Ha ha. Courtesy of THIS PLACE HERE.

The IPCC, as you know, comes out with a set of reports every five years. The reports are written by groups of experts. Draft reports are widely accessible to people who register themselves as “experts” and there is no quality control in that process, in order to keep things as transparent as possible. This means that the worst climate change denialists can simply sign up as “experts” and flood the scientists trying to write these reports with irrelevant and stupid comments, thus, I presume, wasting valuable time and effort. But, such is the cost of transparency, which is important.

But, even the climate change denailits, who tend to be a rowdy group with with only a vague grasp, if any, on ethics and who generally have very little respect for truth, have to promise to not release any part of the draft that they have had the privilege to see and comment on. This is very important for reasons that are so blindingly obvious I won’t bother explaining them here.

Well, over the last few days, one of the denialsts, in comments on one of the famous denialist blogs, released sections of the report. The part he released, essentially, said:

“There is this idea X which suggests that Y happens. There is no evidence that this is true but we looked carefully at it and there is still no evidence that this is true.”

But by cherry picking and providing a lie as context, the climate change science denier (CCSD) made it say:

“There is t his idea X which suggests that Y happens. Y means global warming is not real. This is in the ICPP report. This is a game changer.”

Below I’m going to give you links to a handful of the blog posts out there that explain exactly what happened, as well as a document just released by the IPCC expressing regret that one of the “expert reviewers” did this thing that should not have been done.

I wonder if that person’s “expert” status will remain in place. It probably should. The whinging and moaning that would result from someone violating the rules being tossed out, from the CCSD afflicted community, would be more annoying than letting the jerk continue to pretend that he is an “expert” on something.

Landmark climate change report leaked online

Leak of Climate Panel Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process

IPCC report leaked then cherry-picked

Draft IPCC report leaked

Major IPCC Report Draft Leaked Then Cherry-Picked By Climate Sceptic

IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun

PDF File of Statement By IPCC is HERE

Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a list of current or recent books and other resources pertaining to the war on science. Where I’ve reviewed a book here, I provide a link to that review. There are also some helpful web sites and podcasts listed below. The listing of resources is divided up by “front” or “battle ground” where appropriate, keeping with the “War on Science” metaphor.

The War on Science, General

Books:

• Mooney, Chris and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Unscientific America

• Otto, Shawn. Fool me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America

• Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
• The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality

Podcasts:

• Interview of Shawn Otto

• The War on Science, Interview with Greg Laden

• Skeptically Speaking #147 Science and Politics – a panel discussion about what happens when science intersects with politics. We’re joined by Sheril Kirshenbaum, co-author of Unscientific America, anthropologist/blogger Greg Laden, and Shawn Lawrence Otto, and National Center for Science Education Executive Director Eugenie Scott returns to discuss an exciting new project to defend consensus science.

• The Difference Between Science And Bunk: Massimo Pigliucci on Atheists Talk #059

Blog posts:

• Posts on this blog regarding denialism and woo

Creationism

Books:

• Forrest, Barbara and Paul Gross. Creationism’s Trojan Horse

• Montgomery, David. The Rocks Don’t Lie: A geologist investigates Noah’s flood

• Scott, Eugenie. Evolution vs. Creationism, Second Edition

Podcasts:

• Skeptically Speaking #138 – what happens when a bedrock scientific theory goes up for debate in the contentious realm of politics? We’ll speak to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director, and Steven Newton, Programs and Policy Director, at the National Center for Science Education, about evolution as a political issue. And anthropologist and blogger Greg Laden analyzes the fallout from the so-called “climategate” emails.

• NCSE: Genie Scott and Greg Laden on Atheists Talk #68

Blogs and Blog Posts:

• National Center for Science Education
• Posts on this blog regarding creationism

Climate Science

Books:

• Hansen, James. Storms of my Grandchildren

• Mann, Michael. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

• Mooney, Chris. The Republican War on Science

• Mooney, Chris. Storm World: Hurricanes, poplitics, and the battle over global warming

• Powell, James Lawrence. The Inquisition of Climate Science

Podcasts:

• Skeptically Speaking #177 Climate Change at CONvergence – highlights from “The Chilling Effects of Denialism,” and “Who Will Save the Polar Bears,” two panels on climate change recorded live as part of the Skepchickcon track at CONvergence 2012, and moderated by our host, Desiree Schell. Science writer Maggie Koerth-Baker, engineering professor John Abraham, science advocate and writer Shawn Otto, and biological anthropologist Greg Laden discussed the causes and effects of climate change, and how debate over the science has played out in the media and popular culture

• “The Science of Global Warming.” Science v Denialism on Atheists Talk #126. Kevin Zelnio and John Abraham Discuss Climate Change with Mike Haubrich and Greg Laden

Blog posts and Web sites:

• National Center for Science Education

• Skeptical Science, everything you need to know to answer denialist questions

Anti-Vax and related health woo

Books:

• Offit, Paul. Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All

Podcasts:

• Skeptically Speaking #82 – Dr. David Gorski, surgical oncologist and Managing Editor of Science-Based Medicine, about the science and the suspicion of vaccinations

• Skeptically Speaking #113 – Science Based Medicine And The Media: Dr. Steven Novella, academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, Executive Editor of the website Science-Based Medicine, and a senior fellow and Director of Science-Based Medicine at the James Randi Educational Foundation and Maria Walters, on the Grassroots Skepticism Workshop at SkepchickCon.

• Skeptically Speaking #115 – blogger Scicurious discusses the fact and fiction of mobile phones, and medical physicist Dr. Marc MacKenzie, discusses the science of microwave radiation.

• Skeptically Speaking #184 – Your Baby’s Best Shot: Allison Hagood and Stacy Herlihy, to talk about their book Your Baby’s Best Shot: Why Vaccines are Safe and Save Lives. And we’re joined by Skepchick.org founder Rebecca Watson, to talk about pseudoscience that’s targeted and marketed specifically at women

Web sites or blog posts:

• Respectful Insolence, blog by Orac

The Tipping Point approach works like this: As the percentage of qualified scientists that hold a particular view diminishes, when it reaches about 25 percent or so, the view should continue to be references but as a minority view. Many points of view have been around that range in the past and we are glad we did not eliminate them. For instance, the role of Archeopteryx in bird evolution has moved in and out of favor such that what may well be the correct view may have been close to that sort of minority at various times in the past. As plate tectonics started to develop as a theory, it was held at about this level of minority for a while. The idea of particulate inheritance lost favor for decades prior to the New Darwinian Synthesis, and may have been in that range for a while. Minority vies should be maintained, but labeled clearly as such, in science reviews or in policy development.

But when that view goes to single digits, something else happens. We remember that the percentage of people who think that they’ve been abducted by aliens, or that are certain they’ve seen ghosts, or other impossible things, is around there. If 90 percent of scientists in a given field thing that A is likely correct and B is not, then is time to start ignoring B.

The second aproach, “Clues that Something is Wrong Here,” works quite differently. Some people are going to not like this approach because it rings of ad hominem argumentation or argument from authority. And it is. But note that this is the second approach being suggested for a reason, and I think once you see how it works you’ll agree that it is valid.

There are many possible clues, and I suggest only a few here:

• The main proponents of the minority opinion are not part of the mainstream science.
• The most vocal proponents of the minority opinion are often politicians who are linked to a party or political movement with a priori reasons to hold this point of view.
• The main arguments being made at the policy level are non-scientific, and often include accusations of unfairness or bias.
• The main arguments made at the policy level about the validity of a certain interpretation of the available evidence is that it should be given more consideration because no one believes it any more. In other words, the argument is made that a particular point of view is right because the vast majority of practitioners in the field are certain that it is wrong.
• The victimization of the minority point of view starts to come into play.
• The appeal to support the fading minority point of view shifts primarily from the scientific community to easily swayed politically motivated members of the public.
• The appeal to support the fading minority point of view shifts primarily to those calling for investigative agencies to intervene on behalf of the view that is widely seen as wrong.
• And finally, the primary argument against the fading, by now fully discredited point of view is reference to the idea that there must be a conspiracy afoot against it, otherwise why would it appear to be completely wrong. And therefore it must be correct

You can see now why this is not a simple argument from authority or ad hominem. What has happened in the typical case is that those still stumping for the incorrect view are no longer valid experts, but rather, biased political entities or crazy people (or some combination of the two). There isn’t a single zoologist who thinks Bigfoot is real. Today, bigfoot “exerts” are either charlatans or disturbed individuals. There is not a single evovlutionary biologist who things the earth is 6000 years old. Today, each and every Young Earth Creationist is a preacher or a con artist or, again, disturbed. There are almost no climate scientists who think that Global Warming and other related climate change is not a) real and b) human caused in the majority. Those who defy this point of view these days are either in the employ of energy companies or, perhaps, Tea Partiers or biased Senators. It is not an ad hominem argument because the validity of the science is not being questioned on the basis of qualities (or lack thereof) of those supporting the views, but rather, the minority view is being ignored because those still professing it are not qualified to even enter the debate to begin with.