Green Up Moggill

The fact that anyone who has an internet connection to the outside world can publish anything they like doesn’t mean that everything published on the net is good. On the contrary, it’s likely that as the fraction of the world’s population with internet connectivity grows, more drivel will be published — unless there’s a mechanism to edit or select content. For example, although anyone can edit most material on WikiPedia (material subject to malicious edits, or wars over content does get locked down), the fact that the information is in one place on the whole makes it possible to arrive at some sort of reasonable standard.

When it comes to blogs, though, there is nothing to stop anyone from posting whatever they like (aside from laws on libel, copyright, and anything that applies if you live in a police state).

So if you try to find out something, it’s possible that you will find a slew of drivel — especially if there’s a campaign going to push a point of view.

Let’s try a few experimental searches.

First, the claim that Einstein said humanity would die out if bees disappeared… Search for the words Einstein bees. What do you see? Of course the internet is a moving feast so the hits you will get will not be the same as mine. What I found was a fair number of articles putting the case that this quote was a myth, as well as a few that treat the quote as fact. In this case, it’s not hard to determine that the quote should at best be treated with suspicion.

Next, try this one: bumble bees can’t fly. Again, there’s a fair mix of articles, and it’s not hard to arrive at the conclusion that the original story may (possibly) not have been a myth, but certainly has become a bit garbled. A bumble bee’s wing area is insufficient to generate lift (taking into account its weight) but that calculation is based on the theory of fixed-wing aircraft. A bumble bee’s wings aren’t stationary, so the mathematics doesn’t apply.

Here’s another: HIV causes AIDS. This time the majority of the hits on the first page (when I did this on 24 June 2008) were articles supporting the conventional theory, with a small number opposing – the group who for whatever reason claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

So it seems we have a general pattern: while there is a fair amount of garbage or controversial material, you get a good balance and can find the most plausible position fairly easily. Relatively few authoritative-looking sources are making strong claims that are hard to dismiss, against the “correct science” position.

How about this one? Search for passive smoking harm. This time, while the majority of articles agreed with the conventional position, I found some surprisingly vehement articles in mainstream media, not just amateur blogs, pushing the line that the science has to be wrong.

Next, let’s go to a more current issue, climate change. A couple of searches will illustrate the point. Try climate models fail to predict. Now this one is admittedly a bit different from the others by addition of the words “fail to”. But the result is startling. Almost the entire first page of hits is articles claiming that climate models are not able to predict future climate change. Take out the word “fail” and you do get a very different result. With that in mind, I tried adding “less” onto the end of the smoking search: passive smoking harmless. The result? A slew of articles claiming that environmental tobacco smoke was harmless, research to the contrary was fraudulent, etc.

There are two questions that arise out of this experiment. How is the ordinary person with no training in searching to arrive at a reasonable mix of articles? How is someone without a research background to tease apart the mythology from the worthwhile content?

Taking the climate change one again, I spend a good fraction of my blogging time debunking climate change myths. The claim that models have no predictive power is only one of these (in fact, the IPCC validates the models in their previous reports by comparing them against subsequent measurement). Another is the claim that solar variations (search for sun explains all climate change) are sufficient to explain all climate change. Again there is a mix of articles, including some that clearly overturn the claim. This time around, bizarrely, if you change the search to the negative, sun does not explain all climate change, you get a higher fraction of hits pushing the case that climate change is purely down to the sun.

So what’s the take-home point from this?

Blogging is not science. Neither, for that matter, is journalism. Blogging seldom is even as good as amateur journalism; very occasionally a whole lot better. Whatever the case, beware of following the line of least resistance, and only reading the material that comes up in the first page of searches. It’s not that hard for a small number of people (possibly with an agenda; now who could care so much, I wonder, about confusing people about how harmful tobacco is?) to generate a lot of material, aided and abetted by the gullible who copy their line.

Information on the net is free, but so too is junk. Making life-and-death decisions based on a web search without digging deeper to understand the underlying science, whether it’s how to tackle the HIV pandemic, how to deal with the health threats of tobacco or what to do about climate change is silly. Yet many people seem to do exactly this. South Africa delayed its response to HIV by almost a decade. Progress worldwide against public smoking was delayed even more. And the rate of progress on climate change, it appears, is more in the hands of the blogosphere than of informed decision-makers.

Darwin?

Banks in Australia are starting to push the idea of using a PIN instead of signing for credit card transactions.

This sounds as if it should be more secure. After all it involves the new wonder magic “technology”. However, there is a serious downside to using a PIN instead of signing: if someone spots you typing the PIN and steals the card, they can use it on an ATM. If they steal the card without knowing the PIN, they can only use it to make a purchase, with a range of risks that don’t apply to using the card at an ATM.

If the thief only has a signed card without a PIN, the thief can only use it to make purchases, with a bunch of risks, all of which could result in arrest:

• through bad luck, they use the card with someone who knows you
• the forged signature is not good enough and they are unlucky enough to encounter one of the more vigilant shop assistants
• they were not quick enough, and you already reported the card stolen

On the other hand, if they are able to see you typing the PIN and steal the card, they have the option to go to the nearest ATM and draw cash to the limit of your card. At worst, if they mis-spied the PIN or you were very quick to stop the card, the machine rejects the card. While some ATMs have cameras, it’s not that hard to find one in an isolated spot and cover your face, so the risk of being caught is slight.

How likely is it that someone will spy on you, spot the number and nick your card? It’s a lot more likely when you are shopping than when you are using an ATM:

• You have distractions: there may be screaming kids, you are watching your stuff, moving bags around and checking that the total matches what you thought you’d spent.
• The keypad is easier to see: an ATM is designed to screen you from an observer, unless they are looking over your shoulder. Some PIN pads have limited screening in around the key area, but many do not.
• You are more likely to leave the card lying around because of the distractions and not notice someone taking it.

A study by a Czech university has shown that it’s not terribly hard for a determined thief to see what you are typing, even if the keypad is shielded.

How does this all apply to EFTPOS transactions with a debit card? Pretty much the same except with your debit card, the thief can only steal money you already have, whereas with your credit card, any cash withdrawn at an ATM will attract interest at a rather unfavourable rate.

Is there a better technological fix? Yes. Having the customer sign electronically on a pad that records not only the signature but details of pen strokes would make it much harder to forge a signature.

So why are banks doing this? Because it takes responsibility for security away from merchants and their own systems. In other words, it makes it the cardholder’s problem.

What can you do?

If offered the option of a PIN, just say no.

George Monbiot, in his book Heat, reveals the link between organized tobacco and organized climate change denial. I followed up his references and the documents he found make for interesting reading: memos from APCO, a PR firm, to Philip Morris on how to fake a grassroots movement (what we’d call astroturfing today). I strongly recommend reading Heat but in the meantime here are some examples, in which APCO is discussing the strategy for setting up The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

In proposing a European version of TASSC, the following are suggested, in a document dated March 25, 1994:

• Preempt unilateral action against industry.
• Associate anti-industry “scientific” studies with broader questions about government research and regulations.
• Link the tobacco issue with other more “politically correct” products.
• Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.

And what were those “broader questions”? Here’s a list from the same document:

• Global warming
• Nuclear waste disposal
• Diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade
• Biotechnology
• Eco-labeling for EC products
• Food processing and packaging

So the agenda was this: confuse the public on the merits of science in the tobacco arena, but create a smokescreen (how appropriate) by having similar debates in other areas and – here’s the critical point – ensure that the same people were involved so it would be harder to see the whole thing for what it was, a front for tobacco.

Here’s another snippet (document dated September 30, 1993):

APCO recommends that we steer away from launching TASSC in Washington, D.C. or the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a series of aggressive, decentralized launches in several targeted local and regional markets across the country. This approach:

• Maximizes recruitment efforts. Stresses that TASSC is a grassroots effort that will fight unsound science on both the local and national levels.
• Avoids cynical reporters from major media. Less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages; increases likelihood of pick up by media.
• Limits potential for counterattack. The likely opponents of TASSC tend to concentrate their efforts in the top markets while skipping the secondary markets. Our approach sends TASSC’s messages initially into these more receptive markets - and enables us to build upon early successes.
• Allows for a national coordinating effort. Publicize, in each market, a national 800 number, the supporters of TASSC and the existence of the TASSC Public Information Bureau.

Now, of course, it is unlikely that the majority of people who have taken a pro-industry stance on these matters are in the pay of organized tobacco or their successor in the climate change debate, Exxon, but the planting of these seeds is all that’s necessary. As uninformed members of the public pick up a perception that there’s a vast groundswell of scientists who disagree with the position they see from the mainstream media, they are conned into thinking the debate is real. It’s even possible that some genuine scientists were sucked in (I’ve noticed how most of those are retired or late-career scientists, playing on their standing, but likely to be out of touch with the latest science). Sadly, some of the mainstream media consequently pick up the spin as real, the approach of seeding it in less critical media having done the job of giving the position legs. Reporters in publications like The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and The Australian, seeing the story coming at them from many sources, mistakenly believe what they are seeing represents a genuine grassroots movement of concerned scientists.

So why, now that this whole thing has been exposed, do some of these publications continue to take the inactivist position so seriously? Because no one likes to admit to being a dupe. Or maybe because no one likes to admit that they need to make major lifestyle changes to eliminate a social harm – in other words, that they are part of the problem. This is why climate change persists as a misreported issue. And why the original “junk science” myth, tobacco is not that harmful, persisted so long, in smokey editorial offices.

So, what’s to be done?

We must recognize that in the Internet age, knowledge is not created centrally, but by networks of potentially disorganized individuals. APCO tapped into this concept in an era when the Internet was not as universal as it is today, so they needed significant funding to set up their astroturf operation. The good news is that, today, you do not need major funding to set up a genuine grassroots movement. All you need to do is to recruit friends who recruit friends, via personal networking sites like FaceBook.

So, now you know what to do: take the message out there. The climate inactivist movement is an outgrowth of the tobacco denial movement, and just as bogus. Equip yourself with the facts by reading sites with real science (to which you will find pointers on this site: I do not claim to be a great primary source; for example, the RealClimate site is run by real climate scientists).

This article is another take on APCO’s role in creating TASSC.