Required reading for any scientist

by Untitled blue
#25) THE “DON’T BE SUCH A SCIENTIST” ANALYSIS OF “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH” (SPOILER: IT ENDS WITH GEORGE LAKOFF)

[Via The Benshi]

WARNING: THIS IS A LENGTHY ARTICLE - Please think of this “post” as something closer to a feature article in a magazine. Ryan Mitchell and I feel this is the most important piece we’ve posted on The Benshi to date. It is the written version of a talk I’ve been crafting over the past two years. And it is the application of the contents of my book to the real world.

For the past year I’ve been giving talks in which I present my analysis of “An Inconvenient Truth,” using the four chapters of my book to examine, not the scientific content of the movie (which from the first year of its release has been examined in great detail), but rather the way in which “the message” was delivered through the medium of film. For the past few weeks I’ve been planning to present my analysis in written form, but last week I was conveniently cued by Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm when he correctly pointed out the seeming contradiction between what I said in my book about “An Inconvenient Truth,” (which was positive) versus what I’ve been saying in the talk (that the movie was a failure).

Let me begin by making one clear statement: I am in no way, shape or form a “climate skeptic.” The message of this essay is not that “Gore was wrong,” but rather that the movie wasn’t as persuasive as it could have been.

An Inconvenient Truth: The failure to “tell a good story”

THE SET UP BY JOE ROMM: MY SEEMING CONTRADICTION

As Joe Romm mentions, I described “An Inconvenient Truth” in my book as, “The best made and most important piece of environmental media in history.” I chose those words carefully. I avoided saying anything critical about the movie because I didn’t want climate skeptics taking bits out of context and suggesting I was on their side. But now that the book is published, it’s time to offer up the other half of my analysis.

We can begin by asking, “How can something be both well made and important, yet still a failure?” Well, I don’t mean this in any humorous sense, but let me just mention the names of the R.M.S Titanic and the Hindenburg blimp for starters. These things happen.

[More]

Every researcher who had to discuss their work should read this article if not the important book that describes these principles. Most people deal use metaphors to deal with life. Just presenting information only reaches a very few, the ones whose metaphor is rationality.

But if you want to convince people, to change their minds, there is actually a pretty well-defined process. And most makers of films, books and other creative media actually know what that is.

Randy Olson discusses important points – for science, and the rationality that underlies it, to reach a larger audience there needs to be a recognition that what moves most researchers to change their minds does not really work with most people.

That does not make them wrong. It simply means they use different heuristics as a survival mechanism in a complex world. If you want to reach them, you need to adapt to their heuristics, not the other way around.

Michael Moore understands this which is why his films, which have cringe-worthy parts for rationalists, are very can be effective in changing people’s minds.

The majority of people will never change their views if we only appeal to logic. That is not how they make it through their daily lives. We must learn to tell the story in ways that resonate with their daily rules of thumb, their personal heuristics.

A Republican exception to Republican denialists

by takomabibelot

EPA takes heat over Endangerment Finding for greenhouses gases at House Science Committee hearing
[Via ClimateScienceWatch]

Dr. Paul Anastas, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, faced pointed global warming “skeptic” questions from House Science and Technology Committee members on the science behind the EPA Endangerment Finding, which requires the agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

[More]

Well, this article started off with some standard oddball quotes from the expected Republicans:

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who has repeatedly stated for the past two decades that he doesn’t believe in human-induced climate change, asked Dr. Anastas to name another major ruling EPA has made that was not based on its own research but relied instead on “foreign” data.

Dr. Anastas responded that, with all due respect, he could not accept the premise of the question. He said that EPA science did play a role, but that any time EPA considers a major question, it is not going to rely solely on the research done in its labs.

and

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), an outspoken global warming denier, had still harsher criticism. “You have endorsed something that is not scientific,” he said. “Anthropogenic global warming is not real; you and this administration are drinking the [global warming] Kool-aid.”

We expect to hear such remarks from grandstanding politicians during a committee hearing. That is usually what the whole purpose is.

But towards the end, there was this:

For his part, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a member with considerable seniority and one of the few in Congress with a science degree, said that the controversy over the science supporting the Endangerment Finding stems from worry about the economic consequences of regulation. He said that most of the allegedly thousands of scientists disputing mainstream climate science findings are little known and are not experts in atmospheric science. “I have heard a lot of debate on this in this chamber that is beside the point,” Dr. Ehlers said.

I don’t think I have ever heard of him but he actually stated the truth. Most of the political concern about all of this has to do with the economic consequences not the science itself. But many politicians do not want to just come out and state that so they demagogue the science.

Vernon Ehlers has a PhD in nuclear physics but is also retiring this year. Another moderate Republican leaving the Congress, and one with a PhD to boot. The NYT had an article in 2008 talking with the 3 physics PhDs in the Congress at the time. Two Democrats and a Republican.

Yet they sounded like scientists first, dealing with the same things that we all have to :

For example, Mr. Ehlers said, it is irksome to encounter people who ignore the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global warming yet count on science to produce new sources of energy magically. “They sort of reject our reasoning,” he said. “But they will come back and say, ‘Science will find a way.’ ”

Or

What is needed is not more advanced degrees, the physicists said (they all have Ph.D.’s), but a capacity to take the long view, what Mr. Ehlers called the scientists’ ability to see from the pre-Cambrian era to the space age.

But sometimes, he said, the problem is just old-fashioned ignorance. Several times he has found himself “rushing to the floor” to head off colleagues ready to eliminate financing for endeavors whose importance they did not understand.

Once it was game theory. The person seeking the cut did not seem to realize that game theory had to do with interactions in economics, behavior and other social sciences, not sports, Mr. Ehlers recounted.

Then there was the time he rose to defend A.T.M. research against a colleague who thought it should be left to the banking industry. In this case the initials stood for asynchronous transfer mode, a protocol for fiber-optic data transfer.

Or

There are 435 people in the House, Mr. Holt said, and “420 don’t know much about science and choose not to.” He recalled his exasperation when anthrax spores were discovered in the Capitol in 2001 and colleagues came to him and said, “You are a scientist, you must know about anthrax,” a subject ordinarily missing from the physics curriculum.

“The difference,” he said, “is we would be perfectly happy to pick up a copy of The New England Journal of Medicine and read about the etiology of anthrax.”

“In fact, we basically did that,” Mr. Ehlers said.

“We know more than our colleagues,” Mr. Holt said, “but not more than they could know.”

One characteristic of many scientists is that they have no compunction against educating themselves very rapidly, even in areas of science they may not be experts in. They just want to know.

Both Rush and Foster are still in the House and running for re-election. Losing Ehlers is a blow, though, to the cause of rational, scientific thinking in a body that despaerately needs it. Only six members of the 111th Congress are listed as scientists. Only 10 members have a PhD in a scientific or medical discipline. We really need to increase that number.

Having fewer scientists in Congress will not make things any easier for us. As you can see from the above quotes, they are bi-partisan in their approach to help solve scientific problems and correct scientific mistakes of their compatriots. The more people who can argue rationally against the lawyerly tricks of denialists – 225 members of the 111th Congress are lawyers – the better for all of us.

April Fool’s on myself

I was all merrily going my way, thinking about what I was going to do tomorrow, when I got this in my email:

Crap. April 3 is Saturday! Somehow I had looked at my March calendar thinking it was April. So I won’t be able to see the iPad on Thursday at a store.

I guess I should be glad Apple sent me the email and that I did not blithely walk into the Apple Store tomorrow asking to see an iPad. And now I have more time now to get my taxes in.

More physical statistics than most people can stand

by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

Solar flare activity doesn’t account for recent warming
[Via Ars Technica]

There is a phrase that I hate: “Lies, damn lies, and statistics,” which is generally used to disparage anyone presenting any data that they find not to their taste. Classic examples of this turn up in response to epidemiological studies that show that vaccines and autism are not linked, and, of course, that the anthropogenic global warming is, indeed, anthropogenic.

That said, it doesn’t stop people from misusing statistics, but—and this is an important point—this misuse can be most effectively countered with the correct use of statistics. A classic example of this has just turned up in Physical Review Letters, where a seeming link between short-term solar activity and longer-term temperature trends was shown to be the result of poor analysis.

[More]

Only a small fraction of the population may be able to follow this discussion but it again illustrates how science works. The original paper indicated that some climate change may have been due to solar flares. But the latest paper demonstrates that the statistical and mathematical methods used were insufficient to answer that question. The current report indicates that there is no linking of the two.

As I have written before, this is how science works. So when climate denialists trumpet a single paper that seems to support their view, the vast majority of scientists take a wait and see attitude. We are jigsaw puzzle people who know that patience and reflection often produces the correct answer. Because we know that even with the benefits of peer review, most papers and their conclusions are tentative. They will only remain valid following the scrutiny and replication of other researchers.

We do not generally insert them into the puzzle until we are certain they fit.

So far, a large majority of papers discussing anthropenic global warming have survived this scrutiny. In contrast, many of those papers that appear to cast doubt on AGW have not. No conspiracy. That is just how science works.

Eradicating Guinea worm would be heroic

from Wikipedia

BBC: On the verge of ending the scourge of the Guinea worm
[Via Knight Science Journalism Tracker]

It’s hard to read, watch, or listen to anything about guinea worm disease, one of the more miserable ailments in the world. Rural Africans have for millennia suffered the pain and misery of these slender parasites that break the body and torment the soul. But the BBC’s radio show The World has posted, from Boston-based David Baron, a satisfying report. It’s not easy to sit through but its news, that full eradication of the disease seems plausible and in not such a long time, is welcome.

The show highlights both the general eradication campaign, and the intimate role played by President Jimmy Carter in pushing that effort to this day. Baron, microphone in hand, sat down with the 85-year-old Carter in Southern Sudan. This is heartfelt reporting.

- Charlie Petit

[More]

Guinea worm is a sickening parasite. But, like smallpox, it requires a human host to survive. SO, if that cycle can be broken, we can remove the threat of the suffering the pain of the worm.

There are not many diseases that fit into this category. So I hope President Carter lives to see the day Guinea Worm is gone.

Don’t try this with your Nokia

Who Needs Million-Dollar Producers? Girl Reproduces Pop Hits Via iPhone Apps
[Via Discoblog]

It’s rainy and drab outside and the only thing making us feel better is watching videos in which Applegirl shows off her amazing abilities with the iPhone. This YouTube sensation performs hit songs using a collection of apps on several different iPhones. Yesterday it was a three-phone version of Beyonce’s “Irreplaceable,” and today she’s taken a stab at Lady Gaga’s “Pokerface” using four phones.

She seems to use a mix of looping drum beat apps, guitar chord apps, and, for Pokerface, the T-Pain autotune app for that modern vocal sound. Here’s a look at both videos. However, here’s a heads up–Applegirl doesn’t get into the swing of things with Irreplaceable till 1:34 into the video and the cat making the rounds in Poker Face is very distracting.

Enjoy.

[More]

Well, even though I’m a skeptical scientist this is fun to watch. Creating an entire pop song using just the iPhone and some apps.

I’m wondering how she miked herself and whether she had multitracked or had loops playing. I kept trying to figure out just how she was able to put it all together because it almost seemed like a magic act. How could she get all that great sound and have such a lovely voice?

Whether it is all real or simply playing with us, it would not be believable at all without the use of iPhones. Palms or Nokia smartphones would just not have had the level of cool. Apple should get her in an ad.

[Listening to: Conundrum from the album "Bursting Out" by Jethro Tull]