Infamous Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko has become topical again after the recent WSJ “Don’t Panic (about global warming)” letter (read about it also here and here). In the interest of historical record, I am posting here the recovered text of “Lysenkoism And ‘Global Warming’” written some years ago by Professor Cliff Ollier and mentioned in this blog almost four years ago.
The original link does not work any longer (and the WaybackMachine hides the text for some reason). There is also a slightly different version in the Lavoisier Group website. (h/t Justin Ert)
Lysenkoism And ‘Global Warming’
by Professor Cliff Ollier
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко; pictured left] (1898 – 1976) was an insignificant agriculturalist who thought he had a new way of developing crops that would vastly increase food production in the starving Russia of Stalin. It was called ‘vernalisation’, and it included treating seeds before cultivation to affect their behaviour.
Significantly, Lysenko introduced his ideas first through politics, in which he benefited from weighty support. Some argue that his precepts had a Marxist flavour, because they asserted that biology could be modified in the way that communists wanted to control people’s behaviour. The government was anxious to increase food production and to quell disturbances among the growers, while Lysenko was an adept propagandist. He became a cult leader who impressed the peasants.
Lysenko was the head of the Soviet Lenin All Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, and he ran the nation’s research in this field. He promised to triple or to quadruple crop yields.
He demonised conventional genetics, which again suited his masters, who believed this to be the basis behind fascist eugenics.
No Opposition Tolerated
Opposition to Lysenko was not tolerated, and was labeled ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’. Lysenko used his position to denounce Mendelian geneticists as “fly-lovers and people haters”, which had serious consequences. From 1934 to 1940, with Stalin’s blessing, numerous geneticists were shot, and others exiled to Siberia. Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov [Николай Иванович Вавилов; pictured left] (1887 – 1943), for example, a truly great geneticist and biogeographer, was sent to Siberia, where he died of starvation in 1943, while Lysenko, in person, took over his role as Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Any survivor of the purge had to keep quiet. In 1948, genetics was officially labeled a ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’, and genetic research came to a halt. Krushchev also supported Lysenko, but, after his departure in 1964, the Academy of Sciences investigated the records, and a devastating critique of Lysenko was made public. The ban on genetics was finally lifted in 1965.
When Lysenko denounced Mendelian thought as reactionary and decadent, he also announced that his speech had the approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The parallel for the ‘Global Warming’ movement is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which works through national and international organisations. The IPCC claims its reports are written by 2500 scientists, but in reality they are drawn up by only about 35 people, and are effectively ‘controlled’ by an even smaller number.
Opposition to ‘Global Warming’ is often likened to ‘Holocaust Denial’. We are repeatedly told that there is no debate – hardly a scientific approach. The influence of the IPCC has spread, and it has become increasingly difficult to get research funding without being a ‘believer in Global Warming’.
A New Religion
Why would governments be persuaded to follow this idea before it was scientifically evaluated? One reason may be that there was a rising tide of what some have likened to a new religion – ‘Environmentalism’. Of course, no politician wants to be seen as ‘anti-environment’, or to lose the votes of the ‘Greens’. The ‘Greens’, for their part, are happy to follow the climate-change line because it gives them enormous political power. As a minor party or influence they hold the balance of power, and the major parties dare not offend them.
The propaganda machine of the IPCC is magnificent, with its greatest tool being the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth. This still has enormous impact, although the High Court in Britain did decide it could not be shown in schools without comment because it contained major errors. I suspect that this film was the reason that the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore and to the IPCC.
Another propaganda hit was the infamous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’, purporting to show that temperature was rising at an ever-increasing rate. This has been totally discredited, but it still seems to be branded on the collective mind of politicians and the public. Much Government propaganda has been lent to support ‘Global Warming’, and major media outlets, such as the BBC in Britain, have chosen to join in on the ‘Global Warming’ side.
Climate change, like Lysenkoism, is much easier to understand than the complexities of real science. This appeals to the public, and also to politicians and other influential people, who can talk as if they understand it. If questioned about details, they simply refer back to the IPCC reports.
So-called ‘independent reports’ on climate change have been produced by Nicholas Stern in Britain and Ross Garnaut in Australia. Both Stern and Garnaut make it plain that they are not scientists and have based their conclusions on the IPCC reports. Yet, both continue to make public statements warning about the increasing dangers of climate change. This merely keeps their reports in the public eye, and echoes the flawed science of IPCC ‘Global Warming’.
At a lower level, without the need for evidence, everything can be blamed on ‘Global Warming’ – droughts, floods, malaria, hurricanes, and even global cooling! The IPCC rhetoric continues, although their predictions have failed to come true, just as Lysenkoism continued when the promised crop-yield increases never arrived. The IPCC forecast ever-increasing temperatures, but average global temperatures have become lower since 1998. They have now put off ‘Global Warming’ for 15 years because some other factors have intervened. The models did not predict this, but such details do not affect ‘the faithful’.
Some scientists sided with ‘Global Warming’ in the early days, and are so committed that they cannot now get off the bandwagon. Others worked for the IPCC, but resigned when they realised how their work was being used, or that real science did not support the claims that were being made. Luckily, we do not have the equivalent of Siberia to deal with these scientists.
‘The Global Warming Affair’ has already lasted over twenty years, and many administrative and scientific research centres have sprung up – most of the latter involving computer simulators. Computer simulation has a part to play in science, but it should not replace observation, hypothesis-testing, and falsification. There are now ‘Departments of Climate Change’, for which read ‘Departments of Global Warming Blamed on Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide’.
A Lesson From History: Parallels With Lysenkoism
We should not forget a basic fact, namely that the one villain of the piece – and the one that is costing billions of dollars – is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This is the equivalent of ‘vernalisation’ in the Lysenko era.
In summary, the comparisons between Lysenkoism and ‘Global Warming’ can be rehearsed as follows:
1. Work first through political organisations;
2. Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate;
3. Disregard, or deny, all the accumulating evidence that the predictions might be wrong;
4. Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; ‘Global Warming’ Deniers);
5. Victimise the opposition (execution and exile; loss of jobs or research funds, public and media humiliation);
6. Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism);
7. Support a vast propaganda machine; and,
8. Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent upon ‘the ruling concept’.
The parallel can be seen perfectly in a work by Helena Sheehan(1), who wrote of Lysenkoism:
“What went wrong was that the proper procedures for coming to terms with such complex issues were short-circuited by grasping for easy slogans and simplistic solutions and imposing them by administrative fiat.”
Lysenkoism was eventually replaced by real science. The same will happen to ‘Global Warming’, because real science will not go away. _____________
(1) Helena Sheehan, 1993. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History. (Humanities Press International, Inc.).
Further Reading: Paul Reiter, 2004. ‘Passion and politics cloud the climate debate.’ (Nature 431, 739, October 14, 2004|doi:10.1038/431739c).
NOTE TO ALL READERS
If you see strange trackbacks on websites from “Ocasapiens” in Italian after I post a comment, there is this feckless Italian journalist whose main activity appears to be following me on Google in order to post abysmal bullying attempts at her blog.
I would feel proud of being an inspiration of anything, however if a blog is measured by the quality of its content, a blog where I am the content can’t be that good.
Live Microblogging Of Launch Event For “Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism”
This is an ordered version of my live microblogging (Twitter – @mmorabito67) of the Launch Event of the RISJ publication “Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism” (British Council, London, November 10, 2011):
- At The British Council for the launch of “Poles Apart:the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism” by J Painter
- Due to start at 6pm, slightly late. No @BBCRichardBlack
- Benny Peiser is here. I’ve said hello to chair John Lloyd, had met him years ago in Oxford
- Finally it starts. Delay was all the fault of video-linked @Revkin🙂
- Lloyd : report is unique. Climate change important. IEA says today that door is closing
- Video link not perfect. Painter says he’ll be brief
- Painter : “summoned by science” published 1 yr ago. Found difference in skepticism.
- Painter: people confused about different types of skepticism.
- Painter keeps mentioning academic research they wanted to complement
- “Is climate skepticism an Anglo Saxon thing”?
- Two newspapers per country, left and right leaning but not in China
- Focus on 2007 wg1 and wg2 IPCC publication time and Copenhagen time
- Shows increase in skeptical voices in US and UK around Copenhagen
- “What explains country differences? ” interviews suggest factors
- Media and extramedia factors (listed in report)
- India – CC as a nationalistic point
- Brazil- very large coverage. Journalists said strong science.units in newspapers
- Lalaland time
- Climategate moved some.uk newspapers away from the others
- Lots more analysis for the UK – skeptical voices more in right leaning newspapers
- Explanatory factors -.in the report again
- . @Revkin frozen in time. Video still imperfect.
- Rebecca Nadin talks about China. She’s been there for years to work on climate change
- Complex diagram showing interactions in China.
- Says mostly discussion is not about AGW vs natural
- Chinese government has strong position about AGW. It’s not politically contentious
- Over 2200 newspapers and many social media networks
- Very limited debate about integrity of climate scientists and no much nimbyism
- Pollution concerns very high.
- Core group at Beijing uni and academy of sciences debating speed and severity
- Mentions agriculture body saying production in inner Mongolia will increase
- Immediately adds a however
- Some.skeptics depicted as nationalistic nutters
- Sciama; starts.with Allegre and another skeptif
- . @Revkin alive again
- They’re using Webex not Skype
- French revolution replacing aristocracy with meritocracy and support for science
- Laments lack of skepticism in France?
- No coal lobby in France
- France is very centralized so importance of State intervention high
- He’s explaining belief in AGW in France in purely non-scientific terms!!!
- Ends saying opposition to.State.may.make climate policies impossible in uk and USA
- Revkin : report.defines skepticism others didn’t
- Skepticism and support are variegated
- Mentions Inhofe giving floor speech saying hoax is about catastrophe of global warming
- USA exceptional for many reasons. More fuel consumption and many climates
- Public discourse always degenerates in.shouting matches
- Policy debates are legitimate @Revkin
- Bob Ward laments the GWPF – skeptic voices given opinion pieces
- Revkin mentions Delingpole as selective and duplicitous. Liberal opinion makers in USA stretching “but”.
- Lloyd : ft not into entertainment. Penchant for combat eg debating societies
- Tom of ecologist magazine asks about treatment of skeptics in TV media
- Revkin talks of study about fox news. Pretty clear which way they lean.
- Networks fairly “progressive” on climate change
- Benny Peiser : report is comprehensive and balanced. Definition of skepticism but gwpf skeptical of policy
- Thanks Bob ward for the hits
- Gwpf focus not on science rather government approach so more media coverage
- Revkin says Peiser is.right problem is policies leftists is USA did.disservice making AGW a single sentence
- World will end soon
- Blogger mentions criticism of NYT by Romm.
- Another q: science cannot settle debates
- Phone rings at the Revkins
- Part of the news.process means being wrong.some of the time Joe Romm is.never wrong – laughs
- Painter talks of think tanks bloggers tradition of questioning the.science
- Revkin : even without fuel lobby there’d be not much action
- Difficult to.change as.fossil fuels still.cheap -.forces of.stasis.have an easy task
- Left.journalism to work on fostering innovation
- Meeting now of climate scientists about ozone.treaty
- . @Revkin gone.
- Online media amplifying skeptical coverage?
- Empirical evidence of coverage online depending on generating traffic
- Blogospheric.pressure in France? New.phenomenon
- People outspoken to generate traffic? Not in France
- Chinese blogosphere? Environment not.global warming
- Water pollution more meaningful to people’s life
- Rapley – skeptics talk of uncertainties to prevent action. Risk assessment?
- Painter : haven’t looked at framing. Quantitative analysis
- Should understand what kind of skeptics “we’re talking about”
- Climategate emboldened the daily express in mentioning skeptical voices
- More.questions showing French reaction not as in uk
- Elite debate in France for.years.
- Steve.Jones of bbc report fame. Says typical reporting strives for balance
- Media.don’t understand debate in.science?
- Due impartialityis important according to Painter
- Lloyd bbc criticized for having expoused. Climate change not easy for the bbc
- I asked.about need for academic findings so.report isn’t much good.
- Another q: more people.haved moved away from extremes.
- Another q: media lacking about political economy of climate change
- Not many people talk of policy?
- Nadin: change in degree of skepticism yes in China. Debate on adaptation.
- Talks of “climate change” forcing people to.relocate
- Sciama: science journalist talking science. (Maybe that’s problem?)
- Shift in position towards warming but natural
- More worried about disappeared climate reporting than space given to skeptical voices
- Datasets are academic conclusions less so
Live Microblogging Of Cardinal George Pell’s “One Christian Perspective On Climate Change” For The GWPF
This is an ordered version of my live microblogging (Twitter – @mmorabito67) of “One Christian Perspective On Climate Change”, the GWPF Annual Lecture by the RC Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell (Oct 26, 2011) (not exactly a staunch traditionalist, apart perhaps from his views on the family), presented on the evening by Benny Peiser with:
[…] In this week’s issue of Church Times, the weekly journal of the Church of England, Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester and one of our Trustees and who, I am happy to say, is with us tonight in the audience, wrote:
“The Churches have tended to follow climate alarmism with uncritical enthusiasm, but it is now time to take stock. The moral issues surrounding climate policy, as well as the underlying scientific and economic issues, are much more complex than is usually acknowledged. It is time for the Churches to recognise this, and to lead a debate which helps our society to a more sensible set of policies.”
I believe that nobody has done more to raise these awkward questions within the Catholic Church than Cardinal Pell. It is an irony of our bewildering times that it is a courageous churchman who dares to question one of our society’s most entrenched dogmas – but that is exactly what he will do tonight.
- Reached Cardinal Pell’s lecture some 30 minutes late Will microblog whatever is left
- Cardinal Pell talking of English wines and warm Greenland
- Room quite full, more than 100 people for sure Yes, there’s a podium and a microphone
- Now mentioning the globality of the medieval warm period
- Maya civilization collapsed during MWP
- Conclusions: Western world unlikely to develop further of money is spent to fight global warming
- “Extreme weather events are to be expected but are always unexpected”
- “Money should be spent to prevent vulnerability”
- Too often people approach climate change with assumptions not questions
- Need a cost benefit analysis economically and morally
- Any benefit apart from more money to governments via taxes and to whoever works in the AGW sector?
- Long applause 30 minutes of questions
- Q: AGW nonsense is a cult or a biz opportunity or political? Q: Roman Catholic concerns on climate change? Even Pope
- A: no judgment on people’s motives A substitute of religion for some $10B/y for years Not much global government
- A: 9 years Chairman of Caritas Australia so has seen the world and third world
- Speaking as individual – RC is a Church with no competence on scientific claims
- Cardinal Pell sees his speaking as a way of telling the truth People may disagree but he’d like to see good policies
- Q: oil running out, new extractions make environment worse Q: Political divergence between Australian parties?
- A: eventually we will run out of fossil fuels Past predictions spectacularly wrong Technology will provide alternatives
- No apologies for the mistreatment of anybody anywhere Some commercial developments are very rough Try minimize costs
- Says he has not much opinion on either Australian political parties
- Q: why the IPCC never cares about the advantages to the world of increased CO2? Q: theology of husbanding resources
- A: no mention of advantages? (Talks of Bob Carter’s book) People reluctant to admit anything contrary to previous belief
- A: husbanding the world for the future yes
- My Q: do Cardinals talk about AGW when they meet up? Q: responsible for future? Pope might disagree with Pell
- A: never discussed AGW among Cardinals Opinions evenly divided in a conference
- A: pontifical academy of science also contains differing opinions Husbandry important but what are the facts?
- Follow Church for morality and religion not obligated to follow the PAS on science
- Q: Attenborough mention of changes due to climate change Will make claim that humans are partially responsible
- Q: (more theology)
- A: Attenborough’s changes? Things have always changed We can pick and choose anything for any argument
- A: always look at evidence Disagreement among scientists
- many geologists doubt catastrophesA: too many unknown unknowns No way of computing the future of climate
- Q: did AGW replace Marxism? What right to keep poor nations poor by preventing use of fossil fuels?
- Q: AGW is taught as a fact Is that moral?
- A: people need a religion so there’s something in people finding comfort in AGW
- China very polluted and would need free press We can’t impose impossible fuel standards
- There’s been global warming during last 100 years but we don’t know if it’s dangerous and how much humans contribute
- Some Christians feel uneasy about their faith so concentrate on feminism or social psychology instead
- Q: (inaudible) Q: important points made Opinion on Carbon tax? How can we help poor by taxing them?
- A: balance and trust are based on truth Worried about unscientific words uttered by scientists
- A: no problem when disagreeing with other people in the Church
- end of session with Lord Lawson
Climate science — or at least some parts of it — seems to have devolved into an effort to generate media coverage and talking points for blogs, at the expense of actually adding to our scientific knowledge of the climate system
Actually, it was December 2009 when I wrote in the pages of the Spectator (UK):
This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise — much as it pains politicians and scientists — that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.
Here we are, almost two years later. For example, what do we understand about the past? Willis Eschenbach at WUWT shows it in the non-smoothed BEST reconstruction graph:
And what do we understand about the future? Patrick Frank in Skeptic.com’s Reading Room:
In other words: for the past, all we know for sure it’s that the error bars cover from -5C to +3C if we go back to 200 years ago. For the past, all we can estimate for sure it’s that error bars cover an enormous span if we move forward 100 years (even removing cloud uncertainty, still the 2100 error goes from -10C to +16C).
For all we know, Romans were conquering a world that was 50C colder than today, and oceans will boil before the XXII century. Or vice-versa.
Please do not start speculating about uncertainty as a reason for doing nothing – it isn’t.
Think of science instead: what’s the way out of this cul-de-sac made up of giant error bars? How can our understanding finally leave its infancy? The way out has actually being indicated already, by a guy born in 469BC:
Socrates was wise in that he knew the he knew nothing, whereas others were unaware of their own ignorance.
If and when such a realization will become widespread, only then climate science will be able to mature away from silly manipulations, towards the approach so nicely described by Professor Sir Bernard Lovell to David Whitehouse:
One evening we unrolled the pen recorder data in a long ribbon down the corridor outside the main observing room. “Now,” he said, “look at the data. Get to know it.” His point was that before us was what the universe was saying, and that it was more important than any theory.” Data is never inconvenient. It beats theory every time.
An unexamined climate is not worth studying…
From Haaretz, from an article published a full six months before the Nobel Prize was awarded to Dan Schechtman, some climate-relevant findings. In no particular order:
- “Unchallengeable basic tenets” must be considered as transient in any scientific field
- Any scientific field that is considered “closed”, “solid”, “total” is ripe for a revolution that will still be burning decades later
- New discoveries are surrounded by suspicion and ridicule, accompanied by outright rationalized dismissals
- It doesn’t matter if you can show people your discovery. It doesn’t matter if they can replicate your discovery in their own lab. Many will still refuse to believe it. We have not moved an inch since the times of Galileo and telescope-denier Cesare Cremonini
- Many of them will change their mind only if the discovery is demonstrated using their old techniques
- Scientists-discoverers don’t keep their techniques secret
- Many discoveries are observed for many years, before somebody realizes there is a new discovery to be made of those observations
- Scientists-discoverers are worried about losing their job because of their discovery
- And rightly so
- They are even worried of being unable to find any job because of their discovery
- You need at least two Professors to support the article describing the discovery, before it passes so-called “peer” review
- The famous, influential, powerful people invited to deliver the keynote addresses at scientific conferences, they are very likely wrong on any new topic
- We have no idea how many Schechtman’s will forever remain unknown, because they didn’t have the luck and the guts to persevere the way Shechtman did
And now for the excerpts:
[…] Since the birth of modern crystallography in 1912, when x-rays were diffracted from a crystal for the first time, until that moment 70 years later, this branch of science had relied on an unchallengeable basic tenet […]
The scientists concluded that there can be no pentagonal symmetry in crystals, since they cannot create periodic order – as anyone who has tried to cover a bathroom floor with five-sided tiles knows. In countless observations over many decades, crystallographers indeed saw only geometric crystals, all of them possessing rotational symmetry.
But on that April day in 1982, when Shechtman looked at the pattern of points created by the crystal of the alloy he had prepared in the lab from aluminum and manganese, he saw a structure that contradicted both rules: the 10 points that appeared through the microscope attested to the existence of pentagonal symmetry; and the immediate conclusion was that the crystal did not possess a periodic structure. Shechtman had discovered a new world, in which there are solid crystals, but the known order was gone. […]
Within days, his peculiar ideas generated suspicion and ridicule, to which he would be subjected for some time […]
“I told everyone who was ready to listen that I had material with pentagonal symmetry. People just laughed at me,” […]
In the months that followed, he tried to persuade his colleagues in the lab that what they were looking at was a previously unknown crystal. But in vain. “I knew my observations were in order. I couldn’t explain the phenomenon, but I knew it was material that no one had seen before me, impossible material according to the laws of crystallography,” he says […]
One day, the administrative director of his research group approached him. “He gave a sheepish smile, placed a textbook on my desk and said, ‘Please read what’s written here.’ I told him that I taught my students from the book, but that I also knew that we’re dealing with something that exceeded the book’s understanding,” Shechtman says. The director returned 24 hours later and asked him to leave the research group, because he was “bringing disgrace” on the members. […]
the researchers at the institute were not able to check the discovery for themselves. Many of them did not know how to work with an electron microscope, which is the most appropriate tool for identifying rotational symmetries in small crystals. Moreover, he notes, “They were not really interested in dealing with it.”
Shechtman also forwarded the findings to a friend, who was about to go on a scientific tour. When the friend returned, Shechtman relates, he brought an array of off-the-wall explanations for the 10 microscopic points, gleaned from colleagues. None of them took seriously the possibility that it was a case of pentagonal symmetry. […]
only one person was ready to listen in earnest: Prof. Ilan Blech […] Shechtman now felt sufficiently confident to publish an article on the subject. Until then, he says, “I was afraid to publish alone, in case it turned out to be nonsense.” […]
Shechtman turned to the senior scientist John Cahn, who had invited him to work in the institute. Cahn initially had reservations, but afterward worked with Shechtman and proposed that they co-author an article. For the mathematical aspects he added a French crystallographer, Denis Gratias, and the three wrote an article that was a concise, refined version of the first article. They added Ilan Blech’s name as a fourth author and sent the article to Physical Review Letters, which also deals with physics. The addition of Cahn’s name turned out to be a winning move: the article appeared in November 1984, within a few weeks of its submission […]
To get researchers to believe him, Shechtman described exactly how to prepare the alloy. “There are people who keep the mode of preparation secret, but I wanted every researcher who had an appropriate laboratory to be able to prepare the material and examine it under an electron microscope within a few days,” […]
despite the success in repeating the experiment in several labs, only a few scientists accepted the thesis of pentagonal symmetry. Leading scientists rejected Shechtman’s conclusions, and towering above all of them was Linus Pauling […]
“There are tens of thousands of chemists in the United States, and Pauling was their star,” Shechtman notes. “He would open the conferences of the American Chemical Society, and quasiperiodic crystals were always his topic. I attended one of the conferences, at Stanford. Thousands of people were there, and he attacked me. He would stand on those platforms and declare, ‘Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense. There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.’ […]
In the first years following the discovery, Shechtman’s support came primarily from physicists and mathematicians. But crystallographers had a serious problem with the findings: Shechtman had used an electron microscope, whereas their main tool was the x-ray. “It’s as though a mechanical engineer were to explain to a heart surgeon how to perform an operation,” Shechtman says. “From their point of view, I was not a crystallographer, because I had used a tool they considered imprecise and illegitimate.” […]
in 1987, friends of Shechtman’s from France and Japan succeeded in growing quasi-periodic crystals large enough for x-rays to repeat and verify what he had discovered with the electron microscope: the existence of pentagonal symmetry. […]
“In the forefront of science there is not much difference between religion and science,” Shechtman says. “People harbor beliefs. That’s what happens when people believe something religiously. The argument with Linus Pauling was almost theological.” […]
As his fear of not finding employment faded, Pauling’s assaults became a compliment for Shechtman. “I realized that if it’s Pauling against Shechtman, then at some level we are equals. […]
Prof. Shlomo Ben-Abraham, one of the first Israeli scientists to support the discovery, says, “Until Danny’s discovery, we thought the subject of crystal structure was completely closed. Today, nearly 30 years later, we know we have not even scratched the surface. […]
Prof. Ron Lifshitz, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, describes Shechtman’s discovery as “a scientific revolution that is still in going on.” Science, he says, must now answer questions that were once thought to be basic and closed, such as what a crystal is, alongside new questions, such as how the nonperiodic structure influences the qualities of those materials. […]
For decades, crystallography clung to a mistaken description of the physical world, which was presented as a solid, total truth. On the other hand, that same science was able to acknowledge its mistake and refute long-held basic assumptions within a relatively short time, once the theory was shown to be inconsistent with reality. Still, it was necessary to have someone who is capable of shouldering the revolution.
Prof. Ben-Abraham explains Shechtman’s strength: “The greatness of a discoverer lies in knowing what he has discovered. People encounter things and ignore them for one reason or another. I know of four documented cases in which people found this before Danny.” However, he notes, because all the books state that pentagonal symmetry is inconsistent with periodicity of crystals, the researchers ignored what they saw. […]
(comment just left at WUWT)
From the [Crownies] show’s website (my emphasis):
Richard is prosecuting a case in court, this time with a good chance of winning. But he is not happy. He has to prosecute his climate scientist hero Tim Coghburn for assault, after Coghburn punched a persistent climate denialist, James Watt. Watt is an annoying gadfly and Richard detests all he stands for. And the fiasco is made worse when Richard sees Coghburn is being represented by Richard’s old, much admired law lecturer. Richard makes a stuttering start in court, and the defence QC makes Watt look unreliable and a bit of a goose. Part of Richard wants to lose because of his environmental concerns, but part of him needs a win. Richard finally cross examines Tim Coghburn and gets to reconcile his needs. He leads Tim through a series of questions as put by James Watt and his ilk, stirring Coghburn’s anger as he airs the simple rebuttals. Eventually Tim blurts out that yes, he did hit James Watt, and it felt great. Richard has his win, Tim is fined, and Watt still comes out of it looking like an idiot.
If it were England, a trip to the defamation court would have been in order.
Anyway…a filmed story that has no connection with reality and portrays the “villain” using basic, demeaning stereotypes? Where did we see that already…