Miranda's Devine hocus pocus

There’s an Australian journalist called Miranda Devine who writes for the Sydney Telegraph. Last month she wrote a piece titled, Climate damage doomsdayers have led to a surge in hocus pocus ideas. If you can’t be bothered reading the article, I can tell you that in it she argues that climate scientists are responsible for the drop in vaccination rates by affluent people. This seems to me like a very strange connection to make especially since there is already an established cause for the drop in vaccination rates which is a discredited study linking autism with the MMR vaccine. Here is the evidence that supports placing the blame on this study –  The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998-2005. Miranda Devine did not provide any evidence for her accusation.

It is a reasonable question though, to ask how much faith the general public places in science and scientists. In particular, it would be interesting to know exactly what impact the hacking of personal emails belonging to climate scientists has had on trust in science by the general public. Fortunately for me, a Harvard study conducted in 2008 and 20091 has done exactly that. It found that levels of trust in scientists declined significantly following the email scandal. But that the loss of trust was primarily from people who identified themselves as having strongly conservative views. The authors write,

People are not dispassionate consumers of information. Instead, their motivational states—their values, wishes and preferences-influence what information they pay attention to, how they evaluate data, and the conclusions they draw (31-34). As a result, people are often inclined to accept data and interpretations that appear to validate their prior views. They may search for any evidence that their preferred conclusion is valid and stop once confirmation is found. By contrast, people tend to view with suspicion data that contradict their preferences and beliefs. They give greater scrutiny to and look for reasons to reject the validity of contradictory claims (35-37). Because most real world bodies of evidence-and certainly those related to climate change—have flaws, inconsistencies, and ambiguities, people motivated to accept or reject a claim can often find at least some grounds for doing so.

Before going any further, I want to add here that there have since been eight major investigations into the email hacking scandal and not one of them has managed to find any evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud2. It looks to me like the loss of trust in science as a result of those emails is unfounded.

Let’s get back to Miranda Devine’s assertion that loss of trust in science has caused vaccination rates to fall. If this were the case, we would expect to see a drop in vaccination rates following the release of the hacked emails. I can check this information at WHO. The vaccination rates for Australia look very stable over the last decade. There is a small drop in the measles vaccine in 2008, which was before the email saga so this cannot possibly be the cause. Then in 2009, at the beginning of the email controversy, the measles vaccination rate begins to climb again and continues to do so every year thereafter. So not only is there no decrease after the email hacking, there is actually an increase. But even if we had seen a fall in vaccination rates, it would still be wrong to attribute cause and effect for no reason other than one occurred after the other. This is a logical fallacy.

Miranda Devine also makes the claim that although carbon dioxide emissions have soared, the temperature of our planet has remained unaffected. I’m not sure what part of global mean surface temperatures she thinks has remained unaffected…

Fig.A2
source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

…because it looks to me like the temperature has risen dramatically. Some people might say, that at the very end of the graph above, there is a slight downwards gradient. Yes, I can see that in the red line, but I can also see that over the last hundred years or so, there are periods when it has gone up and down but the overall trend is still the same: UP.

Global mean temperatures are also just one part of global warming.

This is what’s happening to Arctic sea ice:

Figure3-350x261
source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Ice mass in Antarctica:

416685main_20100108_Climate_1
source: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Ocean heat content:

heat_content2000m
source: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

The world’s glaciers:

Glacier_Mass_Balance
source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Glacier_Gallery

Sea levels are rising:

Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA)

In addition to all of this, we know from temperature records, that so far each year of the 21st century has ranked in the hottest 14 since records began in 1880.

Miranda Devine goes on to say that climate scientists are engaged in propaganda and that they have corrupted science for idealogical purposes. While I think it is perfectly reasonable to take issue with a piece of scientific research or a particular paper and to clearly and logically explain why you think it is wrong or incorrect, it is another thing altogether to label an entire field that consists of thousands of scientists from all over the world as corrupt, and to then blame them for low vaccination rates. It just makes you look rather like a conspiracy theorist yourself. Based upon the unsubstantiated and untrue claims in her article, the only hocus pocus I can find is all of her making.

Sources
1. Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust

2. Climate research email controversy

6 thoughts on “Miranda's Devine hocus pocus

  1. Enjoyable and well-reasoned article. I would love you to submit it to the Tele but I doubt they would value what you have to offer. It wouldn’t interest their readership. Amazing what seems to pass as journalism!

  2. All Miranda Devine is saying that a growing lack of confidence in climate scientists! for which she gives some good examples, has caused increased doubt in the community over medical science, whether this is right or wrong. It’s a simple proposition by her.
    As to the “eight major investigations” you mention, none looked at the science although some said “other” enquiries would. The Penn State University enquiry was particularly flawed. It was never going to find that one of its most important fundraisers, Michael Mann, had acted improperly.

      1. Well, here are some flaws alleged with respect to Penn State’s enquiry concerning Michael Mann and The Climategate emails, Mike:-
        “The Climategate “Investigation”
        The methodology, however, was equally bad.  The “Climategate” investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees.  It is available here.  The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all.  The next step was to read 376 e-mails written by Mann and dismiss 329 of them.  After this, they conducted a two-hour interview with Michael Mann, in which he (shocker!) denied doing anything wrong.
        The next step was to interview two outside climatologists, noted within the report itself for their personal support of Mann himself and his science, named Dr. Gerald North from Texas A&M and Dr. Donald Kennedy from Stanford University.  Naturally, these two friends supported Mann.  Next, they interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who accused them of ignoring the most important allegations.  They ignored him and moved on.  The report actually states this.  “We did not respond to him.”
        After this, the investigators deemed that Michael Mann hadn’t done anything wrong.  They did not investigate three quarters of the allegations against him, and they did not interview anyone with an opposing viewpoint.  President Spanier then stated, “I know they have taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides.”  This statement is blatantly untrue, as the report itself indicates.”
        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html#ixzz2U4VNApJS
        Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html#ixzz2U4TDov3C
        Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s