Is the left really as anti-science as the right?

It is no secret that conservative mainstream political discourse includes quite a bit of anti-science rhetoric. However, is that also true on the left? Although there are plenty of liberal cases of anti-science, I have a few questions about any one of them:

1. Do a significant number of liberals support it?
2. Is it endorsed by liberal politicians?
3. Is it even part of popular political discourse on the left?

As Chris Mooney points out, the answer to all three of these questions seems to be no. A few things to note about this article. Chris Mooney points out a few examples of anti-science on the left that could potentially be candidates for "Yes" answers to these questions:

2) Nuclear power–this is a pretty good one, because for a long time the left really was anti-nuclear. However, I don’t think that is the case today, and in fact, President Obama’s administration is pretty much pro-nuclear. And again, the author makes no case that nuke opponents are factually wrong about, say, the risk of low-dose radiation. (Although some of them are.)

Conservatives are no strangers to anti-science about nuclear power. However their false statements generally come from the other extreme.

3) Vaccines–polling data suggests that distrust of vaccines is rather bipartisan, but I actually agree with the author in suspecting those data aren’t that good and that this is more of a left wing thing. But of course, liberal journalists like myself, and liberal commentators, have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse. We’ve held our own accountable and really, you cannot defend this view any more without being pilloried.

I'm surprised Chris Mooney didn't point to his recent work on Bachmann's false allegations against the Gardasil vaccine. Make no mistake. Anti-vaxers are alive and well in the mainstream right.

Weely Roundup - Time, Income Inequality, Green Energy, Texas Jobs, and Hurricane Irene (8/28/11-9/3/11)

Welcome to the second edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts for the last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I think are the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.


Sciencey kinda stuff
 For my science posts this week, I started off with an interesting post from Sean M Carrol presenting a few facts about time ever one needs to know. Skeptical Science debunks more claims from climate "skeptics" about the negative aspects of renewable energy. I also ensured to post a link to Conway's game of life, a great simulator to help demonstrate that complexity can arise from chaos. Skeptoid takes on a few student questions, including the abuse of the word "information" by creationists. Skeptical Science points out the fallacy in claiming CO2 is just a trace gas and can therefore not have a significant effect on global warming. Finally, Paul Krugman laments the days when at least Mitt Romney actually accepted modern science.


Sean Carroll: "Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time"
‎Sean Carroll talks time metaphysics, relativity, human experience and memory, aging (even in reverse), complexity, and entropy:
On time metaphysics...

Intuitively we think that the “now” is real, while the past is fixed and in the books, and the future hasn’t yet occurred. But physics teaches us something remarkable: every event in the past and future is implicit in the current moment(emphasis mine)

On human memory...

When you remember an event in the past, your brain uses a very similar technique to imagining the future. The process is less like “replaying a video” than “putting on a play from a script.” If the script is wrong for whatever reason, you can have a false memory that is just as vivid as a true one.(emphasis mine)

On "reverse-aging"...

We all grow old, part of the general trend toward growing disorder. But it’s only the universe as a whole that must increase in entropy, not every individual piece of it.... As one biologist told me: “You and I won’t live forever. But as for our grandkids, I’m not placing any bets.”(emphasis mine)

Skeptical Science: "Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions":
Climate "skeptic" Patrick Michaels makes some pretty poor errors for someone who posts in a business magazine. These are common errors seen among climate "skeptics" who ignore basic economics 101 in order to make the claim that renewable energy is inefficient:
Michaels claims that solar energy and wind energy markets are not doing so well, despite government subsidies. However:

"The U.S. solar power market grew a record 67% last year [2010], making it the fastest-growing energy sector... The story is similar for the wind industry, which is already rebounding from a brief stall in its growth in 2010"

Michaels complains about Electric Cars and Plug-in Hybrids, criticizing their current price tags. As a result he says they are not the wave of the future. However, this is an obvious economic fallacy:

Michaels seems to believe that for a technology to be "the wave of the future," it must immediately be available at a high "comfort level" and low cost. Perhaps Michaels needs to be reminded that the first cell phone weighed 2 pounds (~1kg), offered just a half-hour of talk time for every recharging, and sold for $3,995. Not quite cheap or comfortable, and yet they were undeniably "the wave of the future."

See the article for more rebuttals to Michaels' ridiculously amateur claims...


John Conway's "Game of Life":
The computer simulation is a great tool for understanding how complexity can arise out of apparent chaos. It shows how a few simple rules can create immensely complex systems. This should help out anyone who seeks an honest understanding of Reductionism and "bottom-up design," which have both become strong pillars of modern physics and biology.


Skeptoid: "Student Questions: Energy Shots and Sunscreen":
This recent episode of Skeptoid deals with some interesting questions sent to him by students. Here he tackles myths about "5-hour energy shots," as well as a common creationist abuse of the word "information" in regards to entropy. Although he does not give the best response to the "information" issue, the first comment on this thread actually does a good job. I even chimed in later. However, he is basically right that Creationists do abuse the term.


Skeptical Science: "CO2 is just a trace gas":
A common claim you may hear from Climate Change "skeptics" is that CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and therefore shouldn't have any significant impact on temperatures. For example John Coleman has made such a claim before. This article does a great job pointing the fallacy in this idea.
One thing this article does not mention is that this "trace gas" is "the only thing between us and a frozen planet." (see link to John Coleman's statements)


Paul Krugman: "Republicans Against Science":
Even Romney is back-peddling from his once admirable pro-science views. This should give us a hint to his true character. However, anyone who has paid attention to the Wall Street Journal over the past few years knows that it is now increasingly promoting heuristics as a substitute for real critical thinking. Frum presents a few


What About Obama
 All of my favorite posts this week about Obama came from Conservatives. Bruce Bartlett, while criticizing the Obama Administration's plan to extend the Payroll Tax Cut, effectively presents a great argument against Republican calls for low taxes to stimulate the economy. David Frum lists 3 of what he considers to be Obama's biggest Mistakes. Finally, Greg Mankiw congratulates Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to chair the CEA.


Bruce Bartlett: "The Case Against a Payroll Tax Cut":
The payroll tax cut is often seen as an effective stimulus idea among politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. It is direct and instantly noticeable. Conventional Macroeconomics states that the extra money that goes back to workers, as a result of this cut, will increase aggregate demand. However, Bartlett gives a four reasons to be skeptical of the theorized effectiveness of this tax cut:

"First, the tax cut only helps those with jobs. While many have low wages and undoubtedly are spending all their additional cash flow, those with the greatest need and most likely to spend any additional income are the unemployed.
Second, the payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.
Third, economic theory and the experience with tax rebates in 2001 and 2008 tell us that people are strongly inclined to save temporary increases in income. People only increase their spending when they perceive an increase in their permanent income.
Fourth, even if one assumes that the cost of employment has declined and employers can somehow capture some of the payroll tax cut, there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring....
Another issue is whether the Social Security tax is really a tax at all. A case can be made that it is really part of a worker’s compensation, rather than a reduction of it... ...workers may well view a cut in Social Security taxes as diminishing their future benefits, which may cause them to increase their saving rather than spend the additional cash flow."(emphasis mine)

David Frum: "Obama's three big mistakes":
Frum explains some of what he perceives as Obama's biggest mistakes:
1. Obama let Congressional Democrats Shape the stimulus instead of his own economists.
2. Obama sat by while the fed reacted to unjustified inflationary fears.
3. Toward the public, Obama treated this recession like a normal cyclical recession instead of the financial meltdown it truly was.
Although I fully agree with his second and third criticisms, I only half agree with his first. The individual tax rebates were definitely a poor move. And yes the stimulus was not perfectly designed. However, I have pointed out before that the stimulus actually did a bit better than its critics like to think. I would likely add the caveat that Obama's stimulus was not designed for the right kind of recession. This ties into his 3rd criticism. All it was really meant to do was stop the economy from free-falling. The assumption that the economy would then heal itself was clearly wrong (as this was not a cyclical recession, rather a financial meltdown).
Jared Bernstein critiques Frum.
David Frum responds to Bermstein.


Greg Mankiw: "Alan Krueger to chair CEA":
Former CEA Chairman and Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw commends President Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to replace Austan Goolsbee as chair of CEA. He also gives a few comments on the decision. One thing to note is that Krueger specializes in labor economics and not generalized Macroeconomics. We will see how this goes...
Paul Krugman also gives his take on the nomination.


Fact Checks
 This week I posted a great article for Liberals seeking to show how bad income inequality has become. FactCheck posts a comprehensive nonpartisan article looking at the details behind job growth in Texas (a must read for anyone planning on voting in this next election). Politifact points out a few important facts in looking at how the US fares on energy resources. Finally, Politifact once again dispels a popular Democratic myth about the GOP and medicare.


Politifact: "Robert Reich says ratio of corporate profits to wages is highest since before Great Depression":
A significant factor to this has been the recession/financial meltdown. Still, there has been a general trend toward this since the Great Depression.
One note on this: Dan Mitchell with the libertarian CATO institute blames this mainly on "a climate of economic uncertainty, largely thanks to the threat of more taxes and regulations." However, Bruce Bartlett has recently noted that "there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring." The real problem is a lack of sales. He notes that in "the latest survey [from the NFIB], 23 percent of businesses said poor sales were their No. 1 problem and only 4 percent cited the cost of labor." Since regulation and taxes primarily effect the cost of labor, there is little reason to consider future taxes and regulation a significant effect.


FactCheck: "Texas-Size Recovery":
Good overall view of the Texas job-growth situation:

"Texas job statistics are a mixed bag. Perry’s supporters and Perry’s detractors select the statistics that suit their spin. Here we'll just lay out a balanced look at the facts — good and bad alike — and leave the spin to others."

Politifact: "Michele Bachmann says U.S. is No. 1 in the world for energy resources":
Although this may be technically true. There are a few very important caveats that make the context in which this fact was cited highly questionable.


Fact Checker: "Biden’s claim that the GOP will ‘eliminate’ Medicare":
At least Obama now uses the caveat "as we know it." This is the Democrats' lie of choice, similar to the Republicans' "Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care industry." Sadly, it is this kind of tactical dishonesty that wins elections nowadays...
Note: Hochul ( "elections" link) skirted the line on the GOP medicare plan


Oh that crazy ole GOP
What would a good Weekly Roundup be without a bit of GOP bashing. Religion news service starts us out by making the case that Bachmann's "joke" about hurricane Irene may be seen as quite serious by a few of her constituents. David Frum asks the question on every one's mind. Krugman bashes Eric Cantor's hostage-taking of Hurricane Irene victims. Finally, I post an article showing more evidence the GOP may be in danger of losing support in the future.


Religion News Service: "Bachmann’s prophecy, joke or not, has lots of company":
Although Bachmann's remark about Hurricane Irene being a message from God was meant only as a joke. There is reason to think a substantial number of white evangelicals just might take it seriously...


David Frum: "Is Perry Dumb?":
Sarah Palin wasn't dumb. She was just ignorant and unqualified. Perry however may be another story...

Paul Krugman: "Eric and Irene":

The primary issue should be the extraordinary nihilism now on display by Mr. Cantor and his colleagues — their willingness to flout all the usual conventions of fair play and, well, decency in order to get what they want.
Not long ago, a political party seeking to change U.S. policy would try to achieve that goal by building popular support for its ideas, then implementing those ideas through legislation. That, after all, is how our political system was designed to work.
But today’s G.O.P. has decided to bypass all that and go for a quicker route. Never mind getting enough votes to pass legislation; it gets what it wants by threatening to hurt America if its demands aren’t met. That’s what happened with the debt-ceiling fight, and now it’s what’s happening over disaster aid. In effect, Mr. Cantor and his allies are threatening to take hurricane victims hostage, using their suffering as a bargaining chip. (emphasis mine)

Steve Landsburg critiques Krugman's blog post on this subject.
Krugman responds to Landsburg.


Eric Levine: "Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP":

"The latest wave of 2010 Census data, released this week, confirms what earlier surveys have strongly hinted: virtually half of recent births in the U.S. are minorities...
Unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change a few of its sacred views, the party is in severe danger of losing support in the long term."

A little Fun
As most people with an iPhone know, the built in "auto-correct" function can sometimes be a hassle, often creating a few hilarious texts. damnyouautocorrect.com lists quite a few of these. After reading these, whether or not you decide to turn the auto correct on or off is up to you.

Why Science Journals Need To Be So Anal

Recently Professor Wolfgang Wager, editor-in-chief of the Journal "Remote Sensing," resigned from his position due to the publication of a paper by climate "skeptics" Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. In his resignation statement, he noted

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.... (emphasis mine)

He also noted a potential reason for why this particular paper was published:

In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim... the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.

I will not go into too much depth over this particular paper, or the editor's subsequent resignation. The websites Skeptical Science (a site that often makes it into my "Weekly Roundups") and RealClimate have created detailed rebuttals of this paper, as well as a post covering Wager's resignation.
Also see my summary.
Instead, the purpose of this post is to explain why it is so important for science journals to be extra careful about papers that claim to "challenge the consensus." Papers of this type need to be reviewed meticulously with a fine-toothed comb. Extra care needs to be taken to ensure these papers are absolutely air tight before they are published, especially when the motives of the authors are clearly not scientific. For instance, Spencer has made it painfully clear that his motives are in fact not scientific, once saying that his job was "to minimize the role of government.”

You often hear criticisms from a variety of consensus-challenging groups, complaining that scientific journals discriminate against consensus-challenging papers.. Often this results in the creation of pseudo-journals, meant to give an unearned impression of legitimacy and authority to these groups.

Is it unwise to believe in the improbable?

You may be wondering why such a double standard does (and should) exist. Well it mostly comes down to basic probability. It is tough for scientists to reach a consensus about anything (Even Climate Change took decades before it was accepted as consensus). As a result, theories that eventually become a scientific consensus tend to have gathered a large quantity of evidence supporting said consensus, including numerous peer reviewed scientific papers. This means that if the challenging paper is correct, all these other experts, observations, and peer reviewed papers are incorrect and/or flawed. This means that the prior probability of the challenging paper being accurate (meaning all other papers are flawed) is much lower than the probability the challenging paper has some kind of fundamental flaw. In other words, the claim that "the consensus is wrong" is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence (A Bayesian Concept). This obviously does not mean the challenging paper should be discarded. If the challenging paper turns out to be air tight, then the probability that the consensus is in-fact wrong rises dramatically! This has actually happened quite often before.

This is a actually pretty simple concept. If your friend shows you a video of his 21st birthday party, and you know he is currently over 21, then you have little reason to doubt the authenticity of the video. However, if your friend shows you a video of him lifting a full sized car with just his pinky finger, then you have reason to suspect something is amiss with the video. You have reason to check and see if the video contains by special effects technology or optical tricks.

More of the boring same old, same old

In addition to probability, there are also pragmatic reasons for why journals should be initially skeptical of consensus-challenging papers. This mainly has to do with the effects of media sensationalism. Papers that confirm the consensus are not often given much publicity. This is due to the fact that, if a paper merely confirms the consensus, it is likely just one of hundreds or even thousands of papers that do essentially the same thing. Pretty boring stuff for the average person... However, when a paper challenges the consensus, it is by its very nature sensational. Suddenly headlines start popping up saying "Scientists finds evidence against [insert consensus here]" or something to that effect. This is sometimes due to the attempt from media sources to make themselves seem balanced on given issues, even if the preponderance of evidence is amazingly one-sided (such as one would expect when dealing with a consensus). As a result, even if the study is quickly discredited and later removed, there can be lasting (sometimes dangerous) effects on the society at large.

Probably the most famous example of the damaging effects of a bad study came from the British physician Andrew Wakefield. In 1998, he published a paper in the British journal The Lancet, which claimed to provide evidence for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite the fact that numerous studies contradicted his paper, the discovery that he fudged his numbers, conflicts of interest, and the retraction from 10 of the paper's 12 authors, the damage had already been done. For instance, Ireland experienced a major decline in vaccination rates, as well as a subsequent rise in measles cases. This was largely believed to be caused by the study. The Wakefield paper also provided fuel for the fire to the growing anti-vaccination movement in the US and UK, which has been blamed for hundreds (likely thousands) of preventable deaths in the US alone. Wakefield's paper was not fully retracted until 2010, nearly 12 years after the paper's initial publication.

The case of the Wakefield study provides a grim reminder to scientists of the dangers in allowing anti-consensus papers to be published without extra-rigorous review, especially when personal and political motivations are involved. The results of these studies can be catastrophic, and the discovery of flaws, or even fraud, in a given study can only do so much to mitigate the situation. In addition, these studies can put the credibility of scientists and journals at risk. The Lancet is one of the world's oldest and most respected journals. There is no telling how much damage Wakefield's paper did to their reputation. There is also no telling how many resources were wasted during subsequent studies attempting to reproduce Wakefield's results, as well as in convincing parents it is safe to vaccinate their children. Wakefield's study has also likely hurt the public's perception of scientists and fueled mistrust of mainstream medicine. It is little wonder scientists would want to avoid a repeat of this disaster.

Not All Consensus-Challengers Need Give Up

It should be clear by now why scientists and scientific journals should be hesitant to publish papers that challenge the scientific consensus. The standard peer-review system does work pretty well. However, there are the occasional slip-ups. This is usually not a problem, as these slip ups are rare and mostly inconsequential. However, once journals receive a paper that challenges a strongly held consensus (especially if it also has personal and political ramifications) they have good reason to put extra effort into ensuring no slip-ups occur. Unlike most slip-ups, history shows scientists and journals that slip-ups in consensus-challenging areas can result in disaster, such as in the Wakefield case.

This doesn't mean journals should avoid consensus-challenging papers all together. If they got in the habit of doing that, bad theories may never be replaced with better ones. Science would become stagnant. Current scientific theories do not represent absolute Truth. Such a view is antithetical to science. However, scientists and journals need to be strict about consensus-challenging views due to both the realities of probability and pragmatism. Not all theories are created equal.