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.
OXO,
You said,
“loads and loads and loads of lovely data
All massaged by members of the Climate Cult? No thanks..”
One of the questions raised in the OP was “…how do we make judgments about who to believe?”
I am very interested in the question of how people form their beliefs. Have you reached any conclusions concerning AGW, or are you an “agnostic?” If you have reached some conclusions about climate, did you arrive at them solely on your own, or did you base them, at least in part, on some sources? If the latter, how did you make judgments about which sources to rely upon?
@101
It’s pretty easy.
1. Start by disbelieving everything, then accept evidence slowly, only if it makes sense.
2. Pay no heed to:
– the reputation of the data providers, whether they are NL, Phd, or whatever.
– Anybody who has a vested interest in a particular result.
3. Apply Occams Razor
The warming is perfectly well explained by the natural cycles of ice ages which have been coming and going for millions of years, There is plenty of evidence for it in the geological record.
No need for any other explaination.
OXO,
Thank you for responding to my question.
“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.”
And the second sentance of this paragraph shows clearly that no objective presentation was made here
Then we have those in the comments sending us to the great bastion of truth, Wikipedia. Pu-lease! Any moron can (and often does) edit Wikipedia, it may not say the same thing today on a topic as it did yesterday, or will tomorrow. Of course, there’s plenty of Science Apologists monitoring it to make sure none of its readers dare think for themselves…
Happy Holidays.
The warming is perfectly well explained by the natural cycles of ice ages which have been coming and going for millions of years, There is plenty of evidence for it in the geological record.
No need for any other explaination.
Except that the warming is NOT perfectly well explained by the natural cycles of ice ages. NO climatologists, even skeptics, claim this.
@106
Except that the warming is NOT perfectly well explained by the natural cycles of ice ages. NO climatologists, even skeptics, claim this.
It is, and they do. You should read more.
Pingback: ISS Expedition 22 Launch and Burnt Skepticism « Dad2059’s Webzine of Science Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
Who?
@109
“Who”
You, you, it’s you! Read those books!
When you grow out of those short pants and juvenile argumentative ways, you may discover that there is no substitute for doing your own work, read books for yourself, evaluate all options, then come to a reasonable conclusion. Don’t expect to be spoon-fed by others.
Be a free thinker!
Timewaster.
:rolls eyes.
Hi OXO,
One of Sean’s points in the OP is that he and I do not have the time to pursue extensive and scrupulous investigations of every topic (so little time, so much to investigate, sometimes little inclination), so we do, in fact, make judgments about whom to believe in some areas. Maybe you have put in lots of hours studying this one topic, but you would have done so at the expense of spending that time in other ways. So the question of how we decide whom to believe is a relevant and, to me, an interesting one.
Hi Brian,
It’s a personal choice. We choose to research those topics which interest us the most. For me, the high level of bunkum spouted on this one, combined with the fanatical actions of the believers just sucked me in.
I’m not going to be a famous scientist in this life, but following the example of the greats in doing your own investigations and take nothing at face value can’t be the wrong approach.
Actually what annoys me most is those who claim that “scientific consensus” is a fact to be taken into consideration when weighing the argument for and against AGW.
Pingback: What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science? « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day
OXO,
Actually what annoys me most is those who claim that “scientific consensus” is a fact to be taken into consideration when weighing the argument for and against AGW.
I make no claim as to what other people should or should not take into account because that is up to each one of them. I enjoy the diversity of human perspectives and have often learned from those I initially thought were wrong. In my case, however, the seeming consensus among climate scientists counted a lot. If the IPCC had concluded that the apparent warming was not anthropogenic, then that opinion would have counted a lot also.
Of course, each person is a unique individual, but I think I understand the basic mathematical and scientific temperament. I feel that most science- and math-oriented people that I have met are, in many respects related to those disciplines, like me, so many of my feelings about their methodology and analysis come from introspection and projection. My guess is that many of them think and act roughly the way I would. I trust myself to do a good job, so, at least to some extent, I trust them. Of course, as with all the rest of us, they could still be wrong, but I just don’t see anyone else with what I would guess is a better chance of being right.
An interesting signature of the enhanced greenhouse effect phenomenon is the simultaneous temperature rise at ground level while the temperature at stratospheric levels decreases.
This is not predicted by any other proposed explanation for warming – and it has been detected, from what I have heard.
That’s it, Neal King, that’s the one they seem to have gotten right. Of course, another cause of stratospheric cooling is a drop in TSI.
OK, I looked at it. Here is the shorter version:
– Skeptical Criticism (sometimes distorted)
– Assurance skeptic is wrong, (seldom supported)
Little better than the “rhetorical proofs” that one sees by the warmies all over the web. I call it “Modus Lefty”, because it is not limited to climate alarmists:
A) Skeptical Argument
B) Rejection
C) Rhetorical Proof of rejection (Usually, but not always, in the form of a rhetorical question.)
moptop:
But a drop in TSI is not compatible with the overall warming over the last 150 years. The cooling in the stratosphere is of the same timescale as the warming; whereas the putative drop in TSI would be applied (with reservations) only to the last 10 years.
Keep your timescales straight.
Well, the overal warming over the last 150 yrs is based on the “work” of Phil Jones and his merry crew of temperature adjusters.
I wasn’t suggesting that drop in TSI accounted for all of stratospheric cooling, just that AGW is not the only explanation, and that point about strat cooling seems to be just about the only thing the models have got right, so it might be fair to consider it an interesting coincidence for now. Maybe if the models get a couple more predictions right…
Oh yeah, and a warming trend coming out of the Little Ice Age… very impressive. What? You are saying their was no Little Ice Age? Based on whose work? Briffa?
by Sean
“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.”
Data collection is rarely accomplished without error. Same with the choosing.
“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.”
By which source of apolitical natural legitimacy is it only you who can decide which are the “honest conclusions” and which are merely only “fringe arguments”?
“…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?”
And what of us with expert knowledge who don’t believe as you do?
“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.”
Especially when scientists with spent years of investment in their own trying to understand a complicated system have perfectly obvious vested interests in ensuring their time was well-spent, not necessarily rationally; ragtag-like.
“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 … 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.”
Why should you presume the anti-intellectual piffle is not your own?
Sorry to pile on to your good post Gary.
“when people are arguing about issues that necessarily require expert knowledge that not everyone can possibly take the time to acquire for themselves”
The funny thing is that PCA is commonly used by engineers, who do have the expert knowledge to understand their use. People who understand the uses and limitations, and the assumptions implicit in the use of PCA; these are the people who have the questions. They don’t want “re-assurances” that people who understand the problem better than them, “lots of smart people”, say its OK, they want to know why their training in this area is wrong, at a minimum.
“the burden is on us to understand the nature of that difference and try to reconcile it,” Uh, that is what we are doing. If this was some arcane area of particle physics without immediate impact on our lives; not an area where proponents are demanding trillions of dollars, then perhaps no further burden exists, but that is not the case here.
Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/
“Kevin Dunbar is a researcher who studies how scientists study things — how they fail and succeed….”
“by Sean
“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.”
So true.
Especially when scientists with spent years of investment in their own trying to understand a complicated system have perfectly obvious vested interests in ensuring their time was well-spent,….
Gary,
I hope the following series of questions is not overly intrusive. Your responses might bear on the point Sean raised about “how do we make judgments about who to believe?” Please feel free to equivocate or ignore. If you tell me to go fly a kite, I will try to oblige, weather permitting. Well, here goes:
If you were (are) a professional climate scientist, who had (has) “spent years of investment in their own trying to understand a complicated system,” what do you envision your, Gary’s, “vested interests” to be? Would (Do) these interests affect your, Gary’s, science? If so, how? If you answer, please do not speculate about attitudes or actions of third parties. I am interested only in answers about you, personally. Thank you.
Brian,
Gary seems perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I would like to ask you a question: “If the question for you personally is not about the science, but about “who to believe?”, why do you even bother trying to understand the scientific issues at all. My guess is that you will say that you don’t, because it is impossible without spending years learning it. Then I ask, what gives you the percieved authority to spout off about it on what is putatively a science blog?
It took decades and decades to work out the intracacies of calculus, theorums by many mathematicians that were worked out over time even centuries. Yet, when I went to school, it was a three semester course, and at the end of it, you had a pretty good handle on calculus.
Also, look at Copenhagen and the demands by many warmy believers that the West hand over hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars over time, based partly on the work of this hypothetical climate scientist, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13960030?source=rss So given the nature of this knowledge the climate scientist has, he has no obligation to share it?
Can you answer that question? My bet is no.