Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.
The author discovered a planet that may be a 10 billion trillion trillion carat diamond. Diamonds are forever. Is climate science denial?
Matthew Bailies is an astrophysicist and Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) at Swinburne University of Technology. This is a repost from The Conversation.
Recently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a special kind of star known as a pulsar.
Based on the planet’s density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded that it was certain to be crystalline. In other words, we had discovered a planet made of diamond.
Following the publication of our finding in the journal Science, our research received amazing attention from the world’s media.
The diamond planet was featured in Time Magazine, the BBC and China Daily, to name but a few.
I was asked by many journalists about the significance of the discovery. If I were honest, I’d have to concede that, although worthy of publication in Science, in the field of astrophysics it isn’t that significant.
Sure, there are probably somewhere between six and a dozen quite important theoretical astrophysicists around the world who would have been thrilled at the news (after all, the diamond planet fills a gap in the binary pulsar family).
But in the overall scheme of things, it isn’t that important.
And yet the diamond planet has been hugely successful in igniting public curiosity about the universe in which we live.
In that sense, for myself and my co-authors, I suspect it will be among the greatest discoveries of our careers.
Our host institutions were thrilled with the publicity and most of us enjoyed our 15 minutes of fame. The attention we received was 100% positive, but how different that could have been.
How so? Well, we could have been climate scientists.
Imagine for a minute that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we’d made a breakthrough in global temperature projections.
Let’s say we studied computer models of the influence of excessive greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them peer-reviewed and published in Science.
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.
Our work is part of the astonishing growth in our knowledge of the universe, made possible by huge leaps forward in instrumentation and telescope technology.
Method
It may come as a big surprise to many, but there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and climate change – or any other scientific discipline for that matter.
We make observations, run simulations, test and propose hypotheses, and undergo peer review of our findings.
We get together (usually in nice locations around the world) and discuss and debate our own pet theories, become friends and form a worldwide community.
If you are a solid state physicist, an astronomer, or doing laser optics, the world is happy to celebrate your discoveries, use them in new products such as WiFi, and wonder about the growth in knowledge and technology.
Of course we all make mistakes. But eventually the prevailing wisdom of the community triumphs and the field advances.
It’s wonderful to be a part of that process.
But on occasion those from the fringe of the scientific community will push a position that is simply not credible against the weight of evidence.
This occurs within any discipline. But it seems it’s only in the field of climate science that such people are given airtime and column inches to espouse their views.
Those who want to ignore what’s happening to Earth feel they need to be able to quote “alternative studies”, regardless of the scientific merit of those studies.
In all fields of science, papers are challenged and statistics are debated. If there is any basis to these challenges they stand, but if not they fall by the wayside and the field continues to advance.
When big theories fall, it isn’t because of business or political pressures – it’s because of the scientific process.
Sadly, the same media commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests man-made activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril.
– Matthew Bailies
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Good for him.
I wish that more people in the United States were science literate, then there would not be such a problem with climate science denial, because everyone would better understand the earth and the rigorous nature of the scientific method.
Excellent post. Of course there is at least one other scientific discipline where fringe crackpots “are given airtime and column inches to espouse their views” and their ideas are never rejected once and for all by the media and the general public. Fortunately, in the case of evolutionary biology, fossil fuel corporations don’t stand to make huge profits by funding the crackpots.
If the discovery of a diamond planet in any way threatened the business interests of the diamond cartel, you can be sure that there would be a thriving trade in diamond-planet skepticism.
Matthew Bailies deserves a sincere “Thank You” for taking time from a busy and productive career to write this.
Thank You!
Great article. Kudos. Nice to see scientists in other fields sticking up for climate science. The quote “luckily we’re not climate scientists” speaks volumes.
I agree heartily: this is an excellent post. We need more scientists in the different sciences standing up for climate science and scientists.
Denial is forever. When the Texas drought is decades old there will be denial. When a third of New York is underwater and New Orleans long gone, there will be denial. When the worlds population is three billion and falling rapidly, there will be denial.
I once thought that when there is a climate disaster beyond all others denial would end. But no, something else will get the blame.
See what happens when you allow gay marriage.
Yes. They will eventually admit that all of this is tied together. Of course, in their minds, climate-induced extreme weather, comets, and the gay couple next door will be part of it. It will be blamed on:
1. God punishing us for not being mean enough to gays (Or whoever is the enemy du jour. Remember child-care baby sacrificers? Where are they now?), or
2. Liberal fascist Nazi scientists and their weather rays, trying to destroy all that is good and holy (By which I mean, of course, unregulated corporate statism.).
Either way, it will be our fault. (“If you’re not doing it, how did you know about it before hand? Do you think we’re stupid?!”)
Science that doesn’t force you to reevaluate beliefs in other areas is just as valid as science that does.
I suppose every diamond planet, however dark, must have a shiny Lonsdalite lining , but the author seems indisposed to strain his narrative with carbon phase diagram.
I don’t think Tiffany need worry about incandescent planetary cores, whatever the state of the carbon they contain
Is the Diamond Syndrome a possibility in Earth’s future? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I really like Climate Progress. However, the scientific method used for climate science and astrophysics is not applied to people on this blog. ‘People’ means disciplines like sociology, economics and philosophy. Since the problem is not with the science, as climate science is telling us valid information, the problem is with people making decisions that reflect what we as a society are discovering through our sciences. But instead of seeing real scientific rigor on this blog in regards to people, I see a lot of posturing. Just giving ordinary people a lot of ‘facts’ is not really going to change anything unless those ‘facts’ are manifest in people’s everyday life. Unfortunately with climate, this will be too late. There has to be another approach. Also, while I am very enthusiastic about creating a green jobs sector, do you really think that will turn this all around, given that the primary motivation in capitalist society is profit and accumulation? I don’t think so – there has to be another primary motivation for work. Whether it makes money or not, we need to get off of fossil fuels now.
How precisely can one be scientifically rigorous when it comes to people? We cite polling and social science research all the time? I guess I don’t really understand what analyses aren’t being covered here? Remember, every post can’t cover every topic all at once.
Thanks for your response. I am not thinking of polling data, I am thinking of sociological theory applied. Pierre Bourdieu (The social structures of the economy) states that “. . . The most basic economic dispositions – needs, preferences, propensities – are not exogenous, that is to say, dependent on a universal human nature, but endogenous and dependent on a history that is the very history of the economic cosmos in which these dispositions are required and rewarded. This means that, against the canonical distinction between ends and means, the field “ (meaning the field of activity such as a particular kind of work, career, class) “ imposes on everyone, though to varying degrees depending on their economic position and capacities, not just the ‘reasonable’ means, but also the ends, of economic action, that is to say: individual enrichment.” I just am trying to say that people are not ‘deniers’ so much as they are conditioned by the very reality in they exist. And I just don’t particularly like the tendency to color people and create distinction when there is no clarity on just how automatic and mechanical people’s lives tend to be.
But, please, don’t get me wrong – I truly value your work. And I am not against any of the things you bring forward, not am I not alarmed by the ignorance in our society. I am just trying to get an understanding of how this ignorance is replicated by individuals within their own reality.
As a toxicologic pathologist who worked for a large chemical company, I saw politics intruding often. People think, not without some justification (tobacco company hacks) that all privately funded science is biased. All I can say is, the agencies had full access to our data, and fraud goes to jail. Our academic nemesis was never open to such scrutiny. Bottom line: the truth is in the data. It’s the same with climatology, and climatologists have been entirely open on data and methods. Denying the truth of global warming is proving to be the great tragedy of our time — and unfortunately, for generations to come. I’m afraid the crux of the current problem is not in climatology, but in psychology — the mental rigidity of conservative old white guys. As a parent, and an old white guy myself, one who has had wrenching arguments with old friends, this is disturbing on several levels. According to the book “Brain Bugs,” we just have to wait for these old farts to expire. They aren’t going to wise up.
The main (maybe the only) reason people put down the science of Climate Change is simply because they dislike the idea of Gov’t imposing any form of limit’s to what they call “our freedom”. If there was no Cap And Trade proposal and if solutions to Climate Change were left to the free market – no one would be trying to discount the science. I always tell my friends on the right, “If you dislike a proposed solution to Climate Change find a better solution! Don’t discount the science!”
If conservatives “dislike a proposed solution to Climate Change [they need to] find a better solution”…hmmm…THEY HAVE and it is working: no cap’n trade, no carbon tax, no limits on GHG. Their solution is no action by fomenting doubt and that strategy has been extraordinarily successful.