Rex Murphy's Conflict of Interest on the Oilsands

[Argus]

Rex is a journalist, not a scientist. He knows very little about climate science. Probably about as much as you or I know. Neither Rex, nor you, nor me, are in any position to take much of stance on the climate science since we have a very surface understanding of the science, and much of what we know is fed to us through the media and not through decades of research via scientific journals and other academic sources.

I don't buy this argument in the slightest. There is an issue at hand here, that being climate change, its degree/effect and what to do about it. Given the suggestions from the likes of Suzuki and Young would dramatically impact all of society, you cannot suggest that only 'experts' like Suzuki can have any say in it. That is especially so when those 'experts' have voluntarily disclosed that they care nothing for consequences, but only for solving this particular issue in isolation. We, as a democratic society, can and will take a stance on what to do about it, based upon the evidence and information presented to us, and our assesment of the costs and likely results of proposed solutions. And personally I'd rather have climate change go right on ahead rather than let the Suzukis and Youngs of the world 'solve' the problem for me.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think anyone with an ounce of thought or neutrality would suggest that Rex Murphy's opinions are paid for by the oil industry.

How so ? There's certainly no neutrality in advocating for people who pay you.

He was irresponsible. He's one of those people one sees, much like Suzuki, who is an absolutist because compromise and complication irritate him. Suzuki and Young share the same belief, that the economy and money and jobs have no importance whatsoever. By any measure that's dumb as well as irresponsible.

Unlike Suzuki and Young, he works for the news and that's the point - not that they're absolutists, or that they have opinions, or that they make money to live.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't buy this argument in the slightest. There is an issue at hand here, that being climate change, its degree/effect and what to do about it. Given the suggestions from the likes of Suzuki and Young would dramatically impact all of society, you cannot suggest that only 'experts' like Suzuki can have any say in it.

Since Suzuki etc. aka scientists should be the only ones having a say in the science. They should be the ones who determine whether or not, or the extend to which human activities ie: greenhouse gases have been affecting our climate. People like Al Gore and Ezra Levant etc. should have zero say in the science because they are completely unqualified to make any scientific evaluation of it.

But there's a difference in the science and in the suggestions/prescriptions for action based on the science. Yes, politicians and journalists and the rest of us can have a say in that, because climate scientists (usually) aren't economists or engineers etc. David Suzuki's opinions of the climate science and his opinion on the social/economic/political actions we should take based on the science should be regarded separately. That said, we should at least listen to what scientists have to say about actions to take regarding climate change.

[TimG]

Unlike Suzuki and Young, he works for the news and that's the point

He does not report the NEWS. He has a opinion column where his schick is to push the envelope. He also hosts a call in show. You are aware of the difference between the news pages and the opinion pages in the news paper?

More importantly, Suzuki is the host of a science show and does have the option of twisting the presentation of science on CBC to support his paid activist work. Trying to pretend this conflict of interest can simply be ignored partisan hypocrisy which means it is very hard to take your complaints about Rex as anything other than partisan slander.

Edited February 21, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Since Suzuki etc. aka scientists should be the only ones having a say in the science.

1) There are lots of capable people who don't work in climate science yet are willing and able to read and understand the scientific literature. The idea that the only people that can have an opinion on the science are climate scientists is elitist hogwash. The field is not that difficult to follow, the biggest barrier is the time it takes to read enough to be informed.

2) Suzuki has not been a practicing scientist for decades and even when he was a scientist his specialty was genetics. He is nothing but a political activist today and based on his recent comments on a show in Australia I am pretty sure I know a lot more about what the IPCC and the scientific literature says than he does.

But there's a difference in the science and in the suggestions/prescriptions for action based on the science.

Exactly. Except whenever Suzuki talks the only thing he talks about are his pet policies which are generally completely impractical and can only be ignored. Edited February 21, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Rex defends himself and makes it clear that the allegations are even more spurious than I had thought because oil industry events are a small subset of his paid speaking engagements:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/22/rex-murphy-speaking-my-mind-no-matter-the-issue/

Edited February 22, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

1) There are lots of capable people who don't work in climate science yet are willing and able to read and understand the scientific literature. The idea that the only people that can have an opinion on the science are climate scientists is elitist hogwash. The field is not that difficult to follow, the biggest barrier is the time it takes to read enough to be informed.

It's not "elitist hogwash", it's logic. Yes there are people not in climate science, but in related science fields like geology and oceanology, maybe meterology etc., that will have enough expertise and knowledge on climate science to be able to understand and analyze the science at a high enough level to make an informed opinion on it and be taken seriously. However, someone without a science background can spend a couple of years of reading and have a decent grasp of the science at a basic to moderate level, but they'll still have a poor ability in scrutinizing scientific articles with very complex math formulas/charts etc.with an ability to judge whether the researcher's work and analysis is scientifically/mathematically accurate or not.

The field is extremely difficult to understand at an expert level, there are an insane number of variables that go into determining climate. You need to know your chemistry, physics, and how the science of things like oceans, land, the atmosphere, and the sun/radiation work,. Given the failure of climate models it's fairly clear most climate scientists, with PhD's, don't even have a great understanding of climate yet. IMO, unless an average person wants to learn enough to approach PhD-level knowledge, the best any layman (99% of the population) can do is determine what kind of consensus (if any) exists among scientists regarding climate and put our faith in their expertise (on the science, not their prescriptions of what to do about it).

If something like a 50-to-1 ratio (i have no idea the ratio) of qualified scientists are saying human activity is causing dangerous global warming vs not then I'm going to believe the vast majority. Similarly if 50 doctors said you had cancer and 1 doctor said you didn't, you'd be stupid to believe the 1 doctor over the other 50...even if you just read 20 books on cancer yourself and think you're "informed".

2) Suzuki has not been a practicing scientist for decades and even when he was a scientist his specialty was genetics. He is nothing but a political activist today and based on his recent comments on a show in Australia I am pretty sure I know a lot more about what the IPCC and the scientific literature says than he does.

Exactly. Except whenever Suzuki talks the only thing he talks about are his pet policies which are generally completely impractical and can only be ignored.

You're right, Suzuki probably doesn't have enough knowledge on climate to be telling us about it, let alone how to deal with it.

[TimG]

Yes there are people not in climate science, but in related science fields like geology and oceanology, maybe meterology etc

And physics, chemistry, statistics or engineering. The barrier to entry is the time it takes to read enough if one starts with the basic understanding of science.

However, someone without a science background can spend a couple of years of reading and have a decent grasp of the science at a basic to moderate level, but they'll still have a poor ability in scrutinizing scientific articles with very complex math formulas/charts etc.

Most climate scientists don't have the ability to understand papers outside of their immediate specialty at any more than a moderate level. An aerospace engineer who works regularly with numerical models is more qualified than a paleo-climate scientist to understand climate models because a paleo-climate deals mainly with statistical problems whereas the engineer deals with numerical models.

IMO, unless an average person wants to learn enough to approach PhD-level knowledge

PhDs are just another degree. It just means someone spend more time in school and spent time writing a thesis on some narrow topic that likely has no relevance to their current job. No matter what a PhD does they need to learn whatever then need to learn each time they start a new project. This learning process is not that different from the learning process an outsider needs to go through. Keep in mind I am not saying any guy off the street is qualified. I am saying there is no magic that prevents anyone willing to put the time in from understanding the material.

If something like a 50-to-1 ratio (i have no idea the ratio) of qualified scientists are saying human activity is causing dangerous global warming vs not then I'm going to believe the vast majority.

The word "dangerous" is a non-scientific subjective qualifier and I can tell you there is no consensus on that adjective (>10% of climate scientists do not think it is dangerous at all). There is a consensus on the statement that "human activity is causing global warming". This is a good example of how people misrepresent the science for political purposes.

You're right, Suzuki probably doesn't have enough knowledge on climate to be telling us about it, let alone how to deal with it.

Well we agree on something. Edited February 22, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Here are some links to rebut the word "dangerous" that you inserted into your claim:

When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change#sthash.wle3Q5JR.dpuf

[Moonlight Graham]

And physics, chemistry, statistics or engineering. The barrier to entry is the time it takes to read enough if one starts with the basic understanding of science.

Keep in mind I am not saying any guy off the street is qualified. I am saying there is no magic that prevents anyone willing to put the time in from understanding the material.

I agree with you there. A degree is a piece of paper, as well as a recognized level of expertise, but you can acquire the same level of knowledge on your own without the degree. You just wont have have the same recognized qualification & it will be a lot harder to be taken as seriously by others since it's hard to prove to others how much knowledge you've acquired without an official authority.

The word "dangerous" is a non-scientific subjective qualifier.

It's subjective, but not scientific. If anyone wants to qualify something as "dangerous" then they need to define/operationalize "dangerous", and to whom/what. If scientists can show that global warming has a high chance of contributing to tens of millions of deaths over the next few decades (I have no idea if that's true or not, just for sake of argument) then they could claim that as "dangerous to human life", which wouldn't be subjective.

[Moonlight Graham]

Here are some links to rebut the word "dangerous" that you inserted into your claim:

Just to be clear, I never claimed there was "dangerous global warming". I was using the phrase in a hypothetical example.

[TimG]

You just wont have have the same recognized qualification & it will be a lot harder to be taken as seriously by others since it's hard to prove to others how much knowledge you've acquired without an official authority.

Paper credentials are often misleading since many people with paper credentials don't know what they are talking about. One should never accept an argument simply because the maker has the right credentials or reject it because they don't. The argument itself needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If one does not have the background required to evaluate an argument it is understandable that one would fallback to credentials but that does not mean that people who do have the background are wrong to say a non-credentialed source is making a good argument or that a credentialed source is making a bad one.

If anyone wants to qualify something as "dangerous" then they need to define/operationalize "dangerous", and to whom/what.

Exactly. But the problem in this debate is activists are constantly talking about the huge consensus but if you actually look at what the consensus is about you find that it does not exactly support the claims that the activists are making. Yet when people try to point out that mismatch they are called 'anti-science' by these activists. Edited February 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I agree with you there. A degree is a piece of paper, as well as a recognized level of expertise, but you can acquire the same level of knowledge on your own without the degree. You just wont have have the same recognized qualification & it will be a lot harder to be taken as seriously by others since it's hard to prove to others how much knowledge you've acquired without an official authority.

Who needs a license to drive? It's elitist hogwash. Anyone can teach themselves. Validating people's skills is such an ivory-tower thing to do.

[TimG]

Who needs a license to drive? It's elitist hogwash. Anyone can teach themselves.

Driver's licenses are a good illustration of my point. Not everyone who has a license can drive and not everyone who does not have a license can't. If you really care about the question of who can drive and who cannot you cannot rely on the simple possession of a valid driver's license. A driver's license exists because the government wants to be able to take it away as punishment for various infractions.

So the statement that only "climate scientists" can have an informed opinion of the science *is* elitist hogwash and is only made by people seeking to silence those that disagree with them.

A statement that only "only people who have taken the time to learn the scientific literature" can have an informed opinion of the science is a fair statement.

Question of how to determine who has "taken the time to learn the scientific literature" is more difficult but it cannot be reasonably answered by looking only at those who make money publishing papers in climate related fields.

Edited February 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Driver's licenses are a good illustration of my point. Not everyone who has a license can drive and not everyone who does not have a license can't. If you really care about the question of who can drive and who cannot you cannot rely on the simple possession of a valid driver's license. A driver's license exists because the government wants to be able to take it away as punishment for various infractions.

So the statement that only "climate scientists" can have an informed opinion of the science *is* elitist hogwash and is only made by people seeking to silence those that disagree with them.

A statement that only "only people who have taken the time to learn the scientific literature" can have an informed opinion of the science is a fair statement.

Question of how to determine who has "taken the time to learn the scientific literature" is more difficult but it cannot be reasonably answered by looking only at those who make money publishing papers in climate related fields.

And those who make money saying "hogwash" Lime Exxon Mobil whilst the polar ice cap melts.

[bush_cheney2004]

And those who make money saying "hogwash" Lime Exxon Mobil whilst the polar ice cap melts.

Let it melt...it has happened before, and it will happen again. Even happens on Mars.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let it melt...it has happened before, and it will happen again. Even happens on Mars.

Mars may be just where we have to go. Exxon will pay, won't they?

[Moonlight Graham]

Who needs a license to drive? It's elitist hogwash. Anyone can teach themselves. Validating people's skills is such an ivory-tower thing to do.

You can be a good driver without a license, it's just that a driver's license is proof that you've passed a certain level of driving skill/knowledge as judged by a qualified authority. Similar to a school degree. That's why driver's licenses, or just about any certification, is a good idea. If you don't believe in validating people's skills, the next time you need medical surgery feel free to let a non-certified non-PhD with a library card operate on you

[Moonlight Graham]

So the statement that only "climate scientists" can have an informed opinion of the science *is* elitist hogwash and is only made by people seeking to silence those that disagree with them.

A statement that only "only people who have taken the time to learn the scientific literature" can have an informed opinion of the science is a fair statement.

Question of how to determine who has "taken the time to learn the scientific literature" is more difficult but it cannot be reasonably answered by looking only at those who make money publishing papers in climate related fields.

I agree with this.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

Since Suzuki etc. aka scientists should be the only ones having a say in the science. They should be the ones who determine whether or not, or the extend to which human activities ie: greenhouse gases have been affecting our climate. People like Al Gore and Ezra Levant etc. should have zero say in the science because they are completely unqualified to make any scientific evaluation of it.

The problem with that is that we've seen that scientists have often become the equivilent of ideologues on this issue, willing to shape their science to match their beliefs, willing to interpret it and ignore contrary information to put out the best publicity in support of their cause. When scientists started campaigning they lost objectivity and trust.

[cybercoma]

we've seen that scientists...shape their science to match their beliefs...and ignore contrary information

You want to back that up or you just going to leave it hanging out there like that? Because that's not how science works and you know it. You want to show that this is happening on any sort of grand scale without putting on Ben Stein's foil hat? Edited February 23, 2014 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

You want to back that up or you just going to leave it hanging out there like that? Because that's not how science works and you know it. You want to show that this is happening on any sort of grand scale without putting on Ben Stein's foil hat?

Ya I agree. Where is a evidence to back your claim Argus? This survey of 489 scientists that TimG's posted a page or 2 ago doesn't support the claim:

The researchers conclude that the findings “provide little support for criticisms that scientists’ views on global warming are based on workplace pressures or desires to further their own careers or expand their public influence.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

You want to back that up or you just going to leave it hanging out there like that?

Even beyond that - as a blanket statement it may be true, but it only outlines that all human beings behave like humans. I do not accept such statements as "everybody acts in their own self-interest" "everybody is biased" or "everybody is racist" or "science doesn't tell us everything" as having more significance than a philosophic truth. The implications of such truths should already be obvious.

Therefore:

"everybody acts in their own self interest" doesn't mean that it's pointless for theft to have legal/moral ramifications

"everyone is biased" doesn't mean that we should have news networks that spread misinformation on purpose

"everybody is racist" doesn't mean that you can utter racist sayings without recourse under guise of telling the truth

"science doesn't tell us everything" doesn't mean that we withhold all natural conclusions and actions agreed to by a large majority of specialist scientists

Scientists may be biased but they should try not to be, and we should trust them not to be. In the end, the process is designed to bring out errors and flaws. Nothing has changed with regards to this, except maybe how irresponsible news organizations report information to "the" public.

[TimG]

Scientists may be biased but they should try not to be, and we should trust them not to be.

We only trust them if they have no done anything to betray that trust. In the case of climate science they have betrayed that trust over and over again and therefore can no longer expect to be trusted.

[Michael Hardner]

As the money drains out of MSM, so do the ethics.

http://canadalandshow.com/

Jon Kay of the National Post defends Murphy and seems to say that such disclosures are sometimes unnecessary.