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.
If doctors, lawyers and soldiers can ‘suck it up’ at do their job when dealing with the confronting matters they encounter as a normal part of their respective professions, I don’t see why scientists should have a free pass to carry on like snivelling, two year old sooks.
What a sad, pathetic joke is ‘climate science’ that it even attracts such people.
The streets do not attract the homeless.
Where the hell else can they go ??
one reason I’m interested in the great Climate subject
is the reasoning disconnect between the two sides
it’s getting to where I can barely have a conversation with ‘progressive’ associates
if I say “there is some evidence that coral reefs and polar bears are doing ok”
or “CO2 may not be as big of a problem as we thought”
(keep in mind I have taken some effort to educate myself on the subject and they have not)
they say … “you’re so negative and you don’t care about the environment and peoples feelings”
huh?
I think the world might not be coming to an end and I’m the negative one?
I’m sure most here have similar experiences
Is it possible we are in the midst of some evolutionary cognitive split in the human species?
Two diverging brain wiring systems?
Seems like it to me
“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.”
How is this any different than the purposeful deceit from 2000 and 2007 that our children and grandchildren will never experience snow. Pure BS and is a Lie to generate an emotional trigger to support ‘the end is near’ attachment.
Do you really trust a story in the Guardian? I can’t help but think the whole thing was staged, maybe even fabricated completely. Even if it’s not staged, what could be more useless than a story whose theme is “Is it OK to weep over climate change?”
They probably had raw onions on hand just in case.
If you’re emotionally compromised, you’re intellectually compromised. People don’t engage in shenanigans when they’re dispassionately learning how something works. They engage in shenanigans when they have a emotional need for it to work just the way they fantasize.
CO2 and Coral
Google ‘Calcium Reactor’ – this is what salt-water aquarists buy to improve the growth of their coral.
The two inputs? Gaseous Carbon Dioxide and Aragonite – dead coral.
Aragonite? Does Strider know about this?
I’m skeptical the tears are genuine.
Prove it.
What is she concerned about? Maybe she doesn’t know that sharks have been filmed swimming inside an active volcano.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazing-footage-sharks-swimming-boiling-155007793.html
Well I myself have actually swum inside an active volcano. Mt. Ruapehu, in the Tongariro National Park, had a crater lake that was a sulphuric acid solution. Mostly freezing cold at nearly 9,000 feet altitude, but with a thin (inch) layer of near boiling (at 9,000 ft) water on top from the volcanic vents under the lake.
We used to go swimming in that lake, before putting on our skis, and go shussing down to the hut village lower down.
You had to swim with a thrashing arm motion to stir up that boiling water on top with the cold stuff, otherwise your eyebrows got singed. Meanwhile, your tootsies are freezing lower down.
Our wool swim suits were only good for about one ski season, as the acid ate them up. Darn stuff is slippery too.
g >> G
PS We also climbed Mt. Ngauruhoe in that same park, while it was erupting. Had to keep looking up to see what was coming raining down on us. The very end of the lava flow was the safest place to be, (and warm too) as the height of the lava stream protected us from getting hit by house sized boulders hurled from the crater. Well we couldn’t ski on Ruapehu, while its neighbor was erupting, as the ash on the snow, ground the bottom off our skis.
And does this look like science?
Studying the effect of acidic oceans on fish
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26755190
If this is true I feel sorry for the daughters having to put up with that emotional crap from their Mum.
Emotional instability is not science.
Give her a break, she’s obviously suffering from PTSD – that’s PRE-traumatic stress disorder.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/565775/stressedout-climate-change-scientists-are-suffering-from-pretraumatic-stress-disorders
Were test results of ocean pH inadvertently contaminated?
(as Normal human tear pH by direct measurement. Tear pH was measured in 44 normal subjects by immersing the lip of a microcombination glass pH probe in the tear fluid in the inferior cul-de-sac. The normal pH range was 6.5 to 7.6; the mean value was 7.0.)
The scientist interviewed by the Guardian may be hyper-emotional as a modern western cultural emotional display. If so shame on her. Though perhaps there is another reason for the scientist’s inappropriate emotionalism and crying.
She may be experiencing Pseudobulbar affect (If so it may indicate previous brain injury) or Clinical Depression (postpartum?) may also be present. Perhaps one should not jump top the conclusion she is a bad scientist before considering the other possibilities. That is what the CAGW-ists do. Let’s not imitate them.
Consider that her emotional incontinence may be more than just “bad science”.
Yeah, she could be lying while crying.
If I’m crying I’m lying.
Im just worried about the science and Im just starting to understand it myself. Im worried about my own emotion. I can only keep my own emotion in check and that is scientific fact as far as I know. If I do that and I am wrong I only made a thinking mistake. A learning curve gap or a technical misunderstanding.
Can Tim Hunt have his job back? Apparently female scientists DO cry.
I attribute such emotional behavior to ‘arrested development.”
“Our children won’t know what snow is!”
“Our children won’t know what seashells are!”
Sounds like “Our children” won’t know where to go on their vacations.
crocodile tears
As a marine biologist myself, my first action would be to petition to have her fired from her position and her degree revoked for wanton stupidity.
CO2 NOT acidifying the seas and the coral reefs having the power of their metabolism behind them, have no trouble handling an increase in food for their reef-building activities. CO2 for the oceans is a WIN-WIN in every way and there is simply no downside to it. And, she does not know that warmer waters makes coral reefs more stable? Truly an idiot and I fear she is a voluptuary idiot, spurred by her funding.
Such ‘scientists’ need to be put on suicide watch, at least until their meds kick in.
It’s a shame journalists confuse a mental condition with actual climate science.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
Submitted without comment (other than Profanity Alert.)
A real scientist would feel emotions but at least attempt to present a convincing case totally dispassionately based on demonstrating the science covered all known influences and showing the predictions accurately matched data from measuring stations certified as being adequate for the claimed accuracy.
A weeping twat convinces me of nothing other than he failed even to compose himself for the presentation.
Crying is just one version of the rhetorical technique sometimes referred to as “pathos”, i.e. use of words of actions likely to engage strong emotions in the audience. Other generally-related techniques are these.
Appeal to authority- citation of information from people recognized for their special knowledge of a subject
Appeal to fear – using information likely to frighten the audience
Bandwagon – attempt to strengthen an argument by convincing the audience that accepting the writer’s view will put them on the popular or apparently winning side
Holy war – an attempt to convince the audience that God is on the side of the writer and that failure to side with the writer’s argument would be immoral or offensive to God
Hyperbole – an extravagant exaggeration of fact
Name calling – the use of disparaging or abusive names to attack those who oppose the writer
Repetition – repeating words, phrases or allegations for emphasis
I suspect that everyone who engages in debates on climate-related issues is very familiar with the use of these techniques. Scientists correctly dislike the techniques because they stand in contrast to the intellectual detachment considered part of the scientific method. There is no denying, however, that they are often alarmingly effective rhetorical techniques used by believers in CAGW. When I encounter them too often, I am sometimes left just “crying in my beer”.
Crying prophets are very profitable.