The denialist’s tool kit

by DerrickT

Confronting Deniers & Denialists
[Via The Devil's Chaplain]

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

Black is white and white is black

HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media. The consequences of policies based on views such as these can be fatal.

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt. All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.

[More]

There are nice mention of five tactics that denialists almost always resort to – conspiracy theories, fake experts, cherrypicking, moving the goalposts, and lies/logical fallacies. I have talked about a lot of these before.

This discussion ends with a wonderful point:

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice.

Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.

Engaging with them, expecting normal discourse, is usually futile (I’m not talking about people who are skeptical but can be reached by a logical discussion. Denialists portray a specific pattern that often makes them unreachable by rational means.)

That is why I write about their tactics. They are not ones that rely on scientific principles but are, most often, based on lawyerly, rhetorical techniques.

Cool idea for wind-driven light

Flow Lamp
[Via Social Design Notes]

Flow Lamp. A self-powered lamp post for illuminating public spaces in developing countries, this bamboo wind turbine charges LEDs, and is both cheap and recyclable. What started out as a graduate thesis will be going into production soon.

[More]

This is still in the prototype stage and may not be suitable for everywhere but using the wind to provide lighting means that areas removed from the grid can be lit. And it looks like it would be visually interesting also.

I wonder if it can include a battery source to store power if it is windy during the day but not at night?

Another in a continuing series of how science deals with the real world

from AMSU-A Temperatures

A peer-reviewed response to McLean’s El Nino paper
[Via Skeptical Science]

A paper published mid-2009 claimed a link between global warming and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (McLean et al 2009). According to one of it’s authors, Bob Carter, the paper found that the “close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions”. This result is in strong contrast with two decades of peer-reviewed research which find ENSO has little influence on long-term trends. Why the discrepancy? A response has now been accepted for publication in the American Geophysical Union (Foster et al 2009) explaining why McLean 2009 differs from the body of peer-reviewed research.

First, let’s examine how McLean et al arrived at their conclusion. They compared both weather balloon (RATPAC) and satellite (UAH) measurements of tropospheric temperature to El Niño activity (SOI). To remove short-term noise, they plotted a 12 month running average of Global Tropospheric Temperature Anomaly (GTTA, the light grey line) and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI, the black line).

Figure 1: Twelve-month running means of SOI (dark line) and MSU GTTA (light line) for the period 1980 to 2006 with major periods of volcanic activity indicated (McLean 2009).

[More]

A very nice example of how science works. Someone publishes a paper that goes against the general consensus. Another report demonstrates the errors that were made in the first paper – errors that result in a faulty conclusion.

Science models the natural world in fits and starts. But as we gain a better understanding of an area, our models do a much better job of describing what is really going on.

Making big mistakes tends to happen early on. We have been working on climate change for 100 years now. We made several big mistakes early on but as we have gotten better data, we have created a better model.

It becomes harder and harder to overturn the model simply because it does such a good job. If you hope to overturn the model, you have to present a theory that does a better job of describing the real world.

Look at Relativity. Einstein proposed this theory because we were generating data that could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. But, while relativity is a better description, it did not negate Newtonian mechanics. They just became a subset of the overarching theory – a theory that did a better job explaining ALL the data

To overthrow climate change and its human origins, someone must come up with something that can explains ALL the data that has been generated over the last 100 years and does it better than the current theory.

Have at it.

Oh, and just to add some more data, here is a graph of the daily global temperature from satellite records. This is the temperatures at 14,000 feet. The square box shows the temperature for March 20. It is at the end of a faint green line and is above all the other lines, including the purple line which represents the record highs over the last 20 years. So far every day in March has been above the 20 year record high line.

In fact, the yellow line, which is the 20 year average, does not reach the same temperature seen on March 20 until May 13.

So, March is almost 2 months warmer than normal.

Super inside joke

by normanack

The One Superhero the iPad Can’t Save
[Via Daring Fireball]

Super-nerdy joke from FoxTrot.

[More]

Click the ‘More’ link to see the comic. Foxtrot is really the nerd’s best comic. Even if they (we) are the only ones who get the joke. I may have to buy the Jason centered book, Math, Science and Unix Underpants.

Brick and mortar success in the era of the Web

The magic of 285 Apple Stores
[Via Brainstorm Tech]

How the company’s growing retail presence is driving Mac market share gains

Source: Morgan Stanley

In a report to clients issued overnight Monday about Apple’s (AAPL) opportunities for growth in China, Morgan Stanley’s Katy Huberty adds, almost as an oversight, the instructive charts at right (see also below the fold).

They show what she calls the “Positive Correlation Between Apple Store Expansion and Mac Market Share.”

Correlation does not mean causation, of course, but the trends do seem clear. Apple opened 123 stores in the U.S. between Sept. 2003 and Sept. 2009 while the Mac’s domestic market share grew from just over 3% to as high as 9% (before dipping below 8% last summer).

In Western Europe, the effect seems even more dramatic: 33 stores and a market share that grew from as low as 1.5% to more than 5%.

[More]

No other hardware manufacturer has been able to create such a successful set of stores,all that drive sales. Nice to see some data suggesting the effect this has had on the bottom line.