If the majority of the world's most top notch climatologists or whatever they're called all agree that global warming is occurring at an alarming rate and we, as men, are largely to blame and they are in fact wrong,that really it's just a big media-hyped farce (like witches in Salem) why are all these scientists in agreement? What's their motive? Why do they want to squash dissent (or maybe they don't, maybe that's just the media). In other words, what's in it for them to lie or to distort or to exaggerate?
I've asked this question to people smarter than me before and they've said something along the lines of: so they can keep getting gov. funding for their science projects. It's easier for me to see the motives of the few scientists who say man isn't causing or quickly accelerating global warming--most of them (correct me if I'm wrong) are funded by oil companies. Link.I looooove the East Anglia climategate story.
Deference to experts is a logical fallacy. So is attacking motives instead of arguments.
But in case you really did think that climatologists were some sort of impartial arbiters of fact and truth, I'm glad you are now totally disabused of this notion. Whatever motivates them, it is now very clear that they are, in fact, ideologues committed to stifling dissent.
Of course, that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.
Global warming alarmist who want the world's inhabitants to significantly reduce their carbon foot prints have the burden of proving their case. They need to show, with some degree of certainty, 1) the earth is warming, 2) it is, at least partially, caused by man (anthropogenic) 3) warming is bad, 4) it's bad enough that it justifies a drastic reduction in our standard of living 5) technology will not be able to solve the problem. Only if they can prove all of these does it make sense to dramatically reduce our use of hydrocarbons without a adequate substitute.
I could never get past one. Not that I know the earth isn't getting warmer; just that I doubt that anyone can accurately measure or show that it is. I agree with Derbyshire, that measuring the earth's temperature within one tenth of a degree is basically a fool's errand. And it's not just the temperature now, but the temperature going back hundreds of years from different points all over the earth, measured from ice cores and tree rings, etc.
A lot of smart scientists do seem to think that the earth is getting warmer and that the warming is caused by man. And even though that has no bearing on the merits, it certainly makes the theory of global warming seem more plausible. However, we now know that the original East Anglia temperature data was deleted, and that even the data Anglia kept was inadequate and improperly processed. So, did this consensus of scientist come from each individual scientist collecting his own data, or are they relying on the "treated" data from the likes of East Anglia?
5 comments:
"Deference to experts is a logical fallacy." You'll have to expound on that one for me. Considering them "impartial arbiters of fact and truth" would be reckless, but deferring to an expert is ubiquitous in our society. Why else go to a doctor, lawyer, forensic scientist, or mechanic if their opinion wasn't valuable and more likely to be accurate than your own.
Aren't motives a large part of criminal prosecution (at least in the Hollywood versions they are)? Investigating a scientist's motives seems quite relevant to judging whether they are acting as a scientist or as an ideologue. Isn't that at the heart of Climategate, that it was made clear that these "former scientists" had ulterior motives?
Personally I'm still pretty confident about 1 and 2 on your list. It's 3, 4, and 5 that I get hung up on.
I enjoyed Derbyshire's article, probably because a large part of it paid homage to the pursuits of science. I disagree with discounting the possibility of accurately measuring the earth's temperature simply on the basis that is seems like a really hard thing to do. I'm sure those attempting to do so are familiar with statistical procedures, p-values, and the like (in addition to their data doctoring skills) that would surely be requisite for publication in a professional journal. If there's a problem with the data collection/statistical analysis that is grounds for concern, but not simply the notion that the task seems pretty tricky. So does achieving a temperature a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero, so does mapping the residual energy from the Big Bang, do does nuclear fusion, yet they've all been done.
My question is what does all this mean for the actual science of climatology. Aren't there other climate research centers or was East Anglia the beacon for all global warming data? There's got to be some honest climate scientists out there right? Right?
Another article from Derbyshire here.
Good questions.
You're right, we can't know everything and we have to trust experts. And experts are hopefully more likely right than wrong. But that doesn't mean that because they take a certain position, the position is correct.
Trust me, lawyers are frequently wrong about the law. When I was taking a bar prep course, one of the instructors used to say, we shouldn't worry about getting the exam answers right because, after all, half of all lawyers are wrong anyway.
The opinion of experts has no bearing on the actual merits. The evidence and arguments are the merits, and what experts think about the merits does not establish the truth. Certainly science has many many examples of the majority of experts thinking one thing, with the truth turning out to be quite different down the road. Lots of examples in the Derbyshire article above.
Same for motives. Just because a scientist really wants to show the earth is warming, doesn't mean that his arguments or evidence he produces isn't compelling. An example in a different context: if a reporter hates a certain politician and wants to destroy his career, and manages to obtain photos of that politician in a compromising position, are the merits of the evidence against the politician undermined by the reporter's motives? Other than the authenticity of the photos, his motives are irrelevant.
So I guess motive is relevant to proving a person acted a certain way (like he lied) but it's not relevant to undermining arguments. Assuming a scientist is performing a transparent study, there should be no need to attack motive because you can attack methodology.
More later.
I don't think the heart of climategate was proving these scientists' motives (although it certainly did). The biggest parts of climate gate are: 1) these big name climatologists are manipulating the data to decrease the middle age warming period 2) they were suppressing, or at least trying to suppress, articles that disagreed with their findings, 3) they were "balancing" the needs of the IPCC and with science. 4) they destroyed the original data, and 5) their interpreted data and computer modeling are a complete mess.
Maybe measuring earth's mean temperature within a hundredth of a degree hundreds for years backwards in time and then showing the effect of man is completely possible. but it seems quite difficult to do with that level of precision. Just because we've done some hard science things doesn't mean we can do all hard things. And we need to be very, very sure, because we're making trillion dollar decisions based upon the data.
From what I understand there are four main climate research centers, with East Anglia being the main one. I don't know if these other centers have duplicate numbers. It seems they don't. I'm sure there are some honest climate scientist out there, but do they have access to the raw data? I find it troubling that these guys seem to have so much control over the IPCC and that they can manipulate the data an no one will notice.
“The opinion of experts has no bearing on the actual merits. The evidence and arguments are the merits, and what experts think about the merits does not establish the truth.”
The opinion of experts does not influence what is true, but who is to be the judge of truth if not those most familiar with the details of the phenomena involved? While I’m not too familiar with legal proceedings, I’m guessing that if an expert witness is brought in to testify in a case, the counter strategy would be to either 1) bring in another expert who disagrees, or 2) attack the initial expert’s motives/credentials. You’re probably not going to point out that the 8th term in the 26th iteration of his algorithm should’ve approximated the drag coefficient to the 4th power instead of the 3rd. Judging the merits of an expert’s work is the role of the scientific community, not the general public.
“Certainly science has many many examples of the majority of experts thinking one thing, with the truth turning out to be quite different down the road.”
Granted scientific consensus has been wrong many times, but it’s also been right on a fair share of occasions. Identifying those who have betrayed the scientific process for an ideology is an important role of watchdogs, but that doesn’t mean that the merits of the scientific method should be discredited outright.
On another note, I find the IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri’s comments that he wouldn’t hesitate to use East Anglia’s data in the future very disturbing. "I don't see any reason why they should be excluded. The fact is that their actions, their contributions have been totally above board. And they've been completely objective in what they've carried out. So I don't have any reason whatsoever to leave them out if there's a requirement and they qualify." Is he delusional? Maybe just collusive.
My only point was that Jesse's post seems to be saying, "the vast majority of climatologist believe X, so they must be right, unless they are all lying." There's also another possibility: the consensus (if there is one) is wrong.
Most of your post isn't really directed at this point, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you say. I have no beef with the scientific method, for instance. And I don't disagree that consensus can be, and usually is, right.
But I'm not sure I agree that we should let the experts be the judges. Are we non-experts incapable of evaluating the merits, so we must rely upon the experts to tell us their closest approximation to truth? Does this mean the only logical thing to do is to agree with the majority/consensus of experts in a field where you are not an expert? Does this mean you believe in a living constitution (instead of originalism) because most lawyers and law professors believe in it?
Post a Comment