Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Science: Sceptical Scientists or Scientific Deniers - UPDATED

The following exchange was aired on the May 25 edition of PBS’s Charlie Rose show
Do we have too many scientific deniers in our country?
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: So if the people understand what science is and how it works and why it works, then you can vote intelligently on issues that involve scientific principles- 
CHARLIE ROSE: And things like climate change. 
TYSON: -on issues. And then you can know who is not telling the truth and who is, you can analyze it. 
ROSE: Okay but my question is - are we, I mean do we have too many scientific deniers in our country or do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science? 
TYSON: Yeah there are some of those. And dare I implicate some elements of journalism in this, because there’s your journalistic ethos - not to tell you what your ethos is - but as I understand it and it’s been told to me, the journalist’s obligation when writing a story is to give equal column space to all sides. Or half to one of each side. And if someone says the Earth is round and someone says the Earth is flat, at some point you’re going to make a judgement, “the Earth is flat” people, is just flat out wrong. I will not be giving them the attention. We’re wasting time and I’m not doing a service to, in my role of informing the public.  
And so I think journalists are really smart people. And they’re highly educated and they’re curious. They have the curiosity that kids have, that they still have as adults. That’s the other kind of branch of curiosity manifested in society. Scientists and journalists. And that’s a great thing to have. But at some point, invest your brain energy to recognize when something is fringe. And report it that way. And so when you do that, people then are properly informed about what is and is not true, what is an emergent truth. What is a truth that is in doubt, what is a truth? What is something that has been refuted. Be responsible on that frontier. And I think that will help. That will help my job, certainly. 
That gives us food for thought. Should Main Stream Journalists turn attention away from rthose Charlie Rose calls Scientific Deniers?

Let's look at some of the points discussed.

Do we give too much prominence to those who want to look the other way on science? 

Too many scientific Deniers? The scientific method means - look the other way on science.
The problem-solving techniques that scientists use in their research make up the scientific method. The scientific methods are as old as science itself. It includes the correction or testing of previous knowledge or scientific theory. (link)
It includes the testing and correction of scientific theory.

Theory and Hypothesis:

Theory - A theory is an explanation of why and how a specific natural event occurs.Hypothesis – An hypothesis is an idea or question about how something works.
Simply put, scientists see a problem and think of a question (hypothesis) and through tests of trial and error they figure out a solution to the hypothesis. Then other scientists do similar tests to see if the solution is correct. The solution then becomes common knowledge and is referred to as a theory.
Through tests of trial and error they figure out a solution to the hypothesis..... 

or, the hypothesis can be falsified. As Albert Einstein once said: (link)
 “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified many times:

These are but a few from the google search for "man made global warming disproved."

Obviously, because it is Wikipedia, many of the 316,000 may be flaky. However as noted above, Albert Einstein said: (link)
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 
Just One - "a single experiment" falsifies the CAGW hypothesis. 

Challenge to the Shrill - rebut the 316,000 results for "Man made global warming disproved."

TYSON: I think journalists are really smart people. And they’re highly educated and they’re curious.

Journalists, by definition should be sceptics. However, many of the main stream journalists have run the white flag up the pole, turned their backs on "curious" or sceptical journalism and have become pushers of the Man made global warming hoax.

I think journalists are really smart people.

If journalists in the main promote the man made global warming hoax. how can they be smart, They have not done their homework and have missed all the evidence debunking the hoax. 

How many journalists missed the "governmental" in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

How many journalists know that the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is not necessarily supported by the scientific papers in the detailed reports, is not necessarily supported by the scientists writing the supporting papers, and how many know that the SPM is agreed line by line by government representatives in long meetings. 
IPCC Reports are reviewed by representatives from all the governments and the Summary for Policymakers is subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. (LINK)
How many of the journalists have read the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
 How many Journalists are aware of some of the falsities pushed by the shrill alarmists?

In an October 2012 article headed  
Man Made Global Warming Disproved Joanne Nova and Anthony Cox wrote:

Continued faith in flawed models breaks central tenets of science

The two things which make science different from religion are that nothing in science is sacred, and everything in science must ultimately fit with observations of the real world. While a theory may never be 100% proven, it can be disproven. The pieces of the climate jigsaw are coming together. The observations suggest that the warming effect of man-made emissions of CO2 has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 – 7 in computer simulations.

Observations show major flaws

  1. The missing heat is not in the ocean 8 – 14
  2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space 15 -17
  3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – 31
  4. Clouds cool the planet as it warms 38 – 56
  5. The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. 63- 64
  6. Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C 66
  7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. 70
  8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. 71
  9. It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2.  The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones.

How many journalists know that there has been no warming of Global Mean surface temperature for around twenty years?

Any young person leaving school in the last few years was probably subjected to Al Gore's Science Fiction Movie "An Inconvenient Truth" several times during their schooling but has not been told that there has been no warming during their school life.

How many journalists know that, according to the two bodies measuring global temperature through satellite readings, both show slight decrease in global temperatures from 1998 to 2015. (link)

= = = = = = = = =

See also:

When It Comes to Global Warming, the News Media Only See What They Want

The fact that the left refuses to engage in any debate on global warming — and wants the matter closedyesterday — makes me extremely suspicious that they aren’t actually so confident that they are right, or that they are winning. When they go a step further and call those who disagree with them “deniers” and equate them with “blasphemers” or those who claim the Holocaust didn’t really happen, like a bully who has nothing to back up his bravado, it makes me think they have some extreme insecurities. 
But last week broke new grounds in the lengths people will go to cut off any dissent on this issue, which many have used to hinder business production in extremely significant ways. And the news media’s curious lack of a negative reaction is also telling.
Read more at Mediaite - Link