#25-8 Disinformation, Pseudoscience, Junk Science, and Climate Change (In Defense of Science, Part 3)
In which the E@L explains how to distinguish truth from bunkum, especially regarding Climate Change
One way to attack science is to continuously promote lies and misinformation. “Flood the zone” with disinformation, until we (the public) are overwhelmed and can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. And those who would break our connection with truth are doing exactly that. Our only recourse is to work harder to identify misinformation and call it for what it is.
In the previous post we discussed definitions of science and accepted methods for conducting it. In this post we shall see how we can use that knowledge to identify misinformation, pseudoscience, and junk science.
What are the most exciting words in Science?
In the old science fiction movies, the wild-haired scientist mixes some chemicals, then shouts “Eureka, I have found it!”. But the reality is that unexpected results are more interesting. The scientist who says “Hmm, that’s not what I expected” is really onto something exciting, because he has just experienced a Black Swan event.
But most of the time, when you get an amazing, counterintuitive result, it means you screwed up the experiment.
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Which I will call Science Rule No. 3.
1. Pseudoscience, Junk Science, and Bad Science
Pseudoscience is a process that superficially resembles science, but is based on false assumptions, is not testable, or is not refutable. Pseudoscience may include processes that are claimed to be scientific, but that do not use appropriate scientific methodology. Examples of pseudoscience are astrology, superstition, quackery, reflexology, homeopathy, and probably chiropractic. Whatever claims they make are not supported by any actual scientific evidence or valid experimental research. I exclude acupuncture from this list because it works for some problems, even though nobody is actually sure why or how. I’m sure we’ll eventually figure it out.
Pseudoscience also includes research in which controls were not used, or sample sizes were too small, or the statistical interpretation is invalid. A perfect example is the “cold-fusion” hoopla of 1989. Two chemists with little training in physics purported to have created cold fusion in their laboratory at the University of Utah. In order to secure patent rights, the University encouraged the scientists to announce their discovery at a news conference before their research was reviewed by peers, even though other scientists had tried and failed to replicate their results. Eventually, it turned out that the scientists had not really understood what had caused their results and had not included a control experiment. In this case, poor science was compounded by pressure to publish, resulting in extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence to back them up.
In contrast to pseudoscience, “Junk Science” is not a defined term, just an epithet, as in “Your science is Junk! (but mine is not!)”. This term is usually applied by politicians, pundits, conservationists, lawyers, and talking heads, to get an emotional reaction. Anti-vaxxers who claim that the MMR vaccine is harmful are guilty of junk science because MMR is highly effective at preventing measles, and multiple cases have now occurred among the unvaccinated population in five states, including four recent (and preventable!) deaths. (And if you are not subscribed to Your Local Epidemiologist, you should be).
Although I have used the terms Misinformation and Disinformation in this article, they do not imply the same thing. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, i.e. using the wrong facts, such as blaming climate change on sunspots. Disinformation is misinformation created deliberately to confuse or mislead, i.e. intentionally stating wrong information to change opinion. This includes propaganda and outright fabrication, such as the statement by RF Kennedy, Jr. that the effect of MMR vaccines “…wanes very quickly”, which we know is not correct.
2. Scientific Homilies
Previously, I mentioned a few of what I call Science Rules. But scientists also have Scientific Homilies. Some of these include:
Anecdotes are not data. Just because your Aunt Matilda died the day after her haircut doesn’t mean the purple dye killed her (but it might have).
Correlation is not Causation. Two things that occur simultaneously may be the result of completely independent forces. Divorces per capita in Maine declined from 2000 to 2010 at the same rate as consumption of margarine. Even though this may suggest a relationship, it does not prove that one caused the other.
We previously noted that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A corollary is that “Nonsense of evidence is not evidence of nonsense”. I just made that up, but it means that just because we can’t explain the evidence doesn’t mean it has no explanation.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. This is the rule of parsimony, also known as “Occam’s Razor”, which I should call Science Rule No. 4. If multiple explanations for some phenomenon exist, the correct one is usually the simplest. This is because it has the fewest parameters (i.e. things that could go wrong), and the fewest assumptions (things that we don’t know).
Einstein summarized this succinctly: “A model should be as simple as possible. But no simpler.”
3. Parsimony and Climate Change
One example where we should apply Occam’s Razor is climate change. I quote directly from (what used to be) reliable sources (before they can be removed):
From NASA:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
Atmospheric temperatures are warming faster than rates seen in 10,000 years, and CO2 is higher than it has been in over 800,000 years (based on ice core data).1
From NOAA:
Earth’s average surface temperature has risen by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1880. Since 1800, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 410 ppm in 2019. Mean global sea level is rising. Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly in both thickness and extent.
[Note: The original NOAA figure on temperature increase has already been removed from the Web].
From the United Nations: Storm intensity, drought, and species loss are increasing.
“Destructive storms have become more intense and more frequent in many regions. Climate change is changing water availability, making it scarcer in more regions. Glaciers are retreating. Deserts are expanding, reducing land for growing food. The world is losing species at a rate 1,000 times greater than at any other time in recorded human history.”2
A Pop Quiz on Climate Change
All of the available evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels have increased dramatically over the last century, compared to all previous measurements. Many different hypotheses have been suggested to explain this, some of which are listed below. Which of these do you think is the most likely explanation for climate change?
It’s just random variation (but WAY exceeding normal ranges)
Sunspots (which occur at regular intervals of 11-12 years and 70-90 years)
Cow farts (actually belches which are mostly methane)
The moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars (extra credit if you can identify the source)
A large-scale hoax coordinated by secret committees of scientists meeting in dark rooms (where? How?) with no written record (i.e. no evidence).
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (CO2 and methane) emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation (as concluded in the IPCC report signed by >300 scientists)
A hoax created by the Chinese to disrupt the US Economy (Source: DJ Trump)
Which of these explanations do you think is most likely? Before you answer, keep in mind what you have already learned. Which extraordinary claims are (or are not) supported by extraordinary evidence? Which include replication? Which answer is the simplest, with the fewest parameters and assumptions?
4. Causes of Climate Change
Minor fluctuations in Earth’s climate are caused by natural forcing, including sunspots, variations in earth’s orbit, and volcanic emissions. Ice core data shows us that, over the last 800 millenia, C02 levels varied between 180-290 ppm, but in the last century, they have risen to about 400 ppm. Methane levels are also much higher than long term levels (and cow belches are partly to blame). Climatologists agree that these rapid changes cannot be accounted for by natural forcing factors.3
According to NOAA “We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Finally, no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend. Taken together, these and other lines of evidence point squarely to human activities as the cause of recent global warming.”
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans (59%) either do not believe that climate change is real or caused by humans, and many believe it is a hoax. Climate-change deniers would have us believe that evidence for climate change is “controversial”. But as of 2014, the conclusion that warming temperatures are evidence of long-term climate change caused by human fossil fuel use was supported by 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists (as opposed to those who just pontificate on the web or Fox TV).
The reason for our disbelief is two-fold. First, America has some of the worst science education in the world. But it is also the result of a dedicated campaign of misinformation by The Heartland Institute, a private organization funded by the fossil fuel industry. They created a campaign of mass disinformation designed to “undermine the IPCC report” and “dissuading teachers from teaching science”.
5. Disarming Disinformation
Disinformation is one of the biggest obstacles to scientific progress. There will always be those for whom science is antithetical, because it either disrupts their previously held beliefs and prejudices, or because they perceive it as impeding their ability to make money. The oil industry is behind much of the climate change denial, because they believe that preventing climate change will reduce their revenue.
But for the long term, and for human survival, we need to prevent changing our climate faster than normal, or faster than we can adapt to it. And the best way to do that is to develop alternative, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We know that this will help preserve our climate and human society. But we are being misled by a small group of people for whom short-term greed is more important than long-term benefits.
But you, dear reader, are informed and have the skills to fight back against misinformation and junk-/pseudoscience. Your Bullshit Detectors should be on High Alert! Go forth and spread the word (of science!).
Writing about nature is not easy. It requires preparation, hard work, and sometimes sweat to observe nature, and time, thought, and effort to describe it. Although this post is free, becoming a paid subscriber will help me continue to share my thoughts, and encourage future postings.
This issue of Ecologist at Large is available to all readers. However, if you would like to support my work with a one-off contribution, click “Buy me a coffee” below.
USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1 [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.
IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.
Thompson LG. 2010. Climate change: the evidence and our options. The Behavior Analyst 33(2):153-70. doi: 10.1007/BF03392211. PMID: 22532707; PMCID: PMC2995507. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2995507/#s2
Good on ya! It's actually from the musical Hair, but we of a certain generation know the version you cited. None of my millennial grad students knew the answer.
Yes, but. We still use correlation, regression, and other models to determine if data trends are related. It may not prove/disprove cause effect. But by weeding out other factors we can determine the likelihood of a cause-effect relationship, and how strong it is.