The ugly side of the anti-activist misogynist at WUWT

Update: See further down in the updated WUWT archive for more insight into the mind of the extremists at WUWT. I was going to post some of the WUWT comments here, but they were too over-the-top for HotWhopper.  If you thought the survey came up with unusual results (I don't think so, myself), then you'll think that WUWT brought out off-the-charts unusual.  A veritable DuKE of Right Wing Authoritarians protecting their turf.  (The reactions here and at WUWT would themselves make an interesting study.)

DuKE: Dunning Kruger Effect (used as a collective noun)

---

Anthony Watts on his blog, WUWT, has posted a (broken) link to an article on Salon.com about a study that found that people don't like environmental activists or feminists.  Not a surprising result, although of course no-one would learn anything new or adopt 'uncomfortable' behaviours (like recycling, quitting smoking etc) except for activists.  And women would still be legally the property of men if not for feminists.

Anyway, I wonder how Anthony and his followers feel about anti-activists such as Jay who says, with double full stops (archived here - latest update here):

September 29, 2013 at 9:00 am
If you have a keen eye and half a mind its pretty easy to see that environmentalism & Feminism are both hate based movements,, Ugly small minded jerks who think their ability to clear a room somehow makes them right..

Then the media & government highlight these cultist freaks, like they’re some sort of role model..

Which seeds anti media / government feelings, right into class warfare because the believers all have University degrees..

The lines are drawn and no amount of comment or follow the leader propaganda will change the fact that environmentalists / Feminists are either ignored or detested by the general public..
A socially elite group $$$ decide to bring suffering to everybody except themselves.. These swine have to coin a study to dance around their ever present hate..

There is no hope for the hopeless..

Anthony does have a knack for bringing out the ugly from the weirder of his followers.  Does he do it on purpose do you think?  (There is more where that came from.)

Update:  Interesting. More self-confessed misogynists are popping out of the woodwork.

Double standards or setting standards?

There's a "Friday Funny" on WUWT today in which Eric Worral pokes fun at some fracking protesters.  (Fracking is a slang term for hydraulic fracturing - injecting water into underground rock to break it up.  The process is becoming more common as sources of gas and oil become more scarce.)

The protesters are not ostensibly protesting the extraction of oil (or gas) in their neighbourhood so much as protesting the fracking process.  In this particular case the site is in Balcombe, a village in Sussex in England.  The site is apparently known as Lower Stumble.  All so very country English.

England has changed beyond all recognition in the last few decades.  Some things are probably the same.  England is still on a small green island in the North Atlantic.  There are probably still people who live in villages who've never been more than five miles from their place of birth and that of their forebears going back five hundred years or more.  Though they would be fewer and fewer.

There are English who love their countryside.  This fierce protective nature crosses boundaries of class and culture and can be traced back to feudal times and probably even earlier.

The English have a reputation for being understated, mannered, orderly and well-behaved.  If one person stops in a street for more than 30 seconds, as often as not a queue will form behind them :D  However when pushed too far the English have a tendency to push back.  You may recall Greenham Common, the poll tax riots, coal miner strikes, police strikes and other protests going way back in time.

Balcombe has a Parish Council, which conducted a poll of residents for their attitude towards fracking.  Of the 284 polling cards returned, 82% or 234 said that the Council should oppose fracking.  The top reasons  for objecting, after increased traffic, were all related to concern for the impact on the environment.  Balcombe has about 1700 residents.  So 17% of residents returned a card.  Allowing for the fact that a proportion of residents will be children, 17% is not a bad return but I've seen better - and much worse.

It's hard to imagine any mining activity in Sussex.  I don't think there are any coal mines there.  One thinks of green meadows, narrow roads and tiny villages when one thinks of Sussex.  Or maybe gaudy Brighton pier or the Battle of Hastings.

However there have been mines in Sussex.  I've discovered that way back in neolithic times, around 4,000 BC flint was mined for tools.  Much more recently, since the late nineteenth century, gypsum has been mined.  The largest gypsum deposit in the UK is located in Sussex.

I'm straying from the point.  Is it hypocritical to protest fracking for oil while using oil products, like plastics?  It is being argued on WUWT that it is.  One person commented that using that argument, a meat eater (or wool wearer, or leather owner) would be hypocritical if they expressed concern about animal welfare.

Kajajuk says:

August 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm  Consumers of plastics have their concerns with fracking mute by their consumption? Cool.  So as a meat eater i can have no objections to the way animals are grown and harvested for food. That’s brilliant! As i use electricity, likely generated by nuclear power stations, mum is the word…shhhh

I would argue that WUWT is applying double standards.  Many science deniers on WUWT strongly oppose wind power generation, making up all sorts of reasons such as "it kills birds".  Yet most of these same people don't oppose hunting, motor vehicles, electricity distribution or tall buildings, which kill many more birds than do wind turbines.  And that's not counting the complete destruction of habitat caused by open cut mines of coal and uranium.  (I expect their attitude towards cats varies.)


One prolific WUWT writer, wondering Willis Eschenbach, even wants to turn every less-developed nation into a Beijing - smog and all.  He reckons that only fossil fuel is any good for energy production and seems to oppose any form of clean energy.  He even proposes using up every bit of fossil fuel that can be mined as soon as possible, despite the fact that he calculates the world would run out in only 80 years or so if it did so.


Thing is, that if not for environmental movements and environmental activism in the sixties and early seventies, the world would probably have taken a lot longer to introduced clean air and other environmental protection legislation.  Los Angeles, Sydney and London would have suffered more extreme pollution days for many more years than they have.

Back to fracking.  Is it dangerous?  Does it pose a risk to ground water?  What about the stability of the land in the region or further afield?  Although it's not a new process, it does seem it's being used more often and in more places, because oil and gas in easy to get places is pretty well all extracted.  So we're going for the more difficult deposits - in the ocean and on land.  Fracking makes it easier to extract the oil.

Finally, I don't agree that there is any hypocrisy in objecting to a process used to get resources while still accepting the benefit of the resources themselves.

WUWT readers and others are free to object to the process by which energy is produced.  They can object to clean energy without objecting to energy as such.  They can even, as they do, object to clean energy because they favour dirty energy.  They can and do object to safer forms of energy while favouring less benign forms of energy.  It seems odd to the rational person and speaks to their values, but it's not necessarily hypocritical.

What is a display of double standards, to my way of thinking, is to object to people opposing fracking on the grounds they are being hypocritical (because they use oil products), while at the same time objecting to clean energy while being happy enough to use clean energy when it's available.

One last thought in this meandering article, some of the greatest conservationists have been conservative politicians.  In my own state, Victorian Premier Dick Hamer was a champion of the environment and conservation and remained so after he left politics.  In the USA, conservative President Theodore Roosevelt arguably did more to conserve areas of land as national parks than anyone before or since.  Philanthropists of conservative persuasion have similarly done much good work when it comes to protecting the earth.  So it does seem strange that so many conservatives argue against protecting the environment, argue against clean energy and argue for practices that pose known and unknown risks to our world.

Okay, I'll bite...should scientists be "neutral"?

PS For a related follow up go here.


Young Tamsin Edwards has written an article that's apparently been generating a bit of discussion.  Tamsin is a climate scientist who works at the University of Bristol in the UK.  She lists her area of interest as being uncertainty in earth system models.  Her doctorate was in quite a different field - particle physics (bosons).  As far as I can make out she switched to earth systems modelling because of a personal interest in the broader environment.

I haven't ever paid her much attention.  I follow her on Twitter IIRC, but don't see too many of her tweets, partly because we are in different time zones but also because I follow many (too many?) people so her tweets probably pass me by.  I believe she comments on denier websites like Bishop Hill.  The main denier site that I keep an eye on is WUWT and, rarely, Judith Curry's blog and I almost never bother with other fringe anti-science or half-anti-science blogs (aka "lukewarmers").  This article of Tamsin's appeared on WUWT as well as on Judith Curry's blog, which is how I caught it.

Not knowing much about Tamsin's work won't stop me from voicing some comments on the article in question.  What she seems to be arguing is that climate scientists ought to stop short of suggestions that could be seen as policy responses to science.  After a bit of an intro about people suggesting to her that she speak publicly about her political beliefs (sic) and her disagreeing, she writes:

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I’ve found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions. They call me an “honest broker”, asking for “more Dr. Edwards and fewer zealous advocates”. Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream.

But it’s not just about improving trust. In this highly politicised arena, climate scientists have a moral obligation to strive for impartiality. We have a platform we must not abuse. For a start, we rarely have the necessary expertise. I absolutely disagree with Gavin that we likely know far more about the issues involved in making policy choices than [our] audience.

Even scientists that are experts – such as those studying the interactions between climate, economy, and politics, with “integrated assessment models” – cannot speak for us because political decisions necessarily depend on values. There are many ways to try to minimise climate change (with mitigation or geoengineering) or its impacts (adaptation) and, given a pot of money, we must decide what we most want to protect. How do we weigh up economic growth against ecosystem change? Should we prioritise the lives and lifestyles of people today or in the future? Try to limit changes in temperature or rainfall? These questions cannot be answered with scientific evidence alone. To me, then, it is simple: scientists misuse their authority if they publicise their preferred policy options.

She's wrong of course.  Not that I'm suggesting she should speak out about her political "beliefs".  That's her own personal choice.  And she's pretty young and while it looks to me as if she'll probably travel that path eventually, it's not a bad idea for her to get a feel for the broader world beyond science before sticking her neck out too far.

Where she's wrong is in telling other scientists what they "should" do.  She's mentioning people who are recognised widely and way beyond the scientific world as having expertise in science, but also as leaders.  She mentioned Gavin Schmidt, for example.  He's in a totally different world to Tamsin, who is young and just starting out.  Her bio page lists her as a "research associate".  She's got quite a way to go before policy makers turn to her for advice.

Why is she wrong?

Although it may be true (or not) that she doesn't have the knowledge or experience, it doesn't follow that other scientists don't have it.

People who develop policy don't have answers, they have questions first and foremost.  They weave answers from others into solutions.  Their expertise is rarely at the technical level.  It's in policy formulation itself.  Policy developers and advisers turn to the technical experts for advice.  Those technical experts will work in science, economics, finance, human services and other arenas.  There are no sharp lines dividing technical experts from each other or dividing the technical experts from the policy developers and advisers.  Some scientists will end up in policy development roles.  They won't suddenly jump from working in a laboratory to working in the west wing or a Minister's office or on the executive floor.  They will be drawn into the role gradually.  For example, they may be tapped on the shoulder to sit on a committee or two.  They may be invited to take a short term assignment in a research advisory role or a management role.

In the same way, these people who will help shape the future will not suddenly find their ideas fully formed as they venture into these roles.  It doesn't happen like that - or if it does it's rare and I'd say it's not a good thing when it does, being more likely some ideological driver rather than new skills learnt or a gradual appreciation of the subtleties of policy development and the myriad implications of broad-ranging policy alternatives.

Tamsin's also wrong in her comment about values.  Values arguably influence everything we do.  One cannot balk at taking a position because one is scared of the impact on the lives of others.  Tamsin's choosing to write her blog would, I presume, be influenced by her value set.  And almost certainly her opinion that scientists should be passive and neutral is strongly driven by her values.  And if scientists decided to go along with it, would have huge ramifications for the lives of people.  (Doing nothing often has as big an impact as doing something.)

I see nothing essentially wrong with Tamsin sticking to science and avoiding any comment about her personal opinions on areas beyond what she regards as acceptable boundaries for her.  But she's wrong on another count.  She writes:

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. 

It's not advocacy by climate scientists that has damaged trust in the science.  It's advocacy by the opponents of science that has done what damage has been done.  Too often I come across people willing to cop the blame for wrongs that are not of their making.  Not all people are fools and the people who count are rarely fools.  They can tell the difference between a scientific opinion and a personal opinion. A policy developer who can't tell the difference shouldn't be in the job.  Scientists are human beings.  Some will choose to be activists, some will choose to be communicators.  Some will choose to work quietly on their research and avoid the limelight altogether.  As for worrying about being "open to criticism" - if one lived their life by that tenet one would never get up in the morning.

Tamsin has arguably already chosen to go beyond the science by taking on the added role of science communicator.  She is probably quite good at it too.  It's not a great leap to move from the role of engagement with the public to the role of advising on scientific policy.  And then it's not a great leap to move to a broader role of policy development.  I'll be surprised if Tamsin doesn't develop her career in this way.  Where she stops will be up to her and to some extent limited by the opportunities that come her way and those she chooses to accept.  Even this blog article of hers has taken her into the policy arena, even though she might not recognise that it does.  She is touting a policy for scientists (ie to stay out of policy) and promoting her policy widely in the public arena.  I believe her article was published in The Guardian, which takes her influence way beyond the laboratory and the computer room.

As an aside, Judith Curry is lauding Tamsin's approach and pretending that she herself isn't a policy advocate.  Laughable. Need I say more?  I think my readers are sadly all too familiar with Curry and her policy positions.  Many of us don't agree with her but it's wrong to argue she shouldn't contribute to policy.

Tamsin quotes Roger Pielke Jr - an economist.  He does not hesitate to make his opinion on certain policy actions very clear from time to time.  Again, we might or might not agree with Roger but in fact we need these differing views.  The best policies emerge after a wide spectrum of options have been considered, pulled apart, put back together and the process repeated till the main options and implications are worked through and the wrinkles are ironed out of the final product.

You'll excuse my jumping around I hope.  This isn't the best, most well presented essay.  It's a bit of a ramble.  It's just a blog remember.  And I rarely deviate from it being a snark blog.  But policy development is an area I have experience in.  Not only that, but this experience includes the interface between science and policy, so I'm not just spouting ideas off the top of my head.

What I would like to emphasise is that the best policy development people I've worked with have a knack for it - they can deal with ambiguity, they are mentally strong and mature, and they are prepared to have to make Sophie's choices on occasion.  Most have had at least one mentor along the way.  All have been thrust into unfamiliar territory more than once and have shown they can rise to the occasion.

By now you'll probably be saying that I'm talking about something different to what Tamsin was referring to.  You may be thinking that Tamsin was talking about political activism.  I don't read it that way.  Nor do I think you can distinguish easily between types of influence - whether that influence is in a board room or on the street or in a television studio or at a senate committee hearing or chained to a tree in a forest at risk of logging.  People who have a talent or impetus to help shape the future may find themselves in any or all of those environments.

The point I'm getting to is that sound policy is an art and a science.  It takes maturity and most of all experience.  If one doesn't allow oneself to get that experience one will never gain the maturity required to have a positive influence on the world.

I'll reiterate - some people will find themselves in a role where they influence policy.  Some won't or will choose to avoid it.  Just as not every scientist has the skills or desire to communicate directly with the public, not every scientist will have the attributes or motivation required to influence or develop policy.  However to insist that scientists avoid policy because they are scientists is wrong-headed.  That's not the way the world works and neither should it be.  The world needs brilliant minds in policy just as it needs brilliant minds in science.  And some people can and should do both very well.

One more thought.  If anyone knows about climate and the impact of climate change it's climate scientists.  If climate scientists don't think climate change warrants getting out of their lab coats and telling the world what it means and suggesting ways to deal with it, then why would anyone else be concerned?

Finally - I'm not advocating that any or all scientists should become activists or move into policy roles.  All I'm saying is that it's wrong-headed to suggest that scientists should not do that.  The world would be a much poorer place without the influence of scientists.

Sermon is over, may peace be with you and all that :)


PS For a related follow up go here.