The…er…science, of climate change

There are lots of problems with what passes for science much of the time now. Peer review is not all it’s cracked up to be, in fact Einstein hated it and his most famous work never underwent the process. The whole concept of statistical significance is under question (in medical matters it often bears no resemblance to clinical significance), and there has been a lot of flagrant bad behaviour in the hot political areas of science. Many ‘scientists’ (loosely defined) suffer from the same malaise as ‘experts’. There’s plenty of crossover between the two spurious groups. I hate putting such established terms in inverted commas, but one feels driven to it.

Part of the problem is the ‘publish or die’ atmosphere in many academic centres. The scientific and medical literature has expanded exponentially. One would sensibly doubt that the quality has kept pace.

But you know, there are some rules, generally accepted terms of reference. Here’s one fine example from the works of sociologist (not the rubbish kind) Robert K Merton. He is the man who originated those everyday phrases “unintended consequences,” the “reference group,” the “role model,” and “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Quite a body of work in its quotability, like a Shakespeare of Sociology:

In his landmark 1973 work The Sociology of Science , Robert Merton established norms upon which scientists should rely . These Mertonian norms include: communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originalism, and organized skepticism… These norms have been described as follows: “Communalism: Science is public knowledge, freely available to all . . . Universalism: There are no privileged sources of scientific knowledge . . . Disinterestedness: Science is done for its own sake. Originality: Science is the discovery of the unknown . . . Skepticism: Scientists take nothing on trust…” Merton’s original work was done in the aftermath of World War II and is understood as making the argument for the necessity of these norms to scientific advancement in a democratic society.

The National Academy of Sciences built on Mertonian norms by establishing guidelines of its own that seek to foster a “community characterized by curiosity, cooperation, and intellectual rigor…” While the Academy encourages open debate and criticism, id . at xv, it treats the falsification of data, intent to mislead, and retaliation against critics as examples of serious research misconduct.

Great stuff, clear and almost noble idealism.  If you don’t have rules that are widely accepted, then you get dud science and useless outcomes. Just look at the problems with reproducibility,  which anyone who ever did O-level chemistry should intuitively understand.

You might have guessed that the reason I’m plugging Merton is his relevance to the scientific chaos surrounding climate change, and the quote above came from Mark Steyn’s update on his legal battle with the egregious Michael Mann. The provider of the quote is a real scientist, Judith Curry, who has heroically joined the fray.

Every medic knows that people more often than not publish for their CV and the career – it’s a necessity. Few  people are really good at scientific research. It’s a lot harder than surgery by and large, if you’re doing it well. Most of it is forgettable, irrelevant or possibly plain wrong. Scientific endeavour  from a position of preconceived bias will almost certainly be bullshit in, bullshit out.

To quote Anglo-Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney:  A theory is a supposition which we hope to be true, a hypothesis is a supposition which we expect to be useful; fictions belong to the realm of art; if made to intrude elsewhere, they become either make-believes or mistakes.

And there’s a lot of the latter about.

..he said in 10 years we won’t know what snow is…


Per ardua ad luna

The great Mark Steyn (I mean that), has written an awesomely good, elegaic reflection on space flight and American greatness in the light of the death of astronaut John Glenn. It’s worth reading it all, but the simple sums in this paragraph boggle my mind:

The Wright brothers’ first flight was in 1903. Fifty-nine years later, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, and seven years after that Buzz Aldrin became the first man to play “Fly Me To The Moon” on the moon (thanks to the portable cassette recorder he took with him). We are now another half-century on, a half-century devoid of giant leaps and even small steps.

And as Steyn points out, from JFK announcing it to man actually walking on the moon took a mere 8 years, beating Kennedy’s famous plan comfortably: ‘This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.’  That’s the duration of  a two term president. As it happens we’ve had a few of them to use as handy comparisons, and they don’t come out of it too well.

Maybe there is something in the negativity of Bruce Charlton in the article (read it!). Maybe we can’t do it now, even if we wanted to. But I doubt it, even now in the era of Peak Snowflake.

Ridiculous, when you think about it. Apollo 17 returned to Earth 44 years ago exactly

A gift for language ~ Mark Steyn and climate change

A lot of people can write well, a few can consistently write brilliantly. Amusing is easy, laugh out loud funny is difficult. Combining the two is very rare indeed. R Emmett Tyrrell  and  Rod Liddle spring to mind,  and Mark Steyn, another hero of our times, currently locked in an epic First Amendment battle in the USA, with chippy ‘scientist’ Michael Mann.

This post is here simply to highlight Steyn’s ability to wrap up an argument in the most succint, pointed and righteously indignant way. From about 5 years ago:

He took the words out of Michael Mann’s mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of “saving the planet” from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues.

That about sums it up, the subsequent image of “Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe” is too much for a family blog.

The bears found a use for a climate change scientist
The bears found a use for a climate change scientist

The W126 Mercedes SEC, again

You can’t have too much of a good thing. The Knifes’s previous two posts on this topic, here and here, have been pretty popular.

I’m no Clarksonoid petrolhead, though I’ve nothing against that kind of stuff, I just love this because it’s so beautiful. It’s also a fantastic car to drive, from the very best Stuttgart era.

On a day when Nick Clegg, not in any shape or form a “man’s man”, decides to blow half a billion pounds of our money on pathetic and pointless electric cars**, The Knife is particularly proud of owning an aesthetically magnificent 5 litre V8 cruiser. As does Clint Eastwood.



**the hospital where The Knife works decided to cut down on travel expenses, although there can be a lot of driving. You could still have the option of an eco-friendly electric hire car (on the taxpayer),  if you booked it in advance. It would certainly get to another hospital 35 miles away, but there was no guarantee that you would make it back. Always pack a toothbrush.

Climate change: “When you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had”

Michael Crichton in 1977
Michael Crichton in 1977

One of the very worst aspects of ‘climate change’ and the associated shenanigans and gravy trains is the abuse of science, and the corruption of the scientific process. In medicine that can get you struck off.

The Knife wrote twice about this recently. Only this week have we seen two scientists disagreeing regarding the floods. The highly paid head of the Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, claiming that the floods were due in some mysterious way to climate change, but in the same breath conceding that there was no actual evidence for this. One of her colleagues, Professor Mat Collins, then denied her claim, pointing out – as he should – the complete lack of evidence.

Evidence being the key word in all this.

It’s also worth noting at this juncture the Met Office’s specific prediction in November for the next 3 months:  there was a “slight signal for below-average precipitation” for December, January and February.

Their credibility could be better, to put it politely.

The great Mark Steyn is about to enter into an epochal climate science free speech court battle. On his excellent, and very funny, website he has posted a few times on the late Michael Crichton‘s take on scientific method, and the dangers of a so-called consensus. Science relies on proof, not consensus. Crichton was the Harvard medical graduate and polymath who created, among many other successes, Jurassic Park and ER. He revered true science and the scientific spirit, and often wrote about it.

Here he is giving a lecture at Caltech in 2003. Read the whole thing, it’s brilliant  :

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women….

….I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Bear in mind that Crichton was speaking 11 years ago, specifically about climate change, and the best that’s on offer today is still a ‘consensus’.  It’s pitiful, and, given the Met Office’s recent dud forecast mentioned above:

“Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”

Somerset, last week (or The Deluge, by Francis Danby, 1840. Tate Gallery)
Somerset, last week (or The Deluge, by Francis Danby, 1840. Tate Gallery)

Climate change: “the science is settled” (2), and the fatal conceit

...oh dear
…oh dear

The previous two posts on this blog have been taking the piss out of the climate change obsessives, who continue to wreak financial and environmental havoc, through misguided public policy.

The Knife has never subscribed to the whole anthropogenic global warming (AGW) rubbish. It’s partly who is saying it, partly its malign consequences, and in a very large part, it’s because of the intellectually offensive way in which it is propagated.

Proof is lacking, to put it mildly.

Most of the AGW propagators are not people who appear to readily subscribe to a system of higher belief (other than AGW itself of course). Religion is not normally on their radar, which is fair enough. They must be judged by the relevant intellectual principles of rational inquiry and thought.

Happily, in Standpoint recently, is a very handy summary by Jonathan Neumann, of the great Friedrich Hayek’s view of intellectual progress and society. He was not pushing religion, merely outlining the rational process of inquiry in the absence of a higher belief :

Hayek sees the centralising impulse of contemporary Western political economy as stemming from a “presumptive rationalism” which he calls “scientism” or “constructivism”, and which expresses the “spirit of the age”…. Specifically, he cites four basic philosophical concepts which, during the past several hundred years, have formed the basis of this way of thinking: rationalism, which denies the acceptability of beliefs founded on anything but experience and reasoning; empiricism, which maintains that all statements claiming to express knowledge are limited to those depending for their justification on experience; positivism, which is defined as the view that all true knowledge is scientific, in the sense of describing the coexistence and succession of observable phenomena; and utilitarianism, which “takes the pleasure and pain of everyone affected by it to be the criterion of the action’s rightness”….

…To clarify, Hayek induces from these definitions several related presuppositions: that it is unreasonable to follow what one cannot justify scientifically or prove observationally; that it is unreasonable to follow what one does not understand; that it is unreasonable to follow a particular course unless its purpose is fully specified in advance; and that it is unreasonable to do anything unless its effects are not only fully known in advance, but also fully observable and — as far as utilitarianism is concerned — seen to be beneficial.

These beliefs – rationalism, empiricism, positivism and utilitarianism – are very definitely the mindset, in theory, of the AGW group. In reality, they don’t remotely adhere to these, as the last two posts make clear.

Hayek himself wasn’t proposing this limited view of knowledge and experience, preferring to acknowledge that there are some things that we cannot know in such black and white terms. Again, to quote:

The problems with these approaches, Hayek explains, are that they show no awareness that there might be limitations to our knowledge or reason in certain areas; they do not consider that part of science’s task is to discover those limits; and they show no curiosity about how the extended order actually came into being, how it is maintained, and what might be the consequences of undermining or destroying those traditions which did create and do maintain it.

Effectively a plea for intellectual humility, just as important as the other facets of that particular virtue.

So, by the normal criteria of research and finding out the facts, as outlined above, AGW fails pretty dismally. The secondary failure is in the refusal to accept that there may be things that exist that we cannot know of, despite the fact that this acceptance through blind faith actually constitutes most of the argument for AGW, and all of its many deleterious consequences. It really is a substitute religion.

Hayek’s last book, published in 1988, four years before his death, had a name for this lack of humility, that seems to fit pretty well with the whole AGW racket: The Fatal Conceit.

Hayek hears about the Academik Shokalskiy
Hayek hears about the Academik Shokalskiy

Climate change: “the science is settled” (1)


Doctors don’t always make good scientists, but we all receive training in scientific methodology. We can all critique a published paper, we understand peer review and why it matters.

So, here’s a scenario for a study.

We have to have a hypothesis. It’s that prawn cocktail crisps kill you.

We have to have a clearly identifiable and important outcome. In this case it’s easy: death

We set ourselves a timescale, say 5 years, and measure all the crisps eaten by our study population.

Then we wait for them to die.

However, after 5 years, there are no deaths, despite gorging on crisps. What must we reasonably conclude?

The obvious answer is that there’s no problem with the crisps. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, that we didn’t study for long enough, but we can extend the trial, no problem.

What we cannot sensibly conclude, is that the crisps are indeed dangerous, but in ways that we can’t explain or justify. We  likewise cannot mount a campaign to ban these tasty snacks on the basis of our study. Remember that it was us who selected both the hypothesis and the outcome measure, no-one forced them upon us. If we did continue to claim that the crisps were a lethal problem, then we would be widely – and rightly – derided and mocked. Our credibility would be shot.

This slightly silly scenario has just unfolded before us in another guise. No prizes for guessing that it’s climate change.

The chosen outcomes have been no snow, or melted ice caps, though there are lots of others to choose from. At least those two are easy to observe. It was Al “crazed sex poodle” Gore (and many others) who predicted the melted ice caps, within 5 years (5 years ago), and the fantastically hubristic Dr David Viner of the entirely dodgy (on many levels) University of East Anglia famously claimed  ‘within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Neither of these clowns felt the need to say that ‘climate is not the same as weather’, so sure were they.

So, when Dave emerges  with no proof whatsoever, and:

The prime minister told MPs that there were more “abnormal” weather events occurring and he “suspected” they were linked to global temperature changes.

…and when the leader of the bad climate science brigade turns obsessively litigious, and Arctic and Antarctic ice fail to melt, and in fact increase, and when countries don’t disappear due to non-existent rising sea levels…..

…then we’re all entitled to look at the lack of evidence, and the absurd obfuscations and inventions that inevitably follow it, from the climate changers, and draw our own conclusions.

As good scientists should.

The Maldives: stubbornly dry
The Maldives: stubbornly dry

The evolution of uncertainty, about evolution

This is really a straight lift from a highly skilled writer and medical colleague, James Le Fanu. He’s used it more than once, most recently in the Charterhouse column of the Catholic Herald, but it’s no worse for that. The opening paragraph sums up my problem with all this:

The philosopher Thomas Nagel in a memorable phrase laments ‘the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life’ — where there is nothing too sensational, extraordinary or bizarre about the living world that cannot be accounted for as having evolved to be that way over billions of years by the same known materialistic process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutation.

Well, quite.

The most obvious of those ‘puzzling questions’ that he cites is the ‘gene number dilemma’ epitomized by the most astonishing revelation of the Human Genome Project — that we have roughly the same number of genes, a modest 20,000, as the millimeter long worm, C.elegans — that is fashioned from just 1,000 cells (compared to our 60 trillion) in all, has neither a circulatory system nor internal skeleton and a life expectancy of just two weeks. Since then every newly sequenced genome has added its own further twist to this surprising lack of any correspondence between gene numbers and organismic complexity — where flies and chickens, it emerges have a third fewer genes than the diminutive C.elegans while, at the other extreme, plants such as rice and soya bean have twice as many.

The further yet more ‘puzzling question’ is the revelation of the interchangeability of the master or homeotic genes across diverse species, where for example, the same gene that orchestrates the fly’s distinctive compound type eye does so for the very different mammalian camera type eye. That interchangeability across species reaches its apotheosis with the finding that we share 99% of our genes with a mouse. How so trivial a genetic difference can generate such diversity of form defies all explanation, other than to suppose it must be ‘something to do’ with gene regulation, ‘the turning on and off of genes at different times and places in the course of development’.

The implications are clear enough. Biologists could in theory sequence every living creature on the face of the planet, but this would only confirm they all share the same core set of genes that account for the nuts and bolts of the proteins and enzymes of the cell of which all living things are made. But beyond that the really interesting question — that of ‘form’ — what it is that so readily distinguishes the elephant from the octopus, fireflies from foxes would remain as elusive as ever.

These are reasonable points, and as yet, science doesn’t have the answers. It’s not even close.

Come on then, explain us away…