TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.
Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
Lindzen discusses key aspects of the global warming models, including their dependence on the “globally averaged mean temperature anomaly”—that is the average of the differences between the average temperature for the year at each weather station and the 1961-1990 average for that station. This metric is used to create an influential graph that resembles the daily chart of stock indices, but is of dubious significance. The change in the anomaly is tiny against the perspective of the temperature variations we experience daily, Lindzen demonstrates.
In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.
The highly oversimplified terms of the discussion in the policy arena “largely exclude the most interesting examples of historical climate change. The heavy intellectual price of the politicization of science is rarely addressed,” writes Lindzen.
Lindzen writes: “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?”
Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion. It has a global constituency and has coopted almost all institutional science. Nevertheless, he believes “the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) www.aapsonline.org
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-221474241.html
…and surprisingly, published in the mostly liberal Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html
h/t to Marc Marano of Climate Depot
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What Eisenhower did not warn against was that public policy might become the captive of a self-declared scientific-technological elite, one which is driven by its preferred policies first and last, and which is shameless in presenting its “science” to support them, even when it doesn’t deserve the name.”
I guess the 97% consensus paper by SkS et al make that point abundantly clear.
Chris Riley says: “I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.”
There already exists such a prize, I believe, awarded by the Club de l’Horloge, a French organization that Wankerpedia refers to as “far-right.” Far-right, in Wankerpedia-talk, means “not a spittle-spewing Socialist.”
Margaret Hardman:
Thankyou for your post at August 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1403086
which begins saying
Thankyou for your recognising my comment was “measured and considered”. It can be seen at August 29, 2013 at 11:49 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1403037
Indeed, I always err on the side of mildness when confronted with extreme and dangerous propaganda of the kind you had presented, so it is not surprising that you expected my comment to be “measured and considered”.
Of course I have read Lindzen’s clear and accurate analysis. You are again demonstrating psychological projection by asking if I have read it: warmunists applaud unread words of their ‘priesthood’, but climate realists assess information then comment on it.
I think you need to read this earlier paper by Lindzen.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
It explains how a handful of warmunist activists have usurped the executives of scientific institutions. This shocking read ‘names names’.
The pretence that AGW is not pure pseudoscience is dangerous. The pretence harms the reputation science and encourages Lysenkoist energy policies. You try to minimise the seriousness of this by pretending the AGW-religion is merely
. NO! AGW is Lysenkoist.
Lysenkoism always needs to be opposed. And the evil religion of AGW has already killed thousands by inducing fuel poverty for the elderly in the UK.
Richard
When I went to college in the late 1970s and grad schools in the 1980s it was “proven science” that humans had no nature that was predisposed or genetic in origin. It was even more fanatical than today’s climate science but just as left wing. You could be road out on a rail for just whispering blasphemous statements human behavior might have an innate and genetic basis.
In the 1960-70s the women’s equality movement was based on the premise that man and women were behaviorally essentially the same. The perceived differences were a factor of “gender norming” where behavior was solely a feature of conditioning and expected behavior. Under this theory the minor physical characteristics needed to be accommodated and resultant performance would be indistinguishable.
Since that time research has shown without a doubt that human behavior is strongly dictated by biology. Men and women are genetically predestined to behave significantly and fundamentally different as a result of different evolutionary roles.
Science has never shown any introspective realization of this embarrassing period of time where it was obvious the scientific community was prostituting itself to their political beliefs and masters.
As I watch the Global Warming Crowd tie itself in knots in an attempt to support its funders I have strong feelings of Déjà vu. It is easy for me to discount the entire leap of logic because I have seen it all before.
The hopelessly-brainwashed, logic-impaired, and irrational Margaret claims she can “think for herself”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Pathetic.
CAGW is a belief system, nothing more. It has similar attributes to religion, as pointed out by Tom Murphy above, so the comparison is an apt one. Margaret uses all of the illogical “tricks of the trade” that True Believers love, including straw man, ad hominem, poisoning the well, red herring, consensus, and authority arguments. This is because, deep down, Margaret knows that there is very little actual science supporting either her position or that of the IPCC.
Here’s an excellent book that is relevant to this thread.
Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth,
by Henry H. Bauer, professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of arts and sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech)
“The nature of scientific activity has changed dramatically over the last half century, and the objectivity and rigorous search for evidence that once defined it are being abandoned. Increasingly, this text argues, dogma has taken the place of authentic science. This study examines how conflicts of interest–both institutional and individual–have become pervasive in the science world, and also explores the troubling state of research funding and flaws of the peer-review process. It looks in depth at the dominance of several specific theories, including the Big Bang cosmology, human-caused global warming, HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs [and, also, Plate Tectonics]. In a scientific environment where distinguished experts who hold contrary views are shunned, this book is an important contribution to the examination of scientific heterodoxies.”
http://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize/dp/0786463015
Margaret Hardman says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm
That I can think for myself, … , means I can see through things like CAGW is a religion,
That is a false and (probably) self-deceptive statement. It is NOT axiomatic that the simple act of thinking (for ones self) produces correct thought, or leads to accurate, appropriate or right beliefs/action. It is like saying, that I am Catholic, means I can see through other religions and therefore KNOW that Catholicism is the only correct/true religion.
…. is no evidence for CAGW (or evolution or effective vaccines or HIV as the cause of Aids).
I cannot recall a single incident of anyone calling the belief in or of evolution or effective vaccines or the cause of Aids as being a religion.
Besides that, evolution IS a theory (that even Darwin had his doubts about), not ALL vaccines are effective to the same degree in everyone and the same can be said with the efficacy of HIV on the immune system.
Accepting banalities and superficial statements (such as the above by Margaret and the CAGW believers have a propensity to make) WITHOUT thinking or grasping the false subliminal logic (in the first case, thinking makes me superior so you should accept everything I say as the truth) leads one to the mental establishment of false premises and the (religious?) belief in pseudo-science.
(One of my favorites that has nothing to do with science is- The majority of Americans voted for Obama, therefore he can __________)
What tells me (as I think about it) that a belief is or borders on a religion (or not) is HOW a person speaks/writes about it. And exactly how Margaret (and others) write about CAGW convinces me that it has taken on many aspects similar to or the same as any formal religion. The primary one being: they cannot prove or even speak about it without summoning the greatest (false) spirit of all time – – the computer model. NOW THERE IS A TRUE RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
Just when you think their brains can’t get any deader:
http://climatenamechange.org/
They want to name storms for “d*nier” politicians (Republican, of course) who dare to question “the science” and obstruct the wrong-headed and destructive policies of the carbon catastrophists.
An interesting study would be if CAGW Belief causes the brain to atrophy, or if it simply attracts those with lower mental capacities to begin with.
– – – – – – – –
Lindzen’s observation above in bold prompts me to address more fundamental aspects of Man’s nature quo Man than the need to seek meaning in one’s existence. More fundamental concepts which the search for a life defining meaning depend on are: the objective criteria for understanding the physically existent capacity to know ; and the methods appropriate for correctly using it.
If a person has not worked out in their own minds independently and in a reasonably complete way those kinds of concepts from a real set of observations of physical nature, then one needs to accept what someone else claims to have done to understand a meaning of ones life. That borrowing would be a second hand basis for determining your life’s meaning.
I think the wide acceptance of the religion of Global Warming stems from a profound lack of elemental education of youth by both parents and the members of immediate families. Lack of elemental education on the concepts I described above. Global Warming adherents have simply borrowed a prepackaged and one size fits all meaning of life largely because they lack the elemental education to derive individually and reasonably their own understanding of the meaning of their unique life.
John
@Bruce Cobb at 5:12 am
…. Margaret claims she can “think for herself”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Which begs the question, “How does anyone know you can think for yourself?”
– Just because you agree was a group consensus doesn’t mean you are not thinking for yourself.
– The action of changing your mind from one group consensus to another evidence neither way.
– On the other hand, If you hold an opinion or belief that is not shared by anyone else, I suppose that is proof you are thinking for yourself, but it is hardly evidence that you opinion is well founded.
I suppose a necessary condition is that you are able to explain to others your thinking process, inferences, and (current?) conclusions. Necessary, but not sufficient, because you could have simply remembered an argument taught to you.
One source offered this:
Ask questions, particularly the question “why?”. Ask everyone (not just the so-called experts), and try to answer your own questions as well. When you get an answer, try to think of exceptions, and then ask yourself why those exceptions exist. Never be satisfied until you arrive at an answer that has very few exceptions.
That sounds to me like good reasoning. I cannot think of many exceptions to that rule. 😉 Couple that with the ability to explain your reasoning to others and to answer their questions to their satisfaction, and I would grant that you pass the test of “thinking for yourself.”
Bruce Cobb says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Poor Margaret. The CAGW religion seems to have rotted her brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More likely her purse or her ‘Cause’ is threatened.
Re: Margaret. Can we stop the ad hominem comments? The science speaks for itself.
Here’s an example of thinking for oneself; one time, in 3rd grade we had one of those lame spelling tests, and one of the words was “donut”. Well, I had seen the word spelled “doughnut”, and double-checked it at home. Sure enough, I was right, and that was how I spelled it on the test. The teacher marked it “wrong”. LOL. She had to reckon with my mother, though.
“I was terrible in English. I couldn’t stand the subject. It seemed to me ridiculous to worry about whether you spelled something wrong or not, because English spelling is just a human convention–it has nothing to do with anything real, anything from nature. Any word can be spelled just as well a different way.”
Richard P. Feynman
Bruce Cobb says: @ur momisugly August 30, 2013 at 9:26 am
…. An interesting study would be if CAGW Belief causes the brain to atrophy, or if it simply attracts those with lower mental capacities to begin with.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They were carefully trained not to think. See Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
Worse when that wasn’t enough to produce good little brain dead ‘Team Players’ they resorted to drugging children as young as 7 especially little white boys. … nearly twice as many students had been diagnosed with ADHD compared with the number medicated in school. Among elementary students, 17% of all students and 33% of white boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and the vast majority had been medicated for this condition at some time during the 1997-98 school year…. Parents who want to refuse school mandated medication are threatened with removal of their children via child abuse charges dispite Ritalin: Brain-Damage Evidence For Amphetamines
Chad Wozniak says:
@Lance of BC –
I just visited the Sac Bee website
I’ve been to the Sac Bee website and I agree they(commenters) can be wonked! hehe
But I was referring to the URL linked to their site. It has been improperly written and is split.
Thought I might point it out to the mods, but I see it is still not corrected.
Corrected link on a freakin’ OLD post,
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html
Love WUWT, peace out. 🙂
Lance
Margaret Hardman says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm
“That I can think for myself…”&etc.
Poor Margaret. She parrots all the talking points that she finds on alarmist blogs, and thereby convinces herself that she is actually thinking for herself. She really doesn’t understand how ridiculous her assertion sounds.
As hoya says above: “The science speaks for itself.”
That is true. There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the CAGW narrative. It is a fabricated invention fueled by grant money. Some people would know that if they thought for themselves. They should try to find any measurable evidence of CAGW. There simply isn’t any. None at all.
Poor Margaret. I think she really believes what she writes.
Really, enough about poor Margaret.
Let’s focus on the science!
(Snip. This moderator, at least, is getting weary of your non-stop ad hominems targeting Prof. Richard Lindzen. If you have the need to constantly single out and disparage a well respected scientist, do it on your own blog where both your regular readers will see it. ~mod.)
Oh, you are being so unfair. He has at least three regular readers.
Yes, but aren’t all three Josh using different names?
hoyawildcat says:
“Oh, you are being so unfair. He has at least three regular readers.”
And 98% of them agree! ☺
Eli expressed an ad scriptum slam against JPANDS. As he said, Lindzen is much to good to publish in that contentious rag.
– – – – – – – –
Chronic illeism is a nasty behavior.
Lest we forget, so is spitting in public.
John
dbstealey
Of course I believe what I write. That’s why I am prepared to stand by it. As for your ad feminam comments, it ill behoves a man of your intellect and respectability. Nevertheless, since it is not my eyes that are occluded by smoke, it would be interesting to see anyone try to justify the idea that AGW is religion (and before you ask, I’ve read widely on the philosophy of religion and I don’t mean Dawkins or Hitchens) but that is something that Lindzen puts into his paper without any attempt at justification. It is, of course, a well trodden and content free rhetorical trick used when it is clear that the real evidence is missing for your argument – claim that the side which has the huge stacks of evidence actually bases its conclusions on faith. And then we get the funding argument. Puh-lease. I wonder if you actually understand your own comments, I really do.
I stand side by side with Eli on this one – Lindzen has gone a long way down if this is where he wishes to publish these days. But then again, the esteemed owner of this site did a talk to a similar group of concerned physicians whose organisation strangely shares the same address, and he used some of the same tricks to hide the incline. Are they in some way related?
Yours
Margaret
Margaret wrote: “Lindzen has gone a long way down if this is where he wishes to publish these days. But then again, the esteemed owner of this site did a talk to a similar group of concerned physicians whose organisation strangely shares the same address, and he used some of the same tricks to hide the incline. Are they in some way related?”
OK, Margaret, let’s stipulate that you are correct. Then what is Lindzen’s motivation here? Big Oil money? Careerism? Or simply stupidity. (I realize there are other alternatives, but I think you know what I mean.)
You’ll have to ask Lindzen what his motivation is. I can’t pretend to speak for him. There are many possibilities but I am not going to speculate. Others on this thread pretend they can talk for me, however. All I can say about Lindzen’s paper is that it was a rehash of so many over-familiar and unreferenced statements in one place. It’s like he decided to make a collection of anti-AGW cliches in one handy place.
Margaret
Well, Margaret, I have to say your response is disappointing. It seems to me that what you said about Lindzen could be just as well applied to yourself, except on the opposite side. Am I being unfair in drawing that conclusion?
Margaret Hardman:
At August 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1404856
you assert
A cliché may be true and many are.
You do not cite any clichés provided by Lindzen and provide no reason to think he presented any that are untrue.
You assert that Lindzen made “many over-familiar” statements.
Do you mean true statements?
An explanation of what you mean by “over-familiar” would be helpful. And could you provide some examples of such “over-familiar” statements, please?
You also assert that Lindzen made “unreferenced statements”.
Really? Please justify that assertion with meaningful examples.
Or by “unreferenced statements” do you mean ‘rational arguments which you cannot refute’?
At present your post from which I quote is empty and offensive verbiage, so I would appreciate the clarifications I have here requested.
Richard
PS I offer you some sincere advice. You do yourself no favours by siding with an anonymous troll whose delinquent behaviour makes him a laughing stock. Argue your case if you have one and thus raise yourself above the level of that bottom feeder.
Richard
To engage you in debate would be good for your CV, less so for mine. Nothing I would say would change your ossified beliefs so I shall not bother. Read Lindzen’s essay and keep asking yourself why, how do we know that, what’s that statement for, and so on. That is skepticism. What you do is that infinite series trick – you ask me for evidence, I give some, you come back with a response that says thisis not so… No one wins except everyone gets bored. I am bored with that trick to hide the incline.
Margaret
Margaret, Aren’t we concerned with the truth here? I’m a skeptic, but not just an AGW-skeptic, but a skeptic of both sides. Sure, both sides have powerful forces (and tons of money) behind them. And maybe, just maybe, AGW is true, and maybe it isn’t, but the bottom line (for me, at least) is that the “Settled Science” is hardly settled at all. And, IMO, attacking individual people, personally, simply because you disagree with them, does nothing to advance the debate, and actually discredits the position you defend, which is a position I think is worth defending.
You are probably aware that Kepler came up with his three laws of planetary motion in order to make his astrological prognostications more accurate, That is certainly a very questionable motivation, if not a bogus one but it does not refute what he discovered. Moreover, Newton practiced alchemy (and nearly died of mercury poisoning as a result). So what?
Now, one can take a post-modern position and argue that “there is no truth.” But if that’s correct, then how does one account for error and falsehood? Clearly, there is plenty of error and falsehood in the AGW debate. But, thankfully, science proposes and nature disposes. And that is my faith.