Blogs / Cosmic Variance

In one of the comments to Daniel’s post on the stolen climate emails, techskeptic points to a wonderful chart at Information is Beautiful. The author did a great deal of gruntwork to lay out the various arguments of “The Global Warming Skeptics” vs. “The Scientific Consensus.” As far as I can tell, it’s a legitimately balanced view of both sides, complete with citations. If you’re confused about the various issues and accusations being bandied back and forth, there are worse places to start. This is a small piece of the full chart.

Of course, there is no such thing as a purely objective and judgment-free presentation of data, no matter how scrupulously the data itself may be collected; if nothing else, we make choices about what data to present. And a side-by-side comparison chart like this can’t help but give a slightly misleading impression of the relative merits of the arguments, by putting the conclusions of an overwhelming majority of honest scientists up against the arguments of a fringe collection of politically-motivated activists. But it’s certainly good to see the actual issues arrayed in point-counterpoint format.

Still, there remains a somewhat intractable problem: when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves, how do we make judgments about who to believe?

This problem has been brought home by the incredibly depressing news that James Randi has come out in favor of global-warming denialism (via PZ Myers). Randi is generally a hero among fans of reason and skepticism, so it’s especially embarrassing to see how incredibly weak his reasoning is here. It basically amounts to: “The climate is complicated. And scientists don’t know everything. And I admit I don’t know much about the field. Therefore … we have good reason to distrust the overwhelming majority of experts!” Why Randi chose not to apply his vaunted powers of skepticism to the motivations behind the denialists remains a mystery.

This gets to the heart of why I’ve always been skeptical of the valorization of “skepticism.” I don’t want to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical — I want to be right. To maximize my chances of being right, I will try to collect what information I can and evaluate it rationally. But part of that information has to include the nature of the people making arguments on either side of a debate. If one side consists of scientists who have spent years trying to understand a complicated system, and the other is a ragtag collection of individuals with perfectly obvious vested interests in the outcome, it makes sense to evaluate their claims accordingly.

By all means, we should apply our own powers of reason to every interesting problem. But when our reasoning leads to some conclusion at odds with the apparent consensus of a lot of smart people who seem to know what they’re talking about — whether it’s on the nature of dark energy, the best way to quantize gravity, the most effective route to health care reform, or the state of the environment — the burden is on us to understand the nature of that difference and try to reconcile it, not to take refuge in “experts don’t know everything” and related anti-intellectual piffle.

At this very moment the nations of the world are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the Earth’s climate. 192 countries are represented, and for the next two weeks they will try to come up with a strategy to deal with climate change. Obama will show up in 10 days, as will other heads-of-state. Unfortunately, much of the media coverage (at least in the US) includes discussion of what is being called “ClimateGate”. Someone hacked into the email system of the University of East Anglia, and stole hundreds of private emails from climate researchers around the world. Let us remember that Watergate had to do with an investigation of the burglars, while in this case there seems to be scant attention to the crime (i.e. stealing and publishing personal email), and much more attention to the “incendiary” emails themselves.

Scientists are people too. Amazingly enough, we get frustrated and annoyed. We have fights with colleagues. We let our emotions get in the way of dispassionate peer review. We send emails we probably shouldn’t. This should be no surprise to anyone. There are immense pressures on scientists working on “hot button” issues like climate change. They’re constantly being assaulted and questioned (mostly by people with no particular background or training). And, on occasion, individuals end up saying things and doing things they shouldn’t. Looking over the stolen emails, there are certainly some unfortunate revelations. But there is nothing even remotely indicating widespread fabrication of results. As far as I know, not a single scientific finding is now in doubt because of these emails. No papers will be withdrawn. Nature has a summary of the [lack of] content of the emails. A lot more detail can be found here. And the IPCC weighs in here.

I am not an expert on climate change. If the lives of our children and grandchildren depended on questions having to do with cosmology or general relativity, I would most certainly have a direct, informed opinion. And I would hope that my opinion, and those of my colleagues, would be solicited and respected, given that we’ve dedicated our lives to studying the relevant subject matter. Likewise, I respect the conclusions of my esteemed colleagues in the fields of climate research. And there is absolute and clear consensus on one fundamental point: the actions of human beings are altering our climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), composed of thousands of scientists from all over the world, made this startlingly clear. I highly encourage you to read the report (or at least the executive summary). As if that isn’t enough, the World Meteorological Organization just released a report indicating that the last decade was the warmest on record, and that the warming trend shows every sign of continuing.

Now, there are certainly researchers in the field that dissent. This is part of the nature of the scientific enterprise. We’re all trained to be skeptical and contrary. Be leery of received wisdom. Question everything, and try to build your own understanding from first principles. Along the way, on any topic whatsoever, you find some scientists that wander down some misbegotten path and get stuck. Sometimes the individual is Einstein, and they’re about to blow open entire fields. But the vast majority of the time, these radically contrary scientists are simply misguided and wrong. Which is okay. It’s part of the process. And it keeps everyone on their toes.

You can find scientists that believe the Universe is not expanding. They are wrong. You can find scientists that believe there is no evidence for evolution. They are wrong. And you can find scientists that believe there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming. They are wrong.

This is not to say that there aren’t open questions or issues in these fields, nor that we understand everything perfectly. It’s simply a statement that the evidence is compelling and overwhelming, and the basic findings are no longer in doubt. Any future theories will incorporate and subsume what we already know. Just like General Relativity subsumed Newtonian gravity, without nullifying the inverse square law. Global warming is happening. We are (at least part of) the cause. Perhaps the details of what will happen in the next few decades are unclear. Perhaps the worst-case scenario won’t come to pass. It’s a very complicated, interconnected, non-linear system. All we know for sure is that human activities are introducing a new forcing term into our climate, and that this term is already having measurable effects. The Earth is really big. Go outside and look out across the mountains or the oceans or the sky. There’s a lot of room out there. It’s amazing that we can have a serious, global impact on this massive chunk of rock. For reference, I calculate that the entire biomass of humanity is 6.8 billion x 68 kg (150 lbs) = 5 x 10¹¹ kg. This is one hundred million millionth the mass of the Earth. And yet, we’re having an effect on the entire planet.

Since this issue has profound consequences for centuries to come, I would claim it is the responsibility of every citizen of the world to educate themselves on the topic. It seems to me that each of us has three straightforward choices:
1. go back to school, get a PhD in climate sciences, and form one’s own informed opinions about what’s going on.
2. trust the experts.
3. trust the fringe.

Note that the fringe consists almost entirely of non-experts. And believing the fringe requires you to be convinced there’s a vast scientific conspiracy, with the willing collusion of thousands of experts around the world. With no obvious motive or agenda. As a practicing scientist, I find it farcical that people imagine scientists capable of such a wide-ranging, organized conspiracy. We’re much too eager to prove each other wrong. And we’re much too stubborn and iconoclastic to just go along with the consensus, if we pick up any whiff of doubt. On the other hand, it is easy to see why some are interested in questioning global warming. It is indeed an inconvenient truth, after all.

We are altering our planet’s climate. This is not in doubt. How can anyone not be disturbed by the knowledge that we are fundamentally changing macroscopic properties of the Earth, our only home?

[NOTE: Sean just posted on the same topic. This just goes to show that even fellow bloggers have trouble coordinating. Much less thousands of scientists engaging in vast, motiveless conspiracies.]

Galileo Galilei pointed a telescope at the heavens, and revolutionized our conception of Earth’s place in the Universe. Now you can do the same thing! In conjunction with the International Year of Astronomy, replicas of Galileo’s telescope are now available. For the low price of $20, you can marvel at the moons circling Jupiter, be astonished by our Moon’s rugged and beautiful landscape, and admire the profound beauty of Saturn’s rings. You can also be amazed at Galileo’s genius; tracking Jupiter’s moons with one of these things is no easy task. It is to be noted that these “Galileoscopes” are actually significantly better than what Galileo was working with (e.g., with a much larger field of view, and a higher magnification [50x] eyepiece). And, according to the website, these telescopes can be put together by children in minutes. And possess fairly sophisticated features (such as achromatic lenses). But note: a tripod (not included, but the mount is compatible with any standard camera tripod) is essential (the image in the Galileoscope logo, at right, notwithstanding). Otherwise, Jupiter will be jumping all over the place, and it’ll be impossible to share your revolutionary discoveries with others.

Playing with a telescope seems like the perfect way to wind down the Year of Astronomy. And they make very nice gifts (although December delivery is apparently not guaranteed). If you’ve never looked through a half-decent telescope, you will be absolutely astounded by what you see. One forgets that all these things we talk about and see pictures of really exist up there, and are just waiting to be admired!

It can’t be easy being the guy who has to introduce Albert Einstein. But it helps if you’re George Bernard Shaw.

You have to love YouTube, although this is only an excerpt from a somewhat longer speech. Most of the text is here.

The DonorsChoose challenge has now wrapped up. Cosmic variance readers raised an astounding $11,525, with 34 people donating, impacting 2,720 students at schools across the nation. As far as I know, our generous readers once again contributed more than any other science blog out there, by a comfortable margin! All of us at CV would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our readers.

As promised, we’re also doling out some loot. For those having contributed over $100, we will arrange for a copy of Sean’s new book (you do know he has a book coming out, right?) to get to you, once it’s available (expected in early January). For contributions of $500 or more (of which there were at least five), a copy of Sean’s lectures on the dark universe will be forthcoming. To claim your thank you gift, please contact me (if you haven’t already) with your name and address, and the amount contributed.

Most importantly, thank you to everyone for making this an incredible success. I encourage you to read over the many thank you notes at our giving page, and hear about the direct impact you’ve all made on the lives of these children. And, of course, although the Media Challenge is officially over, there’s nothing to stop you from continuing to donate. There are still plenty of budding Einsteins, being held back by a lack of basic necessities that you could directly provide.

This month’s issue of WIRED features a great story by Amy Wallace: “An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.” It’s an overview of the anti-vaccination movement in the United States, a topic that should be very familiar to anyone who reads Discover’s baddest astronomer. At ScienceBlogs, Orac and Abel Pharmboy gives big thumbs-up to the article.

The anti-vaccination movement is a little weird — they claim that vaccines, which are universally credited with wiping out smallpox and polio and other bad things, are responsible for causing autism and diabetes and other also-bad things, all just to make a buck for pharmaceutical companies. The underlying motivation seems to be a combination of the conviction that things must happen for a reason — if a child develops autism, there must be an enemy to blame — and a general distrust of science and technology. Certainly the pro-science point of view is fairly unequivocal; like any medicine, vaccines should be used properly, but they have done great good for the world and there are very real dangers of increased risk for epidemics if enough children stop receiving them. Good for WIRED for taking on the issue and publishing an uncompromisingly pro-science piece on it.

But the anti-vax movement is more than just committed; they’re pretty darn virulent. And since the article came out, author Amy Wallace has been subject to all sorts of attacks. She’s been documenting them on her Twitter feed, which I encourage you to check out. Some lowlights:

It’s pretty horrifying stuff. But there is good news: Wallace also reports that the large majority of emails she has received were actually in favor of the piece, and expressed gratitude that she had written it. There are strong forces arrayed against science, but the truth is on our side, and a lot of people recognize it. It gives one a bit of hope.

We are now in the middle of the Social Media Challenge at DonorsChoose. Many of our generous, loyal, beautiful, intelligent, witty, and particularly well-groomed readers have risen to the challenge, and we have to date raised $3,000, reaching over 2,000 students in need across the country. Thank you to everyone that has already contributed! For those whose wallets have remained closed, please consider donating. For example, Mrs. S is teaching Kindergarten in a high-poverty area in Oklahoma, and she needs some science kits to help inspire her budding scientists. To boot, the George Kaiser Family Foundation will match your donation dollar for dollar, so you get that heart-warming “I’m making a difference!” feeling for half the price.

Although I’m sure you don’t need any further incentive, in recognition that it’s a material world Sean has kindly offered up a copy of his forthcoming book as a token of thanks for those donating over $100 (of which there are at least eight thus far) . (Guest blogger Kip Thorne tells us “…this book is a must read. It is beautifully written, lucid, and deep.” And you can’t argue with Kip.) Donors who contribute over $500 (we have one thus far) will receive a copy of Sean’s lectures on “The dark side of the Universe” as an emphatic THANK YOU! To claim your ‘reward’, email me your name, address, and the amount contributed. What are you waiting for? A bunch of kindergarten kids in Oklahoma are counting on you.

It’s Friday! And my promised bloggy content-providing hasn’t really materialized. Someone has to write those letters of recommendation, and my students weren’t impressed by my pleas that there was blogging to be done.

But I gave a colloquium yesterday at Caltech, and afterwards one of the folks who came to dinner was Lloyd Knox, an old friend and a cosmologist at UC Davis. Talk naturally turned to his most well-known work: the Dark Energy Song, sung to his class and (inevitably) captured to video and posted to YouTube by a quick-thinking student. But to my surprise, it only has about 1,000 views! Surely we can help bring this masterpiece to a wider audience.

Note that musical/lyrical critiques by people who have not demonstrated bravery by putting their own performances on YouTube will be derided as acts of base cowardice.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey is one of the most ambitious and successful astronomical surveys ever performed. It has left an impact far and wide, ranging from asteroids to cosmology. As Sean has mentioned, the SDSS would have been impossible without optical fibers and CCDs, and this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics acknowledges the development of these technologies. The SDSS would also have been impossible without Jim Gunn.

President Obama yesterday conferred The National Medal of Science to Jim Gunn, as well as 8 other scientists. This is our nation’s highest scientific honor. It is a clear demonstration that our society values science, and acknowledges its contributions; even though this may not always be apparent in the squabbling on Capitol Hill, or on school boards “debating” evolution. Once a year scientists take pride of place, and are officially thanked by a grateful Nation. As usual, Obama unleashes his eloquence:

So this nation owes all of you an enormous debt of gratitude far greater than any medal can bestow. And we recognize your contributions, but we also celebrate the incredible contributions of the scientific endeavor itself. We see the promise — not just for our economy but for our health and well-being — in the human capacity for creativity and ingenuity. And we are reminded of the power of free and open inquiry, which is not only at the heart of all of your work, but at the heart of this experiment we call America.
…
there are those who say we can’t afford to invest in science, that it’s a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I could not disagree more. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, and our health, and our way of life than it has ever been. And the winners we are recognizing only underscore that point, with achievements in physics and medicine, computer science and cognitive science, energy technology and biotechnology. We need to ensure that we are encouraging the next generation of discoveries — and the next generation of discoverers.

Full transcript here. Jim Gunn was honored “for his brilliant design of many of the most influential telescopes and instruments in astronomy, and in particular for the crucial role those technological marvels played in the creation of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has cataloged 200 million stars, galaxies, and quasars; discovered the most distant known quasars; and probed the epoch of formation of the first stars and galaxies.”

Sitting in the audience were members of the administration, including Steve Chu (Secretary of Energy) and John Holdren (Science Advisor), widely respected scientists in their own right. Seeing them gathered with Obama, celebrating science, is a hopeful image. There is a perception that scientists are losing the goodwill amassed in the last Century, and are now thought of as just another interest group. But we need science to address many of the world’s most pressing challenges. We need young people to be inspired, and to want to become scientists. Occasions like this remind us that science, and scientists, will play a crucial role in our future.

This past weekend, without much fanfare, Stephen Hawking stepped down as Lucasian Professor of Mathematik at Cambridge. This is probably the most famous “chair” in all academe, and Hawking has sat in it for the past three decades. The position is 346 years old, and has been occupied by such luminaries as Dirac, Stokes, and most impressively, Sir Isaac Newton himself.

The primary reason for Hawking’s resignation is apparently not his recent health travails. Rather, it is customary for the Lucasian Professor to retire at the age of 67. And not even Hawking messes with centuries of tradition.

The big question now: who will follow in Hawking’s footsteps?