can anyone think of a case where the vast overwhelming majority of scientists, in their own field, all around the world, for a long period of time, by virtue of conspiracy (since that is the commonest accusation) or foolishness, held an opinion that was demonstrably wrong with reference to the facts available the time? and unanimously refused to concede to good quality arguments against their position?

The context of the discussion was, of course, global warming.

Here’s something similar:

The flat earth and geocentric world are examples of wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods. Can you name your favorite example and for extra credit why it was believed to be true?

There are lots of well-informed replies. It does seem that scientific consensus, if that’s what it should be called, has been wrong more – measured in time a belief was held – than it has been right. Much of this is accounted for by the persistence ideas like those of Galen and of the heliocentric universe but there are also examples where the scientific establishment has been stubbornly, tenaciously, obviously wrong. Continental drift and the cause of ulcers spring to mind as examples, but if you read the 50 odd suggestions, from professional academics and others equally well qualified, you’ll see several more.

“Many other large crystals adorn my headdress – from Arkansas, New York, Tibet and Brazil. The crystals represent the living Earth. The feathers in my headdress are from the Rio Grande species of the North American wild turkey…”

Thus wrote James Richard Saunder, shortly before his arrest for criminal trespass. Do click through to see his headdress. Modestly, Mr Saunder also wrote:

I have left a skein of multi-colored Red Heart yarn at the missile silo to signify that here the thread of a new, world-wide narrative begins

Via Tim Blair.

I have no idea where they came from, but at about 7:00am I was distracted from my computer by quacking in the garden. A family of ducks, Mum and six ducklings, were clustered about the small pond. The runt of the clutch, half the size of the others, couldn’t get out of the pond, so Mum wasn’t budging. There she is, above, giving me a good talking to as I went to help junior out of the water, a task complicated by the little creature’s attempts to hide by diving as deep as possible. In my pond, that’s not very deep at all.

Sorry the pics are such poor quality.

While I was dog walking, one of the cats must have tried to make friends, because there was a small scattering of duckling feathers on the lawn when I returned. But all ducklings are present and correct, so Mum must have fought the cat off.

They’re still out there, so if anything interesting happens I’ll update. I hope to see them on their way without casualties. The cats have a different plan, I believe. The dogs… well, the dogs are fascinated by them, but possibly in a good way. And possibly not.

UPDATE: They seem to have settled in. The cats have temporarily, I assume, lost interest and are indoors. The smallest duckling is the most adventurous. Oh, and ducklings do cute very successfully, especially when they stretch up and flap their stubby little wings.

(Why is this tagged ‘global warming’? I’ve never had ducks in the garden like this before, and I can only assume that global warming causes ducks. It causes everything else.)

UPDATE2: The duck family have moved on, intact and well fed (they liked wild bird seed mix).

1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.

2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.

3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

4. Declaration of interests: None.

5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.

Lalu Hanuman

Hanuman seems to be something of a Green, and a standard-issue modern leftie (see comments to this post) which makes this even more interesting.

Dom Anthony Sutch, the Benedictine monk who resigned as head of Downside School to become a parish priest in Suffolk, will be at the county’s Waveney Greenpeace festival this weekend to hear eco-confessions in what is thought to be the first dedicated confessional booth of its kind.

Vested in a green chasuble-style garment made from recycled curtains, and in a booth constructed of recycled doors, he will hear the sins of of those who have not recycled the things they ought to have done and who have consumed the things they ought not to have done.

Once an impregnable forest of huge ice blocks, the Northwest Passage has — for the first time in recorded history — become almost completely ice-free and open to navigation. Researchers at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center recently announced that: “Analysts confirm that the passage is almost completely clear…

The source website, the Guardian put it more starkly:

The North-West Passage – the sea route running along the Arctic coastline of North America, normally perilously clogged with thick ice – is nearly ice-free for the first time since records began.

Since records began! What, since the turn of the century? The Second World War? 1842? 1726? 1938?

Nope:

Analysts confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972

1972, huh? How does that fit into Artic temperature anomaly patterns? Let’s see now…

Click on that graph. The low point towards the right? The dip between two peaks? 1972, round about when the alarm was about global cooling – because temperatures seemed to have swung alarmingly low. The other high point? 1936, which fits the new data showing 1934 was the warmest year last century.

Out of interest, in what respect do these risings and fallings correlate with CO2 emission rates?

UPDATE: I meant to draw attention to the dishonest alarmism of the first quotation, from a site called treehugger. When did “recorded history” begin? Three thousand years ago? Fifteen hundred? Using this phrase makes it seem the Northwest Passage has never been this clear of ice, not since the dawn of time. Of course, the likelihood is it was at least this clear in the 1930s and for much of the Roman and Medieval eras. The only figleaf of accuracy that treehugger has is the strained truth that this particular set of recordings has a history that goes back just to 1972.

These people are just plain dishonest.

UPDATE: Strangely enough, this story didn’t make the BBC website.

UPDATE: It gets worse. Much worse. Read this.

UPDATE: For people clicking through from the bird forum – the graph plainly shows the Arctic has warmed since the 1970s – there’s no “denial” here, matey. Just an observation about the alarmist and dishonest way these things are reported, and the provision of some hard information to show that the Arctic is no warmer than it was in the 1930s. By the way, I love the commenter on your forum who says, in effect: I don’t know why this is wrong, but I’ll pop over to realclimate to get my prejudices confirmed. Oh, and while the graph is on the (excellent) junkscience blog, the data comes from James Hansen’s NASA. So there.