Today, the Guardian offers an editorial, warning of the irrationality of the general public and far too many politicians: Science: Beyond reason
…[S]cientists since Galileo have repeatedly overturned common sense, and shown that reason without secure knowledge is an uncertain guide. Politicians are chillingly willing to invoke common sense and reject science when it suits them. So those senators, congressmen and parliamentarians who implicitly endorse electromagnetic theory whenever they read messages on a mobile phone also feel free to dismiss climate change as uncertain or a simple conspiracy.
This really is irrational: the scientific method behind meteorology, molecular biology and quantum mechanics is the same. The past 50 years have seen a matchless growth in scientific discovery. It would be good for politics – and good for everybody – if the rest of us understood a little more not just about the results of science, but about how they were achieved.
Yesterday, the following was posted by Leo Hickman on the Guardian’s environment blog:
"Why don't we trust climate scientists?"
Trust is, perhaps, the most important word within the climate debate at present. "Who do you trust?" is the question that hangs over every discussion on the topic.
Do you trust the vast majority of climate scientists who claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing a clear and present climatic danger? Or do you trust the much smaller band of sceptical climate scientists who argue that there isn't a problem?
I teach (avoidance of) “informal fallacies” in my philosophy courses, including the fallacious appeal to authority or expertise. Perhaps this fallacy is misunderstood. If one appeals to authority or expertise, one has not ipso facto committed a fallacy. As Hickman notes,
In much of our lives, we rely on the testimony and views of experts. We do so when we feel ill and choose to visit the doctor. We do so when we want to reduce our tax liabilities. We do so when we wish to be ably represented in a court of law. We do so when a strange noise appears from the engine of our car. We will often pay good money to benefit from the many years of training and experience offered by experts in their field - be they doctors, accountants, lawyers or mechanics.
It is possible to appeal to authorities and experts fallaciously—as when one “cherry picks” among them. Nevertheless, assuming that one is not an expert, one would be foolish not to appeal to relevant experts regarding a difficult topic. That is, one would be a fool to disregard the view of one’s mechanic, one’s doctor, and so on, in favor of one's own relatively untutored opinion.
Naturally, complications can arise, as when there is significant disagreement among the relevant experts.
But there is little disagreement among climatologists about the likely reality of global climate change.
Further, says Hickman, the set of climate change believers, among the experts, has more authority or reliability than the set of climate change skeptics—or so concludes a study that has now appeared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
The authors, led by Professor Steve Schneider at Stanford University, have conducted an extensive literature review to establish the identities, views and respective authority of 1,372 climate researchers whose work "constitutes expertise or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research". …[T]hey wanted to provide a tool to those outside the climate sciences to help them better assess which experts to trust.
Hickman briefly outlines the study’s methodology. He then quotes the findings of the study’s authors:
We provide the first large-scale quantitative assessment of the relative level of agreement, expertise and prominence in the climate researcher community. We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change sceptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group. Despite media tendencies to present "both sides" in ACC debates, which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC, not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus sceptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change. .
As I’ve often noted in my courses, the topic of global climate change is complex. One (as a nonexpert) must in the end appeal to experts. And if one will appeal, logically and honestly, to relevant experts with regard to climate change, one will suppose that global climate change is real.
Of course, one can simply ignore the experts.
Why would one do that?
11 comments:
It's always fun to see folks confusing climate with the weather. "Hey it's cold today, what about that global warming? Heh Heh."
Douchebags.
Here is just one area where (1) the dismal state of American K-12 education, which apparently fails to give students knowledge of the methods and achievements of the scientific method, (2) the idiotic assumption of many journalists that an article must have two "sides" presented as if they have equivalent validity, (3) plain laziness and vice on the part of a public that doesn't want to give up comforts and luxuries, and (4) similar selfishness and self-deception on the part of politicians and legislators all converge. The result: infinite slowness in any meaningful policy change, to the increased devastation of the planet, decimation of species, and substantial danger and discomfort of future generations--and present ones, as well.
It's quite maddening.
*not feeling too optimistic today*----MAH
There appears to be a new trend in embracing a lifestyle of frugality, instead of just pursuing the continual purchasing of more and more crap.
After all, that's what marketing and advertising is about--talking us into buying stuff we don't want or need. (How many more types of cel phones are needed, e.g.) I see a little bit of hope in people resisting this, but it's probably just brought abut by the economic changes. Sigh.
It's a conspiracy, is why. Scientists together with academics are all part of it. Obama too.
As we know now, the so-called “science” behind these studies has been flawed for decades. Data has been doctored-up for political expediency. As most people now recognize, the climate change/global warming agenda has little to do with saving the environment, but everything to do with redistributing America’s wealth to the rest of the world. Al Gore and now Obama are now on the losing end of this argument, where they should be.
“The result: infinite slowness in any meaningful policy change, to the increased devastation of the planet, decimation of species, and substantial danger and discomfort of future generations--and present ones, as well.”
It's quite maddening.”
MAH,
Sorry to say, but I think your sentiments are just alarmist hogwash, now that we see the science is flawed. What about the economic “danger and discomfort of future generations--and present ones” caused by this current administration's never before seen spending? Not to mention national security, as it’s also part of our nation’s economic security.
Is this the same buffoon who is so alarmed now we have a black president, but never had a concern when W. was in charge, cutting taxes for his wealthy and connected cronies and running up huge deficits with his Republican Congresses and Supreme Court aiding and abetting?
That aside, the blatant stupidity of this: "everything to do with redistributing America’s wealth to the rest of the world. Al Gore and now Obama are now on the losing end of this argument, where they should be" just boggles the mind. If you must be a drooling Beck sycophant, please at least have the honesty to admit it.
"... hogwash" ???
My friend (not), you are as out of it linguistically as you are scientifically and politically.
Sad, really.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Bwahhhaaaa! Yes hogwash! Doctered data = flawed science, but you continue to stand behind it anyway because you're right and everyone else is wrrrrroooooonnnnngggggg!
How about that global warming last winter? Hahahahahahahahahah!
Doctered data? Hoo doctered it?
The "skeptics" love to refer to Climategate, an alleged instance of climatologists cooking the books. But the subsequent inquiries about that incident have shown that those who hacked into others' computers, not the climatologists, were the scammers. The skeptics made their case by twisting people's words and ignoring context. As usual, the skeptic crowd doesn't read the paper. They repeat what they are told by the usual demagogues. Brainless.
Post a Comment