Into the fever swamp*

by FreeWine

I posted this comment  at SciGuy in his request to determine why the political intensity of climate change is slowing. There are so many comments that are almost irrational opposed to even considering climate change that I was leery of posting a somewhat contrarian opinion. We shall see what it inspires.

My comment is waiting in moderation so here it is while I wait:

I hesitate to step in here but a few thoughts.

Bewildered, A simple Google search for “exxon climate change tobacco” provides a large number of links about the tobacco-like links of climate change denial. From the Guardian, we have a plea from the Royal Society for Exxon to stop funding denial, or George Monbiot on Exxon’s funding of the denial industry, or the Union of Concerned Scientists views on Exxon’s Tobacco-like disinformation campaign agaainst climate change. I think there has been enough previous information out there for Eric to assert a tobacco-like campaign to sow doubt.

Eric, I would also propose that the media’s complete inability to inform the public about really complex scientific issues is a factor. Like the five blind men describing an elephant, the media seems to only relish publishing an incomplete narrative, shrinking from actually proposing that one blind man may be closer to the truth or that synthesizing all the views would produce a complete description.
Like David, I have a PhD and have done work in biotech for 30 years. The media generally do a horrible job actually presenting evolution as the rock-solid explanation for the data we see around us. There simply is no other theory that so completely explains ALL the facts. Yet,61% of the people in the US do not think that is so. The media in the US generally does little to really alter this, and, with the loss of so many science reporters, will continue to do little.

For me, AGW is the best theory to explain all the data. It may be hard for some to discern how robust it is but it is the best we have. Other explanations are not nearly as robust. As a human, I would love to hear a theory that explains all the data and does not involve temperatures rising due to man’s burning of fossil fuels. I have yet to hear one. (Simply saying all the scientists are lying is not a theory.)

There are researchers, such as Lindzen, who are actually doing science to perhaps work out a new theory or to find weaknesses in the current AGW. He actually does not appear to totally disagree with AGW. He just feels that the effect on temperature will be less than most others have stated. So he publishes work that shows lower sensitivity of CO2. Others look at this and gather/publish data to rebut his view. That is how science works.

The media narrative, however, always wants to produce good guys and bad guys. The press ofen wants to tell an interesting story and if the facts get in the way of the narrative, ignore them.

*based on the Urban Dictionary’s definition.

Technorati Tags: Environment, Science

Perhaps piss-poor reporting by the media might be one of the causes

My take on the waning political influence of climate scientists and environmentalists:
[Via SciGuy]

It seems pretty clear that the political movement to curb greenhouse gas emissions has lost momentum, both in the United States and abroad, even before the election in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate. In a story today…

[More]

No mention of how the media stokes the narrative to feed the opinions people have already made. Instead of actually informing them. Reading the comments reveals such an odious mixture of untruths, denial and simple inability to reason that i have to believe that the media has simply done a terrible job here.

The denialists have it as horribly wrong as those environmentalists did in the 70s about oil tankers over the horizon waiting for the price to go up.

Having grown up in Houston, I can use an example of what this sounds like. During the Oil Crisis in the 70s, I had all sorts of friends and relatives telling me that it was all because of the oil companies. They were the ones causing this, not our horrible need for Middle East oil. The oil companies were making windfall profits on the backs of the people and needed to be punished. It was all a conspiracy.

The media did a horrible job actually trying to explain the business in ways to demonstrate that this narrative was wrong. Having a father in the oil business, I actually heard and saw the other side and could see how far off the media was.

In my own area, biotechnology, I have again and again seen the media get it horribly wrong when they describe the science, misleading people and creating narratives that are just not factual. It is also apparent in the area of climate change.

The media again and again feeds a narrative that has little connection with reality. But it is something people already ‘know’. Why is that? I’ve got my theories. But they seem to really like feeding the conspiracy theories of denialists. I guess those are the few people still reading the paper. Those and sports fans.

It reminds me so much of the ‘debates’ between creationists and science. Nothing will ever change their views. they already know what the answer should be. They spew the same stuff years after it has been debunked. They do not really care about having a discussion. They have no other theory to support the data that is presented (which is why I call them denialists. all they do is deny. They have no other interest in furthering our understanding of the world around us.)

They do not believe in gaining a real understanding of the world around us. Confirmation bias is an important part of their life. They already ‘know’. And if reality hits their ‘knowledge’ then reality is a conspiracy. Those are the denialists.

And the media loves them since the MSM keeps feeding them misleading stories all the time.

Technorati Tags: Environment, Health, Science

Best title of a paper so far this year

by basheertome
NCBI ROFL: Impact of Yankee Stadium Bat Day on blunt trauma in northern New York City.:
[Via Discoblog]
“STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of blunt trauma in northern New York City before and after the distribution of 25,000 baseball bats at Yankee Stadium… …MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients sustained bat injuries, 38 (49%) before and 36 (47%) after Bat Day. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, sex, time of injury, number and distribution of fractures and lacerations, incidence of loss of consciousness, source of history, or dispostion. There was a positive association between the number of cases on a given day and the average temperature that day (r = .5; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The distribution of 25,000 wooden baseball bats to attendees at Yankee Stadium did not increase the incidence of bat-related trauma in the Bronx and northern Manhattan. There was a positive correlation between daily temperature and the incidence of bat injury. The informal but common impressions of emergency clinicians about the cause-and-effect relationship between Bat Day and bat trauma were unfounded.”

[More]
Wow. 25,000 wooden bats let loose on NYC. And it had no real effect on the incidence of blunt force traumas. Nice to know.

Of course, the positive correlation between the trauma with bats and temperature is worrisome. So no free bats in August. Make free bat night an October event. Or perhaps call it off if the temperatures get too high.

Technorati Tags: Health, Science

Read it

How America Can Rise Again

Technorati Tags: Politics