![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andygatesAuthor Howard Friel has published a cite-by-cite takedown of Lomberg's 'skeptical' anti-climate-change books. He basically followed up every reference and every citation, and quelle surprise most of them are bogus either in fact or interpretation. If Lomberg was an academic, this would have been picked up in peer review -- which is one of the strengths of the method.
See, references make a thing look academic. They lend an aura of truthiness to a publication. Truthiness is a Colbert neologism very apt to pop-sci: truthiness is the feeling of truth, as opposed to the presence of it.
Hell, I once wrote a parody paper that appeared to support Breatharianism's absurd claims by showing an entirely bogus mechanism for human photosynthesis. Given an eyeball test by graduate biochemists, it fooled half of them; it fooled everyone non-scientific who wasn't aware of the Breatharians and their dangerous silliness. Part of the effect of the paper was the liberal splashing of references, some solid and obvious, some utterly made up, some Pythonesque.
Nobody checks. They see references and grunt "ah, s'academical, all very truthy."
Which leaves a tricky problem: how can you tell which pop-sci titles are credible, and which are Von Daniken-esqe ravings? I'm not sure you can, not reliably: the general reader might look for a particular imprint or name (BBC / Attenborough, say) as sound, but that's reputation and reputation is more damn truthiness, just truthiness over time. Academic credentials for the author? Not always relevant (see Monckton et al) and not always solid (plenty of academics 'go emeritus').
How then to lift the solid science above the dreck? Especially when policy decisions, and votes, are hinged on perception of that science? Watching Lomberg influence climate policy is like watching Richard 'face on Mars' Hoagland influence space policy, but climate policy actually matters.
See, references make a thing look academic. They lend an aura of truthiness to a publication. Truthiness is a Colbert neologism very apt to pop-sci: truthiness is the feeling of truth, as opposed to the presence of it.
Hell, I once wrote a parody paper that appeared to support Breatharianism's absurd claims by showing an entirely bogus mechanism for human photosynthesis. Given an eyeball test by graduate biochemists, it fooled half of them; it fooled everyone non-scientific who wasn't aware of the Breatharians and their dangerous silliness. Part of the effect of the paper was the liberal splashing of references, some solid and obvious, some utterly made up, some Pythonesque.
Nobody checks. They see references and grunt "ah, s'academical, all very truthy."
Which leaves a tricky problem: how can you tell which pop-sci titles are credible, and which are Von Daniken-esqe ravings? I'm not sure you can, not reliably: the general reader might look for a particular imprint or name (BBC / Attenborough, say) as sound, but that's reputation and reputation is more damn truthiness, just truthiness over time. Academic credentials for the author? Not always relevant (see Monckton et al) and not always solid (plenty of academics 'go emeritus').
How then to lift the solid science above the dreck? Especially when policy decisions, and votes, are hinged on perception of that science? Watching Lomberg influence climate policy is like watching Richard 'face on Mars' Hoagland influence space policy, but climate policy actually matters.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-28 06:59 pm (UTC)And all farmers, everywhere, ever, are the biggest moaners of the lot. At least they're not French. ;)
Anyway, this is spectacularly off topic and dull now.
Re: Science
Date: 2010-02-28 08:27 pm (UTC)The problem is that all these environmentalists want fancier and more expensive toys and their wages from said political sources. But all they can do is measure stuff.
To change the actual processes and to develop the technologies and bring them to market where they can be brought and utilised requires the money and resources.
Whats happening is the resources are getting sucked into the measurement and marketing side of the equation, which is penalising the ability for the system to actually improve.
And yes farmers are complaining. Some because they're lazy useless fucks, just like a few industry ditch and run types. But those of us trying to implement improvements end up in the same pay-for-monitoring basket. As always it doesn't help that penal matters usually come down to fines, which reduces everyones ability to build remedies.
The real moaners are the consumers. If we put the costs back where it should be, on to the consumers, then you'll really hear the moaning. And if those costs started eating into their pet projects (libraries, parks, cycleways, arts) then you'd really hear the piggies squealing, all the way to the voting booths....
But most of them are extremely lazy and just want other people to pay and make the problem just go away because it's boring and flashy media grabbing stuff is much more entertaining to them.