Bishop Hill A call for disinformation
The British Medical Journal has reentered the climate fray, with a leader bemoaning the alleged "false balance" in science journalism. Steve Jones' "report" on the BBC's impartiality (ho, ho) is discussed.
I wrote a response, which hasn't appeared as yet. (Perhaps it would be "false balance" to publish it?) I pointed out that one of the results of denying dissenting voices an airing was that it leaves those promoting the majority view in a position where they no longer have to be honest and can exaggerate and scaremonger without challenge.
Some time ago I spoke to a PR guy at the Met Office who acknowledged that scientists there had been wont to exaggerate in the past. However the rise of the sceptical blogs meant that this kind of behaviour would be seen and criticised, with damaging consequences for the Met Office's reputation. He told me that much of his job now involved trying to make sure that the scientists stayed within reasonable bounds in their public utterances.
Another example of this kind of thing, which I outlined in my comment at the BMJ, were the absurd utterances of Sir Andy Haynes at the BMJ conference. Telling an uninformed audience that the social cost of carbon is $1000/tonne could be construed as grossly dishonest, given that the more normally accepted figures are of the order of $30-50/tonne. In fact though, I think Haynes was actually just as ill-informed as his audience and there was no deliberate attempt to deceive. However, with only right-thinking types in attendance there was nobody to call him on his mistake and a large group of influential people went away entirely misled.
The BMJ, it seems, wants more of this kind of thing.
Reader Comments (81)
Someone I know very well, who shall remain nameless because they have a prominent position turning science into public policy, told me that 90% of the 'science' done by doctors is useless crap. Doctors aren't scientists and they should stop pretending they are.
Dec 23, 2011 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman
Yes, you should have resisted the urge to bring in Darwinism. 'Nuff said.
Jack Thompson says, “Once upon a time there was a consensus that the earth was flat”.
When? I do wish that people would stop insisting that everyone before Columbus believed that the world was flat. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the globe with remarkable accuracy in the time of Ptolemy II: this rather suggests that Eratosthenes, and all those who reported his measurements, realised that the world is not flat. In fact, most observant people in ancient times noticed the curvature of the horizon and other evidence against a flat-earth theory. Bernard of Clairveaux gave sermons to the peasantry in the twelfth century referring to the globe of the world without any need for further explanation. Many of those who argued against the funding of Columbus’ expedition accepted the notion of a spherical earth but disagreed with Columbus over his incorrect assessment of the distance between Spain and the (East) Indies, and thought that Columbus would not be able to reach Asia by travelling west, and would surely run out of provisions ere that could happen—and they were right.
The BMJ's editorial manages to compose an argument whose first premiss is a Red Herring. Astonishing! Normally, Red Herrings have to wait their turn until a response to the argument is stated.
The topic of the BMJ's article is the Fairness Doctrine as it is used by the BBC and others. From that Red Herring, they vault into a criticism of media for treating cranks as no less important than scientists in the climate science debates. Let us leave this Red Herring.
There is a real topic that they could have addressed but chose not to address. The topic is legitimate criticism of climate scientists. The word 'criticism' is not found in the article. As we all know, some find critics who are not climate scientists, Steve McIntyre, and some who are, Roy Spencer, have made devastating criticisms of the work of particular climate scientists or assumptions found in climate science. In sum, the BMJ managed to trash scientific method and its healthy criticisms of poor science.
Error Alert! The phrase "some find critics" should read "some fine critics."
The report starts with Brian Cox having to appologise for slagging off Astrology
But the BBC did make up for it by having cuddley lovely national treasure Russel Grant as a contestant on this years Strictly
Some time ago I spoke to a PR guy at the Met Office who acknowledged that scientists there had been wont to exaggerate in the past. However the rise of the sceptical blogs meant that this kind of behaviour would be seen and criticised
Speaking of exaggerating. it might be a good idea to dredge up some of the old exaggerations and post them, so the gits's claims of yesteryear can be held up to the light.
Yesterday on Judith Curry's blog another commenter led me to a 1986 article by Sandy Grady in the Charlseton, S.C., New and Courier on June 17, 1986.
http://tiny.cc/jnslp
Entitled "The Heat Is On", it had two quotes that were so over the top I was nauseated. I Had not paid close enough attention to be nauseated back then, but I cannot believe how over-the-top these are:
These were in testimony before an unnamed Congressional committee.
"I do wish that people would stop insisting that everyone before Columbus believed that the world was flat..." --Deadman
You beat me to it. Quite nicely done. Also, ordinary people could look up during a lunar eclipse and see the spherical moon always being covered by a round Earth-shadow. Only a sphere will do this consistently.
I was once called upon to defend the Flat Earth Theory in a debate. Fortunately, I was aware of the little-known fourth ship of Columbus, the San Robusto, which never returned to Spain. I emphasized that the loss of this ship was entirely consistent with its having sailed over the edge....
@ John Shade Dec 23, 2011 at 3:34 PM
Fascinating stuff, John. Yet Hulme still persists in engaging in "opaque tangles of convoluted prose" as you so aptly described his oeuvres in various media! Which makes it somewhat difficult discern how his acknowledgement of this (2010?) "growing unease" can be reconciled with his proclamation of the "plastic" nature (no pun intended!) of climate change "so that it can serve so many of our psychological, spritirual and ethical needs" [pls see Propping up very tarnished “gold standard”>Propping up very tarnished “gold standard” of IPCC’s “plastic” climate change]
And I also don't understand:
1. Why Hulme's emails were exempted from "examination" (if it can be called such) by Muir Russell (assuming that his "report" and/or the posted docs can be believed on this matter, which may be a highly dubious assumption, I agree!)
2. Why his very public pronouncements of (dare I say it!) doubt have never - to the best of my knowledge - resulted in the knee-jerk dismissiveness (not to mention scorn and vitriol) that has been accorded to (for example) Judith Curry.
Hulme has long struck me as being a man who has a coat of many teflon-colours, And I do wonder if his Damascene moment has led him to apologize to S&B for his (mis)leading role in the appalling treatment that those on the "right" side of "the cause" accorded them.
I'm inclined to suspect that in true post-normal fashion he's simply moved on - with no apology.
O/T but some conjecture in Radio 4 "What the papers say" about Huhne being prosecuted.
The characterising feature of this whole thing is the desire to stop people challenging the "science". It saturated with the meme that 2500 scientists had agreed that humans were causing global warming and that it would be catastrophic. Then the "science is settled" and the ridiculous Doran et al "97% of climate scientists agree", and now "false balance".
I don't know about anyone else, but, to me at least, there is no balance at all. The only discussion I see about the merits, or otherwise, of the science related to CAGW takes place on sceptic blogs, and indeed the main sceptic blogs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Paul Nurse, aka Enfield, attempted the same hatchet job on his execrably amateurish Horizon programme, in which the President of the Royal Society apparently trying to crush scientific debate on climate change demonstrated his own appalling knowledge of topic by allowing one of his "expert" witnesses to inform the British public that humans emitted 7 times more CO2 than nature.
The same is true of the BMJ and Steve Jones, they have no expertise in climate science, neither have they listened to the other side of the debate. They themselves bow to the opinions of "experts" and believe others should do so. We have to be realistic about this we are seen as flat-earthers and creationists by the scientific, government and MSM elites.
Police want to charge Huhne
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8976836/Police-want-Chris-Huhne-and-wife-to-be-charged.html
Police want to charge Huhne
It's on the front page of "TheTimes" as well.
Apparently the Police want some emails The Times hold - something that is the subject of a High Court challenge, to the Police production order, which The Times appears to be opposing.
This is somewhat peculiar as it was The Times (if I am not mistaken) broke the story in the first place.
What could be the reason? That the Times does not want to reveal how it got hold of the emails?
James P: "Excuse me while I check the runway lights in the pig pen..."
I can never let a brilliant line pass without acknowledgement, James. (Josh: keep it in mind.)
Astrology, "maverick and dissident views", "MMR", "anti-science", "views of right wing mavericks and oil industry funded commentators". Well I guess we now know where Jackson stands on the issue. It's just short of what you would expect out of Mann when questioning a particular statistical manoeuvre in his latest paper.
I'm not all that familiar with the MMR episode but I couldn't help wondering how it would have played out if certain climate scientists were conducting the research. Real world bodies being hastily disposed of and reduced to zero on the accounts using creative statistics.Denouncing anyone with questions concerning some of your flakier research results a 'medicine denier' until pressure on 'the cause' finally becomes too much and you simply re-name the vaccine.
I can just see the reaction following the "MMR-gate" bulk mail release. Do we think "I've just completed Trevor's BMJ trick [...] to hide the real risks" would be so casually brushed aside? Hmm... I don't think so. I think it would set faith in the whole medical profession back decades. I think it would cause the public to start looking very closely at what else had been happening 'behind the curtain'. And I don't think any number of "flat earth", "medicine denier" PR articles in the BMJ and elsewhere would restore that faith any time soon.
If Jackson has no questions concerning "climate science" then he obviously hasn't been paying attention.
Thank you, Roger - I shall return to the festivities with a gladdened heart!
James P
Madame was also taken with that particular turn of phrase. The best I've heard previously was: "Oooh look! A squadron of Gloucester Old Spots is landing on the lawn!"
Mike Jackson,
Well, I'll be ...! I hadn't made the connection that SandyS was the author of that great blog.
SandyS,
Yes, it's very sorely missed.
"former climatologist Phil Jones"
If we hear that phrase any time soon, would it strengthen the case for the existence of Santa Clause?
Kendra
I'm only jumping to conclusions, you understand. The coincidence seemed just a touch unlikely!
Philip Bradley
Sadly true -- but what is worse is that it is also true of about 90% of scientists.
MJ
My regards to your perpicacious other half. I like her already.. :-)
'perspicacious' even. I knew that squiggly line meant something!
Shame that the BMJ has become so shockingly politicised. It has long pushed the Climate Change meme in multiple articles and editorials, and the unwarranted villification of Dr Andrew Wakefield in the MMR debacle bears many of the hallmarks we see in CAGW ie politicisation of the science, conflicts of interest, establishment pushing of the 'consensus' position, witch-hunts on anyone questioning the establishment position.
Yet another area in which of those of us anxious to know the truth of the matter have to do much additional research.
Interesting additional background to the Wakefield case
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/secret-british-mmr-vaccine-files-forced-open-by-legal-action/
This censorship meme is gaining popularity in journalism and with journalists: why bother to cover dissent if we don't like it? If those making the argument were simply as honest as, say, Pravda, and admitting that only work supporting the dictatorship of the proletariat would be published, that would be one thing. But these are allegedly free journalists, supposedly not being directed to lie and decieve, yet they take to lies and deception like ducks to water.
Of course, the science is settled and people who doubt it should be excommunicated, placed in the stocks, and forced on pain of death to recant (irony intended?). However, the problem is that there may only be 10 climate scientists left after this takes effect, because even a number of the "Team" members have serious doubts about critical issues (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/24/mann-hockey-stick-co-author-bradley-it-may-be-that-mann-et-al-simply-dont-have-the-long-term-trend-right/#more-53634). You couldn't make this stuff up, and still the believers refuse to be swayed!
The BMJ Editorial - When balance is bias. Perhaps a better title would have been 'In celebration of censorship and state propaganda'
Still only two comments? How appropriate.
¨Mike ¨Jackson,
Ï'm aware you were jumping, but it does fit together... so Ï jumped too.
A good read relating to the lead post can be viewed on WUWT (see Ric Werme's guide to WUWT under 'classics). It was written by Michael Crichton.
2010 Jul 9: Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton
This is a superb lecture about what distinguishes science from wishful thinking; the hazards of consensus science; and how science hasn't learned from the past.
Read it. It will make you think.
Marion
Thanks for the link. I heard a news item recently about a war-torn region (Somalia, I think) where UK aid efforts included large quantities of measles vaccine, the very thing that was denied UK children whose parents had doubts about MMR, and which had previously been the preferred medication.
The claim by the author
He then goes onto give his opinion of a report (that may or may not be one-sided), and a couple of analogies. There is no presentation of the robust scientific case, with the rebuttals.The robust scientific case is allegedly UNIPCC AR4. It should be, as it won the Nobel Peace Prize for this. Start with the summary for policy makers. http://www.ipcc.ch/
A moderate case against comes from Warren Meyer. The video is 90 minutes, and well-presented. http://vimeo.com/8865909
A polemical, but all-embracing account of why the UNIPCC AR4 is riddled with flaws and biases is available from http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/