In one of the comments to Daniel’s post on the stolen climate emails, techskeptic points to a wonderful chart at Information is Beautiful. The author did a great deal of gruntwork to lay out the various arguments of “The Global Warming Skeptics” vs. “The Scientific Consensus.” As far as I can tell, it’s a legitimately balanced view of both sides, complete with citations. If you’re confused about the various issues and accusations being bandied back and forth, there are worse places to start. This is a small piece of the full chart.
Of course, there is no such thing as a purely objective and judgment-free presentation of data, no matter how scrupulously the data itself may be collected; if nothing else, we make choices about what data to present. And a side-by-side comparison chart like this can’t help but give a slightly misleading impression of the relative merits of the arguments, by putting the conclusions of an overwhelming majority of honest scientists up against the arguments of a fringe collection of politically-motivated activists. But it’s certainly good to see the actual issues arrayed in point-counterpoint format.
Still, there remains a somewhat intractable problem: when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves, how do we make judgments about who to believe?
This problem has been brought home by the incredibly depressing news that James Randi has come out in favor of global-warming denialism (via PZ Myers). Randi is generally a hero among fans of reason and skepticism, so it’s especially embarrassing to see how incredibly weak his reasoning is here. It basically amounts to: “The climate is complicated. And scientists don’t know everything. And I admit I don’t know much about the field. Therefore … we have good reason to distrust the overwhelming majority of experts!” Why Randi chose not to apply his vaunted powers of skepticism to the motivations behind the denialists remains a mystery.
This gets to the heart of why I’ve always been skeptical of the valorization of “skepticism.” I don’t want to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical — I want to be right. To maximize my chances of being right, I will try to collect what information I can and evaluate it rationally. But part of that information has to include the nature of the people making arguments on either side of a debate. If one side consists of scientists who have spent years trying to understand a complicated system, and the other is a ragtag collection of individuals with perfectly obvious vested interests in the outcome, it makes sense to evaluate their claims accordingly.
By all means, we should apply our own powers of reason to every interesting problem. But when our reasoning leads to some conclusion at odds with the apparent consensus of a lot of smart people who seem to know what they’re talking about — whether it’s on the nature of dark energy, the best way to quantize gravity, the most effective route to health care reform, or the state of the environment — the burden is on us to understand the nature of that difference and try to reconcile it, not to take refuge in “experts don’t know everything” and related anti-intellectual piffle.
Still, there remains a somewhat intractable problem: when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves, how do we make judgments about who to believe?
A demonstrated record of excellence in the relevant field would be a good place to start. For example, you might not be the person to whom I turn for guidance on grammar.
It depends on what you mean by agreement among a lot of smart people
the news always says it is over 2000 but no names are released, and does
one include Al Gore in this list ? There he was going on about Global Governance
and more taxes. What annoys me is – HOW MUCH socalled warming is due
to humans and how much is NOT – and if I do not get a straight answer then
I am going to assume there is a large component of propaganda and lying with
statistics.
Joel,
Your question, “HOW MUCH socalled warming is due to humans and how much is NOT…” has been answered clearly. When climate models are run without human produced emissions they do not reproduce the observed warming trend. When such emissions are included, the models do reproduce the warming trend. The discrepancy in temperature between those two scenarios is the answer to your question.
Thanks for the tip on the graphic.
I think the basic problem with public perception of climate science is that it is tough to trust the experts when they don’t trust you.
An example is the “trick” email, which was, in fact, about a trick in the bad sense of the word–in the WMO report they plotted two kinds of data as if they were one kind, smoothing the transition period (and didn’t explain). The point is they didn’t trust non-expects to come to the right conclusion in the presence of all the information, so they hid some of it in the document presented to non-experts. This strategy was conscious on their part and documented in other emails.
I think the strategy is unethical, but perhaps more importantly, it doesn’t work, anyway, because people figure it out and get mad that they were tricked.
In summary, If the expects want to be trusted, they need to start trusting the public.
(By the way, they are not showing signs of starting to do this. Many climate scientists are still trying to pretend that the email referred to graphs in the peer-reviewed literature (which are fine). Of course the email is clearly about the WMO graph, which is not fine.)
In reference to Sean’s last paragraph, I think part of the problem is that a lot of smart people never realize (subconsciously) that there are tons of other people smarter, wiser, and more rational than they are particular with respect to certain disciplines.
When individuals like James Randi grow up, they’re likely to be the first or second smartest person in the room (e.g. second grade classroom). As such they develop the unstated mental approximation that if someone else disagrees with them, it’s because that person is an idiot. Which was valid often enough at the low levels. Another example of this would be the Superfreakonomics writers thinking they’re more clever than everyone else and having the hubris to say everybody else’s challenges can be resolved trivially.
The flip side of this, at the other end of the bell curve is the role of fox news. There’s no shortage of “skeptical” documentaries on FN asking if aliens built the pyramids and that sort of thing. Superficially it makes a lot of people trust no authority, and paradoxically it makes them trust Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
As is so often the case, Randall Munroe was recently on the case. (Don’t neglect to hold your cursor over the image for the hidden text.)
I actually read the post before looking at the name of the author, I was shocked when it turned out to be Randi. Incredibly disappointing.
No mention of the feedback effect. Doesn’t anybody read the blog Climate Skeptic?
Also – no mention of the fact that the models are much, much more accurate on the time period BEFORE their creation than the time period following their creation — ie evidence they include fudge factors to make them appear more accurate than they really are.
James Randi, AGW denier. Thanks, Sean; this week just keeps on getting better. By Friday, I’m expecting news that cancer has become airborne and contagious (h/t Patton Oswalt).
It should be noted that Prof. Carrols’ Discover mate Dr. Phil Plait has yet to comment on Mr. Randis’ post, despite the decidedly negative reactions on his blog. Just for the information of the readers, Dr. Plait was not shy about labeling Prof. Bob Park a man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about relative to the latters’ negative views about manned space flight. Time for Dr. Plait to step up to the plate and give Mr. Randi the same treatment as he gave Prof. Park .
Since when has this armwrestling match been just about the science (no anti-science strawman arguments, please). There is some very serious policy behind this and there needs to be a transparent, open, democratic process to determine the steps to be taken. Anything less simply won’t do and this will have consequences in itself already.
The only real similarity in those two graphs is that there is a picture of a hocker stick superimposed on them.
Randi has a point. I dont judge a case by counting the number of experts for and against, especially when there are so many unscientific influences at work. I want to see what the data and the models actually show and I want to be reassured that the original data is available so that any conclusions can be checked or disputed by others.
Several questions/comments:
1) I’m perfectly willing to believe the opinion of experts on issues like dark energy, the best way to quantize gravity, etc., because these are areas where there is no public policy component. If it were suddenly to be the case that we had to adopt a global gravity quantization tax, I’d be asking a whole bunch more hard questions.
2) Could somebody please tell what this overwhelming scientific consensus is? To which of the following statements does it apply?
a) Measured temperatures indicate that the world is warming, and the only forcing factor that accounts for it is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
b) Our proxy data and the theory surrounding its interpretation is so good that we can state with authority that the rise in temperatures is unprecedented in the last, say, 2000 years.
c) Our predictive models are so good that they unequivocally prescribe dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions or we’re all going to have a very hard time of it.
d) Reduction in CO2 emission is the most cost-effective geo-engineering strategy to mitigate the risk.
I’m down with a). I’ve got questions on b) relating to the climategate “hide the decline” narrative, in that, to pore ol’ ignerint me, it seems to blow a decent-sized hole in the reliability of the tree ring proxy data, which in turn calls into question what the historical global temperature has been. To get me to believe in c), you’d have to convince me that the predictive models were falisifiable in something less than real time. And, frankly, for d), the idea that the best geo-engineering strategy we can some up with is this brute-force approach seems like the worst form of governmental group-think.
3) Just what is the falsifiability strategy on all this climate science? I’m prepared to believe that we’ve got some decent thermometric measurements. Beyond that, I’m at a loss to see how you verify that the mapping of proxy data to real temperatures is correct, and I’m equally confused as to how you’re going to verify a computer model that forecasts non-linear behavior fifty or a hundred years into the future.
So, yeah, I’m skeptical, or at least confused. If somebody can help me out here, I’d be very grateful.
» TheRadicalModerate:
Could somebody please tell what this overwhelming scientific consensus is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ipcc.ch
It’s not really that hard to find about that.
Randi could have checked whether The Petition Project was indeed a petition signed by the relevant scientists.
This petition is updated from an earlier list. Of the original 17,200 signatories:
“signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070820102903/http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
This is obviously supposed to be the core experts. Yet physicists have no place being in this group. Also, “Environmental scientists” is much too broad to be relevant.
The rest of those signatories are in irrelevant fields or are not even scientists.
If you look through the beginning of A you will find:
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD. – 4 papers on Google Scholar for EM Aagaard. On Osteoporisis + factors affecting medical students.
Charles W. Aami – Couldn’t find anything.
Roger L. Aamodt, PhD -National Cancer Institute.
Wilbur A Aanes. Veterinarian. Joint author of “A Muscle Separating Approach to the Equine Shoulder Joint for the Treatment of Osteochondritis Dissecans”
M. Robert Aaron, deceased. (August 21, 1922 – June 16, 2007) was a noted American electrical engineer specializing in telecommunications.
Ralph F Abate of Abate Associates Engineers & Surveyors.
Paul Abbett. Well, there is a WP Abbett and he does appear to at least be a scientist. Not a climate scientist. An astrophysicist.
Wyatt E Abbitt III. I could find nothing for this name, nor WE Abbitt on Google Scholar.
I noticed that I was not the only one who had looked through some of the As:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/
This is on the 2008 version of the petition, but you will see much the same names.
So I thought I’d have a look through some of the Qs:
Ma Qin – M Qin named in papers on DNA, osteoarthritis, and transgenic mice.
Kathy Qin – Not much on google. There is a K Qin who works at Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. This K Qin is co-author of “Aromatase deficiency in male and female siblings caused by a novel mutation and the physiological role of estrogens”.
Forrest W Quackenbush of the American Oil Chemists Society. Died may 2007. Age 99.
JR Qualey is almost on the right sort of lines. No, don’t get excited. He’s not a climate scientist. He’s a physical chemist.
Russell J. Qualls. Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho.
Ryan D Quam is a civil engineer.
Re Dave H @ #16
It also includes folks like Fred Singer, a world class denier who has also denied that CFCs are a cause of ozone depletion and that cigarettes are a cause of lung cancer.
I thought James Randi’s article was very reasonable, so thanks for the link.
RadicalModerate-
a, b, and c.
d is probably true too, but it’s a different kind of claim.
The fact that tree ring data do not match instrumental record after 1960 is an unquestionable experimental proof that tree rings are not a reliable proxy for temperatures. The hypothesis that they are is therefore completely invalidated and there is absolutely no basis to trust any other tree rings in any other time period.
It is actually shocking to me that real climate scientists think they can still use tree ring data up to 1960 and simply ignore the part that doesn’t fit observations!
Another important point is that ice cores only record local temperature so it’s not possible to reliably reconstruct past average global temperatures without collecting ice cores from all over the globe.
With tree rings discredited and with only limited coverage of ancient ice how can we say anything conclusive about past average global temperature?
Mass delusion. It’s all mass delusion. Newton and all his ilk were wrong–there is no such thing as mass, it’s all a delusion foisted off on the scientific world to cover up statistical errors made by scientific types from Archimedes on down. Pass the word on–we have to stop this delusion that science really helps us understand how the natural world works!
Arrow #20,
The fact that tree ring data do not match instrumental record after 1960 is an unquestionable experimental proof that tree rings are not a reliable proxy for temperatures.
No. The fact that tree ring data do not match instrumental record after 1960 is an unquestionable experimental proof that tree rings are not a reliable proxy for temperatures after 1960.
With tree rings discredited and with only limited coverage of ancient ice how can we say anything conclusive about past average global temperature?
With Newtonian gravity discredited and atoms so tiny and impossible to see into how can we say anything conclusive about nuclear fusion?
—
The 2007 AR4 IPCC report uses the following terms
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
Extremely likely > 95%
Very likely > 90%
Likely > 66%
More likely than not > 50%
Unlikely < 33%
Very unlikely < 10%
Extremely unlikely < 5%.
So DaveH, according to the IPCC’s own definition of terms, global warming is unlikely to be caused by humans since the science is only 10-50% probable.
Actually they do recognise this in their report – IPCC 2001a, Chapter 1, p.97.
What many people do not realize is that science is only reliable in those areas in which experiments are easy to perform. This is the reason why there are such drastic differences between various fields – while physics and biology made enormous progress during the last century psychology and economy hardly moved. Progress requires a way to test predictions, to tell good ideas from bad ones, this is relatively easy to do in physics and biology but exceptionally hard in psychology and economy.
Unfortunately in climate science meaningful experiments are as hard if not harder then in economy making these two disciplines comparable. Keep this in mind when deciding how much confidence one should have in an expert opinion on climate.
Provocative article, Sean. Of course, I can read it in light of whatever opinions and feelings I have about the possibility or degree of anthropogenic global warming, but that seems to lead back to the same old succession of points and counterpoints. I have long been interested in the question you raised here:
“Still, there remains a somewhat intractable problem: when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves, how do we make judgments about who to believe?”
This is, in part, a question about psychology and decision-making by human beings, areas that, quite frankly, interest me more that climatology. As you point out, it is not only a matter of deciding who has more expertise – I also try to assess each commentator’s level of veracity and commitment to discovering and embracing the truth. I do so partly through introspection because we all have some similarities.