Busy week, so this will be a short post. I spent some time online recently debating a global-warming true-believer. The Reader’s Digest version of his argument (actually, it’s the central argument in a book he likes) went something like this: Most of us aren’t qualified to evaluate all these back-and-forth arguments by the alarmists and the skeptics, so we must rely on the most credible experts.
So far, so good. But then he wrote that he considers government documents near the top of the credibility scale. I read that sentence twice to make sure he wasn’t joking. He wasn’t. My, it must be comforting to have such child-like faith in the purity of governments. I of course put government documents near the bottom of my credibility scale. I’m pretty sure history supports my evaluation.
If you’ve seen my film Fat Head, for example, you know that the CDC intentionally jacked up the figures on deaths due to obesity. If you were fat and died in an auto accident, they decided you died from being overweight. (Perhaps your belly pushed the steering wheel in the wrong direction.)
In the 1980s, the Surgeon General’s office set out to prove that fat and cholesterol cause heart disease by conducting an analysis of all the relevant studies … but when the data didn’t support the theory, they shelved the project rather than publish the results. That was after wasting 11 years and more than 100 million dollars. So no, I don’t trust government officials to tell the truth.
My debate opponent puts scientists at the very tippy-top of his credibility list — as long as there’s consensus among the scientists. Once again, it must be nice to have such child-like faith. The “consensus” that cholesterol causes heart disease was manufactured. Dissenting research was ignored. Scientists who published dissenting research were sometimes bullied … they lost their tenure, their grants, and their reputations. The same thing happens to scientists today who dare suggest maybe we don’t actually know what causes climate change.
So I wasn’t exactly surprised to learn this week that a governing body and some scientists — those great pillars of credibility — misled the public about global warming … and I’m not even talking about the Climategate emails. Here’s the headline and some choice quotes from the online article:
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Ah, yes, ensuring that world leaders receive the best possible scientific advice on climate change. That would explain this behavior:
… it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science.”
Hmmm, let’s see … The IPCC grabs a story, doesn’t check the reliability of the source, makes no effort to disprove it (standard procedure in good science), exaggerates it, hands it over to a guy with no expertise in glaciers to use as the basis of a report on glaciers, then dismisses criticism offered by real scientists as “voodoo.” Gee, that sounds like maybe the IPCC has an agenda. I’m starting to think they aren’t actually interested in providing the best scientific information to world leaders.
So pardon me if I don’t put government officials anywhere near the top of my credibility list.
Entries (RSS)
This guy trusts government documents? Wow. Does he want to buy a bridge? I could use the money. For mittens and a space heater.
I even asked if him if he was joking. Can’t believe anyone puts government near the top of the trust list.
At Deceiver.com they liken the exchange of information on this as an international game of telephone.
That sounds about right. Now repeat what I just said to that guy …
The worst part is those people usually also want government to control all the education, particularly science education, of kids - e.g. no home schools, private schools etc.
I call the disease ‘expertitis’, and I think its a pandemic.
Good term for it.
I rely on information from the government almost as much as I rely on Sponge Bob Square Pants to give me the news on current events. It makes as much sense.
Indeed. People who trust government reports haven’t been paying attention for, say, the last 100 years.
“child-like faith in the purity of governments”
Pretty much sums up a lot of people I’ve argued many topics with. Thanks for giving me the perfect way to describe it.
But interestingly, as soon as the CIA or Dept. of Defense get involved, those same people discover their inner skeptic. I treat all branches of government the same: I assume they’re lying until evidence says otherwise.