The left has its fair share of science-denying morons as well.
Is it really "huge"? Some links to polling data might help here otherwise I would also be reticent to proclaim that it's comparable to climate denial-ism. After all, we have a president that has publicly proclaimed climate change to be a hoax and sitting members of congress that eagerly attack climate scientists on their research [1].
[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-l...
[1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-vaccines-autism-wrong-20...
Sure. Stupid knows no political affiliation, other than strong and unsubstantiated belief.
Meanwhile, the right (in America) also has its fair share of unscientific beliefs about vaccination: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...
FWIW the only two anti-vaxxers I know in person are a retired west-coast life long democrat, and a super neo-conservative soccer mom. It seems to be more of an "anti-establishment" thing than a "left/right" thing.
Climate Science is a bunch of computer models are not testable. When they're run and compared to what actually happened they're always off. e.g. Name a single climate science model that predicted "the pause" starting in '98?
Climate Scientists don't release their model's code. They don't release the exact data that went into their model. Shit, isn't that one of the complaints about Wansink? That he isn't sharing his data?
I'm not saying climate change isn't real, I'm saying that the level of certainty that climate scientists proclaim is problematic. I'm saying that labeling dissenters as deniers (reminiscent of holocaust deniers) is beyond the pale. I'm saying that fossil fuels have done more to advance the human condition than anything else in history of mankind.
I tried to find this a few years ago in the case of measles and it turned out to seem no such studies existed. Have you seen one?
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01536405?term=AMP&ran...
I just don't think these alternative explanations have been investigated very well, and the blinded RCT (vs placebo) is missing. Another thing, the various proxies for "vaccine success" they use do not correlate with each other...
"Our data demonstrate that regression analysis shows only limited correlation between NT results and the ELISA values. This is in agreement with other reports [4]. Similar limitations in the correlation were also reported for other viruses like Cytomegalovirus (CMV) [10]. In case of the gamma globulin samples, the low correlation might reflect the wider spectrum and heterogeneity of the involved or measured measles antibodies." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17308917
Since measles is very contagious, there's a lot of effort putting into identifying and isolating cases. This necessarily involves screening many cases where the disease is only weakly suspected. On top of that, the current protocols cast a really wide drag net. Australia, for example, tests every susceptible patient who shared a waiting room with a measles patient, as well as those who entered less than two hours after the index case left. In a busy hospital or practice, this could be a lot of children.
Thus, the high ratio of tested to confirmed cases doesn't mean doctors are bad at diagnosing measles; they may just be cautious.
And yet another effect to deal with is that people used to spread measles on purpose:
“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.” http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.fu...
I think for these reasons it is clear the effectiveness of measles vaccines has been overstated, it is only a matter of how much.
Unfortunately, I really don't think this study offers us anything about whether "vaccines work". You can see that the main concern is whether doctors are much more likely to diagnose measles when they do not believe a vaccination occurred, and whether introduction of the lab tests made the diagnostic definition more stringent:
“This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/
“A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.
[...]
As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”
I don't think this point is relevant to your argument.
Wouldn't that be a failure of the model?
All of science is eventually a bunch of models.
> models [that] are not testable. When they're run and compared to what actually happened they're always off
You do realize these statements contradict one another, right?
Also, you're wrong. There have been plenty of successful predictions: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/successful-p...
> Climate Scientists don't release their model's code
False.
Some publish code before/with their papers, some don't publish at all, and some publish code with a lag after publication (to clean up the code, tussle with legal about IP and/or political issues, etc. Fair IMO as long as the code is eventually published).
The major models, including the NASA one, are open source.
Google it.
> Name a single climate science model that predicted "the pause" starting in '98?
Predicting century-long trends and predicting 5 or 10-year variations within that trend are extremely different tasks.
It's certainly possible that we have models that are exceptionally accurate on the scale of 20 or 50 or 100 years but cannot make accurate predictions over the course of 5 or 10 years.
In fact, in a stochastic system, that's exactly what you would expect to be the case -- trends that are globally but not locally discernible.
More-over, opponents to the climate change thesis don't bother to provide their own models and predictions for falsification. And when they do, they're just as wrong on small time scales and much more wrong on long time scales.
> I'm saying that labeling dissenters as deniers (reminiscent of holocaust deniers) is beyond the pale.
This largely depends on what is being denied:
- CO2 effects climate (requires extraordinary new evidence -- we have both historical Earth data and inter-planetary data).
- Temperatures are changing (requires new evidence -- the '98 "hiatus" as largely played out and skeptics failed to make any predictions that made it through the decade).
- CO2 is causing temperatures to change on earth (again, requires new evidence).
- Concrete predictions about near and mid-term effects of climate change. IMO fair game, but I'm not sure what the point is from a climate policy perspective unless we're really that selfish.
Being skeptical of Newtonian physics and providing a competing model against which we can compare is of course fair game.
Denying Newtonian physics in favor of "no particular opinion on how the world works, and let's not try to figure out" is of course worse than useless.
In other words, make your own predictions or get off the pot.
On the right, virtually all mainstream politicians deny climate change.
Unless it can be made accessible to even science graduates to actually reproduce the results from a critical point of view, it's always going to have a lot of sceptics. Not everyone has so much faith in scientists.
Incidentally, your critique also applies to literally most science, including very good and obviously successful science.
Can you really prove to your students that Intel doesn't have magic pixie dust it uses to speed up its processors? Probably not without expensive equipment your classroom cannot afford.
And can you reproduce the LHC experiments? Of course not.
edit: Here's the EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-ch... There are 5 references, all larger reports which themselves link into the actual literature.
The National Climate Assessment in particular is presented in the form of a slick website with hundreds of citations into the literature for curious readers: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report
The information is there, in extremely digestible form, and at the top of google search results. Naturally, reproducing the results of literally hundreds of cited papers is going to take you a while, but in most cases, there's nothing actually stopping you...
And here's a list of climate models, some of which you can download. The others have links to contact info: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-c...
It's also worth noting that scientists are usually fairly transparent about when they're guessing WRT effects of climate change and when they're pretty certain. The near-term stuff (~hundred years) is largely guess work based on simulations -- we can't do much better. The most certain prediction is that weather will become harder to predict. The longer-term stuff (~hundreds to thousands of years) is much more well-understood because there're historical records relating GHG levels to climate.
The biggest greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, not CO2. So it makes no sense to call a plot of CO2 a plot of "greenhouse gas concentrations". This type of "information" is low quality and will only make people not trust them.
A full description of the methodology and what exactly is being plotted is available in papers linked to here: http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&pag...
Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight.
Unless you're planning on boiling an ocean or great lake some time soon, humanity isn't directly effecting the amount of H20 in the atmosphere at appreciable levels as a first order effect. It's not a parameter under variation.
C02 equivalents are a parameter under significant variation, and as a first-order effect of human action.
We are interested in the dynamics of the system as we vary a parameter that we can, and are, directly manipulating.
Larger atmospheric, oceanic and whole system models then incorporate H20 and other effects in a simulation as the parameter we actually control is varied.
If this were explained on the page, you'd complain it was too technical.
> Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight.
Is that really common? I mean, there are actually a large population of people who will read [1] but don't bother to click on the link right under the graphic and see how the graphed data is used in climate predictions?
I'm highly suspicious that there's actually a significant population of people who are open to being convinced but make such a sophomoric mistake in their reasoning.
Someone can always find reasons to be uncharitable and dismissive if that's their predisposition. People with that predisposition and willingness and disregard evidence for even the most superficial of complaints aren't going to be convinced anyways.
I don't know whats going on with that chart, whatever. I am just telling you the end result of showing it to me, and doubt I am alone.
I don't draw straight lines on all my plots relating constants to (in)dependent variables. Even fifth grade science experiments follow this convention in their plots. It's an extremely common practice. Water vapor isn't being varied, so isn't plotted. Again, nearly every fifth grade science fair project follows this convention in their plots. It really does count as basic literacy.
For someone with some basic scientific literacy, the author's intent is obvious and confirmable by reading the literature. OBVIOUSLY the authors are aware of water vapor concentrations, and you can confirm this awareness with a superficial investigation into how this metric is used in models.
Sorry, but I do not believe a non-antagonistic reader would jump to the conclusion that climate scientists are unaware of tyoical atmospheric H20 concentrations. That's so far from the realm of reasonability.
At some point, the readers' good faith must be assumed or the entire expository enterprise is pointless. I think this plot is by far on the correct side of that line.
This is another contradiction to what I've been told: "Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988." https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-...
We aren't actively and directly melting large quantities of ice. It's a second-order effect of increased atmospheric C02.
One option is to allow it to vary but not as a first-order effect. Another option is to simply not let it vary to keep the model simple.
Conservatives don't distrust science carte blanc. Many of them will chuck money at asinine bullshit as long as it's billed as a way to kill the other team. Check out some of the more ridiculous stuff to come out of DoD.
They distrust climate science. And they don't distrust the actual science, just the conclusions. And increasingly not even the most basic conclusion, just the most obvious causal theory behind that conclusion.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.