If you have ever wondered what it would be like if professionals from other disciplines started using the peculiar logic used by climate scientists in their research, wonder no more. Tom Naughton on his eponymous blog gives us
If Climate “Researchers” Became Doctors
“Step up on the scale, Mr. Naughton.”
“Sure, Doctor. I’m looking forward to seeing this myself.”
“Let’s see … slide this over a bit … hmm, pretty bad. Your weight is up again.”
“Uh … Doctor, you mind getting your foot off the scale?”
“Oh, okay.”
“So … you want to weigh me again now?”
“Sorry, I’ve already recorded the results. You can step down now.”
“But–”
“Just as I predicted. Man-made body enlarging. I told you to stop consuming so much animal fat.”
“There’s nothing wrong with eating–”
“If this keeps up, you’ll weigh 650 pounds by the year 2030. It’s a looming disaster.”
“Doctor, excuse me, but there’s no way I’m gaining weight. Look at me. I had to buy a smaller belt last month.”
“That’s a temporary anomaly. I’m more interested in the long-term trend.”
“I’ve been shrinking for two years now. I’ve also been eating more animal fat. So it can’t be making me fatter. Your theory doesn’t hold up.””
Click on the coloured title to read it all. It’s priceless.
Hat Tip: Doug Hudson
Related posts:
- Real Climate Priorities New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, the people that lefties...
- High Tech Junk Science In what has to be the most high tech example...
- Consumer Doctors Found this in my e-mail today Hi Jim, I remember...
- Doctors 2, Labtests 0 One month into the contract that is the score so...
- Global Warping Now that our illustrious government has finally managed to pass,...
Dec 5 09 1:12 pm
LOL. Brilliant!
Dec 7 09 11:56 am
It might be a good analogy if digestion took 100 years.
Dec 7 09 12:33 pm
I prefer the medical analogy Key used on Breakfast this morning, 9 out of 10 climate scientists think that AGW is happening and that there could be severe consequences to it, if you took your child to 10 doctors and 9 of them said to take him to hospital, and the other one said no need to worry, would you take him?
Dec 7 09 8:13 pm
Andrew W:
I see two problems with the analogy. Firstly I’m fairly sure the 9 out of 10 figure is optimistic. Secondly, there are objective criteria for determining whether a child is sick or not. A closer analogy would be 9 out of 10 doctors telling you that a high cholesterol is bad for your health. While this is superficially true (just like it is true that the climate is changing) the actual situation is considerably more complex than “if A then B”.
Dec 7 09 10:13 pm
Well, this is probably the best survey of climatologists and other earth scientists on the subject:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
In the analogy I think the point is it’s recommended the child go to the hospital even though the doctors can’t make a definitive diagnosis. It’s really a question about whether or not there’s enough information available to start a treatment program, so in that respect it’s not the perfect analogy.
Maybe a better analogy would be 9 out of 10 doctors recommend an immediate start to treatment (even though there are side effects) while 1 recommends further testing, even though failure to start treatment could mean the strongly suspected infection will progress significantly while treatment is delayed.
Dec 7 09 10:39 pm
Andrew W.
Perhaps an even better analogy would be if the 9 doctors all have substantial shareholdings in the hospital or the drug they are recommending…
Your survey is from Eos, the magazine of the American Geophysical Union whose 2003 statement on AGW was: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system–including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons–are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” This statement was reaffirmed in 2007. This makes them hardly a disinterested party. I also note that of the 10,200 scientists contacted, only 3,146 replied. Using the logic applied to the smacking referendum, that means that less than a 1/3rd of Geoscientists believe in AGW…
Dec 8 09 6:59 am
A political public poll from Curia recently appeared on kiwiblog, it showed National as having a substantial lead, but as Curia and Kiwiblog are both owned by David Farrar, who’s a known National party member, the results of the survey can safely be discounted??
I think those who apply that logic to the smacking referendum are Wallies, and so do you!
Have a nice day.
Dec 8 09 7:37 am
Andrew W:
Curia is merely documenting the result of independent polls. Any poll on Climate Change will have automatic selection bias due to the hysterical denouncement that any scientist who dares to question AGW will receive. I would certainly like to see the methodology of any such poll before accepting its results – I doubt if the Eos poll was truly anonymous – sounds like a telephonic one to me.
And, yes, the latter portion of my last comment was suitably tongue-in-cheek…
Dec 8 09 9:34 am
The survey was conducted by Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, and former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, I see nothing suggesting Eos had anything to do with it other than publishing it.
It looks like it was conducted by email, so the participants probably couldn’t be certain of anonymity.
I guess we’ve pretty much thrashed the topic to death, but do tell, what evidence do you have supporting your Belief that 9 out of 10 climate scientists aren’t convinced about AGW?
Dec 8 09 10:31 am
No-one has responded to my succinct and apposite comment, so obviously I haven’t made myself clear enough
.
CO2 is not food and the Earth’s climate system is not the human body. The time scales are different and so is the short-term variability. If each extra kilojoule I eat now were to cause me to gain weight over the next 50-100 years, then you might have an analogy that begins to be relevant. But only “begins”.
All this joke tells me is how thoroughly people misunderstand the nature of the CO2-climate problem. You can blame the scientists for failing to explain, perhaps, but mostly you have to blame the people who are trying so desperately hard not to understand.
Mark. Let me help you here. This is not meant to be an analogy. This is meant to be funny. Just thought you might like to know that.
Dec 8 09 3:35 pm
The actual paper that Andrew linked to is there: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
…with all the detail that one would expect, presumably.
Dec 8 09 5:46 pm
Always took you as a climate denier macdoctor.
Dec 8 09 9:46 pm
Bomber:
Yeah, I truly believe there is no such thing as climate. It’s all down to giant Aliens with vast magnifying glasses. [sarc] (just in case you hadn’t picked that up)
There is, of course, no such thing as a climate change denier. Climates change all the time.
But there are plenty of people like me who are not convinced that man has anything at all to do with this climate change (or, more accurately, nothing significant to do with climate change).
Dec 8 09 9:57 pm
Andrew W and StephenR:
Thanks for your references. My problem with this survey stems from the 32,000 signatures of scientists who do not agree with AGW. At least 3,000 of those signatures should have been on the original list of 10,200 earth scientists. Yet none of them appear to have participated in this survey.
I find that odd.
Dec 9 09 9:46 am
Are you referring to the Oregon Petition?
Do you have a specific problem with the journal study’s methodology?
Dec 9 09 9:50 am
MacDoctor: “Mark. Let me help you here. This is not meant to be an analogy. This is meant to be funny. Just thought you might like to know that.”
Gee and I thought it was meant to be a joke using an analogy. So it’s not an analogy, it’s just (meant to be) funny? No applicability to the real world? I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
Dec 9 09 10:32 am
I think the earth scientists that signed the Oregon petition (or whatever it is they’re calling it these days) were from a broader, and therefore much larger, group than those that were invited to participate in the Doran survey, all that was required to sign the former was a bachelors degree, the latter are scientists currently working as researchers at research faculties.
Keane and Martinez looks like it’s a Directory of Geoscience Departments and their staff that’s been around for sometime, 2008 is the 46th edition.
Dec 9 09 10:40 am
‘Oregon’ was generally a fairly sloppy effort.