Is Science Communication Always a Good Thing?

(Repost from about 10 years ago)

As scientists, we are constantly encouraged, persuaded, and sometimes coerced into distilling complex results into a format that can be digested by the general public.  We are told, and most if not all scientists I talk to, believe this form of public science communication is a good thing.  Rather than accepting this dogmatic proposition, a critical look at important and recent scientific concepts, notably Global Warming, strongly suggest that the universally accepted belief (and I’ll call it belief, because as far as I can tell, there is little data to support the idea) that communicating simplified science to the public is a good thing can actually be catastrophically wrong.

I’ve given a lot of thought as to why some scientific topics attract strong opinions by those who are least prepared, educated or skilled to exercise any personal judgment whatsoever.  Why is it that the topic of global warming has legions of adamant armchair supporters and deniers who have no training in climate or atmospheric science, while other scientific topics receive little or no attention from the same legions of the uneducated?  For example, most people would find it rather odd and even inappropriate to argue about the details of neuroscience, string theory, or black hole physics.  Yet, armed with exactly the same level of ignorance, these same people hold strong and almost immovable beliefs about Global Warming. 

It must be something about the topic.  My original explanatory hypothesis was that Global Warming elicits strong opinions because everyone is familiar with the weather and climate.  We are surrounded by the atmosphere—without it we would die.  Our experience is shaped by the weather and seasons from the moment we become aware of our surroundings.  We become especially familiar with the weather and climate where we spend most of our life.  We start to recognize patterns, and in that sense, we feel as we have not just familiarity but some level of knowledge about the atmosphere.  This, I hypothesized, is the secret ingredient:  Familiarity, experience, and the false sense of knowledge of those two things impart.  We have zero personal experience about strings (if they exist) or black holes or neuroscience.  Those topics are left to the experts.  But when you feel like you have familiarity with a process operating in the world, that can be mistaken for expertise and knowledge of how that process works, and this in turn provides unjustified confidence in personal knowledge about the actual process.

Lately, I’ve come to accept that my original hypothesis may not be complete.  It does a reasonable job at explaining which topics end up in the realm of non-expert opinionators, and false knowledge via familiarity may be a necessary condition.  But it may not be sufficient.  An additional element may be needed to trigger the realization of latent hubris.

A major trigger that releases the beast of uninformed opinion against the necessary backdrop of familiarity may very well be the sacred but dogmatic cow of public science communication.  The very thing it is held to be universally beneficial and important may actually be not only unhelpful but fiercely malevolent.  That communication may be harmful is partly predicated on the idea that “a little knowledge can be dangerous”.  The more important element is that when scientists engage with non-experts in a discussion about complex scientific topics using watered-down and sterilized concepts, they validate the non-expert's unfounded belief in expertise and further inflate the bubble of hubris.  Furthermore, the discussion can magnify the belief that strong, resolute opinions may be generated without having to invest the time that dedicated experts have.  Stated differently, the conversation fuels the notion that not only is intellectual laziness acceptable, it is on par with intellectual diligence. 

When I’ve engaged with armchair climate change deniers, I have in the past done so at their level.  I don’t speak with them as I would with colleagues, because they don’t possess the knowledge or expertise to communicate at the level of an expert.  I spend what seems like an eternity trying to explain complex concepts using simplified explanations in an attempt to get them to understand why their position is incorrect. And, you’re never going to win, because the knowledge base of the general denier will never be sufficient for them to understand why they are wrong.  I’ve now come to understand that arguing with simplified science is, in many cases, precisely the wrong approach, because it gives the false impression that they have something meaningful and useful to contribute to the discussion.  They don’t.  All this time I’ve been validating their false sense of expertise.  And here’s the bigger problem, this doesn’t happen on just an individual basis, it occurs en masse when scientists try to simplify their science on blogs, or in popular science articles, or in other mass media like popular science television features.  This is all that’s needed to trigger that latent hubris among the primed and predisposed public.

In the future, I will likely no longer engage people that have gone down the Dunning-Kruger path of false expertise.  Instead, when I hear someone say something like, “it makes no sense that a change in a trace gas like CO2 can have such a noticeable effect.  I don’t buy it.”, I’ll respond with something like,

The roto-vibrational absorption lines determined as the eigenvalues of the quantum oscillator model of atmospheric molecules like CO2 interact with specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface and isotropically from the atmosphere.  The envelope of actual emission follows the black body Planck function, but with spectral features corresponding to the lines of the emitting gas and surface, collisionally broadened.  For radiation emitted from the surface, Wien’s displacement law dictates that the bulk of the emitted energy falls within a few micrometers on either side of about 10 microns.  CO2 absorbs in this wavelength and following from Kirchoff’s law also reemits at that same wavelength, resulting in an increase of downward infrared flux convergence.  The resultant radiative heating is a function of the local atmospheric density and volumetric heat capacity at constant pressure, assuming a collisionally-equilibrium gas with a Maxwellian velocity distribution, and this energy is radiated isotropically, including the 2p steradian solid angle towards the ground.  Some of that radiation often makes it to the surface, where it may be absorbed, but the precise value of heating must be determined by solving the Schwarzchild equation of radiative transfer given known spectral properties of all gases and taking into account Doppler broadening of the quantum emission line.  Which part of this do you disagree with?

The above should do a few things.  First, it should make them immediately aware that they are out of their element.  Secondly, it should chip away at the notion that they have the knowledge and expertise to discuss the problem at any sort of technical level.  Third, it will convey that lazy intellectualism isn’t going to cut it.  If you want to have a discussion, you’re going to have to crack the books and actually invest the time to truly understand the problem and the underlying physics.  I’m not going to argue a complex problem with you at the level of a 3^rd grader.

 

I am not advocating for discontinuation of public science discourse, but I am advocating for a recognition that communicating simplified science can be devastatingly counterproductive.  It’s important to recognize when that might be.  If you are an expert encountering an arm chair expert, rather than validating their inflated sense of expertise, you may be better served by just shutting them down by un-distilling, un-simplifying, and un-watering down your conversation.  Speak as you would to your colleagues or as you would argue in a peer reviewed journal submission. 

 

My Position on Anthropogenic Global Warming

I am often asked by friends and relatives about my take on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), because I am an atmospheric scientist presumably with more knowledge and expertise on the subject than the lay person. I am also often hesitant to respond, because my current position on AGW is complex, full of caveats, and a careful explanation of such typically requires more time and patience than is available to me or the inquisitor. Below, I lay out my thoughts on AGW with as full an explanation as I can, complete with all the caveats. It is lengthy, but the written word allows for perusal at the reader’s leisure. I hope you will bear with me.
My overall position is that I accept the consensus view of AGW: there is a preponderance of the evidence that humans are causing an increase in global tropospheric temperature instigated by the combustion of CO2-producing fossil fuels. Now, don’t stop reading. Here come the first couple of caveats that some mischievous AGW opponent may be inclined to leave off in favor of selective quote mining.

Caveat #1: While I have the background to understand the complex science behind the AGW argument, I have neither the time nor the interest in poring through the immense and growing mountain of literature required to personally evaluate both sides of the argument. Doing so would require me to dedicate most of my waking hours to the subject, and I’ve got better things to do, including science that I personally find more interesting, albeit perhaps not as pivotal to our future on this planet. I have complete confidence in the brilliant scientists on both sides of the AGW issue that do dedicate their life to the subject; I’ll let them hash it out. Likewise, I have complete confidence in the scientific process; that is, the better scientific argument will prevail. The main point is this: I accept the veracity of AGW not because I have personally weighed both sides of the argument in any rigorous way, but because I accept the scientific method. I treat AGW no different than any other scientific area in which I possess insufficient knowledge to make a determination of veracity even though I may have the expertise or capacity to fully understand the area given a sufficient investment of time. For those that do not have the expertise or capacity to understand AGW, taking a position other than consensus is certainly illogical, as it would be for any other scientific question.

Caveat #2: I reserve the right to change my position on AGW as additional data and information become available. AGW is not a theory in the sense of the Law of Thermodynamics or Newtonian Gravitation. From the peer-reviewed literature that I have read on AGW, there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. I personally know several very well respected scientists on both sides of the issue. For example, Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. was on the faculty in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University while I was in graduate school (he’s now at the University of Colorado) and I maintain a professional relationship with him to this day. He is a brilliant scientist and my interactions with him indicate that his ethics are second to none. He is also a vocal anti-AGW advocate (see his website for more info: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/) in that while he accepts human-induced warming, he believes there are other significant forcings besides CO2. All is not resolved. Unlike evolution by natural selection, where religious creationists attempt to create a controversy where there is none within the scientific community, there is a real scientific controversy about AGW. There are two scientifically valid but opposing views on AGW and each deserves to be considered. Importantly, the weighing of this evidence must be done by experts via the scientific method, and specifically not by the lay person or the expert in the public arena. At present, the overwhelming consensus is that AGW is real.

I want to be very clear how scientific consensus is established. First, it is not established by petitions. Ever. Neither is it established by vote.  I was never asked, for example, as a member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) whether I supported the AGU position on global warming.  Voting has its issues and does not allow for scientific argument.    How about the IPCC consensus?  Just because the IPCC has voted and come to a consensus does not make it a scientific consensus. Anyone who has ever been on scientific panels knows the politics behind them. I can easily put together a panel to give me the answer I want simply by excluding those opposed in favor of those that support my ideas. NASA does this all the time. In fact, it’s not uncommon for a NASA panel to be dissolved and then later reestablished (with different members) until such time as the chosen answer is delivered by the panel. There are also inherently conflicts of interest with many panels. Is it appropriate for the panel chair to oversee a panel that has a direct impact on their research? NASA mission science definition teams strongly influence the language that goes into solicitations for future missions. Is it any surprise that the solicitations have language that emphasizes the panels’ expertise in instrumentation often at the expense of others? Is it any surprise that many of the scientists involved in active missions just so happen to also be the very same scientists that helped produce the mission announcement of opportunity? Consensus is established over time in a slow motion duel of ideas as presented in peer reviewed literature supplemented by gray literature (i.e., conference papers). There is no quantitative measure or yardstick by which one can declare that scientific consensus has been met; it simply emerges, reaching the point where it becomes self evident. I am familiar enough with the literature and those involved in climate research to state that there is an overwhelming consensus. It is not unanimous! There are dissenters—honest to goodness dissenters with real issues and questions that have yet to be resolved. At this time, I have to go with the majority of experts. I have no qualms about changing my position if the consensus view, based on evidence, changes. I presently accept the veracity of AGW but with the knowledge that this could be a false position.

I would now like to throw in a little bit of commentary that is not directed toward establishing the truth about AGW. The first bit concerns the climate signal and the second concerns policy.

There is much debate in the literature and especially in the public arena as to whether the global temperature is increasing. The incessant debate over whether the temperature is going up, down or sideways misses the mark completely. The question should be whether there is an anthropogenic signal on top of the natural climate signal. If we were naturally heading into an ice age, it would be good to know whether humans might be slowing the progression. If we are naturally heading into a very warm interglacial period, it would be good to know if humans are accelerating the process. AGW, if true, operates regardless of whether the natural climate is warming, cooling, or staying the same. Antagonists of AGW sometimes suggest that the atmosphere has actually cooled over the last decade or two, or that it has periodically cooled and warmed over the last couple of centuries. This is irrelevant. What they need to do is show that cooling or warming can be entirely explained by natural variations. In other words, if the climate has indeed cooled in the last decade or sometime over the last decade, that is not sufficient to dismiss AGW. AGW opponents need to show that anthropogenic forcing did not offset the cooling. Doing this places them in exactly the same pickle that the AGW supporters currently find themselves; having to demonstrate complete mastery and understanding of the natural climate cycle. Likewise, it is not sufficient for AGW supporters to simply show the “hockey stick” temperature graph indicating a rapid rise in temperatures coincident with the onset of the industrial revolution. What this camp needs to show is that the temperatures are higher than they otherwise would have been. In other words they need to demonstrate that the natural climate would not have produced such a trend.

So, it seems that both sides need to establish what the natural climate signal is in order to determine whether AGW is true or false. Or maybe not. While some employ various complex signal processing techniques in attempt to tease out the different climate signals, would it not also be sufficient to determine the impact of rising CO2 under a range of reasonable natural climate scenarios? If the AGW supports could show that the temperature forcing is positive regardless of what the natural climate is doing, that should be sufficient. Likewise, if the anti-AGW camp can show that the forcing from CO2 is unimportant under a range of natural climate scenarios, that would also be sufficient. This is where models can help.
Although I do not consider myself informed enough to make a personal determination of AGW, there are some aspects of the subject in which I am generally able to make an expert assessment. One such area is that related to climate models, subject to the caveat below:

Caveat #3: Although I am familiar with climate models, I have never applied these models to the study of Earth’s climate. I have used these models for the purposes of terrestrial weather prediction (note: weather, not climate) and in application to the climates of planets other than Earth. I can provide no expert opinion on the specific application of the models to Earth’s climate, but I do have sufficient knowledge to understand the numerics and general principles of modeling, which are more or less universal constants for application to any planetary atmosphere, including Earth.

Much has been made that the climate models have difficulty reproducing past climate trends. Whether this is true is arguable; models do very well in some areas and less well in others. Still, it may be mostly irrelevant. Consider, for example, the climate of Mars.
We know that the climate of Mars has changed, and is likely currently changing. More so than Earth, Mars undergoes large orbital excursions due to the lack of a large moon to stabilize the orbit. These excursions produce variations in the magnitude and distribution of solar irradiance over timescales of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years—the so-called Milankovitch climate cycles. At times, the Milankovitch cycles likely result in water ice becoming stable in the tropical latitudes, as opposed to the poles where it is currently found. Changes in global temperature may also vary with the changes in solar insolation and the accompanying perturbations in atmospheric mass (most of which is CO2). Beyond these climate cycles, we basically have almost no idea of what produces other climate cycles on Mars, nor do we have much detail on what previous climates were like. For Mars then, we have a trio of problems. Not only do we not know the previous climate states in any detail, we cannot possibly test the Mars climate models (essentially Earth climate models with physical constants and processes appropriately modified for Mars) to determine whether they accurately reproduce the climate variations, nor can we be confident that the models have the necessary physics to reproduce the natural, long-term climate signal, whatever that may be.

Despite what sometimes seems like overwhelming and insurmountable ignorance about the Mars climate, substantial progress has and continues to be made. We are very confident that global temperatures rise when the atmospheric dust load is increased. This is a robust finding, and is independent of the trajectory of the Mars climate. It matters not whether Mars is warming, cooling, or holding steady. Dust produces a net warming of the atmosphere. We know this not only from observations, but also from models. Even though the Mars climate models are completely incapable of reproducing the long-term climate variations of Mars (and since we do not have any meaningful detailed information on these previous climate states, we would have no way of knowing the accuracy of the models even if they could produce such variations), we can use the models to assess how the climate responds to dust loading. The models do not need to reproduce the climate trend to establish the magnitude of forcing. Instead, the models must simply reasonably reproduce the current climate state. The difference here is in reproducing the climate state rather than time derivative of the climate state. The phrase “reasonably reproduce” is actually a fairly loose requirement. In fact, a simple time-independent, 1-dimensional model of the atmosphere--one with no atmospheric motion or variation in time whatsoever—is all that is needed to understand the basic climate forcing of dust. Going to a full 3-D time dependent climate model simply provides more fidelity but does not change the underlying physics or outcome.

So it goes for Earth. The natural climate may be heading off on some trajectory: up, down, sideways. Even though the models may not be able to reproduce this trajectory, it is still possible to use the models to understand how processes will perturb the trajectory. To me, this is the real crux of the AGW issue. It is not whether the Earth will warm, cool, or stay the same. It is weather humans are producing a perturbation on the natural climate. Consensus findings indicate that there is a human perturbation.

Now I turn to policy. Policy decision is, unfortunately, often entangled in the science of AGW. Whatever policy is enacted (or not) to deal with AGW has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of AGW. If the consensus view of AGW is correct, than it is theoretically possible that policy could remediate (although not eliminate) the impact. If the consensus view is incorrect, than any implemented policy might theoretically be a costly folly. Enough of the theoretical, how about reality?

I have yet to see a credible proposal that will reduce CO2 emissions to inconsequential levels. Simply curbing the growth of CO2 emissions is not sufficient. The majority of the world has yet to industrialize, and it does, it will likely do so on fossil fuels. Reducing emissions from the industrialized countries may temporarily reduce the problem, but it will not solve it. There are billions of people in the rest of the world ready to take our place as oil, gas and coal consumers.

Further, is the increase of CO2 emissions sustainable? Can we continue on our pace toward doubling CO2 levels? Those who subscribe to the concept of peak oil may have something to say about this. Eventually, they say, the world supply of fossil fuels will run out, perhaps within the century. This will necessarily result in a reduction of emissions.
Associated with policy to counter AGW is the inherent assumption that a warmer climate is bad. There are obvious impacts if AGW is true: rising sea levels or perhaps the increase in prevalence and coverage of tropical disease, for example. On the other hand, large regions of frozen, agriculturally poor land might become arable. The opening of an arctic Northwest Passage could speed commerce and reduce the cost of products that advance the human condition. It is not my intention to argue one way or the other on this, but simply to point it out. If we were naturally going into an ice age, would AGW be bad? Or more fundamentally, is it bad to perturb the natural climate in any way, up or down?

The tragedy is that with the focus on AGW and the connection to fossil fuels the issues that ought to be front and center with respect to policy is lost. First, even without AGW, fossil fuels are dirty. Combustion of these fuels results in pollution that has been definitively linked to respiratory illnesses, acid rain, heavy metal poisoning of waterways, and the production of carcinogenic compounds. The drilling, extraction, transport and refining of oil is a dirty business with noticeable first order impacts that should be avoided. We should be reducing our reliance on carbon, and in doing so our emissions would automatically fall.
Another issue related to fossil fuels is that the money finances some of the most vile dictatorial and dangerous regimes around the world. It is in the best interest of those who believe in basic human rights to reduce and eventually eliminate world dependence on oil. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on wars in the Middle East, that money could have been put to better use funding alternative energy. Without petrodollars, terrorists would be hurling rocks from donkeys instead of training and coordinating overseas attacks on civilians. Iraq was funded by oil. Iran is funded by oil. The Saudis are funded by oil. Indonesia is funded by oil. Without oil, these nations are nothing but impotent.

In short, regardless of the veracity of AGW, we should be limiting our CO2 emissions. If AGW is false it is not a reason to continue our destructive ways. The AGW argument is not needed, yet it has become the focus on whether or not to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That is a shame.

The Grand Science Conspiracy

Here's a multiple choice question.

Which of the following is most closely associated with the view that science is just a big conspiracy driven by money and profit, and scientists and scientific journals actively suppress dissenting but valid alternative viewpoints?

a) Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniars

b) The Creationist/Intelligent Design Movement

c) The Anti-Western Medicine/Anti-vaccine Movement

d) All of the Above

If you chose "d) All of the Above", you are correct. Perhaps this result isn't a surprise to many of you, but it's only recently become obvious to me. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers argue that there is big money in global warming research and politics, so much so that the scientific and political establishment is more interested in self preservation than in the truth. The creationists argue that there are mounds of evidence against evolution and in favor of an intelligent designer (a.k.a. God), but the science conspiracy will not allow the evidence to see the light of day. Those opposed to western medicine believe that drug companies are in the business of keeping you sick so that they can continue to profit from their products, and that the scientists and doctors are in cahoots with these companies. It's all the same argument, only the names have been changed.

What is even more interesting than the common thread tying these seemingly different groups together is trying to understand why such an argument--essentially an ad hominem attack against science itself--seems to be gaining popularity. The simple answer is that the argument works. At least some buy into this. But, why is that? What makes this argument work?

Based on my experience, I'd like to suggest that the anti-science argument works for one simple reason, which may seem a tautology. Those that are ignorant of science and ignorant of the scientific process are highly susceptible to arguments that prey upon their ignorance. Ignorance breeds, sustains, and reinforces ignorance. First off, let me be clear that I use the word ignorance to mean lack of knowledge and not as a pejorative term. Having dispensed with that definition, let me also be clear that ignorance of science and ignorance of the scientific process are two distinct concepts. By ignorance of science, I mean ignorance of the facts and theories that have resulted from the application of science. Ignorance of the scientific process means a lack of knowledge or understanding of how science is applied in order to determine those facts and theories.

Those who are ignorant of science are susceptible to the science conspiracy argument, because to such individuals, alternative but bogus explanations of the natural world can appear as reasonable or even more reasonable than the scientific explanation. Those peddling the science conspiracy story are appealing to the common sense of the ignorant. If you didn't know that the Earth was spherical, it may seem quite logical that it is indeed flat. However, armed with data from space or data taken from a ship or airplane that circumnavigate the world, commons sense clearly dictates that the Earth is not planer but rather spheroidal. Common sense is based upon our preexisting knowledge. If you lack knowledge in a particular area, your common sense is apt to steer you wrong.

Turning specifically to global warming for a moment, the position that Carbon Dioxide is just a very small volume fraction of the atmosphere, and that changes in concentration of such a minor gas couldn't possibly have global impacts, may be intuitively appealing to those ignorant of radiative transfer through gases and ignorant of climate dynamics and feedback. Since the majority of the public falls into the category of scientific ignorance about the physics behind anthropogenic global warming, it only takes a small fraction of the public to buy into this before there are substantial numbers of ignoramuses (ignorami?) holding beliefs supported only by faulty intuition. Science, by the way, has the specific property that it can override intuition and common sense in favor of evidence.

To make matters worse, intuitive fallacy spreads as a meme. It is entirely one thing to have a belief (true or not) based solely on intuition or common sense. It is another thing entirely to spread that belief from a false position of authority or expertise. With the exception of a few scientists, all of the active AGW deniers fall into this category. Indeed, with few exceptions, all of the active AGW proponents also maintain their position without actually understanding the physics behind the question. For example, Al Gore, well known for his position in support of limiting CO₂ emissions, almost certainly does not understand the physics behind his position. He is simply a messenger, parroting the scientific consensus, but acting as if he is an expert. Mr. Gore's position may very well be correct, but his behavior is as egregious as those with no expertise arguing that AGW does not exist. The important difference between the two camps is that one side is at least consistent with the overwhelming scientific consensus that has been established by those that do actually understand the physics.

The upshot of all this is that the public (and I lump politicians and all other non-expert groups into this) has no business debating the veracity of AGW. Similar to a court case, the plaintiffs simply have no standing. Armchair AGW deniers will argue about the temperature record, about satellite-derived data, about the variability of paleoclimates, about the influence of the solar cycle, and on and on, but not a single one is familiar with scientific literature on the subject, let alone capable of understanding the literature should it be delivered to their doorstep. Likewise, the armchair AGW supporters will defend their position with an equal level of ignorance.

The odd thing is that there seems to only be a few areas in which the ignorant feel capable and comfortable with projecting their false authority and expertise. For example, it's probably not common for the passerby to argue with the engineering architect about how to design a sky scraper. It's not common for the mechanically inept to assert a diagnosis and repair protocol for their automobile engine. It's perhaps even less common to see a public argument break out over the finer points of quantum mechanics, string theory, or the progress on a grand unified field theory. On the other hand, when it comes to weather and climate, or medical science, or evolution, a surprising number of the completely ignorant that have never read a single scientific paper on the subjects suddenly become self-professed experts. What drives this? Why are these few areas subject to the onslaught of the ignorant masses while the rest remain unscathed? The reason, I suspect, is because the ignorant either have a horse in the race, which is to say the outcome has a direct bearing on their life or livelihood in some manner, or because they have developed a rationalization to compensate for their ignorance in an area that permeates their life.

Weather permeates our life. We are immersed in it from the day we are born until the day we die. It impacts what we do and when we do it. Occasionally, the weather can be destroy and kill. As humans, it is on our nature to try and make order out of the disorder. Not too long ago, gods were invoked to rationalize weather. Most (but not all) humans have moved beyond that. Still, unless your a meteorologist, the scientific underpinnings of weather and climate are as opaque as they were to the ancient Greeks. Yet, because of it's daily impact, there is a necessity for the ignorant to develop their own internal coping mechanism--something by which they can use to deal with the reality of the weather. In their own minds, the ignorant have developed a model of how the atmosphere works, based on their own experience, faulty intuition and the memes acquired from the other ignorant. In their own mind, the ignorant are experts.

Adding to this false sense of expertise is the occasional spectacular failure of a weather forecast. To some, this would indicate that the underlying science is faulty (it's not), rather than the forecasting method (human or computer). The next illogical leap, which is common to AGW deniers, creationists, and anti-medical science is that because the current science paradigmappears to fail (it doesn't in reality) their hypothesis must be correct. This is essentially the false dilemma logical fallacy. Creationists attempt to disprove evolution thinking that it therefore means their position, that God did it, is therefore proven. Wrong. The anti-western medicine establishment tries to discredit medical science thinking that it somehow implies quackery is valid. Wrong again.

Like weather, illness and disease are part of our daily lives. Not too long ago, maladies were thought to be the result of demons or a mysterious ether. Science now understands the origin of most disease, but the biological underpinnings are once again opaque to the majority of the public unfamiliar with the fields of biology, microbiology, immunology, and biochemistry. Homeopathy or a Claude Bernard-ish biological terrain idea at the expense of L. Pasteur is intuitively appealing.

I'll go even further in the situation of the anti-medical establishment in saying that science is, oddly enough, what has allowed the anti-science meme to multiply. Memes, like pathogens must not be so lethal that their hosts die before transmission. By itself, the anti-medicine faction is lethal. Without vaccination (such as small pox or polio or diptheria or countless other diseases) many of us would die before we were old enough to reproduce. The same holds true in the absence of antibiotics. Residents of the developed world rarely suffer from food-borne illnesses, because of pasteurization and the understanding that refrigeration greatly reduces the growth rate of bacteria. It is western medicine, by mitigating diseases overall, that allows anti-western medicine ignorance to flourish. In a world without vaccines, the anti-vaccination crowd wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The consequences of going without vaccination, antibiotics, and drugs would be obvious and the meme would die out, in some cases quite literally as the anti-vaxers drop dead from any number of preventable diseases.

When faced with a question that requires expertise to answer, there are really only two reasonable and rational options. The first is to personally acquire the knowledge needed to answer the question. This is not always practical, and in some cases, individuals are simply not capable of acquiring such knowledge, because of for example, extensive and complex mathematics. The other option is to defer to the consensus of those that are experts. Notably, arguing for or against something as a non-expert is not a reasonable or rational option. In many cases, this means deferring to the scientist. This is hard to do if you also have a distrust of the scientific process due to ignorance.

The distrust of the scientific process can run deep, and is often based on ignorance about how the process works. To wit, I reproduce an entry from an acquaintance on Facebook:

The data that you are pointing to was determined by organizations that get their funding from those who don't want people to understand how the body functions and heals. The kind of scientific research that would show the lies and false trail of vaccinations will never be financed because those who have that kind of money don't want the data made available. Your 'The whole point of science' is a didactic that ignores the nature of the scientific community which is totally at the direction of those who fund it, people who rarely know or care about anything beyond their own limited field which has consciously been separated from the larger picture so that one hand never knows what the other is doing.

He later goes on to say...

I find you very naive and that naivete supports the agendas that allow science to be governed by money and power rather than pure research. If people with your intelligence would really question the pablum that we are fed by even scientific journals, there would be a much accelerated evolution towards discovering what we are really about on this planet in this incarnation.

It's very clear that this individual is completely unfamiliar with how science works and the scientific process that he has created in his mind is one that should be distrusted. Never mind that he apparently has no distrust of the very same scientific process that led to the production of the inventions that allow him to type on his computer and post entries on Facebook!

Let me dissect these quotes starting from the top. While the origin of data is sometimes interesting in determining whether it might in fact be genuine or fabricated in some way, or in determining what the error bars may be (all measurements are subject to error), the origin of the data is otherwise unimportant. Likewise, the origin of the funding that supported the production of the data is unimportant. Valid data cares not from whence it came or who paid for it. If the data is valid, it should be reproducible. So, you can't just throw out data just because it was produced by your opponent. If you suspect the data is faulty or has been tampered with in some way, you should repeat the experiment. In fact, even if you believe the data is valid, the experiment should be independently conducted to test for reproducibility. These are fundamental tenets of modern science, and studies that attempt to verify previous findings are funded and conducted on a routine basis.

Beyond the origin of data, the individual in question believes that there exists other data, yet to be discovered or obtained, that would "show the lies and falsehoods". Now, this statement in itself is illogical. If the data has not yet been obtained, then how could he possibly know what it would show? Let's accept for the moment the fallacious idea that such studies are being intentionally suppressed by the scientific conspirators. Is it not possible that the results from such studies, should they ever be conducted, might actually support vaccinations? Or might they be unequivocal? Are not these outcomes also possible? In the true scientific process, such possibilities are allowed. Apparently not for this individual though. In his mind, the scientific process is suppressing information that he already knows will support his position, despite there being a complete lack of such information available.

Now let me address the issue of the suppression of science. There is no doubt that throughout the ages scientific progress has been hindered by politics (and I lump religion into politics here), sometimes even internal conflict between individuals within the scientific community. That we even know that such hindrances have taken place points to the power of the scientific process. Science will eventually win out over attempts to suppress information or discredit valid hypotheses. If this were not the case, we would not be aware of the history of such attempts, but would instead be mired in a tangle of unworkable and inconsistent information leading to nowhere. If indeed such a grand science conspiracy is taking place (it is not) then it will eventually self correct. That is again, a fundamental tenet of science. Ultimately, the truth, as determined by evidence, will prevail.

Is the science community "at the direction of those that fund it"? In some ways, yes, but not as implied by the comment above. Most of my funding comes from NASA. When I write a research proposal, I am obligated to propose research that is relevant to the funding agency. My research proposals are focused on planetary science, and not on the reproductive behavior of tropical amphibians. The former is relevant to NASA and the latter is not. Other agencies fund the latter. However, within the confines of planetary research, I can propose a virtually unlimited number of ideas for study. Further, it is not NASA that decides whether these proposals are funded, but my peers. NASA has little control over what specific research topics are funded. Rather, it is the scientific community that decides.

Now, our anti-vaxer might declare, "Aha! You see! The science community will never select research proposals that would turn their careers on their head!" I often sit on the other side of the proposal table; that is, I review potential proposals. From this vantage I see a broad range of proposals. Some seek to further research along an accepted line of inquiry. Otherwise explore new uncharted waters. And, others specifically seek to test or challenge existing thinking. In every case, these proposals are evaluated on their scientific merit and their impact potential. Are the scientific questions valid? Is the methodology of answering the questions appropriate? Are the results likely to make a substantial contribution in advancing knowledge? It should go without saying that a proposal that seeks to undermine a well established line of thought often has a battle ahead. However, the outcome of such proposals is not predetermined. One need only scan the daily scientific press releases to find studies that have produced surprising results or that have dramatically changed or upset the status quo. So, there are countless, almost daily examples of research proposals that do, in fact, turn people's careers on their heads. I've seen some of these proposals and I've recommended them for funding. I currently have a proposal under review that, if selected, will change the way we think about Saturn's moon Titan. I hope it gets selected, but if it doesn't, it won't be because of some conspiracy that just doesn't want the truth to get out.

Let me further state that scientists, once they digest a bit of crow, relish in being proven wrong. There is nothing more exciting than finding a new, fresh, and wide-open avenue for scientific inquiry. If there were quality proposals for studies that had the potential to upset the medical world, they would be funded. And the data from such studies would be openly welcomed. This is what scientists do and it is what drives them to do what they do. To suggest otherwise shows a deep ignorance of the scientific process.

Has science become increasingly specialized? Without a doubt. There was a time, perhaps just a couple of hundred years ago, when a single mind could hold every bit of scientific knowledge accumulated throughout history. But knowledge feeds upon itself and grows at an exponential rate. The body of scientific knowledge is now so great that it is impossible for a single mind to contain. To some extent, information technology has helped with this. I need not fill my mind with science that is irrelevant to my topic of study, but the data can be stored for retrieval, if needed. Furthermore, I can now quickly find virtually any published study on a topic of interest through a search of electronic databases, and such a search allows me to identify work across a broad set of disciplines that are potentially relevant to mine. Are there connections between disparate or even related scientific fields that have yet to be identified. Of course! Any credible scientist is constantly scanning the literature to try and put the pieces of the scientific puzzle together. In some cases, entire research programs are established specifically to bring together two or more different fields to attack a problem.

Let's explore the second half of the quote. The first sentence is just pure bullocks (and setting aside the ad hominem attack--a sure sign of an otherwise weak argument). Again, I base this on evidence to the contrary. I do pure research. It is not governed by money or power. Period. Even so, what is so inherently wrong with the concept of research for profit? Would we be where we are today without such motivation? Again, the origin or motivation behind scientific data is irrelevant. Data is data. Data obtained for profit is just as good as data obtained for free.

As a working scientist, I was not aware that I was being "fed" information from journals. Our anti-vaxer apparently view scientific journals, as he does science, as a sort of intelligent organism carefully plotting and scheming to release only selected data that supports a particular viewpoint. He fails to recognize that there is no such entity as "the journal". Journals are simply the mouthpiece of the individual scientists. This is not to say that journals are not big business. They most certainly are, much to the dismay of the scientists that produce the information. But the money being made is on the publication side, not on the science side. Journals are for scientists and are run by scientists. The articles that appear in journals are subjected to the peer review process. Scientists are not "fed" by the journals. It's quite the opposite. The journals are "fed" by the scientists. So, once again, we have complete ignorance about how the process works.

I won't go much into the "incarnation" mentioned at the end of the quote, other than to say that he clearly seems to know why we are here, and if only science would conduct his experiments, and collect his data, it would all become clear. This is in direct opposition to the scientific process that claims to know nothing in advance of the experiment. What our anti-vaxer is ultimately proposing is that we do science his way. Unfortunately, that would require not doing science at all.

I asked repeatedly for positive evidence to support his position. I stated that he must have some facts or evidence available to him from which he has based his opinion. To believe so strongly, he must surely have a foundation for his belief. Each time, in response, I got nothing but attacks on my person or on the scientific process. I can only conclude that his position is based not on positive evidence, but on the notion that science is wrong and the scientific process is corrupt.

Beyond the ignorance of the scientific process demonstrated in the above quote, it is ironic that a non-scientist, fearful and ignorant of science, and totally and utterly clueless about the scientific process has the hubris to tell a working scientist about science, how science works, how science has it all wrong, how the scientist has it all wrong, and how he knows the answer. In doing so, he aptly demonstrates why he should be completely ignored as the result of his brilliant display of ignorance on the subject. I wouldn't trust a mechanic that claims the internal combustion engine is powered by gremlins, and I give no more thought to criticisms of science from someone that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific process works. I'm perfectly willing to listen to opposing arguments, but they must come from a position of knowledge.

Such hubris is exhibited across the board by those opposed to western medicine, to AGW, and to evolution. They, the non-experts, are the experts. They know! Science has it all wrong! They can't provide any evidence though, because of the science conspiracy.

When you are both ignorant of science and ignorant of the scientific process, you become ultra-susceptible to the anti-science memes. It is no coincidence that those who publicly reject AGW, western medicine, or evolution posses an ignorance of both science and the scientific process. And, rather than provide positive evidence for their position, they instead blame the opposition and criticize the process. If the scientific process is so bad, perhaps they have another method for determining the truth? How can you find faults with the process and then at the same time try to claim it is a valid method of exploration for your view, if only the proper experiments would be conducted? The creationists have a convenient way around this: they already now the truth, as given in the bible. It seems those opposed to western medicine and AGW already know the answer, ableit without a holy text, but just as dogmatically. In the meantime, the science community has an open mind and is willing to change their opinion, based on evidence, as demonstrated countless times in the past.