'Science Set Free' Dept.
Of slackers and inquisitors

.

Social commentary follows.  Nothing mild about this one.  :- )  As usual, we did make sure you also had pure baseball, one cubicle left.  You're welcome.  - Jeff

.

Misterjonez sez,

Agreed regarding Hitchens' sophist tendencies. Too many times you see people construct self-defending arguments, and he was one of the worst at that. But there were times when he was discussing subjects relatively dispassionately (basically anything that was three steps removed from religion/theology) and he could produce thought gems at an impressive pace when doing so. When he got to rambling about his anti-theism positions, it really just became self-service and diatribe cloaked in pseudo-logic. Not saying he didn't have points buried in all the hate he was spewing, but I'm generally not interested in sifting through so much anger and vitriol when searching for wisdom.

Regarding posting here more often, I'm just a slacker :( Although in fairness I've had some pretty major network issues which often make it difficult to load the site from where I live in the Philippines. Sometimes it's been a Klat deal (it seems that is pretty much behind us now, thankfully) and more recently it's been a local ISP blockages.

But one of the biggest obstacles is that I'm just 33 years old and don't know anywhere near enough about so many subjects which get broached here. I'm generally content to listen to the 40- and 50-somethings who look to be cut from a similar cloth as myself provide perspective, but every now and then I think my opinion worthy of boarding the thought train ;)

Amazing community you've amassed here, Doc. It's a testament worthy of recognition as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to whip up a few paragraphs on a regular basis and start giving something back.

.

Dr. D sez,

Ya you betcha.  Get somebody off their personal hot buttons and they can be a completely different person.

What I mourn, is the impression that if you're a scientist or a member of the intelligentsia, then you have "learned" how to be unbiased.  If I had to pick a single group on earth that was the most hardened in its bias, the most repressive of minority views, it would be biologists.  

Who represent, for me, materialistic scientists who respond to unorthodox theories by suppression, rather than inquiry.  They'll yell at Rupert Sheldrake to shut up, rather than conducting experiments that might simply disprove Sheldrake's theories.  And they're very emotional about it.

Science is supposed to be about inquiry.  Not "consensus" statements about what is possible or impossible.  Science by vote is humankind at its worst, as any Galileo could tell you.

.......

"Amazing community we've amassed here" ... never thought of it in quite that way.  You wouldn't need to type 200 words if you could type five like that ;- )

.......

Those interested in outside-the-box science, investigated by a great thinker, might be interested in Rupert Sheldrake's site at sheldrake.org.  Though I disagree with his "Morphic Resonance" theory, Prof. Sheldrake has compelling scientific evidence on subjects such as:

  • The sense of being stared at
  • Dogs who know when their owners are coming home
  • Telepathy in connection with incoming telephone calls

Sheldrake is a top-flight scientist and his experiments are sound (whether conclusive or not).  He's also one whale of a nice guy - watch his vids and you'll find the most calm, reasoned man you've ever come across.

His enemies lay down a ferocious campaign to imply otherwise.  In the big picture, Sheldrake is the world's leading protagonist for a scientific world that believes in settling debates through inquiry, as opposed to settling them by vote.

Cheers,

Jeff

Blog: 

Comments

1

First off, I'm not a scientist. In my field (religious history and ethics) the crackpot theories are annoying, but in the end often harmless. But in certain cases (where wrongheaded theories harm the social good) I would argue that there is a time to silence certain voices.
As a for instance, 20 million Americans have died from smoking related illnesses since 1964. During this time tobacco companies directly financed a campaign to promote scientists who questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer/emphysema. This muddied the water and prevented more robust action by the government to reduce tobacco usage as well as impeded informed decision making on the part of individual smokers. This sort of pseudoscience--which results tangible human suffering--should be loudly criticized and excluded from academic discourse.
*By silencing I mean through evidence-based rebuttal and occasional mocking, not of course through physical coercion.

2

In his speech "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/crichton_three_spe...), Michael Crichton hammers home the nonsense about having to defer to "consensus".
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
More:
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

3

"evidence-based rebuttal" is what Dr. D is asking for, or more specifically, independent testing of people's claims. That isn't "silencing" differing opinions, that's engaging them.

4

Crichton is just flat confused on a few points: Consensus and building from that is a huge part scientific study. It's why we refer to the theories of relativity/gravity/evolution/etc (i.e. We do ultimately assert that "the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2").
What makes something scientific is that it is systematic, reason-based, and open at least partially to experiment and observation. What Crichton mistakes for science is actually Baconian empiricism--which is a very rigid interpretation that excludes the vast majority of scientific inquiry. According to his criteria you exclude history, economics, all of the "soft" sciences really, as well as particle physics, theoretical mathematics, and many other fields that have greatly expanded human knowledge of the universe.
Another way that he errs is when he says that "Science...requires only one investigator who happens to be right." I might say that an infinite deity created the earth from amorphous chaos. I might be absolutely correct in this assertion, but I did not arrive at that conclusion scientifically. Science is a process of inquiry, not a conclusion. Happily it is not the only way to determine Truth (intuition and revelation being two other means), but it is the best suited method to investigate the physical world.

5

That is correct. But Crichton isn't arguing against that. He is saying that science is not about people getting together and voting on what is the most popular theory and then demanding that everyone conform to that. It is about testing things in an objective manner. It doesn't matter how many people believe something, that has no bearing on the truth. So arguing that a majority of "experts" agree so you must too is fallacious.
"I might say that an infinite deity created the earth from amorphous chaos. I might be absolutely correct in this assertion, but I did not arrive at that conclusion scientifically."
True, but if you can test your belief in an empirical manner, then it can overturn the scientific consensus. That is the point that is being made.
" Consensus and building from that is a huge part scientific study. It's why we refer to the theories of relativity/gravity/evolution/etc (i.e. We do ultimately assert that "the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2")."
The way you are supposed to achieve consensus is by compiling evidence via the scientific method. But consensus itself is not evidence for your theory. So you should NEVER say that because x number of people agree with you that you are most certainly right.

6

If Crichton were simply arguing against baseless theories that have become popular, then I would agree. But I don't think 1) the scientific community parrots baseless pop theories devoid of empirical evidence (would love to hear counter-example if I'm wrong), or b) that that is what Crichton is actually arguing against.
Crichton was a global warming denier. Now, there are a few scientists who have disagreed with the overwhelming scientific consensus (who like tobacco/cancer link deniers of the past are funded by the corporations who benefit from their conclusions). But their work have been determined to be inadequate by other experts in field. (BTW examples of inadequacy have included mischaracterizations of others' works, insufficient data, improperly collected data, ignoring other data of relevance, etc. It has nothing to do with elitist academics who resent someone disagreeing with them.)
I know people like to characterize peer review as arbitrary gate-keeping by academics, but in actuality it is a very effective way of both weeding out bullshit AND changing previous consensus on an issue. A non-politicized example of this would be the changing understanding of autism/asperger's. It was once believed that autistic children had no internal life and that the condition was unmanageable. When some doctor's initially started therapies for autism that improved their condition (and in some very very rare cases cured them), the initial reaction of the scientific community was hostile disbelief ("How dare you give parents false hope!"). Over the past 15 years or so, we have a much more profound understanding of the condition--it has more to do with an inability to process external information than diminished mental faculties, and there are some therapies available to mitigate the condition. We've reached this place of understanding despite initial skepticism because of experiments and studies that passed peer review and convinced the scientific community.
Crichton's rejection of global warming was not this. It was rooted in a misconception of what science actually is, and an obstinate insistance on attacking the character of scientists' ("They are seeking for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron"), rather than refute the quality of the science ("Prof. X's investigation does not take into account Y data").

7

In a free society, the appropriate response to the tobacco companies was to:
(1) test their "science,"
(2) SHOW OUR WORK, as opposed to producing petitions with X number of Ph.D.'s signing, and
(3) Let the op-ed columnists debate the issue of who has morally failed.
.........
It's fine if Charles Krauthammer wants to take off his scientist hat, and put on his columnist hat.  But for one scientist to "mock" another scientist -- in an arena that is supposed to be about investigation and cool lack of prejudice -- that tells me all I need to know about the "scientist," right there.  
I am NEVER in favor of suppressing views I disagree with.  That way lies the gulags and the 60 million dead.  Proving them wrong is quite enough without freezing them to death in Siberia.

8

... by the way, have you seen the recent Bill James material on exactly this point?   Typically, Bill articulates the problem of science-by-intimidation (even) better than Crichton or we would.
From an op-ed standpoint :- ) I couldn't agree more with Crichton (and you).  You put your finger right on it.
.......
Frankly, csiems is arguing for the very attitude that I am afraid is a dire threat to our society.  
We don't believe that Felix is better than Chris Young because of a petition signed by Rany Jazayerli and Joe Sheehan and 71 other people. We believe it because we can show our work.
Neither do we "mock" the "annoying" people who think Chris Young is a priority over Felix.  We show our work again, and ask them to reply ... if they don't, we nod politely and ignore them.   Why?  Because we're confident.  As Crichton says, we start "mocking" when we do NOT have the sound rebuttal.
........
Perhaps we sabermetricians should go back to taking consensus from scouts, and forget about showing our work?

9

You might be right, CPB, but here is where I get peeved. There are a whole host of zombie beliefs that have been thoroughly debunked and yet return every few years. In my field I get crackpots that think Jesus didn't exist, or that he had a wife, or that the Vatican is hiding secret books that prove he was gay. For me those things are silly and it's annoying that people believe them, but ultimately they are relatively harmless.
In the field of climate science though, global warming has been proven with overwhelming evidence, and every year we see more evidence of how it will affect the planet over the coming generations. Yet the crackpots who deny it don't play by the rules, when their work is rebutted, they go to the media or now the internets and cry that they are being silenced or persecuted or whatever evil things academics do in their ivory towers. These are the people that should have the mic pulled from their hands, because the confusion that they sew delays action on the issue. Their actions will be responsible for massive human suffering over the next few generations.

10

A person who thinks Chris Young is better than Felix, that person isn't annoying to me at all.  (Probably he isn't to anybody else here, either.)
99 times out of 100, when I start getting annoyed in debates, it is because I'm frustrated that my position isn't as strong as I thought it was.  Then I get angry with the person who is properly serving as a check-and-balance on my prejudices.
If I'm secure in my position -- at a subconscious level -- it's almost impossible to annoy me.

11

Human-driven global warming has NOT been conclusively demonstrated. On the contrary, the predicted warming that was supposed to occur over the last 15 years failed to show up despite more and more CO2 being pumped into the air. That is an undisputed fact. Yet rather than admitting that it has been empirically proven that they do not understand climate like they claimed they did, the alarmists keep pushing the exact same narrative with the justification that "a consensus of scientists agree". This is profoundly un-scientific. It is an inherently political approach which goes against the scientific method. No matter what the evidence says, they will insist that they are right and that if the real world deviates from their models it is because Nature isn't behaving correctly rather than a failure of the models. That isn't science.
As Crichton explained, the climate alarmists have aggressively pushed the consensus fallacy precisely because the evidence is shaky. If the evidence was truly overwhelmingly demonstrative of human-driven global warming, there would be no need to constantly talk up how many scientists believe in it.

12

Can we not jump straight from my advocacy of peer review to gulags? :) Academic rigor does not bring about fascism. Academics are usually the first sent to Siberia en masse.

13

Well, I don't want to derail the conversation into global warming assertions, but in my experience that explanation for the widespread agreement doesn't ring true. Academics aren't generally interested in pushing an ideology or narrative that they believe to be untrue just for the sake of pride. In fact it's generally the opposite--if you can produce an argument that no one else has, you generally gain distinction within your field. Assuming of course your argument passes muster.

14

What if the guy thought Perez/Broussard were better than Choo/Cabrera? You might be slightly more annoyed if that person were the GM of your team, right? In other words, when the stakes get higher, the need for the most correct opinion to win out becomes more important.

15

A detail-level snippet from BJOL.  The reader is one who imperiously invokes consensus.  Here he does so with a contemptuous single link.
 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Asked by: Bruce
Answered: 1/30/2011

That's a perfect example. . ..from the site that you cite. . .

 

Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7
 
Well, what EXACTLY does that mean?   I am afraid it is beyond my ken.   What IS the global temperature now?   What was it in 1880?  What was it in 1971?   Why won't you tell us? 
In a scientific report, when you say that X has increased since 1880, it is normal and standard to say what it was in 1880 and what it is now.   This would not end the debate, but it would lead to other rational questions. 
Instead, you tell us that "all three major global reconstructions show that the earth has warmed since 1880."   Which is a nice thesis statement, but. . .where's the evidence?  
Saying that "all three major global reconstructions show that the earth has warmed since 1880" is, in essence, a way of saying that "we are experts and we have studied this issue and we feel that it is true."   That's great UNTIL you have a group of competing experts who say that they have studied the issue and it ISN'T true, at which point it becomes a matter of looking at the evidence. 
Which gets us back to where we started.   At some point I hope that the evidence can be stated in terms simple enough that even I can understand it.

....
Personally, I don't know whether the earth is warming or not.  I also don't know whether rich, fat American consumers are the devil.  I don't know whether Mother Nature should send rich, fat Americans to hell for the sin of driving an SUV, the way she does in a Jon Cusack movie.
I do know that we're told to shut up when we ask the experts about it.
One side gets to talk, and the other doesn't.  And that is how the experts want it!  That's how you like it, too, CS?
....
On a lighter note ... contrast the above with James' OWN way of presenting evidence.  He does so transparently, at the level of the smallest details of research.  He invites dissenters to disprove it.  A conversation follows in which all are welcome to speak.  People can, and do, self-investigate every point of his research.
Why not transfer the lesson learned?  Why not run biology, the way we do sabermetrics?
 

16

This slur, which is a common one, belies the supposedly fact-based nature of those arguing for the theory of AGW. It is intended to equate those who don't believe in AGW with those who deny the Holocaust.This is not only grossly slanderous, it is completely off base. Besides being one of the most horrific crimes in history, the Holocaust is a historical fact. It happened in the past and we have mountains of concrete evidence of the extermination of millions of people, ranging from eye witnesses, mass graves, crematories, bureaucratic paperwork and on and on. We can be as certain that it happened as we can of any historical event. AGW is different because it is mostly a debate about what will happen in the future, and the future is inherently unknowable, especially when it comes to non-linear chaotic systems like the Earth's climate. To claim that we know what the temperature of the Earth will be in the future requires either profound arrogance or dishonesty.
"Crichton's rejection of global warming was not this. It was rooted in a misconception of what science actually is, and an obstinate insistance on attacking the character of scientists' ("They are seeking for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron"), rather than refute the quality of the science ("Prof. X's investigation does not take into account Y data")."
First off, Crichton does focus on the scientific shortcomings of the theory of AGW. The third speech in the link I provided is chock full of scientific analysis. Second, it takes a lot of chutzpah to call skeptics of AGW crackpots on par with Holocaust deniers and then get upset when someone points out the obvious which is that it's easiest for an academic to advance their career by going along with the prevailing theories.

17

I would give you a harsh reply for that.
The subject under discussion is:  should we get annoyed at a person for STATING THEIR POSITION.  Not, should we get annoyed at somebody for fouling up in their job.  
You're a smart guy, CS; did you really not get that?  Or were you trying to obfuscate the discussion?
........
(Usually I don't get "annoyed" with somebody for making a mistake in their job, either.  Not if he was doing his best.   Sigh.)

18

Group think is a real thing. If your professors teach you that x is true, and everyone else keeps telling you that x is true, then you will likely assume x is true and pursue research based upon that assumption. All the geologists who claimed that the continents were fixed in place sincerely believed that. It's because they really believed it that they weren't open to the theory of plate tectonics.

19

... is the intent and the result.  When one scientist slurs another in this way.  
When you attack a dissenter as being a crazy man, or dishonest, or incompetent, you know what it could do to his career.  Why not simply stick to exchanging ideas that relate to the analysis, not the analyzers?

20

I literally found the answer to James' question in 60 seconds of Google searching:
"Thermometers have only been in widespread use since around 1850. For the time before 1800 A.D. To reconstruct climate change...we need to use indirect indicators. One source of information is historical records: logs, dairies, lists on when the wine harvest began, reports on when the ice first broke up in a northern river, or when the cherry trees first blossomed. In some cases, such reports go back hundreds of years, although rarely in unbroken sequence. Logs and dairies are treasured finds, they do not exist for most regions of the planet....Paleoclimatologists (climatologists who study past or paleo climates) use the term "proxy" to describe a way that climate change is recorded in nature, within geological materials such as ocean or lake sediments, tree-rings, coral growth-bands, ice-cores, and cave deposits."
The answers are not hidden! They are actually fairly easy to find if one looks. Don't crucify academics for the American sin of being poor communicators.
------------------------------------
As to your question: Why not run biology, the way we do sabermetrics? In general, I believe biologists are very transparent in their work (a subscription to Scientific American is only $25), but the fact is that biology is way more complicated than baseball. Give me an afternoon and I can understand wOBA. Give me 8 years of concentrated study and I can become a doctor. But it doesn't mean I'm trying to keep you from learning anatomy.

21

I don't mind tabling the discussion if it's getting a little too hot. :) I'm dead serious about that. Sometimes discussions like this are best done face to face over a pitcher of Miller High Life.
_________________________________
It's not obfuscation to believe that opinions lead to actions, and when people with power have wrong opinions, their wrong actions can be disastrous. Which is what I said above when I wrote "Pseudoscience--which results tangible human suffering--should be loudly criticized and excluded from academic discourse. Through evidence-based rebuttal and occasional mocking, not of course through physical coercion."

22

If you have a preferred term for "one who does not believe that global warming is occurring" I will cheerfully use it. In my mind, "global warming denier" is a value neutral descriptor and is not in any way equating it with holocaust denial. I mean that. I'd like to not be accused of leading us all to gulags and holocausts.
Second, I can't help but feel that the particularity of the example has derailed the generality of the discussion about the meaning of science and the role of academics in maintaining intellectual rigor in the pursuit of truth.

23

No where in the article does it say what the actual temperature in 1880 was or what it is today. Instead, it basically says "we have the data, we have studied it extensively, and we have come to the conclusion that the Earth has warmed". That's not evidence. What James is asking for is the raw numbers. By not providing the raw numbers, the article is saying "trust us, we're experts".
Note: the quote you provided doesn't provide the temperatures either.

24

The wrong side of the argument is being labelled the "Deniers". The wrong side has some 'splainin' to do. The wrong side, incidentally, was caught cooking the books and falsifying evidence in the "climategate" scandal, in which the political scientists were caught hiding evidence in emails. The wrong side rode Al Gore's coat tails of alarmist predictions, all turning out to be wildly off mark, feeding him phony data and phony conclusions and that side now tells us he never really mattered at all. It is amazing to me that one can watch all this, and conclude that the other side is the one full of charlatans.
I would like to see a lot more humility of of the accusing side. Comparing them to holocaust deniers with their polemics is not the way forward.

25

It's hard to accept "denier" as value neutral when you have no problem throwing around terms that are clearly intended to be pejoratives. Regardless, "denier" is intended by many to imply an analogue to Holocaust denial even if you don't intend that so it's not a good term to be using. I am unaware of any other subject where those on one side of the debate are referred as "deniers" so it is not a normal term intended to describe people's views fairly. If you want an appropriate word, go with "skeptic"; that is a commonly used term in a wide range of topics.

26

That's right on.  I can agree with Doc and care less about bad ideas in the abstract, but the problem is that people's bad ideas often turn into bad laws.  For example: Let us consider the Endangered Species Act.  The Act provides protection for species and sub species.  Biologically, a species should be anything that can make viable offspring only with those of its own kind.  This is generally the rule, but is not necessarily true.  For example, Brown Bears and Polar Bears are two different species, but can interbreed freely.  Wolves and dogs are different species, but can interbreed freely.
There is no adequate definition of subspecies.  In Alaska, there is a critter called the gray wolf.  In southern Alaska, there is a chain of islands called the Alexander Archipelago.  Someone somewhere, decided that the Alexander island wolves are generally slightly smaller than the mainland gray wolves, and the Alexander wolf subspecies was born.  This subspecies is not uniform but varies from island to island.  The wolves don't differ much though, as they swim like fish and migrate in and out of the different populations.  The largest and most remote of the Alexander Islands is Prince of Wales Island.  It is a good 10 mile distance from any of its neighboring islands.  There is a pending lawsuit to halt all logging activities on Prince of Wales Island, based on a threat to the Prince of Wales Alexander Wolf, a subspecies within the subspecies of Alexander wolves.  You probably wouldn't be able to pick out the Alexander wolf out of a lineup of gray wolves, and you definitely wouldn't be able to pick out a Prince of Wales Alexander wolf out of a lineup of other Alexander wolves.  There will be  millions of dollars of litigation, concerning hundreds of jobs, and an entire rural economy threatened by questionable pseudo-science.
A more famous example:

Can you tell which is the spotted owl and which is the barred owl?  Neither can they.  They are the same bird with slightly different spots.  But, communities have been shut down, and barred owls are now being studied and  shot by state and federal biologists so they won't have owl sex with spotted owls and produce offspring with long spots or short bars or whatever.  National Geographic calls the half breeds "sparred owls".  As these owls mate for life, it is never explained to a spotted owl that his barred or sparred owl wife is being killed for his own good.  
The idea of shooting owls to save owls doesn't bother me in the abstract, but bad science can turn into an injunction in a hurry.  It bothers me that my tax dollars pay for biologists to shoot birds to prevent natural breeding behaviors.  Speaking of bad science, do y'all want to talk about bullet forensics or polygraphs?
-End Rant
 
 

27

My bad! The raw figures are in the link provided in the copied article (click the superscripted "7" and then "+More" under "Global temperature rise")--you'll see a chart with the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
From there it looks like you can download the granular data, but that's beyond my ken. I have the same trouble interpreting the PITCHf/x data, but I don't doubt that it's as accurate as MLB knows how to measure it. :)

28

We need some way to distinguish the good ideas from the bad.   How are we going to do that?  :- )
.......
Those are powerful examples of environmental science (and consensus, errghh) turning into hard environmental law.
Personally, I've found it pretty tough to discuss the environment with those who (seem to) see man as an unfortunate component of Mother Nature.  For me, it hasn't been easy to ventilate the room and get an open discussion going as to how we balance X against Y.

29

Crackpot is entirely not value neutral, but it was intended to be light-hearted not meanness. I apologize for that offense, CPB.
We clearly disagree on the matter of global warming, which is why I led with the tobacco thing. To me the truth of smoking's role in causing lung cancer was intentionally hidden from the public and then obfuscated by a concerted campaign by particular interests. This obfuscation short-circuited the public's ability to make informed decisions and meanwhile, millions of people died.

31

James is not questioning whether the data exists or not, he is troubled that it isn't provided in that particular article. Instead, we get noises about what the data shows.
It is the attitude displayed in that article he has a problem with, not an inability to use Google for himself. In an article purporting to prove that the Earth's temperature is rising because of humans, it leaves out the most basic piece of information: the temperature of the Earth! I must say I am also frustrated with this type of obfuscation.

32

We don't ever reach a pont where we decide who's right and who's wrong.  What we do, in America, is fight about things, and then the majority of people who agree on a subject get their way.  This isn't necessarily right, but its what we do.  Law isn't based on logic, its based on persuasion of those in power.  Here's my weapon of choice:

 

34

And then venturing into "East Germany" - Leipzig. You leave the beaten track a few blocks, and you start to remember and see the scars of decades of bad policy based on bad ideas - dilapidated housing, crumbling roads, and such - but a cyclist's paradise. But then, one can do the same thing traveling through Cleveland (haven't had the pleasure of Detroit, as Gordon apparently is now enjoying). But then again, the "West German" countryside would be much more pleasant without all the obsequious and fairly useless windmill propellers and solar paneled roofs (that should be a pleasant red). Germany is learning the hard way that green pipe dreams are expensive, and coal must still be burned to stay warm and run the economy. I kinda prefer the nuclear plants on the east side - at least I know they are producing power at useful levels - and without a carbon footprint!
Even if we have a carbon problem, the folks we need to convince to act are over in China. We aren't the problem.

35

About fifteen years ago, I worked for an integrated electric/telecom cooperative. Wonderful business. I was on the telecom side of the house but it's a small company and we all shared on break room. All of the trade publications were set in the break room for a couple of months before they were cycled out. One publication came to the electric coop and was produced by the "Greening Earth Society" - a coal industry funded group whose mission was to say how awesome living in an 'enhanced CO2 environment' would be. More CO2 in the atmosphere will result in greater agricultural yields, for instance. A warming planet would open the Northwest Passage and bring greater efficiency to shipping, as well as open up more land for resource extraction. I read these very slick publications for years - they were very well done and, I suppose, persuasive. That's when I decided that it's real.
I'm not qualified to weigh in on the science of global climate change any more than I am quantum physics. But I know marketing and PR and I recognize the intent. The guy that ran the "Greening Earth Society" eventually got in some kind of trouble and the outfit closed. But I still see the articles making the same arguments pop up from time to time. I find the whole thing fascinating.

37

The point that often gets passed over in this debate is those that believe in Global Warming want to reduce CO and CO2 in the atmosphere... and almost always be reducing the amounts being produced.
Why isn't there ANY talk about USING this extra CO2? There are plenty of ways CO2 can be used, especially in several industries now-a-days. However, you NEVER hear about grants for companies that use CO2.
Further, even if we were just talking about the most basic use for CO2 - growing plants. Why is there not a wild craze for planting things? Why aren't there tax breaks for planting things in your yard? And my most favorite point... Why doesn't anyone know that species of plants best absorbs CO2? This SHOULD be common knowledge IF we cared about doing everything we could do to fight Global Warming. Yet, no university has even done an extensive study on this subject. Just something to ponder..

38

The danger of the scientific "consensus" has always been and will always be that not all potential lines of research are pursued, leading to the consensus being selected from every possible explanation backed by the strongest evidence. There's a reason skeptical articles aren't often found in the literature regarding human induced climate change, and it certainly isn't that there are no holes left in the AGW theory. The reason is simple: scientific publications rarely accept articles from private funding sources without an institutional backing, and there is a false assumption that publicly funded research is more impartial. Wherever there is money, there is agency - it is true for all of human history that people who have money use it to direct the narrative, including in science. Governments are *by far* the largest contributors to scientific research and they have a historical cause to enhance their own agency and drive forward only those research lines which might yield results favorable to their power and agency...which might produce findings consistent with a useful narrative. We're all quick to assume that the energy companies are funding all skeptical study of science and that therefore, skeptical views should be viewed...well...skeptically. But you're kidding yourself if you think government funded science is any more impartial or devoid of an agenda.

39

While Grizz tells a tale that casts serious doubt on the Green Earth Society, I counter thusly:
I entered grad school skeptical of the prevailing AGW theory due to my reading of personal accounts from respected scientists whose careers were ruined by their skepticism over climate modeling (people like William Grey) - but I became absolutely convinced that skepticism was needed in climate science when, after arriving in grad school and declaring that I didn't particularly want to pursue a career studying climate per say, I was told repeatedly...REPEATEDLY...by faculty at Stony Brook that I would be foolish not to pursue a career in climate science because that was where the money was in atmospheric science. And when I expressed an interest in studying natural sources of climate variability, I was warned that such research was not well funded and my opportunities would be very limited as my career progressed.
Stony Brook is a good solid institution and the scientists there are not short on their understanding of the scientific method, but they know where the money is...and they will only pursue study of topics linked to human induced climate change. After I found out how climate models were tuned and what assumptions they employed, my skepticism was total.

40
lr's picture

After reading through this entire thread, I feel the imperative to be csiems cut-man.
Just a few simple points that I think he was making but I didn't feel were fully digested by a few in here.
-Scientific consensus doesn't mean you go around and take a poll on which scientists prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate, and then if 85% prefer vanilla then vanilla is considered better than chocolate.
This whole fervor over "consensus" is missing the point. Scientific consensus refers to the positions reached via research and data collection, testing, retesting, retesting again, etc. If 97-98% of scientifically conducted climate change papers and studies over the last 3 years have yielded a conclusion through research and data collection that AGW is real and is happening, why are people bickering over certain terms like "deniers", and bickering about people not showing all their work and the numbers for the temp in 1880 and so on. For crying out loud, spend an afternoon reading up on the stuff. Why should he have to do your work for you. This is 2014, the information is literally seconds away, and it is everywhere. Take 3 or 4 hours and really acquaint yourself with some of the reasons that climate change is an overwhelmingly accepted theory in the scientific community. Read some of the rebuttals to climate change, then read some of the rebuttals to those rebuttals.
-----------
-The reason people mock climate change deniers isn't because we come from a position of uncertainty, it's because achieving a position of relative certainty is fairly straight forward and doesn't take much time and effort. It's the same reason new earth Creationists get laughed off the stage. Imagine, that, if every time a NEC started rambling about his/her beliefs, a scientist would have to take the time to explain, in detail, exactly why their position is intellectually bankrupt.
Why do you think other scientists thought it was a bad idea when Bill Nye debated Ken Hamm? Were they shaking in their boots because their position stood on shaky ground?
------------
The reasons for accepting climate change as real and a serious threat to the Earth and humanity are vast and scientifically stated, peer reviewed, retested, and agreed upon by over 95% of climate scientists. It is a 95% certainty, which is funny because that's the same confidence given by science that cigarettes kill people. For real. This isn't a "debate". Unless you think there is a debate to be had over whether cigarettes can kill you.

41

Make your case.  Without reference to vote.
Should be easy, right?  
Ask me to make my case that Jesus was inspired, or that cigarettes cause emphysema, and I'll happily do so in 500 words that take me 10 minutes to type.  Ask me to make my case for animal psi, which I'm convinced exists, and I'll post two controlled experiments that you'll agree are virtually airtight.
 

42

It is strange that you equate a 95% vote to --- > a repeatable study (p What about the 5%?  What about the literate, trained scientists who hold the minority view?  Do you dismiss them with a wave of your hand, LR, or do you ask both sides to make their case?
......
Surely you are aware that scientific consenses change over time?   
Tectonic theory vs fixed continents
Lamarckian evolution (and now Darwinian evolution)
N Rays
Einstein's non-expanding universe
etc etc
But I can see why, with the doctrine of Global Warming so important to people emotionally, that there is a surge of support for accepting experts' assurances blindly.  That doesn't hold up to scrutiny, though.  "You gotta believe what they tell you" isn't a debate position you want to sign your name to.
......
There is a lot of value in consensus.  It points our thoughts in certain directions and streamlines our own thinking and research.  Knowledge must accumulate.
The problem comes when you ASK for the data, and they tell you "You're an idiot to ask."

43

...as in...it's my job and I have to live by the process...
...you could not be more wrong (sorry...I'm not trying to be harsh here, but this is the plain truth as I see it) about how that 97% figure was reached or why it's important to continue arguing about all of the planks of that theory.
In the late 1800s through the early 1900s, there was a prominent physical theory called "Luminiferous Aether" to explain how light, needing a medium to travel, could possibly pass through empty space unseen. 99+% of physicists believed that theory absolutely and without question because no other explanation for all of their (well done and repeatable) physical experiements and observations of the universe made things make sense. There had to be something...some THING...that filled the void and acted as the medium for light. We know better, today, but back then, there was excellent scientific research that seemed to proved that such an aether was real and people who doubted it were drummed out of the scientific community.
Now...as to the question of AGW in particular, it is most certainly NOT the case that 97% of all papers in climatology have studied the question of whether human-caused global warming is fact or erroneous theory. The vast majority of those papers in climate literature being counted as "yes" votes for AGW start with the assumption that AGW is real and study its possible impacts. On weather, on seasonal climate, on regional severe weather impacts, on the ocean, on the biosphere, on energy production etc. Those papers were all counted as yes votes because the scientists simply believed the "consensus" and did their works contingent on the theory that AGW was proven. That is how it was working at Stony Brook...my adviser was a synoptic and mesoscale meteorologist (meaning he studied shorter-term forecast problems than the climate system, generally - he studied storms, the impact of terrain on weather patterns, etc). But he began commissioning studies and filing for grants during my time at the school on climate related topics - all of which STARTED with the assumption that AGW was fact. He is currently studying the impacts of AGW on extreme weather events and storm tracks by taking global climate model simulations as gospel and using them as boundary conditions for a regional mesoscale model, to see what influence a changed climate has on storms. His papers, when finished, will be counted as "yes" votes.
Do you see the problem, LR? The question of whether AGW is real hasn't been asked and re-studied by anyone but climate skeptics since the late 90s because all of the funding goes to people who assume AGW is real and study its impacts to inform policy makers. The reason skeptics continue to attack the basic planks of the original theory is because there are, in our view, good reasons to be doubtful as to the veracity of those planks...and if they fail...the theory fails too.
We're currently basing economic and social policies around the globe on the assumptions of a theory which has not been properly challenged in the scientific literature, which has some compelling reasons to believe it and some compelling reasons not to believe it. That policy we create impacts BILLIONS of lives. And if the theory is wrong...no one benefits. A good scientist questions everything...and when he thinkis he's certain...he questions it again. Because what scientists discover becomes the basis for how we all live going forward.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.