Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

A few weeks ago, we discussed the discovery of a diamond planet in orbit around a pulsar. One of the researchers behind the discovery has now written a followup article about reaction to the news from the media and laypeople. Quoting: "The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been. How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists. ... Instead of sitting back and basking in the glory, I suspect we’d find a lot of commentators, many with no scientific qualifications, pouring scorn on our findings. People on the fringe of science would be quoted as opponents of our work, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven. There would be doubt cast on the interpretation of our data and conjecture about whether we were “buddies” with the journal referees. If our opponents dug really deep they might even find that I’d once written a paper on a similar topic that had to be retracted. Before long our credibility and findings would be under serious question. But luckily we’re not climate scientists."

Comments

So climate science is politics?

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Really, just because climate science has immediate implications in the real world doesn't make it politics nor the scientists doing that research political. People need to get their heads out of their butts and realize that science is science and if they don't like the implications of that then it is their own tough crap. Not that this will ever happen or that any climate scientists can ever expect to actually be treated in a fair, rational, or even civil manner by the barbarian hordes.

Re:So climate science is politics?

[DrgnDancer]

First of all, the "Oracles" are being interpreted by hundreds, if not thousands, of people the world over and the vast majority of them are coming to the same conclusion... Second of all, no one is saying we need to condemn ourselves to eternal poverty, only that we need to find alternatives. Third, most of what "they" want us to do is good in all kinds of ways beside reducing climate change even if you choose not to believe it, unless you really like living in smog or something.

Beyond all of that is the clear evidence of the eyes. The planet is getting warmer on average. There are some other potential explanations for this, but none of them makes as much immediate sense as "All these insulating gases we produce cause insulation." (Occam's Razor and all that) The high level of solar activity recently is a likely contributing factor, but similar levels of activity have been seen before without the dramatic increase in temps we're seeing now.

At worst it's a risk/reward scenario:

Fact: the planet is growing warmer.
Fact: this is extremely bad for human civilization for a number of very obvious reasons.
Supportable theory: Part of the cause of this warming is human greenhouse emissions.
Supportable theory: There are various other external and uncontrollable environmental factors contributing

Given the potentially huge cost involved in the trend continuing (like the loss of most coastal cities in the world and lots of arable land), doesn't it make sense to do something about the one controllable factor in the equation? Even if we're not 100% sure?

The big difference

[fridaynightsmoke]

The difference is that when a scientist says "we believe that there is a diamond planet" people either say "cool" or "I doubt that, but it doesn't really matter". When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy. That's the difference.

Re:The big difference

[Sockatume]

Social impact is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The social impact of discovering XYZ causes cancer, or can extend your lifespan, or whatever is equally important to people's quality of life, but it doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny. People generally accept the research at face value. (If only people would actually scrutinise a newspaper report in which it's revealed that chocolate has lots of antioxidants, via a study sponsored by Hershey and Googolplex Cinemas.) Climate science is argued back and forth because it's something people are conditioned to treat as a controversial issue. There are other topics - vaccination, mobile phone health - where a scientific consensus with a large impact on people's lives is presented as a controversial issue because it's one of the press's main "stories" to tell, and not because there is a genuine issue.

Proximity

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell a man there are a billion stars in the galaxy and he'll believe you; tell him the paint is wet and he'll touch it to find out....

Re:Proximity

[Bemopolis]

tell him the paint is wet and he'll touch it to find out....

He should believe you on faith alone?

No, but if the guy telling you that the paint is wet is
standing there with a brush and bucket of the same color, and fresh splatters on his overalls;
and you heard some fat drug addict on the radio said that "Hitler was a painter! They want your light bulbs!";
and fuck, you never painted anything yourself but what does this brush-toting shit know about it;
and sure, you saw him touching the brush to the bench as you were walking up, but you just *feel* that no one has enough data to know about the bench since *you* don't;
plus, on Sunday your preacher said that only SkyDaddy Longbeard can paint a bench;
and THEN you touch the paint to see if it's wet, then YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. And an asshole to boot.

Signed, a Painter (but not of benches), who has received enough crackpot letters from armchair fuckfaces and religious shitheads to know the goddam score.

Re:"But luckily we’re not climate scientists

[alci63]

Galileo once "turned political", that is he described scientific facts that had a political impact. No wonder he was treated like a political ! Damned pseudo scientists that go into politics !

I've Tried This Logic with Resulting Low Impact

[eldavojohn]

Not even a month ago I tried this same logic in a post (and probably in earlier posts):

The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?

Surprise surprise, no one cares. You can point out the scientific consensus or ask why there are no political witch hunts in other fields and people just don't seem to even respond to my concerns because they just saw a two minute YouTube video and suddenly they're informed and ready to discredit someone who has devoted their life to studying this field and reading papers. CFCs were bad, that was okay, everyone gobbled that up. Everyone saw maps of the ozone layer and totally trusted the scientists that it was CFCs doing it ... not just a regular natural process. Show someone a map of ice coverage on the Arctic Circle and tell them it's greenhouse gases at work. Suddenly the same scientists are lying to them. What the hell is different about these two scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight ...

Re:I've Tried This Logic with Resulting Low Impact

[GameboyRMH]

It's Al Gore's fault.

Imagine yourself as an Average Joe who just managed to grind his way through a few basic high-school science courses. You don't know or care about science, it was just a course you had to take, and ideally would have liked to skip. Sort of like gym class is to geeks.

Most people were first introduced to the theory of global warming by Al Gore (already a Bad Guy to conservatives) telling them that their Dodge 3500 is killing polar bears and going to flood New York. BUT, they could prevent this by buying carbon credits (I think we can all agree that the current implementations of carbon credit schemes are...flawed, at best). Oh and he owns a carbon credit company but he didn't mention that bit. Then he flies off in his private jet back to his giant house with a heated pool. Oh and by the way, solving this problem will involve CHANGE and might require HIGHER TAXES.

So now Joe Average understandably thinks this whole global warming thing looks mighty fishy and doesn't like the implications. He goes online to do a little research and has a few choices where to get his info from (assuming he didn't unintentionally use a biased search string like "global warming scam"): he can go to these sciencey websites using gigantic words, or he can go to these little blogs that say CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SCAM and are reinforcing all his worst suspicions. He spends the night reading through these blogs, and it all makes sense! That science stuff is confusing but this explains the whole conspiracy in a language he can understand. And look! Just follow the money! As long as this climate change thing is real that means money for scientists researching it and for renewable energy companies! It HAS to be a scam!

And a climate denialist is born.

Re:I've Tried This Logic with Resulting Low Impact

[RazorSharp]

Yeah, it's Al Gore's fault that the guy you're describing is a moron.

Even if Al Gore had never said a word about climate change, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind. It's not Al Gore who Joe Average hates, it's the ideas that Al Gore represents. If George W. Bush all of a sudden became a defender of climate science and green technology, Joe Average wouldn't change his mind about climate science and green technology, he'd change his mind about George W. Bush.

Re:Politics

[Arlet]

Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to attack the policy and politicians, rather than deny the science ?

Policy

[pgn674]

The article hints at this but never says it outright: The reason climate change is controversial among those with little or no scientific background or training while diamond planets are not is because climate change research affects many governmental regulation policies. If the diamond planet idea is wrong, then corrections to theories are made, and the field moves on. If it's right, then it may contribute to the development of helpful technologies and discoveries. But if a climate change idea is wrong, then corrections to theories are made, and the field moves on, and either the world economy has suffered for no reason or people are experiencing famines that could have been prevented. Thus, controversial.

Science depends on stats

[Sockatume]

statistical methods and conclusions from correlated data (as in the global warming debate) just DON'T carry the same logical force as objective, emperical, experimental science

Do you really believe that statistical analysis is unique to climate science? What do you think CERN publishes? What do you think its terabytes of storage are for? What do you think biologists, and epidemiologists, and biochemists, and evolutionary biologists, and developmental researchers, and medical researchers publish in their journals? What about chemists? What do you think these guys did to pull the tiny variances in data out that betrayed the existence of a planet made of diamond?

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Besides, the author ignores the fact that the public and media scrutinity occurred because scientists themselves can't agree on the facts.

The fraction of climate science researchers who come down on the side of anthropogenic global warming is over ninety eight percent. You won't find a stronger concensus on a front-line research issue anywhere. There is no scientific debate on this issue. It's settled.

Re:There's a reason for that

[circletimessquare]

the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?

example: evolution. the idea we evolved from now extinct species that were more like apes, then rodents, then sea slime, challenges religious beliefs that posits that, for example, a god made man in his image. a religious scholar might comment that atheists are using evolution to destroy religion. but what if evolution just naturally and without any prompting, challenges age-old religious beliefs?

at some point, you are going to have to concede that the science challenges your political beliefs, without any contrived or phony effort or dubious agenda. then you are going to have to give up your political beliefs, or continue to cling to them in denial of what science says. not because leftists have won, but because reality has won

LEARN TO READ

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

GOD DAMNIT READ HIS POST.
You're the third person to claim he's attacking the scientist(s), and you even quoted the freaking sentence!

When[what] climate scientists say is often used

Often used? By the scientist(s)?

to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.

Nope! Turns out he said absolutely nothing about whether or not the scientist(s) is(are) wrong, or right, or ordering you around, or simply providing information. He said that the information provided by the scientist(s) in question is used by *someone* to justify restrictions. You are attacking the OP for saying the exact same thing you yourself are saying.

All clear?