Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does a scientist crying about apocalyptic predictions make their science more convincing?
According to The Guardian;
Should scientists show emotion while discussing their science? I ask because a professor of ocean geology wept as she discussed with me the impact carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are having on the sea.
She fears we are acidifying and heating the ocean so fast that her young daughters may no longer enjoy coral reefs and shellfish by the end of the century.
And as we pondered the future, her passion for the oceans triggered tears.
I have no doubt that the tears are genuine. But tears and displays of intense emotion are not the hallmark of an objective observer.
Science is fragile – it is incredibly easy to inadvertently contaminate your results with preconceptions. This fragility is why laborious techniques such as the double blind experimental protocol were developed. Nobody would bother with all the extra work needed to set up a double blind experiment – if bitter experience hadn’t taught the scientists who practice double blind, how easy it is to make a mistake.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. – Dr. Richard Feynman From “Cargo Cult Science“, adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!
If a scientist feels so emotional about their work that they burst into tears, how can we possibly trust that same scientist can successfully set that strong emotion and potential bias aside, when they evaluate whether the evidence supports their theories?
Climategate contains numerous examples of questionable scientific practices, such as the infamous hide the decline email, and the Oroko Swamp email – but it doesn’t in my opinion contain evidence of a systematic conspiracy to deceive the world. Instead, my impression is that the people who wrote the climategate emails very much believe in what they are doing. But they believe so strongly in their mission to save the world, in my opinion they seem to have no problem with bending the rules, to deny skeptics an opportunity to impede their mission. And that willingness to reframe bad news, that apparent lack of commitment to objectivity and scientific best practice, is what in my opinion opens the way for unscientific bias.
This isn’t the first time climate scientists have tried to win us over by showing us their “feelings”. It didn’t work last time, and I don’t think it will work this time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given that ‘faith’ is clearly more important than ‘honesty’ within climate ‘science’ such emotional outpourings are perhaps not a surprise .
tears from losing $$ from government funding and the fear of having to try to apply your skillset to a useful vocation would bring anyone to tears.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.
Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.
CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through May, 2015) increased since 2001 by 29.58 ppmv (an amount equal to 33% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2015, 400.71 ppmv).
The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (average of the 5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ ). Graphs through 2014 have been added. Current measurements are within the range of random uncertainty with respect to the trend.
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 29.58 ppmv additional CO2 increase did not cause an uptrend in the average global temperatures after 2001.
Now look at a longer period.
Engineering science proves CO2 has no significant effect on climate. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900: R^2 = 0.97+ ).
The ongoing average global temperature trend is down. Monthly reported temperatures are being temporarily propped up by el Nino.
“Does a scientist crying about apocalyptic predictions make their science more convincing?
There was a time long ago when scientists were warning mankind of what might happen if there was a full scale nuclear war between the USSR and the USA. Many warned of the end of all human life on this planet and possibly all mammal life to boot. They did not cry. I see no reason to cry over climatology other than, perhaps, the losing of grant money and tenure.
Besides, the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.
All humans have cognitive biases, including scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
When a discussion between 2 people or 2 groups that strongly disagree about something(even if its just one or two elements of that something) takes place, the tendency is to strongly defend the items that they disagree on the most.
This tendency or bias is very powerful. It results in a subconscious or even conscious effort to spend the most time, looking for information that confirms our position which disagrees with the others position. It also tends to cause us to magnify the importance of the data which supports the belief(exaggerate it) so that it will crush the importance of the data that the disagreeing other has.
This explains much of the alarmism and exaggerating, including things like: “97% of scientists” or “95% confidence level”, exaggerating extreme weather and blaming all of it on climate change, and future projections that always focus on the high end or even go beyond what they really think is more likely.
If you believe in something strongly enough, you will do this.
The opposite side will tend to do the same thing but spend extra time finding information to prove the other is wrong(since that is their position) vs looking objectively as if they were operating in a vacuum, with no knowledge of what anybody thinks about anything.
A skeptic, by definition does not believe in something or is unconvinced. When the main objective is to find reasons to not believe, it also creates a bias that results in sometimes overlooking evidence that suggests we should believe in some legit elements.
Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis come to rescue the befuddled scientists in normal science. In climate science these two tools are not “politically useful” to the belief system nor the next funding grant.
I should also add to that pair the concept of falsifiable. CC utterly fails that test in today’s Climate Science cult when they keep pushing imminent catastrophic projections out as previous dates come close. The calendar is the Climate change cults biggest undefeatable threat.
“She fears we are acidifying … the ocean”
If we keep acidifying the ocean, it may become as acidic as pure, distilled water. That’s worrying.
Lol – crying to the Guardian. More likely crying because the conservative government in the UK cut green tax payer bucks and she can see the writing on the wall – even the UK government isn’t buying that garbage anymore. Funny watching the UK greens go nuts over green cuts.
Good post Eric, this is what progressives do; “Oh won’t you please think of the children”
Pure Emot-I-Cons.
They first are so shallow they fool themselves,then they become so righteous they savage all who ask for the basics.
What? Where? How? and who do you think is paying for this ?.
This new class of social parasite is best referred to as the Shrieking Class.
( Unfortunate mental picture of monkeys flinging faeces)
As Old Folk Tales have been studiously written out of popular culture and education, this generation will have to live this massive wave of hysteria to their bitter cost, before caution is reintroduced to public discourse.
I do find it strange that these “intellectuals” can’t make the connection between mass hysteria and riots. Both very human pastimes.
Having pointed out the ‘ocean acidification’ scam is obviously a safety net to back-up the basic claim of catastrophically increasing temperatures (that is coming seriously unstuck due to a profound lack of serious warming these past two decades or so) the Guardian’s night-shift mod’s collectively wet their hand-woven hemp knickers, burst into tears and banned me!
Comment is Free my ar$e.
These displays are identical to those seen in churches and courtrooms. They are a meek way of pounding fists, stamping feet and cursing (more politically correct).
The intent is often to create public sympathy for a heart-tugging cause, or create guilt in the eyes of the jury.
I think this may qualify for both.
Does this person have any conception of how much CO2 is generated in the ocean itself and how little of the airborne CO2 is generated anthropologically? How are we remotely responsible for this natural process?
I actually don’t think that many of those involved in the CRU and the climate gate emails actually believe the scenarios they are promoting. If they did they would be looking for realistic and honest solutions. Replacing coal burning with nuclear and geothermal leaps to mind.
In addition they know they have corrupted the scientific process and they know they have drawn conclusions unsupported by the evidence. They would have to be complete idiots to believe things the know they made up.
I am not sure about the broader environmental movement many of them could delude themselves, which is the purpose of all the misinformation and attacks on so called “deniers”. But, for people directly involved it is hard to believe they could be fooled by their own distorted claims. That would be pathological wouldn’t it?
Don’t you remember Greenpeace out riding on a diesel boat to protest the oil recovery process?
“She fears we are acidifying and heating the ocean so fast that her young daughters may no longer enjoy coral reefs and shellfish by the end of the century.”
.
Presumably all her daughters and by then spouses and offspring/grand-offspring will fly to those beautiful corals?
Or maybe sail? (With backup engine).
At one point they were out in a speedboat that supposedly ran on liposuction fat; but they hit a Japanese whale research ship, and sank it. (the speedboat, not the research vessel.) I got some close up pictures of it sitting at the dock in the Viaduct Harbor in Auckland.
Crikey, how fat are those Aucklanders if they are able to harvest enough fat to power a speed boat?
“A mind not wholly wishful to reach the truth, or to rest it in or obey it when found, is to that extent a mind impervious to truth an incapable of unbiased belief.”
— William Leslie Davidson
It’s not just a problem with Climate Science. Way too many academics have become advocates for points of view, lacking both intellecutal curiosity and objectivity. In the past 10 years I’ve served on two Doctoral Committees and an advisory group for a masters program, and I’m seeing that more and more of dissertation and Masters Thesis work is being framed by “sales presentation” shtick, rather than simple discussions of the science. One of the doctoral students did a relatively credible job on her dissertation defense, after having numerous problems with the subject matter. The results clearly showed that here formal hypothesis were not supported. Then she got on her soapbox and started a rant about how passionate she was about the topic, and her belief that the initial research questions were true. Two of us came within a hairs-breadth of voting not-pass, but the chair talked us into a pass, with conditions. Now, 6 years later, she’ still spinning her wheels on the same topic, and publishing crap in second rate journals, and there are a lot more of her out there doing the same thing.
A study showed that only 30% of USA university graduates with PhDs in Physics, ever get a full time permanent employment job using their specialty.
Another five percent get temporary work, but then have to make a career change, and never use their PhD work.
The remaining 65% never get a paying job in their field of expertise, and are doomed to a life as a post doc fellow at some institution or other, where they keep on purveying the crap that nobody wanted in the first place, and thus perpetuating the problem of oodles of money being spent on stuff that absolutely nobody has any use for.
The problem of course is that these folks choose to do their PhD on something that is easy to get through, rather than on some expertise that paying customers are willing to pay them to work on.
So maybe one of the questions that Doctoral Committees, such as yours should ask every candidate, is the names of at least three profit making enterprises that have offered them a job, if they get their shingle.
g
So when the crying doesn’t work, they’ll hold their breath until everyone agrees with them?
You wish!
Reduced CO2 emissions!
Interesting that there’s been a commotion
As scientists show some kind of emotion,
Yet they appear to keep their feelings in tact
When they’re confusing science fiction with fact!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/i-remain-in-defiance-of-climate-science/
Without sounding sexist and patronising, women are more hormonal than men at certain times of the month.I don’t blame her for being emotional, she is human and as those of us who are parents know, having a child brings a load of different emotions that were not present prior to the birth of their child(ren).
As far as I am concerned the blame lies with those who continue to promote their erroneous and alarmist views. I am sure equally that there are parents who get emotional about their children having to live a medieval existence due to the falsehood of AGW.
wept as she discussed with me the impact carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are having on the sea…..
Don’t turn your back…..don’t make eye contact
…and back up slowly
+ 100 ROTFLMAO. (and call 911 and the boys in white).
She needs her binky. Or, maybe she just needs to be committed (to an insane asylum.).
Eric, mate, you have to stop looking in the Guardian! Seriously, it will do your head in. There are other crazy sources, like The Independent, Channel 4 News, Washington Post. Just click on Google news (science) and there’s all sorts of crazy climate stuff.
Indeed. I read two or three things from the Grauniad this morning. My word! I read the second piece with mouth agape, and barely made it passed the headline of the third. What utter bollox.
Huff Post and Eco Watch are the two sources I had to stear clear of for personal sanity reasons. I don’t believe Im less informed for skipping those two.
Wasn’t it Twain who said:
“A man who doesn’t read the newspaper is uninformed and the man who does is misinformed”?
iirc
“I have no doubt that the tears are genuine. But tears and displays of intense emotion are not the hallmark of an objective observer.”
I have a problem seeing it as ‘genuine’, but I’ll give it a go.
Well, Villagers never seem to hold back on emotions when commenting on things climatic here within the protective environs of the Village.
Surely, what good for the goose is good for the gander? 😉
Funny how “emotional” they can be about a dark and scary fairy tale, yet be oblivious to the great harm, and untold deaths caused by their own misbegotten belief system.
+1
Not only that Bruce, they refuse to face the more immediate possible threat of a repeated Carrington geomagnetic storm event. They care more about distant, ambiguous threats to nature, than they do about preparing for something that could happen randomly- in the present.
Something theoretically equally disastrous to mankind.
Another +1
What are you chaps counting ??
Upvotes, since the current blogging system doesn’t support them directly.
Emotions are subconscious programs that have risen to the level of consciousness. They are sign posts that show us our limiting beliefs based on past experience. An objective observation of “what is this about?” leads to a better understanding of how the conditioned mind creates delusion. Her weeping is an example of an irrational fear brought to light.
WUWT links the following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/climate-scientists-laid-bare-♪-feeelings-nothing-more-than-feelings-♫/
That is an excellent question and line of inquiry. It would explain a lot of personal experiences and observations. People often declare standards and principles, but then do not apply them in other appropriate or equivalent circumstances. This abstract would show that the scientific standards and mechanical reasoning no longer have any bearing when a social situation arises. The principles and standards vanish completely and emotional loyalty to theory and institutions cognitively overrides.
I wonder if these two regions of problem solving really are mutually inhibitory. If it is, it is probably a learned habit and like all habits are changeable. We each can and do change the organization of our own brains. This is usually done through relationships according to Attachment Theory, and in science, the interpretation of data benefits from communication with people who do not agree with you (clash). Slowly over time one may recognize problems with a theory. It is rarely a leap, not really a paradigm shift. It requires rational criticism and a lot of clear communication. ref: Karl Popper “The Myth of the Framework” deconstructing Kuhn
But then again, some people are quite mechanically calculating during the emotional display. For example, WUWT links,
“Dear Earth,
…[T]hanks so much for the last 4 billion years or so….
I’m really sorry about the last couple of 100 years – we’ve really stuffed things up haven’t we! I though we climate scientist might be able to save the day but alas no one really took as seriously. Everyone wants to keep opening new coal mines and for some reason that escapes me are happy to ignore the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Well, no one can say we didn’t try!
You’re probably quietly happy that “peak human” time has come and gone…”
Probably the best interpretation of this emotional appeal by the Professor Doctor Mackey is that he is attempting to convince people that they must return to the year 1815 technologically.
I would say go back a few hundred years earlier and correct the huge mistake some idiot made by calling the electron charge negative, instead of positive.
Then we could all go to sleep happy in the knowledge that the electron mass and the electric charge were both going in the same direction.
We have modern worry warts who are concerned that there is more matter in the universe than anti-matter.
Well what idiot would call the surviving species anti-matter ??
George e Smith says, “We have modern worry warts who are concerned that there is more matter in the universe than anti-matter.”
That’s terrible, has the Mathematics Department heard about this pressing problem?!!
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nerd_sniping.png
I have had a lot of success changing peoples opinions by providing new information combined with a perspective they hadn’t considered before. The human mind craves new information and when that information can be introduced before defense mechanism’s engage rapid transformations in the form of epiphanies are possible.
Skeptics are slowly turning the tide by exposing the uncommitted to facts the media ignores. I’ve had almost no luck with true believers but interested bystanders can see who has facts and who has conjecture.
Excellent post Zeke!
Glad to hear of your results!
A bit of goodwill and clarity goes a long way. Sometimes we fail too :/
My post- gyan1
July 10, 2015 at 11:12 am -is the key to achieving clarity.
When I get angry about misleading headlines, checking myself helps to maintain the focus on what is misleading rather than distractions like the need to be right, which I’ve largely overcome.
The only ones I have no success with are those who are emotionally or financially invested in the CAGW myth.
For example those who wish to use CAGW as the vehicle to force people to adopt their favored social/political schemes, or those who make their money researching climate and don’t want to find real work.
I wouldn’t call it an emotion, but I get nausea by reading many climastrology papers. Anyone read the new bumblebee climastrology paper yet? It’s a misuse of statistics if I’ve ever seen one.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/177.abstract
It certainly smells fishy.
It is crazy bad.
Bees have been in trouble lately due to other human things, not temperature. Assuming the bees who have existed for many, many millions of years and which evolved with flowering plants and which survived not only major extinction events but also the recent 2 million years of Ice Ages/Interglacial events…are now dying due to it being sort of warmer than during the Little Ice Age is…INSANE.