Junk Science

I had some time on my hands during my recent vacation and took the opportunity to do some reading – sounds relatively benign so far right? Although the book I was reading was fictional, it used a lot of real science as the underpinnings for the plot, which was utterly forgettable. The science focused on the issue of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) and presented an argument that this “theory” is largely baseless. The author provided a list of references from known scientific journals (some of which I read regularly) so, having nothing else better to do, I spent some time tracking down the original papers.

Let me preface this by saying that global warming has never been a big issue for me. The scope of the problem (if in fact it is really a problem) is so vast that it would take the cooperation of all of humanity to fix, something that to my knowledge has never occurred even once in the history of humanity. Thus, I reckoned that it would just have to play itself out without the benefit of my worry. Imagine my surprise, however, when I discovered that most of the “facts” relating to the issue that I thought that I knew, were not really facts at all – I found myself to be the unknowing victim of “junk science”, something that I am pretty vigilant about avoiding. I won’t bore you with all that I learned, I’ll just give you some highlights and point you in the right direction to check them for yourself:

It seems that there is no reliable temperature record for any location on earth that goes back more than 20 or 30 years. The records that do go back farther suffer such significant inaccuracies, due to equipment changes, location changes, urban sprawl heat island effects and collection methods as to be completely worthless (note: the exceptions to this are in the paleo-records that exist in the form of core samples). Nobody anywhere on this planet knows what the average temperature really is, was, or will be. Of all the glaciers on the planet, only 4% have ever been studied and some are actually growing not melting, as is the case in Iceland. No actual average sea-level measurements exist, and due to various quirks of physics, it is unlikely that they will anytime soon. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that is responsible for over 90% of the greenhouse effect - let's try banning evaporation. No one knows how many species are on earth, or what the normal extinction rate really is. More species are discovered each year than go extinct and no one knows at what rate new species are emerging. All climate predictions are based on computer models, much like our daily weather forecasts and we all know how often they are wrong when looking only a few days ahead. The system that is being modeled (Earth’s climate) is so complex and so poorly understood that the models are of little use other than as mere exercises or curiosities. There is a lot more, but suffice it to say that no one has a clue, and policy is being made on the basis of hype – so what else is new? Check out these links if you want more information:

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts

GLOBAL WARMING: Reason for Alarm?

Beginner’s Guide: Global Warming

Junk science is not exclusive to the climate change crowd, I encounter it in my daily perusal of autism research. A helpful example is the recent panic over the supposed connection between the MMR vaccine, mercury and autism. Careful studies of millions of children who had been immunized and which showed no causal link, were regarded as somehow tainted, while the views of junk scientists, and of celebrities whose ignorance was matched only by their reckless irresponsibility, were accepted quite uncritically. In the end, science seems to be winning out but it has been a close-run thing and the argument has been unconscionably protracted, while children fall victim to experimentation. Even now many otherwise intelligent people are not convinced.

It seems that lately science has come under attack by a cadre of antiscientists who use the trappings of science to advance their own political and financial agendas. They undermine the benefits of good science and emphasize the things that go wrong, which feeds into a general pessimism about science, the future, and about human possibility, that could be self-fulfilling. Junk science, which parasitizes the language of science — think of “intelligent design”, “reflexology”, alternative “immune therapies” — thrives on denigration of the real thing and is looming ever larger in the collective consciousness.

As Raymond Tallis, professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Manchester writes:

Other things ease the path of the antiscientist. The honesty of science is a built-in PR disaster. Unlike junk science, it reports its failures, its uncertainties and its changes of mind; and the rewards of fraud in science are short-lived. Self-criticism, perpetual questioning of authorised opinion and received ideas, goes all the way through science like “Brighton Rock” through Brighton rock. Worse, much science is difficult to understand and many educators regard the expectation of intellectual effort in pupils as harassment.

Junk scientists count on the scientific illiteracy and laziness of the public as well as the hysteria-seeking of the fear-mongering media. The “truth” has thus become the province of those who can shout the loudest or who can create the most sensational headlines. The fundamental methodology that makes science such a powerful tool for discovery has been subverted and corrupted, twisted and mangled then passed off on the bovine masses as the real thing.

Under the Wikipedia entry for junk science the authors offer some characteristics of junk science that should provoke skepticism when encountered. They were proposed by a group of concerned food scientists and have been only slightly modified by me to make them more food-neutral. I hope you find them helpful – see below:

Ten Red Flags of Junk Science:

1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
2. Dire warnings of danger from a single source, product or regimen.
3. Claims that sound too good to be true.
4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
5. Recommendations based on a single study.
6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
7. Lists of "good" and "bad" things.
8. Recommendations made to help sell a product.
9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review.
10. Recommendations from studies that ignore individual or group differences.

Perhaps old wisdom is still good wisdom, just as old science is often still very good science, so I will leave you with a dose of some of the best:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

~ Gautama Buddha (563 - 483 BC)