Ouch. I like Brooker but this is a giant step into barmydom. He actually cites ‘irreducible complexity’ as a serious objection to Darwinian evolution, which means he must have had his fingers jammed in his ears for the last two decades as scientist after scientist had patiently explained why this is not a problem.

Now there’s turn up for the books.

Or not, if you have been following these morons.

It is all about money and Jaysus.

Good grief. I already knew that Booker was an anti-science moron, but this is a new low, even for him. It seems the barrel has no bottom.

What next – Geocentrism?

Good post, we must keep mocking the mockworthy.

I just want to point out that one of the examples given of scientific research being repressed in Brooker’s article involves scientific research not being repressed. Its extraordinary.

Such fanatical intolerance, in defence of pseudo-scientific causes which reflect the prejudices of the age, has become only too common. A notorious example was the ruthless attempt to suppress the most rigorous study ever carried out into the effects of passive smoking. When this mammoth 40-year project by two non-smokers found the health risks of environmental tobacco smoke to be negligible, its sponsors, the American Cancer Society, withdrew their funding. Not a single US scientific journal would publish their work. They were subjected to sustained vilification even by their own universities. Their findings only saw light of day when the editor of the British Medical Journal decided, in the name of scientific principle, that such scrupulous research should no longer be suppressed.

Publiction bias (and other forms of bias) are certainly a problem in science, but Brooker does the cause of academic independence no favours with his strange arguments.

“What next – Geocentrism?”

It’d be funny if it weren’t true and LibCon hadn’t already covered it…

I much prefer the Roman style of civilisational collapse, full of orgies, feasts and depravity. It seems Western civilisation is going to be brought down by chaste morons who can’t even tie their own shoe laces.

Booker or Brooker? Article can’t decide.

“Article can’t decide.”

Article wants for editing in general!

Good post, though. Incidentally, while I think basically all ID supporters are ideological (if you include religon in that bracket), I suspect a good number of the anti-AGW crowd may be driven more by a general desire to believe that the powers-that-be are deceiving us. People love a good conspiracy.

Tomas,

I read the article. It is not in support of any theory. Instead it it points out that scientists face the age old problem of confronting orthodox acceptance.

If unusual leaps in evolution were, for instance, found to be accounted for by historic massive run away global warming – I suspect you would be overjoyed at this finding – because it would present you with an opportunity to warn everyone of the physical dangers to us of not looking after the planet.

You are clearly part of the blinkered orthodoxy. I suggest you listen to science and try not to piss over it in your attempt to back a favourite hobby horse.

Shouldn’t the title be “A Climate change denialist takes issue with Darwin too”

Both sides will argue their case and insult anyone who disagrees. But, there are points to discuss.

1)Is there global warming
2)Is part of it man made
3)If so how much is man made
4)What are we to do about it.

Even if 1 & 2 are decided, 3 & 4 most certainly are not

“I read the article. It is not in support of any theory. Instead it it points out that scientists face the age old problem of confronting orthodox acceptance.”

It claims there are serious scientific objections to Darwinism from, say, the ‘irreducible complexity’ of the eye. But there aren’t. This is aa non-problem and anyone with the tiniest interest in the subject knows why. If his grasp of evolutionary science is this poor, how much trust should be placed in his views of any other scientific subject?

Hi Billy. Seems to me your definition of ‘supporting the blinkered orthodoxy’ equals ‘not agreeing with Billy Blofeld’. Not sure I follow your logic there…
-
Hi Si – There things are not decided, they are proved by evidence. Yes point 1 and 2 supported by mountains of data – plus 3 is too. When we burn fossils fuels it leaves a clear isotope signature in the CO2 content of the atmosphere that we can measure. Thus the evidence for 2 is also what helps us understand where 3 is.

4 is the big question – the problem I see is that Brooker and his ilk provide a fog and confusion that stops discussion about 4 with ill-informed screes about 1,2 and 3 that equate them personally not understanding the science for the science not being there at all.

All power to a serious debater about 4.

Hi John, could not agree more that Brooker’s lack of a grasp of the science renders his creditability shot.

Fo example his point about transitional forms; this is a common misconception that many bright GCSE students will be able to answer, certainly when you come to A-Level biology I’d expect this an easy answer to this most pedestrian of questions. Put simply; every single fossil is a transitional one. The so-called discrete species are nothing more than markers we humans use to help make sense of the vast array of life we have discovered. Taxonomy is constantly having to classify and re-classify species as new discoveries are made.

And talking of climate change deniers who push ID and other anti-scientific nonsense how can we forget Melanie Phillips

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3573761/creating-an-insult-to-intelligence.thtml

Science has been under attack by wackjobs of all kinds since before the term ‘science’ was even invented.

Leftoutside’s correct that mockery is important: not because it will convince the wackjobs themselves – once someone rejects reason and evidence they are pretty much a lost cause – but because it may convince wavering third parties.

Humour is based on the incommensurability of ideas: it highlights logical flaws and inconsistencies. It’s an extension of the scientific method.

Where are all the ‘intermediate forms’ between one species and another?”

I’m reminded of that joke: A creationist is arguing with an evolutionist about the lack of a “missing link”: surely the gap means that God created Man? One day the scientist discovers the missing link and shows this evidence to the creationist. “Ah-ha!” says the creationist, “now there are two gaps!”.

~

The real conspiracy is how clowns like this Brooker fellow get to be writing for so-called quality papers…

@11 Tomas,

Suggest you re-read something explaining the Scientific Method – especially the section here titled “Certainty and Myth”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What next, Billy – the Problem of Induction?

Yes, technically, if you want to get all philosophy-of-science about, nothing is ever proven with absolute certainty. Meanwhile, in reality, we all know damn well that the Sun rises in East, and will continue to do so (for the next few billion years anyway).

Come back when you’ve got some evidence, rather than this philosophy 101 bollocks.

Hi again Billy,

I’m well versed in Scientific Method, thanks. This is why I can understand why the debate on climate change has moved from ‘is it happening’ through ‘who is causing it’ to ‘what do we do’ because there are multiple lines of evidence from multiple disciplines are overlap in their support.

I still don’t see why pointing to the wikipedia link on the scientific method invalidates the science of climate change?

@ 16

Yep, AGW is “uncertain” but highly probable, and ID is a “myth”.

It seems that Mr Booker has no experience of doing science, but has a record of backing absurd ideas. I think that he does not understand that if you want to overturn the status quo, you actually have to work bloody hard doing the science. The scientific method has rules – most people believe these are the best way of preventing the proliferation of bullshit or at least of exposing it.

@17

Hear hear! If you have to invoke solipcism to defend a real-world scientific position, you’re in trouble.

Billy at 6 appears to think that orthodoxies are inherently mistaken. No, they can dangerous in case they’re incorrect. The general consensus against chucking suspected witches into the drink has proved remarkably successful.

@18 Tomas,

Progress………..

Thus you can now understand that the original article was effectively outlining the problems scientists face when challenging accepted orthodoxies.

I had to check you understand the basics of the Scientific Method because you use the term “denier” in your article title. All scientific theories are there to be challenged – since they can only ever be said to best represent the available evidence.

For instance – during the summer The New Scientist reported this about the state of Climate Science at the moment:

“IT’S time to abandon the black-and-white fiction that human-induced climate change is fact or conspiracy. Instead, accept that the climate is changing and that there are shades of grey about how fast, how severe the impact will be and what we can do about it.

That’s the message from leading scientists digesting the UK’s official report into the “climategate” affair, in which private emails from the nation’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich were made public in Novemer 2009“

“Thus you can now understand that the original article was effectively outlining the problems scientists face when challenging accepted orthodoxies.”

But the scientists it mentioned are cranks, their ‘science’ if he is accurately reported is not challenging, it is absurd (irreducible complexity etc). And, as was pointed out, the only evidence he cited for ‘challenging’ science being suppressed was a report that was actually published in one of the world’s most prestigious and high profile publications. This will stick to Brooker forever, I am afraid. Whenever he questions climate science ‘orthodoxy’ his critics will be able to point out, with justice, that he also doesn’t seem to believe in evolution.

Billy,

The original article used a veneer around challenging the accepted wisdom, but by using creationism as an example showed that the article is about pure and simple politics.

I use the word denier with goods reason – Brooker is in denial. Look, all scientists are by definition sceptics – the words ‘prove it’ is embedded into the scientific method. There is a huge debate going on around climate science within the scientific community – always has and rightly so. But by trying to associate scepticism with one side of the argument, you miss all the other scepticism going on. There are lots of scientists sceptical in that the IPCC reports are too cautious and thus far the only failure in the IPCC predictions are that they are too conservative; it’s happening much faster and more damaging that was predicted. So are those scientists sceptics too? Over-Warmists? Rightly-Alarmists?

True scepticism is not multi-directional; Brooker and his ilk’s scepticism is uni-directional and thus they are deniers.

As soon are the debate moves into the language we use in the media to describe the debate, I think it’s a tacit acknowledgement that you’ve lost the battle of the science.

Tomas,

So all scientists are sceptical now? More progress……… well done……

However, you now applaud people for being sceptical yet criticise others in the same breath for being deniers.

“I’ve lost no battle of science” – if on balance science tells me the world is warming – then fine. As a scientist myself, my only objection is when people misrepresent science to make political points.

However, you now applaud people for being sceptical yet criticise others in the same breath for being deniers.

It’s perfectly simple, Billy: Those who carefully weigh all the available evidence before coming to a conclusion are “sceptics” (also known as “scientists”), whereas those who persistently ignore vast mountains of evidence whilst maintaining a laser-like focus on one or two inconsequential issues in order to maintain an ideologically predetermined conclusion are “deniers”.

Now, do you have any science to contribute, or are you just here to play semantic games?

Hi Billy,

Thanks for the praise. I live for your validation only….

I’m saying that people who apply scepticism in only one direction are not truly sceptical – they are in denial of part of the story are thus deniers. Deniers like Brooker latch onto any thread of thought, no matter how silly (Creationism!) to bolster their flagging arguments. Denial through and through.

@28 Tomas,

So deniers are sceptics that are subjectively judged to have pushed in one direction for too long? I missed that part of the Scientific Method. Amusing

Given that the opponents of AGW lay great store by the credentials of their scientific proponents, I wonder if I may enquire as to your scientific credentials, Tomas Rawlings. Would this be you?

http://www.researchblogging.org/blogger/home/id/1249

Tomas has worked for Cardiff City Council as an assistant psychologist and residential social worker in the mid to late 1990′s. He decided to follow earlier inclinations and moved to working as a computer games designer . . . He has also worked as an associate lecturer at Bridgwater College on matters of media and technology and computer games.

I feel it necessary to draw attention to the fact that you appear to have a sub-optimal grasp of the English language. Your syntax is somewhat peculiar here and there, such as “the words ‘prove it’ is [sic] embedded”.

And, of course, the fundamental motivation which drives scientific enquiry is not trying to prove hypotheses as you suggest when you write “the words ‘prove it’ is embedded into the scientific method”, but to disprove them. Everyone engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth has a moral obligation to attempt to disprove all putative hypotheses, including their own.

Billy; Not pushed too far in one direction – ignored all other directions. Dunc put it better than me.

Trofic; thanks for the language lessons. If my syntax is out them feel free to discount everything else. It’s the only logical path. I’m not a scientist, no, never claimed to be and I’m not the one telling people with doctorates and decades of research experience in a subject that they are wrong when I can’t be bothered to understand that subject to even an A-Level standard.

PS the ‘prove it’ is embedded as a question when faced with claims, so yes, it would be better written as ‘prove it?’

“I feel it necessary to draw attention to the fact that you appear to have a sub-optimal grasp of the English language.”

Gosh. Has anyone ever felt it necessary to draw attention to the fact that you’re an arsehole?

I suppose we should take comfort from the fact that they’ve been reduced to niggling about the semantics of blog comments… Always a sure sign of impending scientific revolution, that is. Any day now they’ll prove that Michael Mann left a dangling modifier in a subsidiary clause of one sentence in MBH98, and that’ll really show us.

Essential Bookmark of the Thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

@31 Tomas

Pushing hard in a single direction can throw up unexpected consequences in science.

Stephen Hawking studied how quantum fields scatter off a black hole and changed our views about physics.

Single mindedness can throw up success and failure. It shouldn’t, however, be demonised.

Single mindedness can throw up success and failure. It shouldn’t, however, be demonised.

Not as long as it respects the evidence, no. However, when you’re so single-minded that you completely ignore the vast majority of the evidence because it doesn’t support your predetermined conclusion, it most certainly should/i> be demonised.

As the saying goes, one should keep an open mind – but not so open that your brains fall out.

Clarity of language reflects clarity of thought.
Unclear language = unclear thought.
Unclear thought = worthless thought.

Clarity of language reflects clarity of thought.
Unclear language = unclear thought.
Unclear thought = worthless thought.

Well, that’s pretty much the whole of modern physics written off then…

“Clarity of language reflects clarity of thought.
Unclear language = unclear thought.
Unclear thought = worthless thought.”

Ad hom attack = worthless argument. As you were.

@38

And most modern literary criticism..!

And most modern literary criticism..!

You’ll have to forgive me if I can’t see that as any great loss.

Can I just take the wildest guess as to what this thread is about and what’s been said on it? It’s about those ”climate change denialists” I think.

Obviously I’ve got better things to do than to read all of this thread and to take it remotely seriosly.
Any more than I should take a Doctor Who script seriously.

Clarity of language reflects clarity of thought.
Unclear language = unclear thought.
Unclear thought = worthless thought.

Nonsense. A window might be a little dirty but if you’re looking to see the weather/a visitor/a celestial vision it’ll still be worthwhile if you make out rain/the postman/Jesus Christ.

Clarity of language reflects clarity of thought.
Unclear language = unclear thought.
Unclear thought = worthless thought.

Exhibit A, Hegel. Terrible writer, great thinker.

That is the problem with induction you see, one counter example and you’re wrong!

The revelation that B(r)ooker is presumably against the smoker ban suggests that perhaps the underlying ideology is libertarianism rather than religion. Libertarians figure largely in attacks on climate science on the grounds that it (a) promotes taxation and (b) requires the state to do something about man-made emissions. Government is anathema to libertarians (hence their presence in the forefront of the assaults on the NHS and welfare state). This current seems to have drawn him into creationism, not necessarily because of literal reading of the bible but perhaps because of distrust of (government or charity) funded science (industry funded science is obviously above reproach). Or possibly islamophobia has done it. Libertarians (like Geert Wilders) hate islam because it is essentially a collectivist faith which does not absolve believers of duties of care towards one another and which is ostensibly hostile of capitalism (which doesn’t prevent muslims from becoming obscenely rich, as rich as obscenely rich christians) while also insisting (as does christianity) on observance of behavioural rules. In his flight from “sharia law” (the beloved hate-target of Mail readers etc) and his promotion of societies founded on supposedly christian culture B(r)ooker has apparently embraced the very creationism that fundamentalist muslims promote as well as fundamentalist christians. It’s really rather funny, as well as pathetic. But not to be laughed at: this is the level of thought at which lynch mobs and witch hunts operate.