Some of the changes are obvious, some are less so.

Noether (pronounced “ner-ter”) was born in . . . → Read More: Emmy Noether: pillar of 20th century mathematics and physics]]> With all the attention given lately to the tentative discovery of the long-sought Higgs boson in experiments at the Large Hardon Collider (LHC) in Europe, one would think that more attention would be drawn to Amalie Emmy Noether, a woman who made groundbreaking contributions to both mathematics and physics.

Noether (pronounced “ner-ter”) was born in 1882 to a Jewish family in Bavaria, Germany. Both her father and her brother were also mathematicians of some renown. She started out studying English, French and piano, which were thought to be more appropriate for a woman, but inevitably she became interested in mathematics. Although she was barred from formally enrolling in mathematics at the University of Erlangen, she simply audited all of the courses, and did so well on her exams that she was grudgingly granted the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree.

She then studied at the University of Erlangen, where she received a Ph.D. in 1907. She worked at the Mathematical Institute there for seven years without pay, since at the time women were largely excluded from academic positions.

But ultimately her brilliance was obvious to everyone she worked with. Famed mathematician David Hilbert in particular fought an ultimately successful battle to secure for her a faculty appointment the University of Gottingen in 1915. “I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her,” Hilbert railed indignantly to the university administration. This relationship is movingly detailed in Loving and Hating Mathematics  (Princeton University Press, 2010)  by mathematician Reuben Hersh) and  social scientist Vera John-Steiner.

Noether remained at Gottingen until 1933, when with the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany, she fled to the United States, where she taught at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania until her untimely death from ovarian cancer two years later at the age of 53.

Noether made signal contributions to the mathematics of rings, fields and algebras. The Dutch mathematician B. L. van der Waerden became a leading expositor of work, which he incorporated into the second volume of his influential 1931 work Moderne Algebra.

However, her most notable achievement was her work in the area of application of these algebraic concepts to physics. Her interest in physics began in 1917, when she fell “head over ear” with Einstein’s general relativity, and began to apply her earlier work in invariance to some of the complexities of the theory. Ultimately, this led to her most famous work, now known as “Noether’s theorem.”

“Noether’s theorem” is fundamental to all modern physics. In colloquial terms, she demonstrated that whenever a symmetry is observed in physics, it is deeply connected with an underlying conservation law. For example, she showed that the symmetry of time inherent in physical laws is directly connected to the law of conservation of energy. Similarly, the symmetry evident when an object is spinning is directly connected to the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Physicists Leon Lederman and Christopher Hill have termed Noether’s theorem “one of the most important mathematical theorems ever proved in guiding the development of modern physics” [Leon M. Lederman and Christopher T. Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe," Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2004, pg. 23-25]. Similarly, Lisa Randall, a well-known Harvard physicist, remarked that when she learned that the author of Noether’s theorem, which she had learned from early study in physics, was a “she,” Randall commented that it was “exciting and inspirational.”

Additional details can be found in a well-written [NY Times article], from which some of the above was taken.

In the U.S., a 2009 report by the National Academies again highlighted the desperate need to improve mathematical education, particularly at the K-12 level, where so many otherwise talented students either fall behind or lose interest. . . . → Read More: “Numeracy crisis” threatens first-world economies]]> Recent news reports and commentaries have again drawn attention to a “numeracy crisis” that threatens the economies of first-world nations.

In the U.S., a 2009 report by the National Academies again highlighted the desperate need to improve mathematical education, particularly at the K-12 level, where so many otherwise talented students either fall behind or lose interest. The report’s Summary concluded

Mathematics education has risen to the top of the national policy agenda as part of the need to improve the technical and scientific literacy of the American public. The new demands of international competition in the 21st century require a workforce that is competent in and comfortable with mathematics. There is particular concern about the chronically low mathematics and science performance of economically disadvantaged students and the lack of diversity in the science and technical workforce. Particularly alarming is that such disparities exist in the earliest years of schooling and even before school entry. …

The committee found that, although virtually all young children have the capability to learn and become competent in mathematics, for most the potential to learn mathematics in the early years of school is not currently realized. This stems from a lack of opportunities to learn mathematics either in early childhood settings or through everyday experiences in homes and in communities. This is particularly the case for economically disadvantaged.

In the U.K., a March 2012 report found that millions of adults have numerical skills only at the level commonly expected of an 11-year-old. The report also found that young persons with poor numeracy skills were twice as likely to drop out of school and are twice as likely to be unemployed. It calls for the U.K. to change its attitude to mathematics, so that being bad at math should no longer be seen as a “badge of honor” [UK Channel 4 report].

Among the highlights of the U.K. report are that one in five of business members questioned last year said that they had to teach remedial mathematics to their employees. As James Fothergill, head of education and skills at an employers’ group explained, “It’s really important that [employees] are helped to apply maths skills and concepts in practical situations, such as being able to work out what a 30 per cent discount is without doing it on the till.” Another important failing noted by many of the business leaders in the survey was that few of their employees were able to spot “rogue figures,” i.e., data that is likely to be in error.

A press report on the U.K. study concluded by noting:

The Department for Education said it was a “national scandal” that almost half the adult population have poor numeracy skills. It said it wanted the vast majority of young people to continue to study maths up to 18 within a decade to meet the growing demand for employees with high-level and intermediate maths skills.

“We are undertaking a root and branch review of how maths is taught in schools, attracting the best maths graduates into the profession, strengthening training through our network of specialist teaching schools and we are overhauling GCSEs and A-levels to make sure they are robust and in line with the best education systems in the world,” the DfE said in a statement.

In a February 2012 dinner address, Australia’s Nobel Prize-winning astronomer Brian Schmidt went so far as to warn that Australia’s resource boom was threatened by a lock of highly-trained engineers. He noted “Too many kids who are willing and able to excel at maths are taught by teachers without the competency required to teach the subjects they are teaching.” [The Australian report].

At the same forum, Australia’s Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said that part of the problem was because mathematics and science courses were considered “boring,” so that “radical curriculum changes” are needed. “We need to think about how to deliver the science and mathematics to a generation of students that have many more options available to them,” he said.

The situation is not bleak everywhere. Finland and Canada, for example, rated an “A” in an international ranking of 17 first-world nations in education and skills. Finland has ranked at (or near) the top of the OECD nations in educational performance for more than ten straight years [Atlantic article].

Canada’s strength derives, in part from the system’s primary focus on K-12 education. On the other hand, Canada has a challenge to educate and train the three million adults who have only “Level 1″ literacy [Conference Board report].  This would seem to show that you do get what you pay for!

Meanwhile, the Asian tigers of Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea and Singapore are not standing still, with impressive gains in educational performance. See PIIGS, BRICS and STRAW for details.

So what can be done? Perhaps all nations can examine the educational programs of highly successful nations such as Finland. The Finnish educational system eschews standards tests, preferring instead custom tests devised by highly qualified teachers — several decades ago the government required all teachers to have master’s degrees. Another is their focus on basic education from age 7 until 16, at which point 95 percent of the population continues in either vocational or academic high schools. According to Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author, “The primary aim of education is to serve as an equalizing instrument for society.” [NY Times article].

For some related details and discussion, see Scientists in politics, Poor quality math and computer science courses, Innumeracy and public risk and PIIGS, BRICs and STRAW.

But much to the consternation of scientists, young-earth creationism, which holds that . . . → Read More: How old is the earth? Calculate it for yourself]]> Introduction

In one respect, science and religion have been largely reconciled since the nineteenth century, when geologists such as Charles Lyell recognized the evidence for a very old earth, and, within a few decades, most mainstream religious denominations accepted this view as well.

But much to the consternation of scientists, young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is only about 6000 years old, continues to be promoted in some quarters, and remains very popular with the public, especially in the United States. A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe that “God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years” [Newport2010]. A 2009 poll found that 39% agreed that “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and the first two people within the past 10,000 years.” [Bishop2010]. (By contrast and more representative of OECD, about half as many Canadians espouse such beliefs [Science2.0].) Such notions are, of course, vastly different than the findings of modern science, which pegs the age of the earth at 4.56 billion years, and the age of the universe at 13.75 billion years.

While there are numerous experimental methods used to determine geologic ages, the most frequently employed technique is “radiometric dating,” which is based on measurements of various radioactive isotopes in rocks. The phenomenon of radioactivity is rooted in fundamental laws of physics and follows simple mathematical formulas. Dating schemes based on rates of radioactivity have been refined and scrutinized for several decades. The latest high-tech equipment permits reliable results to be obtained even with microscopic samples.

Radiometric dating is self-checking, because the data (after certain preliminary calculations are made) are fitted to a straight line (an “isochron”) by means of standard linear regression methods of statistics. The slope of the line determines the date, and the closeness of fit is a measure of the statistical reliability of the resulting date. Technical details on how these dates are calculated are given in Radiometric dating. Here is one example of an isochron, based on measurements of basaltic meteorites (in this case the resulting date is 4.4 billion years) [Basaltic1981, pg. 938]:

Reliability of radiometric dating

So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?

As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain “glitches” and “anomalies,” as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the “anomaly” is more imaginary than real.

The overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field. He wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:

These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).

We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.

The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that’s powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.

Along this line, Roger Wiens asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following [Wiens2002]:

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. All of the different dating methods agree — they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some [skeptics] make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

Radioactive isotopes and the age of the earth

Until recently, only large scientific laboratories could afford mass spectrometers, which are the principal tool used to measure dates of rock samples. But recently the prices of these devices have dropped to levels that even amateur meteorite hunters and others can afford. Used mass spectrometers are currently available at eBay.com for as little as USD$99. Some have said that the last of the flat-earth believers did not give up until they could hold GPS receivers in their hand that give their latitude-longitude position. Will skeptics of old-earth geology wait until mass spectrometers are in every home before finally conceding that the earth is older than 6000 years?

In any event, there is a simple way to see that the earth must be at least 1.6 billion years old, which does not require any mass spectrometers, isochron graphs, calculus or statistical software (provided one accepts a few very-well-established measured rates of radioactivity). Consider the list of all known radioactive isotopes with half-lives of at least one million years but less than one quadrillion years, and which are not themselves produced by any natural process such as radioactive decay or cosmic ray bombardment [Nuclides2012]:

(In the above chart, years are displayed in scientific notation: i.e., 1 x 10⁶ = 1 million; 1 x 10⁹ = 1 billion, etc.)

All of the above isotopes are readily produced in nuclear reactors, so there is every reason to believe that they were formed along with stable isotopes, in roughly the same abundance as nearby stable isotopes of similar atomic weight, when the material forming our solar system was produced in an ancient stellar explosion. A quick calculation shows that after an elapsed period of 20 times the half-life of a given isotope, the fraction 1/2²⁰ = 1/1048576 (i.e., roughly one part in one million) of the original isotope will remain, which is a small but nonetheless detectable amount. Similarly, after 30 half-lives, roughly one part in one billion will remain, and after 40 half-lives, roughly one part in one trillion will remain, which is near the current limit of detectability.

Now note that an absolutely clear-cut fact is revealed in the above table: every isotope in the list with a half life less than 68 million years is absent in nature, evidently because all traces of these isotopes have decayed away, yet those isotopes with half-lives greater than 68 million years are present at some minute but detectable level. This is incontestable evidence that the material from which our earth and solar system was formed is at least 20 x 68 million (= 1.36 billion) years old, and more likely is at least 40 x 68 million (= 2.72 billion) years old. For details, see [Dalrymple2004, pg. 202-204; Miller1999, pg. 69-72].

Conclusion

Radiometric dating, like any other experimental discipline, is subject to a variety of errors, ranging from human errors to rare anomalies resulting from highly unusual natural circumstances. But while errors and anomalies can occur, the burden of proof is not on scientists to fully explain each and every error. Instead, the burden of proof is on skeptics of old-earth geology to explain why tens of thousands of other carefully measured ages are all internally and externally consistent. Indeed, there is no known physical phenomenon that can yield consistent results in many thousands of measurements, year after year, except one: that these specimens really are as old as the data shows them to be. As biologist Kenneth Miller has observed, “The consistency of [radiometric] data … is nothing short of stunning.” [Miller1999, pg. 76].

This article previously appeared in the SMR blog.

This dearth is particularly stark in the U.S. Among the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, only three have bonafide scientific credentials (one physicist, one chemist, one . . . → Read More: Scientists in politics: What is the score, and what can be done?]]> Given the ever-growing importance of science and technology in modern life, particularly in first world nations, why don’t we see more scientists in leading governmental positions?

This dearth is particularly stark in the U.S. Among the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, only three have bonafide scientific credentials (one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist). An additional 24 or so have medical training, but this is still a small fraction of the total. Instead, top legislative and executive positions are dominated by the legal and business professions [NYT Op-Ed].

In a recent study of the composition of the Australian Parliament during the years 1991-2007, scientists did not even merit a separate category; possibly a handful were included in the 2% of members that had positions in “education” and the 4% listed as “Medical/Technical.”

In a similar analysis of the 41st Canadian Parliament, only 10 of the 310 members were counted in a broad category that lumped natural scientists with such occupations as land surveyors, foresters and urban planners. As in the U.S., the Canadian Parliament is dominated by the legal and business professions. Likewise a recent report (Who governs Britain?) records  the top five prior occupations in Westminster as Politics (24%), Business (19%) , Finance (15%), Law (14%),  and Public Affairs (11%) with 6% listed as ‘Lecturers’.  And — for better or worse — 24% of MPs still hold Oxbridge degrees.

The situation is somewhat better in Western Europe, with the notable presence of German Chancellor Angel Merkel, who has a doctorate in physical chemistry. If we reach back two or three decades, Margaret Thatcher had an honours B.S. degree in chemistry (with Nobel chemist Dorothy Hodgkin). The Euro’s current woes have led to some educational improvements. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi has been replaced by Mario Monti, known as Il Professore and a former doctoral student of Nobel Economist James Tobin.  His counterpart in Greece, Lucas Papademos, has three MIT degrees (physics, a masters in electrical engineering in 1972, and a doctorate in economics in 1978). To be fair, the Papandreou dynasty (three generations of progressive Greek Prime ministers) also had some academic chops.

The best showing is in Asia. In China, eight out of nine top governmental officials have scientific backgrounds. In Singapore, Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in mathematics and is viewed as a world class researcher, recently was elected President, serving with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics [NYT Op-Ed].

But such instances are the exception rather than the rule — for the most part, the public does not look to scientists for top governmental offices. Reasons are not hard to find:

1. Scientists are often seen as opposing prevailing religious beliefs, as in the evolution-creationism conflict.
2. Scientists are often seen as raising inconvenient concerns, as in global warming and other environmental issues.
3. The public is not trained to distinguish good scientific arguments from bad, or well-established results from those that are still relatively tentative.
4. The public resents providing funding for an elite cadre of research scientists, particularly when they do not see any immediate benefit.
5. Conversely, the political world, with its glad-handing, compromises and fudges, is not attractive to most working scientists. Most of us were not born to run.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller recently summarized the situation in the U.S.: “Significant numbers of Americans have come to regard the scientific enterprise as a special interest group that rejects mainstream American values and is not worthy of the public trust” [Miller Op-Ed]. Or put in another way, anti-intellectualism and “know nothingism” are pervasive in the U.S.

The situation is analogous, although somewhat more muted, in the Great White North of Canada. One of the present bloggers was a delegate at a NDP national leadership convention in 1989.  Five of the seven candidates (all unsuccessful) had PhDs, and four had held NSERC (similar to ARC) research grants, yet not one advertised that they had a PhD.

The current Conservative government in Ottawa made its views clear when it abolished the post of Chief Scientist less than a decade after its inauguration.

What’s more, the Canadian Press Handbook restricts the doctoral honorific to the medical profession, while Newt Gingrich is among notable PhDs in US public life who never use the title.  Contrast this with Germany, where  Gustav Heinemann, known affectionally as Herr Docktor Doktor President because of his two legal doctorates, served as President from 1967 to 1974.

In Eastern Europe, which once featured superior scientific education, integration with the West has led to a depressing race to the bottom, as students prefer law and business fields to mathematics or science. Most who do complete technical degrees either emigrate to the West or dream of IPOs rather than research breakthroughs.

Clearly the general level of scientific education is an essential part of this issue everywhere. In spite of concerted efforts to improve education in the U.S., Europe and Australia, test scores languish in neutral compared with the aggressive Asian tigers [PIIGS, BRICS and STRAW]. In Australia, a recent forum at the Australian National University, entitled Maths for the future: Keep Australia competitive, focused on the parlous level of mathematics education in the nation and how to improve it.

Politicians exploit this pervasive ignorance of mathematics and science with aplomb. In the U.S., several Republican Presidential candidates have described global warming as a hoax conjured up by conspiratorial scientists. Rick Santorum declared, “We have learned to be skeptical of ‘scientific’ claims, particularly those at war with our common sense,” and Rick Perry stated flatly, “It’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight” [SFC report; Global warming denial].

In Australia, the Melbourne-based Institute for Public Affairs, which rejects evidence for anthropogenic climate change, opposes legislative action to control greenhouse gases. Typical of other similar groups, the IPA believes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bent on fomenting a nonexistent global warming crisis as part of a conspiracy to install a left-wing totalitarian world order [Conversation article].

In a similar way, many U.S. politicians have dismissed the near-universal scientific consensus on biological evolution. In 2001 Rick Santorum introduced an amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill (a measure to reform K-12 education in the U.S.) that would emphasize to students that evolution “generates so much continuing controversy” in the scientific world [US Congressional Record]. In 2011, Rick Perry described evolution as “a theory that’s out there” that has “got some gaps in it” [Huff Post article] (thereby taking advantage of the public’s widespread misparsing of the word “theory” as “vague untested hypothesis”). In contrast, Jon Huntsman, who started out his campaign for U.S. President by acknowledging evolution and global warming, was unsuccessful in attracting a political following and withdrew shortly after the New Hampshire primary.

It should be emphasized that skepticism of evolution is hardly an exclusively American problem. In a recent survey, nearly 25% of Australians affirmed a literal biblical account of human origins over the scientific account [TheAge article]. What’s more, Answers in Genesis, a leading international creationist organization, was founded by Australian-born Ken Ham.

So what can be done? Partly, as mentioned above, governments worldwide need to redouble their efforts to improve scientific education, not just to provide workers for a high-tech world, but also to facilitate more intelligent discourse of political matters that touch on science. In the U.S., numerous educational reform measures have been undertaken, but results have been mixed, and the future looks bleak due to budget shortfalls. In California, university students are struggling to pay tuition increases of 18% this year, with additional increases slated for the next few years [SF Chronicle article]. Along this line, in spite of efforts in the U.S. to increase participation by women in scientific fields, numbers remain disappointing, mainly because few women become interested in these fields while in high school [SciAm article].

In Australia, the Gonski review has released its assessment of Australian mathematics and science education. According to 2011 Nobel Prize winning astronomer Brian Schmidt,

The primary thing we require are competent teachers across the board. And so the inequality comes to those people who for whatever reason end up with a teacher teaching a science or math who are not qualified to teach in science and math, whether it be at secondary or primary level. … [In New South Wales,] a fifth of their [mathematics] students are not actually being taught by qualified people and that is presumably similar in other places.

In both Australia and the U.S., the level of political discourse has descended to new lows. In Australia, partisan sniping may lead to the replacement of the Prime Minister [ABC article]. In the U.S., the Republican Presidential campaign has upended pragmatism and experience, and the flood of money unleashed in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision on political contributions  (‘Super PACS’) is certain to lower the campaign I.Q. even further in the months ahead [LA Times article].

And there is no doubt that we scientists need to do more. As mathematician John Allen Paulos of Temple University in Pennsylvania explained in a February 2012 Op-Ed in the New York Times [NYT Op-Ed]:

Of course, the other side of the “two cultures” chasm should bear some of the onus for this lack of communication between politicians and scientists. Too few scientists are willing to engage in public debates, to explain the relevance of their fields clearly and without jargon, and, in the process, to risk some jeering from a few colleagues.

These are painful times for those hoping to see an international consensus and substantive action on global warming.

In the U.S., Republican Presidential candidates appear to be moving from open-minded . . . → Read More: Global warming denial and scientific integrity]]> [Note: A condensed and revised version of this article was published here in The Conversation, an online forum of academic research headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.]

These are painful times for those hoping to see an international consensus and substantive action on global warming.

In the U.S., Republican Presidential candidates appear to be moving from open-minded views to outright denial. In June 2011, current front-runner Mitt Romney said “the world is getting warmer,” and “humans have contributed,” but in October 2011 he backtracked to “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Newt Gingrich moved from “The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere” in 2007 to “It’s an act of egotism for humans to think we’re a primary source of climate change” in 2010. Rick Santorum added “We have learned to be skeptical of ‘scientific’ claims, particularly those at war with our common sense,” and Rick Perry stated flatly, “It’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight” [SFC report].

Meanwhile, the scientific consensus has moved in the opposite direction. In a study published in October 2011, 97% of the scientists surveyed (in earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences) agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past 100 years. Further, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is occurring; only 5% disagreed that human activity is a significant cause of global warming. The study concluded,

We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it is possible that the growing public perception of scientific disagreement over the existence of anthropocentric warming, which was stimulated by press accounts of [the UK's]  ’Climategate’ is actually a misperception of the normal range of disagreements that may persist within a broad scientific consensus. [GMU study]

More progress has been made in Europe, where the EU has established targets to reduce emissions by 20% (from 1990 levels) by 2020. The U.K., which has been beset by similar denial movements, nonetheless was able to establish, as a legally binding target, an 80% reduction by 2050 and is a world leader on abatement [SFC Op-Ed].

In Australia, any prospect for consensus was lost when Tony Abbott used opposition to the Labour government’s proposed carbon market to replace Malcolm Turnbull as  leader of the federal opposition parties in late 2009. It used to be possible to hear right-wing politicians in Australia or the USA echo the Democratic congressman Henry Waxman who said last year:

If my doctor told me I had cancer, I wouldn’t scour the country to find someone to tell me that I don’t need to worry about it. … Most of us don’t substitute our own judgement for that of experts when it comes to medicine, nuclear engineering, building bridges or designing computer security.

But such rationality has largely left the debate in both the US and Oz. In Australia, a reformulated carbon tax policy [WSJ Report] was enacted in November 2011 only after a highly partisan debate.

In Canada the debate is more balanced. The centre-right Liberal government in British Columbia has passed the first carbon tax [NYT Op-Ed] in North America in 2008, but the governing Federal Conservative party now offers a reliable ‘anti-Kyoto’ partnership with Washington.

Overviews of the evidence for global warming, together with responses to common questions, are available at [SciAm article, NS article #1, NS article #2 and SD article].  It should be acknowledged in these analyses that all projections are based on mathematical models with a significant level of uncertainty regarding highly complex and only partially understood systems. As 2011 Australian Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt explained while addressing a National Forum on Mathematical Education [Australian],

Climate models have uncertainty and the Earth has natural variation … which not only varies year to year, but correlates decade to decade and even century to century. It is really hard to design a figure that shows this in a fair way — our brain cannot deal with the correlations easily.

But we do have mathematical ways of dealing with this problem.  The Australian academy reports currently indicate that the models with the effects of CO2 are with 90 per cent statistical certainty better at explaining the data than those without.  Most of us who work with uncertainty know that 90 per cent statistical uncertainty cannot be easily shown within a figure — it is too hard to see. …

Since predicting the exact effects of climate change is not yet possible, we have to live with uncertainty and take the consensus view that warming can cover a wide range of possibilities, and that the view might change as we learn more.

But uncertainty is no excuse for inaction. The proposed counter-measures are affordable and most can be justified on their own merits, while the worst case scenario — do nothing while the oceans rise and the climate changes wildly — is unthinkable.  By focusing the debate on the level of human responsibility for warming and about the accuracy of predictions, the deniers have managed to derail long term action in favour of short term economic policies.

Who in the scientific community is promoting the denial of global warming? As it turns out, the leading figures in this movement have ties to conservative research institutes funded mostly by large corporations, and have a history of opposing the scientific consensus on issues such as tobacco and acid rain [Merchants of Doubt].

What’s more, those who lead the global warming denial movement, along with creationists, intelligent design writers and the “mathematicians” who flood our Inboxes with claims that pi is rational or other similar nonsense, are operating well outside the established boundaries of peer-reviewed science. Fred Singer, arguably the leading figure of the denial movement, has only six peer-reviewed publications in the climate science field, and none since 1997.

After all, when issues such as these are “debated” in any setting other than a peer-reviewed journal or conference, one must ask, “If the author really has a solid argument, then why isn’t he/she back in the office furiously writing up this material for submission to a leading journal, thereby assuring worldwide fame and glory?”

In most cases, those who attempt to grasp the public attention through other means are themselves aware that they are short-circuiting the normal process, and that they do not yet have the sort of solid data and airtight arguments that could withstand the withering scrutiny of scientific peer review. So when they press their views in public to a populace that does not understand how the scientific enterprise operates, they are being disingenuous.

With regards to claims that scientists are engaged in a “conspiracy” to hide the “truth” on an issue such as global warming or evolution, one should ask how could a secret “conspiracy” be maintained in a worldwide multi-cultural community of hundreds of thousands of competitive researchers. As Ben Franklin wrote in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Three can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead.” Or as one of us quipped, tongue-in-cheek, in response to a state legislator who was skeptical of evolution, “You have no idea how humiliating this is to me — there is a secret conspiracy among leading scientists, but no one deemed me important enough to be included!”

Here is another way to think about such claims: There are tens of thousands of senior scientists in their late 50s or early 60s who have seen their retirement savings decimated by the recent stock market plunge, and who now wonder if the day will ever come when they are financially well off enough to do their research without the constant stress and distraction of applying for grants (the majority of which are never funded). All one of these scientists has to do to garner both worldwide fame and considerable fortune (e.g., book contracts) is to call a news conference and expose the “truth.” So why isn’t this happening?

The system of peer-reviewed journals and conferences sponsored by major professional societies is the only proper forum for the presentation and debate of new ideas, in any field of science or mathematics. It has been stunningly successful: errors have been uncovered, fraud has been rooted out and bogus scientific claims (such as the 1903 N-ray claim, the 1989 cold fusion claim, and the more recent assertion of an autism-vaccination link) have been debunked. This all occurs with a level of reliability and at a speed that is hard to imagine in other human endeavors. Those who attempt to short-circuit this system are doing potentially irreparable harm to the integrity of the system. They may enrich themselves or their friends, but they are doing grievous damage to society at large.