor as well.

“The judge ignored a petition signed by 5,000 scientists that demanded the witch hunt to be stopped. The media are silent. When genuine scientists *really* want to protect human lives by offering their expertise as weapons against pseudoscientific misconceptions, they are no longer heroes among the journalists. The dirty journalists only celebrate crackpots who actually spread hysteria that helps to sell the newspapers, for example the global warming crackpots.”

Luboš Motl notes the verdict in the Italy earthquake witch trial: 6 years in prison.

“What these people did was totally fine: they shared their prediction about the earthquake based on their best knowledge of seismology in which they’re among the top Italian experts. A large, magnitude 6.3 earthquake did take place and killed 309 people but it’s not these people’s fault and earthquakes can always arrive unpredictably.

It’s not possible to reliably or semi-reliably predict earthquakes and strong arguments exist that it will always be impossible.
…
“f someone is made responsible for deaths of casualties of a natural catastrophe that can’t be predicted according to any protocol that actually exists, it’s just nothing else than a condemnation of a witch. I often thought that the witch trials were insane and we live in a very different world than Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. But we’re not living in such a different world. We are still controlled by evil loons such as the Italian judge who don’t want to hear anything about the actual abilities and limitations of the current science.”

Scared yet?

Larry Moran describes the problem as Another Evolutionary Paradox? It seems that some anti-evolution folks discovered that wealth is inversely related to number of offspring. They conclude that this means the wealthy are less fit in evolutionary terms which, to them, is a paradox. That paradox can then be used to dismiss evolution as a valid theory.

“The only “puzzle” might be the naive presumption that rich people should have more reproductive success than poor people but we’ve known that this isn’t true for over one hundred years.”

There is also the underlying idea that being wealthy is a matter of genetics. The rich are a special class of people whose attributes are not of their doing but rather of their ancestry. This is the insidious lack of integrity in the anti-evolution thesis in the example.

Class envy is an ancient phenomena. It is the ‘American Dream’ that makes lie to it. But even the success of so many in achieving that dream in parts from small to large don’t make a dent in the envy. That envy is so cancerous that it blinds people to the link between the immigration problem and people who can see wealth as something other than an inherent attribute of a selected class of people.

“These people simply don’t belong to the Western civilization with its traditions of freedom, democracy, and enlightenment. They belong to a medieval civilization controlled by ultimate cults that can never be questioned, divine entities and beliefs that have the right to create a whole hierarchy of power here on Earth. The similarity to the Islamic fundamentalists is particularly hard to overlook in these days when we see how both of these groups are terrified that someone is even allowed to talk about something.”

Luboš provides his take on the Insane reaction to the PBS interview with Anthony Watts. It seems that PBS made the mistake of allowing one of ‘those people’ to speak. It seems that many in the PBS audience considered that to be an outrage. Their position is not to ‘debate’ or investigate but rather to shut down and censor any idea that threatens their fantasies.

“The core problem is the premise that skeptic scientists should be ignored because they are corrupt. The question is, who do these people rely on to prove this accusation? Rummage through any of the above individuals’ variety of writings and presentations, and a disturbing single source ultimately emerges”

Russell Cook describes The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation. While some scientists get into the methodology and the details of the ‘research,’ just looking at the basic assumptions and the premise of a paper may tell you a lot about its integrity. Are these assumptions really valid? How do you know? Often, they are implicit and not put on the table for examination. In climate research, it is just this pattern of leaving important issues off the table that is bothering some folks.

“On Tuesday, the candidates submitted answers to the 14 “most important science policy questions facing the United States.” The Q-and-A session was organized by Science Debate, a grassroots, nonpartisan, do-gooder group that has been trying since 2008 to get the presidential candidates to engage in a live debate about science and science policy. Subjecting politicians to a science debate might sound like a cruel pop quiz, but it isn’t meant to be.”

The current administration has culled the halls of academia for prestigious scientists as advisers and department heads. It appears to be “the most scientifically accomplished administration since the time of the founding fathers.” Laura Helmuth, though, thinks that Romney Out-Debates Obama on matters of science policy. There is a comparison and contrast to be noted.

“If you scroll through them [answers to the 14 questions] quickly, one thing is immediately apparent: Mitt Romney’s team took this very seriously. His answers are longer, they have subtitles, they have bullet points. It’s not just great presentation: The Romney text is substantive, specific, and detailed. Obama’s answers to some of the same questions are single paragraphs that are vague, repetitive (two in a row start with “Since taking office”), and poorly written.”

There is a qualifier. The problem with the qualifier is that Helmuth toes the PC line on global warming so she takes issue with Romney noting that there is a lack of consensus on the issue. Her view is that “there’s no true debate on the extent of the human contribution (if it weren’t for the human contribution, the climate would likely be cooling) and the question of severity of risk isn’t between “a smidge of risk” and “something we should probably pay attention to.” It’s between “really bad” and “difficult to imagine just how really bad.”” i.e. an ideological extreme that is, in itself meat for the compare and contrast grist mill. One can see the reporter bias on other PC issues such as ‘clean water’ and environmental issues.

“It’s clear from Romney’s answers that his top priorities are reducing government and promoting business, and that science is fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with those ends. But what is impressive and kind of surprising about the science debate is how much thought and effort the Romney campaign put into responding to these questions. “

You would think that this conclusion would cause on the step back a bit from absolute certainty on the PC line but that seldom seems to be the case. When it comes to ideology, a rush to judgement is rather common as is the rationalization of opposition such as in the implications about Republicans in general putting ends above reality. If you see carefully thought out and supported views on issues, the tendency should probably be to delve into the substance rather than to dismiss outright.

“In hindsight, it is hard to resist the conclusion that the policies enacted in the wake of the disaster in Japan—particularly the long-term evacuation of large areas and the virtual termination of the Japanese nuclear power industry—were expressions of panic.”

The tens of thousands dead from the earthquake and tsunami go unnoticed while radiation fears continue to get headlines. Richard Muller describes the Panic Over Fukushima.

“The most thoughtful high-number estimate of deaths that will be caused by the Fukushima disaster comes from Richard Garwin, a renowned nuclear expert. He has written that the best estimate for the number of deaths is about 1,500—well above my estimate but still only 10% of the immediate tsunami deaths. … he ignores the sort of argument that I have made about the Denver dose and includes in the calculation the numbers of deaths expected from tiny doses, assuming that even small exposures are proportionately dangerous. (This is an assumption that has also been adopted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.)”

The Denver Dose is the natural background radiation in Denver, Colorado. The background radiation depends upon altitude and the nature of the rocks in an area. Consideration of the radiation dosage that people get living in such areas to those in other areas is one of the factors in the debate about radiation hormesis. Current standards are based on the theory that risk is related to dose all the way down to zero. Background radiation considerations and other data indicate that low dosages may not present a risk or may even provide a benefit (which is what the hormesis theory is all about).

“The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuation of a locality whenever the excess radiation dose exceeds .1 rem per year. But that’s one-third of what I call the “Denver dose.” Applied strictly, the ICRP standard would seem to require the immediate evacuation of Denver. … There is a strong argument for ignoring radiation dangers below the level of the Denver dose. In doing so, we would be ignoring risks that are unobservable and which we routinely ignore (and properly so) in other circumstances.”

So Japan is shutting down its nuclear power industry because of fear of risks that are so small as to buried in the noise. The geological disaster caused 15,000 or more casualties while the nuclear plant problems might cause only 0.1% of that over the long term and in a way that will be difficult to tell from normal disease rates in the population. What is not considered in the comparison is just how many deaths might be caused by the shortage of electrical power as the nuclear plants are shut down. That risk, too, the risk from reduced power availability and consumption, is difficult to asses but a risk as real and as significant – or more significant – than the long term radiation exposures on the level one finds as normal background radiation in various parts of the planet.

“In the climate debate, we hear a lot from those who think disaster is inexorable if not inevitable, and a lot from those who think it is all a hoax. We hardly ever allow the moderate “lukewarmers” a voice: those who suspect that the net positive feedbacks from water vapor in the atmosphere are low, so that we face only 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming this century; that the Greenland ice sheet may melt but no faster than its current rate of less than 1 percent per century; that net increases in rainfall (and carbon dioxide concentration) may improve agricultural productivity; that ecosystems have survived sudden temperature lurches before; and that adaptation to gradual change may be both cheaper and less ecologically damaging than a rapid and brutal decision to give up fossil fuels cold turkey.”

Matt Ridley takes on Apocalypse Not: Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Worry About End Times and summarizes the many predictions of catastrophe of recent times noting how none of them turned out as planned. The caveat is that, while one should not worry about total catastrophe, one should not just ignore the alarmism all together, either. Reason and prudence are the difficult attributes to find in these things.

On the gun front there is the fundamental divide between whether a gun is offensive or defensive. Dr. Salwitz provides an example of the former. He says “I am a physician and guns are a disease“. Here is some of what he says to support this belief that are quite indicative.

“I feel guilty about the killings in Colorado … Because, I am a physician and guns are a disease.” … “Where once we required guns to protect ourselves from wild animals and to provide food, in a modern society this is a rare need. Except for marksmen who enjoy target shooting or hunting, guns have limited use for recreation. Therefore, in a modern society, what is the purpose of guns?” … “Guns have multiplied through our great Nation like a highly virulent virus. They infect one person at a time.” … “Our society is sick with spreading Gun Disease.” … “There is no immunity from the either guns or bullets and under the pressure of enough fear of gun violence, anyone will pick up a firearm and anyone can be shot.” … “Guns create guns. Feeding off their human hosts, they are a fatal infestation of our Nation.”

The stimulus for this was a mentally deranged person whose psychologist had warned authorities of his proclivities. Rather than focus on the medical issues, this doctor finds an object to use as a focus for his emotions. This sort of behavior is not conducive to good medical practice. Consider the quotations selected:

feeling guilty for something not in one’s control?

a doctor who is emotional fixated on being responsible for all illness?

a doctor who limits his vision and evades unpleasant options – like maybe there is a need for personal defense against thugs?

guns multiply like a virus and “guns create guns”?

no immunity from either guns or bullets when the statistics indicate otherwise?

Such poor thinking is enough to make one wonder …

“And it’s the global mean temperature that the global warming doctrine is all about. Even James Hansen and others were trying to talk about the global temperature. Many of us have criticized this obsession with the global averages – which no one experiences in his or her life and which are artificial quantities that unnaturally hide the huge regional “noise” normally known as the weather (which makes a one-degree change of the global average or local temperatures negligible). But it’s true that the climate alarmism is all about the global averages, alarmists have almost always talked about the global averages (except for times of good enough heat waves in the U.S. when they love to suggest that the whole “problem” is about the U.S. temperatures), and the paper by Watts et al. – even if it is accurate – changes almost nothing about the global trend.”

Luboš Motl has a good summary of the Muller ‘conversion of a skeptic’ story and the Watts new paper announcement hype. Have Muller or Watts transformed the AGW landscape? describes both stories. It doesn’t seem much has changed.