Here’s an ANONYMOUS POST that was written in response to the INHOFE GLOBAL WARMING ARTICLE linked below. Since the post raises points worth addressing, I’m publishing it here. My response follows.
From ANONYMOUS:
Part of the problem with public debates about complex scientific subjects like the anthropogenic cause of global warming is that non-experts think they are qualified to make judgments based on simplistic reasoning and incomplete evidence. “Of course there can’t be global warming,” lay critics claim, “because the East Antarctic ice shelf actually expanded.” The truth is that you and I are not able to make knowledgeable judgments about the specific claims of science, and that facts, like the growth of the eastern ice shelf, that would seem on the face of it to contradict the science in fact do not. Instead, the public must rely on the scientific community to inform us of the state of research and the degree of consensus and uncertainty. Certainly there are respected academic scientists—especially Richard Lindzen of MIT—who strongly disagree with the claims of many researchers in the field, and we need to be aware of such dissent. However, a great majority of the relevant scientific community believes that global warming is at least in part human caused, and that the environmental repercussions have a significant chance of being disastrous. One only need turn to journals like Nature or Science, rather than to the NYT, Gore, or Inhofe to get a more firm understanding of issues and the state of the scientific community.
Now Lindzen’s claim that funding issues promote BS science is certainly on some level legitimate; but how much is it impacting the science of global warming? Don’t forget that Lindzen himself is one of few prominent scientists on record against global warming, one who owes his popular fame precisely to his opposition: he is the darling of all those who are critical of anthropogenic global warming precisely because there are so few of his kind. If we are going to let conspiracy theories rule the debate, it would be all too easy impugn his motives. How do you suggest that we weigh Lindzen’s claim in assessing global warming science? Scientific truth-claims can only be validated by specialized scientists working in a related set of disciplines. I cannot, for instance, form my own informed opinion on the problems that string theory analyzes. Certainly we should be aware of and to the extent possible fix structural biases, but just because Lindzen claims large-scale bias does not in fact mean that there is one. Only the scientific community can evaluate such claims. To the extent that Lindzen helps to exhort scientists to greater disciplinary rigor, the better; but we should not mistake his accusations as reason to dismiss global warming science.
If liberals sometimes overstate the claims of the scientific community on global warming, it is because the public is too addicted to their prolific consumption, and Republicans too addicted to oil money and corporate interests, to care. We have a serious problem here, Mr. Kirk: the scientific community thinks there could be a real chance of major environmental consequences deriving from our current practices. Scientists aren’t sure of the extent of those consequences (a few admittedly think it will be zero), but many think there is real probability of disaster: the results may not just be ruining La Jolla’s year-round surfing weather, but large-scale displacement of populations in those areas least able to handle it: the third world. How then can we get this issue before the public in all its complexity? We need real public debate on this issue. Too often, the conservative tactic is too dismiss the near consensus in the scientific community, claiming that the science is insufficiently developed while simultaneously providing scant funding for further research.
My point is not engage in political scorekeeping. Both parties have serious problems and moral failings. Rather, I want to know what you think should be done about global warming given the issues at hand. I would argue that: 1) there needs to be significant public airing of the state of climate science, the degree to which consensus exists, the uncertainty of models and predictions; the potential impact of various likely scenarios; 2) that there needs to be large-scale public debate around acceptable strategies for reducing greenhouse gas admissions given the risks and likelihoods of various scenarios. Unfortunately, the radical skeptics of climate science, of those who seek to dismiss the issue as purely conspiratorial, are major obstacles to such discussion. Let us not forget the global consequences that will follow if certain models prove right. The stakes for the future COULD be extremely high.
MY RESPONSE:
The first point on which we differ is the deference you show toward scientists who presumably deal with matters about which laymen must be silent. This reverential attitude is a serious mistake that puts scientists on an almost superhuman level. In my prior blog posting, INCONVENIENT TRUTHS—FOR AL GORE, I argue that the consensus of scientific opinion is as susceptible to social influences and self-delusion as the general populace. That article refers specifically to the “scientific” backing for eugenics that was common in the 1920’s. I’m glad that folks back then weren’t as deferential to the “men in white” as you seem to be. C.S. Lewis’ classic work, THE ABOLITION OF MAN, is a helpful antidote against this attitude, as is also Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD.
Secondly, you suggest that Richard Lindzen is almost alone in his views and you confidently assert that a “consensus” exists in the field of atmospheric science on global warming. Additionally, you imply that Lindzen objects to that consensus because of the publicity he’s getting. (Using your own standard of expertise, I think you ought to refrain from engaging in psychological analysis unless you have the appropriate credentials.) What you don’t acknowledge is that a large number of “dissidents” exist, scholars mentioned specifically by Senator Inhofe. These scientists emphasize specific data that is ignored by global warming enthusiasts and, of course, by the media. Your willingness to leave the hashing out of these matters to folks in the discipline, without any “outside” interference betrays, I think, a naïve view about the sociology of science. You are happy to let scientists do their thing (by majority vote of “those that count,” presumably) in a way you would never agree to if the professionals wore business suits. (Scientists are different!) At the same time you ignore the role that media coverage has on who is and who isn’t considered a credible spokesman and on what evidence gets prime time coverage and what evidence never sees the network light of day. (Who made CAIR the go-to organization on all things Islamic in America?) Do you expect the media to “stand back” patiently while “objective scientists” huddle up and observe “the evidence”?
It has been my experience that most scientists are as abysmally ignorant about the history of their enterprise as they are about its philosophical premises. Most of the rank and file (This isn’t true of many of the best scientists.) assume, as perhaps you do, that science proceeds incrementally, adding bit by bit to a store of “facts” that just keep getting better and better. As Thomas Kuhn, among others, has noted, science proceeds incrementally (to the extent that it does at all) only within the framework of fundamental paradigms. These paradigms, however, are subject to radical changes that often redirect and revolutionize the interpretation of prior data. Thus, epicycles within a geocentric universe gave way to a heliocentric universe with planets following slightly out of kilter circular (and later elliptical) orbits. Likewise, Newton’s infinite, uniform, mathematical universe was replaced by a universe where time is relative and space warped.
More importantly, the less “fixed” paradigms are within their disciplines, the more “facts” and “theories” become intertwined. This observation is fairly obvious in the field of psychology but it applies just as well to “dynamic” and highly unpredictable models within disciplines that focus on the earth’s atmosphere. Here one model produces results that are touted as facts. A different model produces a different set of facts. If ever there was a scientific situation that lends itself to manipulation and wishful thinking and political skullduggery, this is it—dynamic variables, a vast number of variables, and the promise of being at the center of an effort to “save humanity”--with the help of generous foundation and government grants.
It is the myth of “incremental” knowledge that leads ignorant laymen to assume that any consensus hypothesis, no matter how ephemeral, moots any historical objections. Science, on this view, is always advancing and, thus, always “closer to the truth.” This worshipful StarTrekism confers practical infallibility on scientific opinions of every stripe since the time of the Enlightenment and ignores the fact that a litany of radical reversals is incompatible with the notion of incrementalism.
Senator Inhofe, who (contrary to your implication) doesn’t claim technical scientific expertise, does possess the ability to read and to publicize an historical record that many scientists and the mainstream media gladly ignore. That record shows an almost humorous movement, back and forth, on the issue of global cooling-warming-cooling-warming. And with the last two theoretical scares, active government intervention and suspension of industrial development was touted as the “cure” for both these maladies—global cooling and global warming! As Karl Popper observed, when any possible scenario fits your theory, what is at work isn’t science, it’s ideology. And the ideologies at work here are political and anti-industrial.
Since I have a fairly respectable background in the philosophy of science, I am reluctant to put myself on the same level of scientific ignorance that you place yourself. I suspect you have never taken post-graduate courses in the Philosophy of Science or read Karl Popper’s contributions to the subject or persevered through Alfred North Whitehead’s “Science and the Modern World.” Perhaps you’ve looked at Thomas Kuhn’s work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” but probably not “The Copernican Revolution.” Nor, I dare say, have you ever had a post-graduate class that correlated scientific perspectives with the cultural milieus in which those ideas flourished. As a “semi-professional” philosopher of science I think I have enough expertise to distinguish between highly tentative theories that are hugely susceptible to political manipulation and more reliable theories that exist in a calmer social atmosphere. I think I understand fairly well the psychological, sociological, and political dynamics that are in play when it comes to the global warming issue.
As to the “cost” of being wrong on this issue, the question assumes there is no “cost” to a policy that would divert trillions of dollars toward an effort that “might” be environmentally useless, or even harmful. If you bothered to read the Inhofe speech carefully—a proposition for which I have no tangible evidence—you would see that the funds that “may” be squandered on a political boondoggle could unquestionably be employed to address a number of needs around the globe—starting with the eradication of malaria. That is the priority of one group of scientists who aren’t on the media’s call-for-comment list. Furthermore, the “anti-industrial” Kyoto agenda of eco-fascists will surely, in any case, condemn billions of human beings to a life of impoverishment and disease—all to the greater glory of Paul Ehrlich and his loyal band of misanthropes.
As for your suggestion about open discussion of the global warming issue—that is precisely the position I am advocating. YOUR side claims, via its delusional demagogue, Al Gore, that the question has been settled. Read Karl Popper’s THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES to see what label he would attach to global warming’s biggest mouthpiece. Whitehead refers to such statements—proffered frequently by a “consensus” of scientists—dogmatism.
2 comments:
Excuse my disjointed reply, for though I am busy today I am yet eager to reply to your comments.
“In my prior blog posting, INCONVENIENT TRUTHS—FOR AL GORE, I argue that the consensus of scientific opinion is as susceptible to social influences and self-delusion as the general populace.”
I agree that social influences and self-delusion are problems in any field, the sciences included. Indeed, I well know the contribution feminists, themselves "biased," and other liberal bugaboos have made to uncovering scientific bias and error. Your mistake is to believe that your critique of science as whole allows you to be dismissive of the climate sciences. More on that below.
“That article refers specifically to the ‘scientific’ backing for eugenics that was common in the 1920’s.”
Again, I completely agree with your point in so far as the historical examples remind us that science can be biased or entirely wrong. Yet, your specific analogy between eugenics and climate science is tendentious for two reasons: 1) climate sciences, while certainly far from infallible, have stronger epistemological truth-claims than a would-be social science like eugenics; 2) significantly greater dissent existed within the elite scientific community about eugenics than now exists about global warming.
The larger problem with your position is that it tends towards complete skepticism. Not only have the sciences experienced paradigm shifts, but so has philosophy, theology, and every other discipline—and yet we still use those fields in acting in the world. Just because earlier Christians have said many untenable things about God does not in fact invalidate all such arguments about God. I presume, of course, that you are not such a skeptic, but then your argument against climate sciences seems to rest mainly on 1) structural biases and conspiracy theories, 2) an ex cathedra dismissal of climate science based on your authority as a philosopher of science. Yet I’ll argue below that neither of these are sufficient arguments because they are non substantive. The only way to disprove climate science would be to 1) show why the epistemological grounding of climate science is bunk, or 2) enter the scientific fray and reveal individual facts, theories, or presuppositions to be fallacious.
You may retort that the obligation should not be for you to disprove climate science, but for scientists to prove it. However, most indications show that many or perhaps most scientists in related fields (and here you’ll recognize a stripped down sociology of knowledge) recognize to varying degrees the legitimacy of climate science. So we are confronted with the question of how to integrate a still emerging science into policy. We certainly should be aware of the imperfect nature of science and of dissent within the scientific community, but that hardly absolves us from acting. All knowledge is imperfect.
“Secondly, you suggest that Richard Lindzen is almost alone in his views and you confidently assert that a “consensus” exists in the field of atmospheric science on global warming.”
You misrepresent my views. What I said was that it was my impression that a “near consensus” exists, but that one of the first tasks of an open public debate should be to determine “the degree to which consensus exists.” In fact, there have been a variety of attempts to do so already, including articles in the popular press (liberal conspiracy!) and in academia (leftist conspiracy!), almost all of which have pointed towards a high level of consensus that humans are a significant contributor towards global warming. Of course there is less agreement on the all important subject of forecasting the extent of future climate change. Now the methodology of these surveys may be flawed; my point is not to trust in them unfailingly, but to call for a frank and open discussion and assessment of the state of the scientific community. Those who dismiss climate science as a conspiracy or as a scientific fraud hinder an open and honest public assessment by preventing the issue from reaching the public ear. The mission of the radical skeptics, it seems, is to dismiss the issue entirely. Given that global warming could very well be an extremelly important issue, shouldn't we all be working to make it a main issue of public debate (rather than relegated to a single question in the last round of presidential debates), to focus the public's attention on your choice [which I believe is a false one] between malaria and smokestacks?
“Additionally, you imply that Lindzen objects to that consensus because of the publicity he’s getting.”
My point is not that Lindzen is biased, but that blanket charges of bias and conspiracy do little to advance the discussion. We can just as easily impugn Lindzen’s motives as we can those scientists who are firm believers in anthropogenic global warming.
“What you don’t acknowledge is that a large number of “dissidents” exist, scholars mentioned specifically by Senator Inhofe.”
I acknowledge that there is dissent. The question is again the amount of dissent. Lindzen features in every popular critique of climate science because he is virtually the only scientist of such stature and expertise who is also a critic. You refer to those scholars mentioned by Inhofe. But how easy it is to find dissent in any debate, from the biological cause of AIDs to the basics of evolution! Look again at Inhofe list; besides Lindzen and Willie Soon, they originate from relative unimportant, second-tier research centers. Their credentials are important because what is at stake is the authority and credibility of the scientists involved. You and Inhofe argue that these are credible figures whose dissent calls anthropogenic global warming into question. I am arguing that in fact the preponderance of authoritative scientists—those recognized as leaders in their field—should incline us to take the claims of climate scientists seriously. You and I both know that science is not a democracy, even a democracy among scientific elites, that the lone dissenter may indeed be right, and that paradigm shifts do happen. But once again, what is at question here is not only whether climate science is right, but how it should interface with the world. The potential outcomes of anthropogenic global warming may make it morally incumbent on us to take these considerations serious.
“Your willingness to leave the hashing out of these matters to folks in the discipline, without any “outside” interference betrays, I think, a naïve view about the sociology of science.”
Actually, that is not my argument. I am for “outside interference” as long as they are substantive claims and contributions. To return to the example of feminist intervention: many primatologists recognize that feminist critiques revealed the bias among scientists to focus on the role of the male, while seeing female behavior as derivative or secondary. In the case of climate science, however, I have yet to see you or another layman make a substantive critique. That science is prone to error and bias is obvious but doesn’t do much to advance the discussion. Why don’t you show us specifically where climate science goes wrong?
“Here one model produces results that are touted as facts. A different model produces a different set of facts. If ever there was a scientific situation that lends itself to manipulation and wishful thinking and political skullduggery, this is it—dynamic variables, a vast number of variables, and the promise of being at the center of an effort to “save humanity”--with the help of generous foundation and government grants.”
I grant all these points. In formulating policy, we absolutely should be aware of 1) the uncertainty of these models, 2) the variability of their predictions, 3) the biases at play.
But again, the questions are how 1) to build a less biased and more sound science, 2) how to interface imperfect science with policy.
I’m afraid I fail to grasp how you think science should interact with the world. Should we discount it all while we wait for an infinite progression of paradigm shifts? In your opinion, what would be necessary before we take the claims of climate science seriously? Do we need 100% certainty before acting?
“Since I have a fairly respectable background in the philosophy of science, I am reluctant to put myself on the same level of scientific ignorance that you place yourself. I suspect you have never taken post-graduate courses in the Philosophy of Science or read Karl Popper’s contributions to the subject or persevered through Alfred North Whitehead’s ‘Science and the Modern World.’”
I resent these remarks. I’ve tried to keep my comments level headed and non-personal, but your confidence in your own intellectual superiority and in my presumed “scientific ignorance” of philosophy is too much to bear—especially when you berate posters who make assumptions about your own life. In fact, I too have a “fairly respectable background in the philosophy of science” that includes “post-graduate” coursework in both the theory and history of science. I am not constructing an argument based on my authority, and my credentials are therefore irrelevant. Critique my argument, but enough of your condescension.
“As a ‘semi-professional’ philosopher of science I think I have enough expertise to distinguish between highly tentative theories that are hugely susceptible to political manipulation and more reliable theories that exist in a calmer social atmosphere. I think I understand fairly well the psychological, sociological, and political dynamics that are in play when it comes to the global warming issue.”
Your argument here is essentially: I am a “semi-professional philosopher” who has read Kuhn, Whitehead, and Popper, therefore I am qualified to dismiss climate science because the social atmosphere is not sufficiently “calm.” You realize, of course, the many problems with that argument. Again, you fail to make any substantive claims besides the obvious one that science is biased. What isn’t? Does that free us from action in the world? And what constitute an acceptable “social atmosphere” for the study of climatology? Given the stakes for politicians, business, environmentalists, the international community, etc, global warming scientists will never work in a neutral political or social atmosphere.
More importantly, since your argument is based on your own claims to philosophic authority, let me add that many, probably most, philosophers and historians of science consider anthropogenic global warming a major problem worthy of great study and political action. They don’t make the mistake of thinking that Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts—which has received a great deal of critique, as you doubtlessly know—necessitates paralysis.
And since you seem to resent anonymous postings, let me at least give myself an alias:
-A-misanthropic-eco-fascist-anti-industrial-worshipper-of-Paul-Ehrlich
What would you do, anonymous, if an anonymous poster insulted you by way of your family? Would you "berate" that person--a rather strong term for my relatively mild remarks about his slimy insult (which I deleted if you don't mind too much).
On the other hand, in your initial remark on this topic, you noted that both you and I were ignorant of science. I simply took YOUR remark and said I wish not be included in it. For that remark you get your feelings hurt and "berate" me for getting huffy with an anonymous poster who insults me by way of my family. If that is the way you think and write, please bug off.
With respect to the actual issues you discussed in the post above, here is my brief response:
I introduced the notion of paradigms only to address a specific objection that arises when one points out that "climate science" has gone back and forth on the warming/cooling/warming issue. That objection concerns the "we now know" view of science that sees all science as incrementally moving toward total knowledge.
Knowledge of the paradigmatic structure of science does away with that objection--as would also, one might think, a common sense realization that the same "we now know" anthems were sung three decades ago when vast changes in our industrial society were said to be necessary to address the "crisis" of global cooling.
The less complex answer to your post is that "climate science" is a very young science, which helps explain the lack of consistency in its predictions over the last several decades. It is a science that rests, more than most, on computer models. Thus, the element of subjectivity and circularity is exaggerated. It is also a science with enormous variables, given the dynamic nature of the atmosphere.
(Note the lack of accuracy of hurricane predictions and of long range climate forecasts.)
In view of all these factors, it is only prudent to withhold judgment on massive political and economic projects that are proposed largely by politicians like Al Gore who now declare that second hand smoke is contributing to global warming. (See the post.)
Until atmosphere science achieves some "predictable" consistency over a sustained period of time, it really hasn't entered the realm of "normal science" that Kuhn describes and that constitutes the basis for sound public policy. (I dare say that eugenics had more solid scientific backing than contemporary claims about the causes and effects of global warming.)
Had we followed your "we've got to act now" advise thirty years ago, we would have spent trillions of dollars in an effort to prevent global cooling. The notion that this worse than wasted effort wouldn't hurt anyone is ludicrous.
The worm in the apple is that some people would rather do anything, even things detrimental to billions of people, than admit that we don't have the answers at this point. They are true believers. For some science is the savior. For others world government is the savior. No matter what the question, no matter what the data, those are always the answers. Those are the trademarks, as Karl Popper notes, of ideology.
Post a Comment