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.
moptop,
I will try to respond to at least some of your points:
…why do you even bother trying to understand the scientific issues at all.
Well, how about because doing so is a lot of fun – the main motive for most of my leisure-time activities. (Reginald Selkirk, please do not pedantically hound me about how my last “sentence” is a fragment).
Then I ask, what gives you the percieved authority to spout off about it on what is putatively a science blog?
Again, I thought we were having fun. I claim no “authority” other than possession of a computer with a keyboard. I did realize that my questions to Gary might seem aggressive, and I apologized for any offense he might take. My apology was no rhetorical device – it was an attempt at affability and accomodation.
Thing is, I am sincerely interested in any answers Gary might give – apparently, 99.9% of our DNA is the same, Gary and me. Of course, you cannot speak for Gary, but if you agree with him that “…scientists… have perfectly obvious vested interests….,” I invite you to answer my questions yourself, but, as is only fair, about yourself.
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.
moptop,
The front section of the newspaper is really boring, and I hardly ever watch TV. I am waiting for this to come out as a video game.
whatever…
To love and be loved,
Oh Fortunate One,
Fulfill your heart now.
It’s time to have fun.
124. Brian137 Says:
“Gary,
I hope the following series of questions is not overly intrusive.”
I hope that they would try to be. I’m not inclined to hold your hand while you tear up. 😉
“”If you were (are) a professional climate scientist, who had (has) “spent years of investment in their own trying to understand a complicated system,”…”
I’m not a professional climate scientist. Never have been.
I’m a degreed inorganic chemist who retired after 2+ decades teaching Astronomy. I’ve professionally presented on matters of comparative planetary geology and atmospherics (surface-atmosphere interactions).
I’m not an absolute expert on any of it (as much as I would like to be; who is?)
I know what I know, and what I think I know, and I know enough to suspect that others don’t know as much as they think I should think they know.
“what do you envision your, Gary’s, “vested interests” to be?
Knowing best-known fact from fiction.
” 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.”
I think that too many people think that they’re smarter than they actually are, and some of them think they’re actually smarter than the rest of us.
I’ve chosen to pick on Sean because he’s smart, and because he isn’t a climate scientist either.
Picking on climate scientists is no longer sport; it’s become like beating up on the handicap.
I’m wondering why accomplished physicists are so slow on the uptake. 😉
“Gary,
I hope the following series of questions is not overly intrusive.”
I hope that they would try to be. I’m not inclined to hold your hand while you tear up. 😉
I was just trying to indicate the intent of my questions – that I was interested in understanding your perspective. I have enjoyed your comments. Thank you for responding.
Brian,
You’ll get farther being more intrusive. 😉
Notice Sean doesn’t do FOIA just like the climies.
Gary Says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Brian,
You’ll get farther being more intrusive. 😉
What is your deepest desire?
Er, drilling Anwar?